[mou-net] Fwd: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist
Yikes! There goes my AviSys. Sid Stivland Plymouth, MN - Forwarded Message - From: tbirdboy10 tim.bird...@gmail.com To: nebi...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:23:03 - Hi NEBirders, I saw this on another listserv and thought it might be of interest. Several of the changes apply to Nebraska birds. The American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) has released its Fifty-first supplement to the checklist of North American Birds in the latest issue of their journal The Auk. Here are just a few of the many changes that are noteworthy: Our Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) has been split from the nominate Old World form. The species gets the new name AMERICAN SCOTER (M. americana). Puffinus gravis previously known as Greater Shearwater is renamed GREAT SHEARWATER PACIFIC WREN (Troglodytes pacificus) occurring on the Pacific Coast of North America is newly recognized after being split from Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis). The genus Warbler genus Vermivora has been split. Orange-crowned Warbler (V. celata), Tennessee Warbler (V. peregrina), Nashville Warbler (V. ruficapilla), Virginia's Warbler (V. virginiae), Colima Warbler (V. crissalis) and Lucy's Warbler (V. luciae) are all moved into the genus OREOTHLYPIS. Also two Paurula species; Flame-throated Warbler and Crescent-chested Warbler, are moved into Oreothlypis. Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler and Bachman's Warbler remain in the genus Vermivora. The Blue-winged Warbler gets a new scientific name (V. cyanoptera). Tropical Parula and Northern Parula remain in the genus Parula. The Waterthrushes are moved from the genus Seiurus to PARKESIA. The new names are: Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis), and Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) The four brown towhees are moved from Pipilo into the genus MELZONE: Melozone fusca Canyon Towhee Melozone albicollis White-throated Towhee Melozone crissalis California Towhee Melozone aberti Abert's Towhee The southwest subspecies of Whip-poor-will (subspecies arizonae) is split from the nominate form as a distinct species. It becomes the MEXICAN WHIP-POOR-WILL(Caprimulgus arizonae) and the nominate form is now the Eastern Whip-poor-will (C. vociferus). The genus PEUCAEA is resurrected for the several sparrow species formerly included in Aimophila: Peucaea carpalis Rufous-winged Sparrow Peucaea ruficauda Stripe-headed Sparrow Peucaea humeralis Black-chested Sparrow Peucaea mystacalis Bridled Sparrow Peucaea botterii Botteri's Sparrow Peucaea cassinii Cassin's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Also, the Five-striped Sparrow (Aimophila quinquestriata) is transfered to the genus Amphispiza. McCown's Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) is moved from the genus Calcarius to the monotypic genus RHYNCHOPHANES. White-crested Elaenia (Elaenia albiceps)and Crowned Slaty Flycatcher (Empidonomus aurantioatrocristatus) are added to the Checklist. The Order Pelicaniformes has been dismembered and rearranged considerably: The Tropicbirds are moved from the order Pelicaniformes to the new order PHAETHONTIFORMES. A new order, SULIFORMES, is created to include the Frigatebirds, Boobies,Cormorants, Darters, and their allies. Members of the family Ardeidae (e.g.Herons, Bitterns, and Allies) previously placed within the Order CICONIIFORMES are now moved to the Order Pelicaniformes (!) which includes the Pelicans, Herons, Ibises, and Allies. The large Ciconiiformes now only includes the Storks (the single family Ciconiidae). The new order ACCIPITRIFORMES is split from the Falconiformes to include the Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies. Tim Hajda Broken Bow, NE Custer Co. tim.bird...@gmail.com www.ebird.org Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Fw: [mou-net] Fwd: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist
