ethics of chasing moulting penguins

Subject: ethics of chasing moulting penguins
From: Peter Lansley <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:02:27 +1100
Hi netters.

Just a few points in response to Richard Johnson's query/observations on

1. The welfare of the bird is paramount.

2. Of the hundreds of twitchers (for want of a better word - I reject this
kind of labelling) I've met in over more than 20 years of birding, I don't
believe any would deliberately harm a bird or place it in danger just to
'tick it off', as implied in Richard's hypothetical paraphrasing of Tony P's

3. Of course if the bird is visibly ill or clearly vulnerable to attack from
predators, it is justified to move it.

4. I can't understand Richard's concern about why birders should want to
keep the precice site under wraps. Surely the public service (which Richards
email address suggest he is part of) are experts at coming up with reasons
why the public should be kept in the dark? Why is it so different when info.
is withheld from possible misguided action by 'officials' - as Tony has
shown, this does happen from time to time, at taxpayers' expense I might add.

Peter Lansley
Birds Australia

415 Riversdale Rd, Hawthorn East, 3123
ph: (03) 9882 2622, Fax: (03) 9882 2677

To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to

Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU