I'd like to make a few comments about the cannon netting 'poll' and
the summary we were given by the person who calls themselves 'Night
Parrot' on this mailing list. Sorry to those who (like me) are
thoroughly sick of this topic - especially when it has been dealt
with comprehensively by people like Frank O'Connor - yes, and by NP
etc for the other side of the argument.
1. I'm not sure when this turned from a 'thread' into a 'poll'.
'Night Parrot' posted a fairly detailed message on 8 Feb <"Cannon
Netting Waders (longish)">, mainly in response to some questions
posed by Marilyn Davis. A number of people replied to the 11
questions in NP's message. Then on 4 March we heard from NP again,
this time talking about a poll of 157 'randomly selected birdwatchers
from New South Wales and Victoria'. Was this done online? There was
no explanation of how it was conducted, how the participants were
'randomly' chosen, whether or not they were birding-aus members. Why
NSW and Vic? Why not WA where a lot of cannon netting is carried
out? Anyway - it was obviously a 'straw poll' - just a quick
question put to a number of people known to the researcher. And I
should probably avoid the term 'research' because it clearly lacks
any sort of methodology or rigour - perhaps it would be better to
keep calling it a 'discussion' or 'thread'.
2. Some of the comments in the 'summary' are insulting and almost defamatory:
"it would be helpful if I could get a little more info about why so
many observers feel that association with cannon netting taints ones
reputation"
This is a very emotive statement - and I can't recall anyone
suggesting anything this strong on birding-aus. Sure, we've had a
variety of opinions, but I don't believe there have been personal
attacks against those who have explained some of the rationale of
cannon netting - other than some strong comments from NP him/herself.
3. "Other frequent comments such as c-n participants show a general
lack of competence relating to wader field identification"
This is hard to believe - OK, one or two ignorant respondents might
suggest this sort of thing - but most of us recognise that the people
doing this sort of research are amongst the MOST experienced bird
observers in this country. I can't accept that a large number of
people would come up with a comment like this.
4. The "arousal" comment starts to shed light on NP's 'survey' - it
surely is just an attempt to ridicule those who have contributed to
this discussion in support of this mode of bird research. And
perhaps to fan the flames of this debate yet again.
5. As others have pointed out more elegantly, who is going to accept
the validity of 'research' findings where not only the participants,
but also the researcher/ compiler hide behind a veil of secrecy and
anonimity.
6. Why is this dicussion dragging on? We've heard just about every
possible angle. OK - some people don't like cannon netting. Some
object to it strongly. But I can't see why we have to keep going
over the same ground. Read the archive if necessary - but let's
finish this topic.
I suppose I should be democratic and leave room for NP's reply to my
comments. But can we FINISH this thread by the end of the week -
PLEASE? Carry on your own private stoushes if you like - but don't
waste bandwidth with this topic any more.
Thanks
Russell
--
Russell Woodford
Birding-Aus List Manager
http://www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/
Ph (BH/AH) (03) 52 739 237
Fax (03) 52 739 371
Mobile 0419 395 100
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