Good point! May I suggest ballpoint, Sharpie, or adhesive-backed labels, maybe Avery number 5160. Sid Stivland Plymouth - Original Message - From: Jim Ryan To: stivl...@cpinternet.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [mou-net] Fwd: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist Avisys, Schmavisys. He'll issue a free update at some point. What about our field guides! I have Sibley (Guide, Eastern Bird Life) Peterson (5th) and Nat. Geo (4th) With that many changes in Order, Family Genus, they're really out of step now -- Sincerely, Jim Ryan Saint Paul's Westside A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community - Aldo Leopold “There has been a tremendous renaissance in nature study in recent years; it has been called a form of escapism, and perhaps it is in a way, but not an escape from reality; but rather, a return to reality; a flight from unreal things.” - Roger Tory Peterson On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, stivl...@cpinternet.com stivl...@cpinternet.com wrote: Yikes! There goes my AviSys. Sid Stivland Plymouth, MN - Forwarded Message - From: tbirdboy10 tim.bird...@gmail.com To: nebi...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:23:03 - Hi NEBirders, I saw this on another listserv and thought it might be of interest. Several of the changes apply to Nebraska birds. The American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) has released its Fifty-first supplement to the checklist of North American Birds in the latest issue of their journal The Auk. Here are just a few of the many changes that are noteworthy: Our Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) has been split from the nominate Old World form. The species gets the new name AMERICAN SCOTER (M. americana). Puffinus gravis previously known as Greater Shearwater is renamed GREAT SHEARWATER PACIFIC WREN (Troglodytes pacificus) occurring on the Pacific Coast of North America is newly recognized after being split from Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis). The genus Warbler genus Vermivora has been split. Orange-crowned Warbler (V. celata), Tennessee Warbler (V. peregrina), Nashville Warbler (V. ruficapilla), Virginia's Warbler (V. virginiae), Colima Warbler (V. crissalis) and Lucy's Warbler (V. luciae) are all moved into the genus OREOTHLYPIS. Also two Paurula species; Flame-throated Warbler and Crescent-chested Warbler, are moved into Oreothlypis. Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler and Bachman's Warbler remain in the genus Vermivora. The Blue-winged Warbler gets a new scientific name (V. cyanoptera). Tropical Parula and Northern Parula remain in the genus Parula. The Waterthrushes are moved from the genus Seiurus to PARKESIA. The new names are: Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis), and Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) The four brown towhees are moved from Pipilo into the genus MELZONE: Melozone fusca Canyon Towhee Melozone albicollis White-throated Towhee Melozone crissalis California Towhee Melozone aberti Abert's Towhee The southwest subspecies of Whip-poor-will (subspecies arizonae) is split from the nominate form as a distinct species. It becomes the MEXICAN WHIP-POOR-WILL(Caprimulgus arizonae) and the nominate form is now the Eastern Whip-poor-will (C. vociferus). The genus PEUCAEA is resurrected for the several sparrow species formerly included in Aimophila: Peucaea carpalis Rufous-winged Sparrow Peucaea ruficauda Stripe-headed Sparrow Peucaea humeralis Black-chested Sparrow Peucaea mystacalis Bridled Sparrow Peucaea botterii Botteri's Sparrow Peucaea cassinii Cassin's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Also, the Five-striped Sparrow (Aimophila quinquestriata) is transfered to the genus Amphispiza. McCown's Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) is moved from the genus Calcarius to the monotypic genus RHYNCHOPHANES. White-crested Elaenia (Elaenia albiceps)and Crowned Slaty Flycatcher (Empidonomus aurantioatrocristatus) are added to the Checklist. The Order Pelicaniformes has been dismembered and rearranged considerably: The Tropicbirds are moved from the order Pelicaniformes to the new order PHAETHONTIFORMES. A new order, SULIFORMES, is created to include the Frigatebirds, Boobies,Cormorants, Darters, and their allies. Members of the family Ardeidae (e.g.Herons, Bitterns, and Allies) previously placed within the Order CICONIIFORMES are now moved to the Order Pelicaniformes (!) which includes the Pelicans, Herons, Ibises, and Allies. The large Ciconiiformes now only includes the Storks (the single family Ciconiidae). The new order ACCIPITRIFORMES is split from the Falconiformes to include the Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies. Tim Hajda Broken Bow, NE Custer Co.
