My comments below (in blue) On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Bill Penning <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1) I believe that what constitutes disturbance is somewhat arbitrary. If a > bird looks at you is it disturbed? If it flies to the next power pole is it > disturbed? I'm not sure what disturbance is when its not nesting season. > When it comes right down to it only the bird "knows" when its been > disturbed. While this is true, we do have to start somewhere. And the > other side of this equation (from the affect on the bird) is the affect of > one lousy observer (note I didn't say birder) and on the potential *for > there to be *other observers. Whether or not an observer is aware enough > to realize it, their actions and even their intent can and will disturb > birds (and animals). > I have seen birds flushed due to selfishness and/or ignorance too many > times to think it is an uncommon occurrence. Ignorant people can sometimes > be willing to learn and be taught by more effective observers. Even the > selfish can learn to protect the resources they exploit if they can be > taught to see the benefit to themselves....that is where we should focus > our attention and effort. > > > 2) Ethics are a personal thing. We have guidelines and I fully support them > but some things are in a gray area. I think baiting owls is one of them. In > this thread we have had assertions that disturbing owls causes an energetic > drain that could result in death AND the argument that feeding owls is > wrong. If the energetics argument is true wouldn't baiting be a good thing? > Is it ok for banders to use bait but not photographers? If so why? Is > banding somehow a more noble purpose? I respect Mike's personal sense of > ethics when it comes to baiting but personally I'm much more ambiguous on > the subject. Actually, for us dedicated birders, Ethics are not personal > - they are posted by the ABA and Audubon and we are strongly urged to > adhere to them for the good of not just the birds, but future birders! > Hunters are encouraged to follow a set of ethics, varying by the quarry > sought. I don't know what set of ethics wildlife photographers follow, but > in any case, *Adherence to *a set of ethics is a personal thing, not the > ethics themselves. > *And you know what happens when enough people fail to adhere to a groups > ethics? The result is called LAWS...often BANNING previously legal > activities. See comments for point 3 below* > > I think we run into problems when we try to impose our personal ethics on > others in gray areas. In my opinion that's what the Great Whooping Crane > Debate was all about. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there should be no > rules and I think egregious violations should be sanctioned through peer > pressure. Most of us are busy imposing our way of life on others whether > we know it or not. Just your mere existence means you are using resources > and forcing me to deal with your presence or the effects of your presence > to some degree. That seems to be the human condition (and the condition of > all other creatures on a planet of limited size and resources). The best we > can do is be aware of our impact and try to minimize it if we care to. > > 3) Some people have no sense of ethics and will violate what others > consider ethical without remorse. I think it diminishes us all if we quit > cooperating with each other for the benefit of the many because of the > behavior of the few. Almost ALL laws are created for this very reason. > In every field of human activity I have ever pursued, the actions of a few > dictate the rules for us ALL. As the song says, That's just the way it > is... > All birders are ambassadors for birding - whether we want to be or not. > Others are forming opinions of us based on our behaviors whether we realize > it or not and whether we care or not! I am always mindful of this when out > and about, whether in town eating lunch, on the road or in the field. I > want to create as good and respected an image of birders as possible in the > public eye. > > 4) Minnesota has always had a strong cadre of dedicated expert birders who > willingly share information. I've had birders from other states > specifically point that out to me with envy. I hear tales of secretiveness, > cliques, unfriendly competition, hard feelings and even vengeance. Lets not > go there. While there are plenty of cooperators here in Minnesota (maybe > more here than elsewhere), don't kid yourself into thinking there isn't > serious competition as well. Review the MOU records carefully and you will > note there are PLENTY of very good bird sightings recorded that NEVER make > it on to the list-servs. Competition is likely one of many reasons why. > And of course there are always those non-ethical, non-birding lurkers. > What will they do with that information? Wasn't that the reason this whole > thread got started? > > > > 5) As a wildlife biologist I'm trained to think that population level > affects are where we should be concerned. I flat out reject the animal > rights argument which is what we're dangerously close to here. Frankly, I > have a hard time getting worked up if an individual bird is disturbed > (whatever that is). I think that the educational potential, camaraderie and > sense of a friendly and cooperative community are more important than a > theoretical disturbance to an individual bird. I also think that in the > long run its better on the population level because happy birders are > politically active birders (or should be). Voting in support of actions > that protects and improves habitat is far more important in the end. No, > I don't think animals should have rights similar to humans either and > individual sacrifices sometimes need to be made for the benefit of many > (only with very good reason), but populations *are made up of *individuals > and actions on individuals over time affects the behavior and > characteristics of an entire population. > > 6) Personally I'd rather not know about a rare bird if the directions given > are so vague that there's no hope of finding it. It just frustrates me and > I'd rather read about it in the Loon in six months. To post or not post is > your decision but I'd rather not be teased. While I have benefited from > being given precise directions to see a "good" bird more than once, I have > found over time this becomes a very boring way to bird. A big part of the > excitement of birding for me is the adventure and mystery of the unknown, > along with the joy of personal discovery, not just filling up a checklist. > > Do you really want birding to be more like grocery shopping? Boreal owls? > Ah, yes: Aisle 4, left-hand side, top shelf. Got it. NEXT! > What about rediscovering the bird yourself? Here on the MOU list we even > have a category for *personally found* birds, as opposed to *stake-out*birds. > Yes, that's harder and takes more time, but as the saying goes, if > it was easy, everyone would do it! And if it's that easy and merely a > matter of time (retirement) and money to afford to travel to see all the > stake-out birds, then maybe I need another hobby. > As an aside, personally I have found that, since birds have wings, they > often MOVE and are NOT in the exact location that was posted anyways. > (especially if some self-absorbed and or unethical observer got there > before me!), so If get in the vicinity, I can take it from there. Keeps it > a bit more exciting than filling out a shopping list for me. > > To paraphrase what Mike said after offering his opinions on a controversial > topic last winter: "let the flaming e-mails begin". > > Bill > > > ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
