I agree, and I wonder if perhaps we automatically assume that any birder
behaving "badly" is a twitcher. Given that there's at least a little
bit of twitcher in all(?) birders it's probably a bit difficult to tell
if someone is one just by looking at them.
So perhaps this blaming of twitchers is counter productive - it may
allow badly behaved non-twitchers to continue their behaviour, perhaps
without realising. But then again, some have indicated that bad
behaviour isn't that wide spread anyway.
Personally, I've occasionally wondered if I got a bit too close or
stayed a bit long, or whether the bird flew because of me or would have
flown anyway. We can only work out the safe limits by trial and error.
How do you define a twitcher anyway? By the distance they're prepared
to go or the amount of money they're prepared to spend to see new birds?
By the amount of time they spend looking at them when they do see them?
By the time it takes them to get to a recent sighting?
Peter Shute
wrote on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 3:06
PM:
> Twitching isn't the real issue - birders behaving badly,
> whether twitching or not, is.
==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