Re: [mou-net] Fwd: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist
These guys have waay too much time on their hands. I wonder how long it will take them to shift them all back and discover that it was only diet or a few cross-bred individuals that got caught up in the mix. I will always believe that our craving for accurate naming isn't recognized by the birds but only by those who trusted the print out of a computer program. One would think that such minute redefinitions are based on the limitations of breeding within each category - same species breeding with same species. But who tells the birds? I hope one of the recently split species doesn't find one of the former grouped individuals attractive. We could have a birdie revolution on our hands. Maybe this could be the start of the '60 generation for birds. We could be opening the doors to promiscuous birdie outdoor concerts and feathered love-ins. I need to start looking for bell bottom tarsul coverlettes. I gotta get a stronger pair of binoculars for this. Film at eleven. Can't wait to see the film documentary of AviaryStock - perhaps they will feature Crossbill - Stilts - Nashville and Young, Tern Years After or Jimi Wrendrix! I love good straight man material. Thomas Maiello Angel Environmental Management, Inc. Maple Grove, MN On Jul 27, 2010, at 6:50 AM, stivl...@cpinternet.com wrote: Yikes! There goes my AviSys. Sid Stivland Plymouth, MN - Forwarded Message - From: tbirdboy10 tim.bird...@gmail.com To: nebi...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [NEBirds] 51st Supplement to the AOU Checklist Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:23:03 - Hi NEBirders, I saw this on another listserv and thought it might be of interest. Several of the changes apply to Nebraska birds. The American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) has released its Fifty-first supplement to the checklist of North American Birds in the latest issue of their journal The Auk. Here are just a few of the many changes that are noteworthy: Our Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) has been split from the nominate Old World form. The species gets the new name AMERICAN SCOTER (M. americana). Puffinus gravis previously known as Greater Shearwater is renamed GREAT SHEARWATER PACIFIC WREN (Troglodytes pacificus) occurring on the Pacific Coast of North America is newly recognized after being split from Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis). The genus Warbler genus Vermivora has been split. Orange-crowned Warbler (V. celata), Tennessee Warbler (V. peregrina), Nashville Warbler (V. ruficapilla), Virginia's Warbler (V. virginiae), Colima Warbler (V. crissalis) and Lucy's Warbler (V. luciae) are all moved into the genus OREOTHLYPIS. Also two Paurula species; Flame-throated Warbler and Crescent-chested Warbler, are moved into Oreothlypis. Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler and Bachman's Warbler remain in the genus Vermivora. The Blue-winged Warbler gets a new scientific name (V. cyanoptera). Tropical Parula and Northern Parula remain in the genus Parula. The Waterthrushes are moved from the genus Seiurus to PARKESIA. The new names are: Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis), and Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) The four brown towhees are moved from Pipilo into the genus MELZONE: Melozone fusca Canyon Towhee Melozone albicollis White-throated Towhee Melozone crissalis California Towhee Melozone aberti Abert's Towhee The southwest subspecies of Whip-poor-will (subspecies arizonae) is split from the nominate form as a distinct species. It becomes the MEXICAN WHIP-POOR-WILL(Caprimulgus arizonae) and the nominate form is now the Eastern Whip-poor-will (C. vociferus). The genus PEUCAEA is resurrected for the several sparrow species formerly included in Aimophila: Peucaea carpalis Rufous-winged Sparrow Peucaea ruficauda Stripe-headed Sparrow Peucaea humeralis Black-chested Sparrow Peucaea mystacalis Bridled Sparrow Peucaea botterii Botteri's Sparrow Peucaea cassinii Cassin's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Also, the Five-striped Sparrow (Aimophila quinquestriata) is transfered to the genus Amphispiza. McCown's Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) is moved from the genus Calcarius to the monotypic genus RHYNCHOPHANES. White-crested Elaenia (Elaenia albiceps)and Crowned Slaty Flycatcher (Empidonomus aurantioatrocristatus) are added to the Checklist. The Order Pelicaniformes has been dismembered and rearranged considerably: The Tropicbirds are moved from the order Pelicaniformes to the new order PHAETHONTIFORMES. A new order, SULIFORMES, is created to include the Frigatebirds, Boobies,Cormorants, Darters, and their allies. Members of the family Ardeidae (e.g.Herons, Bitterns, and Allies) previously placed within the Order CICONIIFORMES are now moved to the Order Pelicaniformes (!) which includes the Pelicans, Herons, Ibises, and Allies. The large Ciconiiformes now only includes the Storks (the single family Ciconiidae).
