Indeed, it does seem somewhat harsh.
And of course, in spite of the fact that "The officer told the court all nine
sea eagle nests on the island were monitored closely and that an egg had been
laid at the nest in question in the previous 24 hours.", the close monitoring,
being officially sanctioned, could not possibly have been a contributor to the
problem.
Regards, Clive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Sanderson <>
To: Peter Abbott <>
Cc:
Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:22 am
Subject: Photography and disturbing birds (long)
Wow, um, I can acknowledge that he did the wrong thing, but does it seem
harsh to anyone else that they're suggesting the breeding failed because of
one incident? Also, publishing not only his name but his home address in
the paper? At least it might make people stop to read warning signs more
often...
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Peter Abbott <>wrote:
> I know that this subject has just about been done to death by now but
> here's another example. I was on Mull in Scotland a few months ago and
> locals were very aggrieved about the actions of a photographer, perceived to
> have interfered with the breeding of a pair of White-Tailed Sea Eagles. The
> recent exchanges on Birding-Aus prompted me to see what had transpired, as
> per the link below. Not a huge sum of money, but action nevertheless and I
> am sure that there are many more such examples. I suppose that overall
> debate hinges on stopping the wilful and educating the clumsy.
>
> Peter.
>
> http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/874888?UserKey=
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
