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
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