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 stefanieandk...@usfamily.net wrote: From: Stefanie Moss stefanieandk...@usfamily.net Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 l...@lizstanley.com wrote: From: Liz Stanley l...@lizstanley.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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
[mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Because many hunters, bless their hearts, can not tell doves from other similar-sized birds (like kestrels). Or they don't care. dan On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] crane season--how about some answers DNR?
Wouldn't necessarily disagree with anything you said, Robert. What I don't understand is why subscribers to this forum aren't contacting DNR officials and posting their response on here if they're genuinely concerned about the well-being of the resource in question. I still want to know why its a bad decision. I would agree that a DNR explanation for the way the process occurred would be informative as well. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Robert P Russell wildcho...@aol.com wrote: From: Robert P Russell wildcho...@aol.com Subject: [mou-net] crane season--how about some answers DNR? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:43 PM Personally I think the DNR has lost a lot of birder and outdoor folks' support for trying to ramrod this hunting proposal through the process without a series of statewide series of hearings. Those are not just birds that live in Roseau or Kittson Counties. Many of those birds are Mississippi flyway birds that come through C and S Minnesota and many are NW MN birds that fly down the Great Plains. The natural resorces of this state belong as a common to all Minnesotans and as such all taxpayers should have a say in the matter. The prairie chicken season was well thought out and the DNR had a prolonged period for comments. Protection of the resource came first and both hunters and many nonhunters accepted the season as a management tool and as support for continued habitat improvement. This proposal smells of cronyism and smoke-filled rooms and the public be damned. If the intention is to shoot Lesser Sandhill Cranes which arrive in October why does the season open so early? Why impact a still expanding Greater Sandhill breeding population? There may be good reasons, perhaps to control crop-depredating cranes (who used to breed in these boreal forests before they drained the bogs, cut the forest, and tiled and ditched everything in sight right up to the boundaries of Roseau River State Wildlife Area and other local refuges). I think the public has a right to know what led up to these decisions and they have a right to air their views when things don't quite smell right. Bob Russell 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
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Ah, okay, real good reasoning here...so some folks can't tell the difference between a yield sign and a stop sign, so we should outlaw driving? It's called a citation, DE, and they can write 'em any day of the week to the best of my knowledge. Eric Harrold --- On Tue, 7/27/10, danerika daner...@gmail.com wrote: From: danerika daner...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: mou-net@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:50 AM Because many hunters, bless their hearts, can not tell doves from other similar-sized birds (like kestrels). Or they don't care. dan On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Drivers have to take driving exams. Hunters just pay their money. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Ah, okay, real good reasoning here...so some folks can't tell the difference between a yield sign and a stop sign, so we should outlaw driving? It's called a citation, DE, and they can write 'em any day of the week to the best of my knowledge. Eric Harrold --- On *Tue, 7/27/10, danerika daner...@gmail.com* wrote: From: danerika daner...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: mou-net@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:50 AM Because many hunters, bless their hearts, can not tell doves from other similar-sized birds (like kestrels). Or they don't care. dan On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] One great positive outcome of our SHCR discussion
I'll be TA'ing an introductory ecology course that will set the stage for an advanced course with an applied focus. It gives me both relief and great pleasure to know that I will be nurturing the next generation of conservationists, largely by debunking myths and separating fact from fiction in discussion sessions. The discussion on this forum will provide excellent fodder for this component of the course. A thanks to all who have engaged, and for everyone's edification may the discussion continue to yield all manner of perspectives. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 stefanieandk...@usfamily.net wrote: From: Stefanie Moss stefanieandk...@usfamily.net Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 l...@lizstanley.com wrote: From: Liz Stanley l...@lizstanley.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM I
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Guess again...now maybe the hunter education course isn't what it should be, but you're factually incorrect here. Get the facts before exposing what you obviously don't know. In virtually every state, up-and-coming hunters must complete a hunter safety/education course prior to being issued a license. The exception is in cases where the applicant was licensed previously in another state. I'm certain this is the case in MN. Eric Harrold --- On Tue, 7/27/10, danerika daner...@gmail.com wrote: From: danerika daner...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: mou-net@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 AM Drivers have to take driving exams. Hunters just pay their money. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Ah, okay, real good reasoning here...so some folks can't tell the difference between a yield sign and a stop sign, so we should outlaw driving? It's called a citation, DE, and they can write 'em any day of the week to the best of my knowledge. Eric Harrold --- On Tue, 7/27/10, danerika daner...@gmail.com wrote: From: danerika daner...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: mou-net@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:50 AM Because many hunters, bless their hearts, can not tell doves from other similar-sized birds (like kestrels). Or they don't care. dan On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau -- Dan or Erika Tallman Northfield, Minnesota http://sites.google.com/site/tallmanorum http://dantallmansbirdblog.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/danerika daner...@gmail.com the best shod travel with wet feet Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes --Thoreau Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the front page of the DNR website right now! The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough dialogue with the people of Minnesota. Mark Martell Director of Bird Conservation Audubon Minnesota 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 St. Paul, MN 55125 651-739-9332 http://mn.audubon.org/ Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:47 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL 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
