and your posts are so birdy... maybe you should be somethinged ?
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:10:07 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue
> (SHCR)
> To: [email protected]
>
> That's one person in one day.
>
> Bill Kahn
> Minneapolis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Bill Kahn wrote:
>
> > Over a dozen posts from one person without any report of a direct
> > observation of a bird, unusual or not, has to be some sort of record
> > for this list serv. Mr. Harrold is to be congratulated, or
> > somethinged.
> >
> > Bill Kahn
> > Minneapolis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rick Hoyme wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
>
> ----
> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
