Hi All,
What is obvious to me is that, had the Little Terns of an endangered
breeding population not been flagged and banded, I would not have the
evidence I now have to argue for the greater protection of the Caloundra
sandbanks; for now I know that the Little Tern uses the sandbanks during its
annual migration, and we all know what happens when you pull the plug on
habitat needed by migratory birds. Now I have not just a belief, but
absolute evidence, down to the individual bird ID, and can trace the
breeding history of each bird.
Cheers,
Jill
--
Jill Dening
Sunshine Coast, Qld
26º 51' 152º 56'
Ph (07) 5494 0994
> From: Andrew Taylor <>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:00:58 +1100
> To:
> Subject: RE: [BIRDING-AUS] Re: Bird banding contributes to Little Tern carnage
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Scott O'Keeffe wrote:
>> Quite so....
>>
>> If we wanted to be really silly, we could argue, that on numbers, NOT
>> banding a bird is likely to get it killed in a hail storm.
>>
>> What was it that was obvious again????
>
> My experience of maths & physics lectures was "it is obvious that ..."
> usually meant the lecturer couldn't work out how to complete this part
> of the proof and, in fact, the claim was far from obvious to everyone
> in the room. Half the time, the reason was that the claim was untrue.
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
|