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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 gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 stefanieandk...@usfamily.net wrote: From: Stefanie Moss stefanieandk...@usfamily.net Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Mark, Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, The state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods. Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't want their view sacrificed for habitat creation. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org wrote: From: MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the front page of the DNR website right now! The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough dialogue with the people of Minnesota. Mark Martell Director of Bird Conservation Audubon Minnesota 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 St. Paul, MN 55125 651-739-9332 http://mn.audubon.org/ Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:47 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL 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
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Eric, And in numerous replies you've made on this topic, you have yet to explain why it wouldn't have been a better approach for the DNR to have an open period of public discussion on the matter. Instead you manufacture ulterior motives on the part of those who voice concern over the process, bring up straw man arguments, and use invalid analogies to argue points that nobody is even making. I hope that's not the way you plan to approach teaching your ecology course, unless you're intentionally trying illustrate the use of logical fallacies. Liz Mark, Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, The state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods. Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't want their view sacrificed for habitat creation. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org wrote: From: MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the front page of the DNR website right now! The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough dialogue with the people of Minnesota. Mark Martell Director of Bird Conservation Audubon Minnesota 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 St. Paul, MN 55125 651-739-9332 http://mn.audubon.org/ Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:47 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL 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:
[mou-net] Map for crane ranges
This is a message from Jan Green on John's email MOU folks: This has been an interesting and useful discussion on the Sandhill Crane hunting season. One other small bit of information. The ranges of the Eastern population and the Mid-Continent population overlap in northwestern Minnesota. If you want to see a map google search on Population information needs for Sandhill Cranes; a funding strategy a document produces for the Association of Fish Wildlife Agencies task forces. This issue has always been about process in my mind. I am not against hunting and have so stated. But the process that DNR used was way outside the norm even for that agency. Their excuse, according to a quote from a DNR spokesman on Minnesota Public radio, was they knew there would be opposition so a public input process was not necessary. This is not the way for government to act in a democracy. People need to know the facts of a case and should be able to voice an opinion either pro or con. That is what accountability and transparency in government is all about. Jan Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
A Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks brochure about crane hunting has this statement: As whooping crane numbers increase, we all must work harder to minimize the chance of accidental shootings. Those opposed to hunting, and sandhill crane hunting in particular, are watching for migratory bird hunters to make a mistake. Future accidental shootings may end sandhill crane hunting in Kansas or elsewhere where it is currently legal. There are two important things hunters can do to minimize the chance of accidentally shooting a whooping crane. 1) make sure to identify game species and all the nongame species that look similar to game species, and 2) only shoot when absolutely sure of the target. The latter may mean that you pass up some legal shots, but with a fine of up to $100,000 and prison time of up to 1 year for shooting a whooping crane, it's better to be safe than sorry. Will MN crane hunters be subject to (and aware of) a deterrent like this? Yes, there are examples of poor behavior by birders but also by hunters. On one trip to Salt Lake WMA (on MN/SD border for the non-MN readers), someone had shot 2 ketrels and stuffed the beaks into the edge of the sign about birding the lake so the carcasses dangled there as a not very subtle message to birders. BTW, Mark's reasoned response to all the unfounded anti-birder ranting is one of the reasons I am on a monthly giving plan to the MN Audubon chapter. Mike -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Liz Stanley Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:21 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Eric, And in numerous replies you've made on this topic, you have yet to explain why it wouldn't have been a better approach for the DNR to have an open period of public discussion on the matter. Instead you manufacture ulterior motives on the part of those who voice concern over the process, bring up straw man arguments, and use invalid analogies to argue points that nobody is even making. I hope that's not the way you plan to approach teaching your ecology course, unless you're intentionally trying illustrate the use of logical fallacies. Liz Mark, Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, The state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods. Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't want their view sacrificed for habitat creation. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org wrote: From: MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule
