With grassbird image.
-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Leggoe [
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013 10:55 AM
To: 'Geoffrey Dabb';
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Inadequacy of Cygnus Hide at Kelly's Swamp
Here is your little grassbird, Geoffrey. Photographed in the "channel" beside Bittern Hide. I watched it as it went about its business quite unperturbed for >5minutes. Even in this shot, it was not flying away, but just from one patch to another still within view. I would just like the screen and the birds to be a little closer. Birds have ears as well as eyes, and there is not much point in disguising the vision of humans as long as they go on talking. Having said that, I dropped something in Cygnus one day and swore audibly, and the Latham's snipe resting directly in front of the hide did not flinch.
Regarding the unmotionlessness of humans as they enter and leave the hide. That is a relatively small time interval compared with the rest of the time spent observing.
Margaret.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Dabb [m("iinet.net.au","gdabb");">]
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013 7:03 AM
To: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");">
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Inadequacy of Cygnus Hide at Kelly's Swamp
Peter - I entirely agree. Unfortunately an obstacle to rectification are those who insist that 'it makes no difference to the birds'. Hours of controlled observation would be required to verify this. If that is right, why don't managements everywhere build hides without rear walls? A quick test is 'the Little Grassbird Test'. However this has the disadvantage of requiring a Little Grassbird. I would agree that a completely motionless observer in a corner would 'make no difference' in 95% of instances. However it is difficult to achieve motionlessness while (a) you are entering or leaving a hide or (b) someone else is.
-----Original Message-----
>
