Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also
agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and
inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision
will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future
decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't
think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified
decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented.
Eric Harrold
Urbana, IL
--- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte <[email protected]> wrote:
From: linda whyte <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue (SHCR)
To: "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM
They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to
make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most
folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic
online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions.
It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate
study, and the decision process
had some transparency.
Linda
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold <[email protected]>
wrote:
Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on
this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such
information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by.
Eric Harrold
Urbana, IL
--- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte <[email protected]> wrote:
From: linda whyte <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue (SHCR)
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM
Eric,
Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps
when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as
needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision.
As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither
more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users
of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless
and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on
care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on
foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in
clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in
breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in
citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine
concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no
negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was
setting a poor precedent.
Linda Whyte
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold <[email protected]>
wrote:
Terence,
Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during
the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency
personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird
species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as
monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover
and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge
the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess
many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during
winter.
Eric Harrold
Urbana, IL
--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Terence Brashear <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue (SHCR)
To: [email protected], "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM
Eric
You state:
"In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less
validity than those that do...in my book anyway. "
Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there
are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill
Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010.
Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no
biological basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN.
Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background
she has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated:
"Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically
opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis
of the science or the management implications for the several crane
sub-species."
Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking.
Terry Brashear
Hennepin County, MN
http://www.naturepixels.com
birdnird AT yahoo.com
--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Eric Harrold <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue (SHCR)
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM
Kurt,
Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to
any particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it
mine or anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity
of data were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would
have no adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually
don't just pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders
as a group would largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of
falconry birds, although they could provide no biological justification
for not allowing a harvest other than for something like a Snail Kite.
Some birders have a "can't take, can't use" philosophy that they feel
needs to be imposed on everyone. Ironically, they likely cause more
damage to breeding bird populations than any other resource user group,
be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they disturb nesting birds,
trample habitat, and have a huge carbon
footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of
miles.
In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less
validity than those that do...in my book anyway.
Eric Harrold
Urbana, IL
--- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Stefanie Moss <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue (SHCR)
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:08 PM
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed
most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process
to
express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt.
As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as
much.
In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the
duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would
like
an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably
aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or
Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object.
Their opinions are no less valid than yours.
Kurt
On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season
on this
forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by
the
DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag
limits
that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this
is a
convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to
prevent any
hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced
objections
on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations
and
their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed.
Instead, all
anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following
question
in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any
biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest?
Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning
waterfowl
season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have
significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are
biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are
the
best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific
perspective.
Eric Harrold
Urbana, IL
--- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Liz Stanley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting
issue
(SHCR)
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM
I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I
thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the
decision
made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the
end result of it are two different things.
Folks,
Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by
finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than
whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