[mou-net] Sand Hill Crane Hunt
I support the crane hunt. Other states have crane hunts. Sand Hill Crane populations seem to be healthy and in good numbers despite other states that allow hunters to shoot cranes ( for many many years) . I agree with another local birder that dates for the MN crane hunt doesn't jive with the migratory cranes but overall I support the hunt. The MN Mourning dove hunt did not drop the dove population in the state since no one isn't reporting a shortage of doves in Minnesota. I support all hunters of all types since many hunting orgs have done a lot good work with habitat restoration of game birds which benefited a lot of passerines or non game birds in our state. I just wish Duluth had a year round hunting season on White-tail Deer so my flower gardens, veggie gardens, trees, bushes do not get destroyed by these urban rats. So I have no issues with the DNR setting up a MN crane hunt since I think there are not going to be a lot of MN hunters out there shooting cranes and destroying the crane population in Minnesota. I even ask my co-workers who hunt and ask them what they thought about shooting and eating a crane and they were not interested, since the thought of eating crane did not appeal to them. So I do not think there are going to be a lot of cranes on supper platters this Thanksgiving replacing the traditional ham or turkey dinners. I am not that concern over this crane hunt. Now that I spoken .. let the private/public email flame replies begin.. Mike Mike Hendrickson Duluth, Minnesota Website: http://webpages.charter.net/mmhendrickson/ Blog: http://colderbythelakebirding.blogspot.com/ Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Ramsey Co. Shorebird Spots
No unusual sightings to report, but there are a couple of spots in Ramsey County drawing a few migrant shorebirds. White Bear Lake--The spit and neighboring shorelines at Lake Ave. and Banning Ave. Someone has set up a dock right in the middle of the spit, but it is still attracting a few shorebirds. Turtle Lake--The small sandy/grassy island across from Turtle Lake County Park on Highway 49 (Hodgson Rd.) It's helpful to have a scope at both locations. Erik Collins Shoreview, MN _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
This is getting old. Is it time to back channel? Blaine Seeliger Enjoying the birds in Farmington. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu]on Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:43 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Mark, Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, The state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods. Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't want their view sacrificed for habitat creation. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org wrote: From: MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the front page of the DNR website right now! The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough dialogue with the people of Minnesota. Mark Martell Director of Bird Conservation Audubon Minnesota 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 St. Paul, MN 55125 651-739-9332 http://mn.audubon.org/ Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:47 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population - I don't think so. Onward, Eric Harrold Urbana, IL 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:
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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 gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 stefanieandk...@usfamily.net wrote: From: Stefanie Moss stefanieandk...@usfamily.net Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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
[mou-net] I am in a silly mood
All this crane talk is making me hungry so I thought I share a recipe I found for crane. http://www.leasehunter.com/blog/sandhill-crane-recipe.html If need a drink to swallow this meal down try this: http://www.idrink.com/v.html?id=50923 Its called the dirty crane I know its been very hot and humid in Minnesota lately so I thought I liven this thread up some and hopefully get back to posting migrants in Minnesota. Mike Mike Hendrickson Duluth, Minnesota Website: http://webpages.charter.net/mmhendrickson/ Blog: http://colderbythelakebirding.blogspot.com/ Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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 gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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
Re: [mou-net] Sand Hill Crane Hunt
Mike - Thanks for giving one educator/biologist a ray of hope for birders...at least some people can weigh costs/benefits and see where their bread is buttered. Sincerely, Eric Harrold --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Michael Hendrickson mlhendrick...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Michael Hendrickson mlhendrick...@yahoo.com Subject: [mou-net] Sand Hill Crane Hunt To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:28 PM I support the crane hunt. Other states have crane hunts. Sand Hill Crane populations seem to be healthy and in good numbers despite other states that allow hunters to shoot cranes ( for many many years) . I agree with another local birder that dates for the MN crane hunt doesn't jive with the migratory cranes but overall I support the hunt. The MN Mourning dove hunt did not drop the dove population in the state since no one isn't reporting a shortage of doves in Minnesota. I support all hunters of all types since many hunting orgs have done a lot good work with habitat restoration of game birds which benefited a lot of passerines or non game birds in our state. I just wish Duluth had a year round hunting season on White-tail Deer so my flower gardens, veggie gardens, trees, bushes do not get destroyed by these urban rats. So I have no issues with the DNR setting up a MN crane hunt since I think there are not going to be a lot of MN hunters out there shooting cranes and destroying the crane population in Minnesota. I even ask my co-workers who hunt and ask them what they thought about shooting and eating a crane and they were not interested, since the thought of eating crane did not appeal to them. So I do not think there are going to be a lot of cranes on supper platters this Thanksgiving replacing the traditional ham or turkey dinners. I am not that concern over this crane hunt. Now that I spoken .. let the private/public email flame replies begin.. Mike Mike Hendrickson Duluth, Minnesota Website: http://webpages.charter.net/mmhendrickson/ Blog: http://colderbythelakebirding.blogspot.com/ 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
Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN?
