This discussion re fuel use and attempts to justify it are really a
bit pathetic.
There are two options. either we continue to drive about as much as we
wish and use as much fuel as we like and contribute lots of CO2 to the
atmosphere or we modify our behaviour.
If we wish to continue using fuel as if it has no effect on anything OK
but at least have the guts to admit we are behaving in a rather selfish
and less than responsible manner.
if we do behave in this manner don't feel particularly bad as probably
99.975% of Australia's and the world's population are right up there
with you.
If we choose to continue to alter the environment it may make life
harder for us but it will alos make it harder for many of the bird
species we dash about to see.
Peter
On Monday, April 2, 2007, at 04:08 AM, Mick Roderick wrote:
Greg et al,
This is all very strange. I mean, we are competing within a
(fundraising) competition that has a set of defined rules that each
team abides by...and it is as simple as that. The rules state that the
boundaries are state borders, so if you take part in the NSW
Twitchathon, NSW is the limit. There is absolutely no distinction
between inland, coastal, sub-coastal, altitudinal boundaries. The fact
that some teams choose to twitch both inland and coastally is a simple
reflection that they are the teams who want to find the most number of
species. It is a simple strategy.
Moreover, the playing field is certainly level. The inference that it
is not level is akin (as a top-of-my-head example) to saying it is not
fair that only tall people can play competitive basketball and that we
should limit the time that anyone over 6ft can spend on the court.
No-one is at a disadvantage once they have the simple foundation of
having access to a vehicle. Once you have the means to get
around...then you plan your route. Whether or not you choose to go
over the big hill (from east-west or west-east) is up to you.
Given, there is going to be more fuel burnt by vehicles that travel
further. This is clearly a small by-product of the event. Surely
though, this pales into insignificance when you take into acount the
amount of fuel burnt by the 10's, 100's of people partaking in
birdwatching around the country throughout the year...whether during
simple weekend trips or moreso, when a rarity turns up...and it's
straight to the airport or petrol station to get there! The
Twitchathon is a once-off competition (per year) - try calculating the
amount of km's travelled by birders throughout the remainder of the
year compared to that weekend. The Twitch is a fundraising event,
unlike the countless other fuel-guzzling motorsports (I'm starting to
ramble), so it shouldn't be a target for greenhouse emissions (I'm not
even mentioning responsible usage of cars to get to work, impacts of
industry etc etc...know your enemy!). My point is that the net gain
from the Twitch, in terms of not only
fundraising, but also broadening community perceptions about
'birdwatching as a leisure time activity' (every year there seems to
be more and more press releases, radio interviews etc), surely
outweighs the ultimately small proportion of emissions released.
I think Paul Taylor's suggestion works well. I did a talk at the
Hunter BOC on the 2006 NSW Twitchathon last year and presented a
quasi-prize (coined the "Mike Newman Cup") for the Hunter team that
found the most species per kilometre travelled, which happened to be
the Hunter Thickheads. The Hunter Home Brewers came in 3rd from
memory. I'm sure the Black-necked Stalkers would've given the
Thickheads a run for their money in the past 2 years in this
'category'. I can understand Steve Gross' predicament, living out
west, where you would ideally start. But how far can the rules be bent
to account for this? I'm sure also that David Geering can relate a
story or two on "how to win the twitchathon whilst living inland" too.
Maybe the 'species per kilometre' idea could be implemented as an
additional prize (like the rarest bird prize), or just a category if
another prize isn't appropriate, but not to replace the current rules
which are quite simple and, just as simply, requires a lot of detailed
planning and a dash of madness one weekend per year, nothing more.
Mick Roderick
Chief Hunter Home Brewer (stumbling across this from high in the
Andean Altiplano).
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg <>
To: kbrandwood <>; birdingaus
<>
Sent: Saturday, 31 March, 2007 5:27:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] twitchathon
Hi all and Keith,
It is interesting that this issue is raised now (which is not really
that
interesting as even the Prime Minister now is aware of global warming,
I
think!!!) as this year is to be the first year that the Black-necked
Stalkers have decided to do both the inland and the coast. This is
because,
as Keith points out, twitchers confining their route to the inland are
at a
disadvantage when compared to people on the coast, however people on
the
coast are also at a disadvantage compared to those who do the inland
then
drive all night to reach the coast. I call it the double-twitch where
twitchers do an inland twitch and a coastal twitch. It is virtually
impossible to win without doing so. The Black-necked Stalkers have
for the
past two years confined their twitching to the Clarence River Valley
and
although gaining a respectable tally could not match the winners.
Winning
is not everything but it is nice to know that you have at least a
level, or
near level, playing field.
Maybe there could be a limit on the distance allowed to be travelled.
Maybe
double-twitches are just too climate unfriendly.
I look forward to other birdo's comments on this issue.
Greg Clancy
|
