This conversation seems to have morphed (as they inevitably do) from a
discussion about birding ethics to a Salem twitch trial! Speaking as a
naturalist/birder/ornithologist/ecologist/etc. who keeps life lists (and
therefore, *ipso facto*, you can add part-time twitcher to that list), I've
seen plenty of thoughtless behaviour by birders in my 30+ years of birding -
and only some of that by twitchers. By this I mean things such as
inappropriate activity around nests, too many visits to other sensitive
locations, overuse of call playback, lack of discretion about who you tell
where the Red Goshawk nest is, and so on ... a kind of universal disregard
for, or lack of awareness of, the precautionary principle.
If twitchers turn up to a spot, look at the 'tick' for a few seconds and
then nick off, but do nothing else destructive, then surely the only
consequential outcome is a contribution to atmospheric carbon levels (and an
indirect impact on the biota in the long term - much like the impact most of
us have by lighting and heating our homes, etc.) ... and perhaps a rise in
the blood pressure of those who see twitching as the devil's work.
If a keen birder visits a nest site twice a day for a week and drives the
parents away, causing nesting failure, then the direct consequence is
obvious. No twitching involved, necessarily.
Twitchers or birders, pure as the driven snow or otherwise, please heed
Stuart's original and completely legitimate message to behave *thoughtfully
and ethically *when you're out there.
Twitching isn't the real issue - birders behaving badly, whether twitching
or not, is.
--
++++++++++++
Lawrie Conole
28 Reid Street
Northcote, VIC 3070
AUSTRALIA
lconole[at]gmail.com
0419 588 993
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