Liz, To me, this isn't about whether the DNR approach was fair, diplomatic, or inviting. My first post in response to this subject was intended to make the point that there are so many more issues worthy and deserving of birders' focus and attention than this one. As I said, pick a habitat issue, any habitat issues and immerse yourself. Plenty of opportunities here, I think we can all agree. I have also suggested that the DNR could have indeed been more open and inviting to the public in general on this matter. Nothing wrong with that argument. To me this is secondary to the notion that birders theoretically have better issues to focus their attention on. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Liz Stanley l...@lizstanley.com wrote: From: Liz Stanley l...@lizstanley.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:20 PM Eric, And in numerous replies you've made on this topic, you have yet to explain why it wouldn't have been a better approach for the DNR to have an open period of public discussion on the matter. Instead you manufacture ulterior motives on the part of those who voice concern over the process, bring up straw man arguments, and use invalid analogies to argue points that nobody is even making. I hope that's not the way you plan to approach teaching your ecology course, unless you're intentionally trying illustrate the use of logical fallacies. Liz Mark, Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, The state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods. Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't want their view sacrificed for habitat creation. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org wrote: From: MARTELL, Mark mmart...@audubon.org Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM First, there are many reasons people can have legitimate concerns over an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone in the state, not just a select few. This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the front page of the DNR website right now! The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough dialogue with the people of Minnesota. Mark Martell Director of Bird Conservation Audubon Minnesota 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 St. Paul, MN 55125 651-739-9332 http://mn.audubon.org/ Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds
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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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 gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To:
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 gentili...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us* wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDUhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mou-...@lists.umn.edu, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com 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 gentili...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.comhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDUhttp://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mou-...@lists.umn.edu 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
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
That's what the delete button is for. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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
[mou-net] An E-postcard to my MN brethren from sw Virginia
Since we all need a break from the SHCR discussion in order to digest all opinions and information, I'd like to share a snapshot from the hills of ole Virginia. Southwest Virginia is home to a wealth of biological and cultural diversity. One can come here and pursue Swainson's and Blue-winged Warblers on reclaimed surface coal mines depending upon access issues for a given site. It was refreshing to again here the melodious song of the Wood Thrush in Breaks Interstate Park on the Virginia/KY border. Be prepared for powerful thunderstorms with little forewarning that can result in frog-strangling gulley-washers. I experienced such today and that resulted in my being stuck indoors responding to crane posts, lol...There are also opportunities to explore caves and other karst topography features, but please use discretion and obey regulations regarding access here. Do as I say, and not as I do...you want to be here anytime but now, basically. Obviously May or early June is best for breeding birds, but fall produces good migratory movement and color that rivals that of say Duluth in the fall. One unique experience is the opportunity to witness tissue necrosis live and in person in one of the local Pentecostal churches where they handle timber rattlesnakes and copperheads. In my experience, tissue necrosis in the believer has the same appearance as in the non-believer. Lastly, ask discretely among a codger table of old-timers if you want some local moonshine. Seriously, if you want more information about birding in the Blue Ridge mtns of VA/NC, let me know. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
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:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 birdn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Terence Brashear birdn...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com 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
[mou-net] My two cents...
