That's what the delete button is for. -----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) > 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 > ---- 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