At least 25 emails about people's opinions in the last 24 hrs. I guess no one is birding. Maybe time for me to finally ditch this. I do want the weekly updates though. I hope I can get those without feeling like an ogre cuz I hunt AND bird. Ya I smoke too. I'd like to utilize the site without being preached to Chris Elmgren via iVagrant Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] warbler migration- Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point
Significant southbound migration is already occurring on the North Shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota- flocks of Red-winged Blackbirds, Cedar Waxwings, Great Blue Herons, Bank Swallows, Purple Finches, Evening Grosbeaks, etc. have been moving down the shore for over a week. Today, while birding Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point in Duluth-Superior, a surprising number of warblers were seen for this early date, with 214 individuals of 15 species observed, most of which were presumably migrants, often occurring in swarms of 5-12 or more birds in just a few trees. Although a few warblers move south in late July every year, especially Nashvilles and Tennessees, this magnitude of migration is many weeks ahead of schedule. The more common species appeared to be represented by a mix of both juveniles and heavily molting adults, with many fun plumages observed. Golden-winged Warbler: 12 Tennessee Warbler: 14 Nashville Warbler: 54 Northern Parula: 7 Yellow Warbler: 28 Chestnut-sided Warbler: 1 Cape May Warbler: 4 Yellow-rumped Warbler: 17 Palm Warbler: 2 Black-and-white Warbler: 24 American Redstart: 35 Ovenbird: 5 Mourning Warbler: 3 Common Yellowthroat: 7 Canada Warbler: 1 other birds of note: Red-breasted Nuthatch: 10 Rose-breasted Grosbeak: 11 Baltimore Oriole: 22 Scarlet Tanager: 4 Bonaparte's Gull: 3 at Wisconsin Point, presumably early migrants Northern Harrier: juvenile over Minnesota Point, no doubt a migrant Yellow-throated Vireo: one on Minnesota Point near the Superior Entry, rare in Northeastern MN Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
and your posts are so birdy... maybe you should be somethinged ? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:10:07 -0500 From: wjk...@mac.com Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: Eric Harrold gentili...@yahoo.com Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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 bi...@moosewoods.us wrote: From: linda whyte bi...@moosewoods.us Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU 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 gentili...@yahoo.com 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
[mou-net] At least one Buff-breasted SP in Chisago County July 27
This afternoon (7/27) I relocated one Buff-breasted Sandpiper at the Harley Sod Farm, NE of North Branch, along 400th St. The bird was on the north side of the road, in a field of grass with dirt patches evident here and there. Another bird might have been another Buff-breasted, but it stayed hunkered down. Thanks to Doug Kieser for posting and Leslie Marcus for updating. Linda Sparling Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] the Internat'l Crane Fdn position on crane hunting
http://www.savingcranes.org/a-crane-hunt.html P.S. I haven't read all of the traffic about the new SACR season, but are people sending comments to the folks at the DNR who actually made the decision and might redo or reconsider the process? (maybe if there is enough reaction) There is also the possibility of a formal petition. Lastly, your legislators are real good at getting the attention of state depts./agencies. Basically, you can find employees e-mail addresses on the DNR website and all State of MN employees have the same format: firstname.lastn...@state.mn.us It is your government. Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Birds and Beers, Merlin's Rest, July 29 6pm
Hey Birders, Birds and Beers is on Thursday the 29th. 6pm to 9pm. What is Birds and Beers? It's an informal gathering of birders of ALL abilities to meet outside of the Internet and connect. Are you a hardcore lister-you're invited. Are you a researcher working on a cool project and want to recruit volunteers or just talk about your study-you're invited. Are you someone who just enjoys the birds you see out of your kitchen window-you're invited. Are you a birding guide and want to promote your tours and business-you're invited. Are you someone who has heard of this whole bird watching thing and want to see what it's all about-you're invited! Looking for birders to volunteer at a booth for the State Fair-you're invited! Read more about this at Birdchick.com Merlin's Rest, an Irish pub with great food and drink. http://merlinsrest.com/ 612 216 2419 3601 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN Curt Rawn Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
