birding-aus

A fair go for John Young

To: Birding Aus <>
Subject: A fair go for John Young
From: Laurie Knight <>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:32:42 +1000
G'day Mick,

Thanks for your comments.

I think John Young has had a fair go in this forum. Certainly his checkered past will have affected the way people have perceived his behaviour in this instance. The fig parrot episode was truly bizarre and may well have affected his relationship with public service conservation staff.

In this particular case, John will only have contributed to the conservation of Night Parrots outside of the population he discovered when he makes the relevant data available. There will be no management to conserve habitat for Night Parrots or to reduce threats to their survival by miners, pastoralists or other land managers if there is no evidence of their presence.

Saying that you aren't going to share the only method to detect the presence of Night Parrots is the equivalent of going out of your way to snooker yourself, so it is not surprising if people comment on that.

Regards, Laurie.

On 31/07/2013, at 4:06 PM, Mick & Marie wrote:

I’ve been following the postings on the re-discovery of the Night Parrot and on John Young, mainly between the earliest reports on 27 June through until 6 July. Most of that coverage was congratulatory, but a few couldn’t help expressing suspicion and distrust. Following the presentation of Young’s evidence in support of his find, postings on the subject seemed to die away after 6 July

One of the reasons for this may have been a posting by Friarbird 43 on 6 July, providing his notes from when he attended Young’s presentation. This provided so much more information than had previously been available, with an insight into how Young had gone about his search, what had been learned about the bird’s biology and its habitat, plus his ideas on the management considerations and research priorities which lie ahead. It also referred to the location being on private land, and the understanding he had earlier established with the landowner that the site would not be publicised. If you haven’t read this posting, it is highly recommended.

It is easy to skate over the days and nights involved in Young’s search without thinking about it too much. The search area would most likely have had no running water, and temperatures varying from around zero to the mid forties. This went on for days and particularly nights on end, then weeks, then months, then years without the slightest sign of success or progress. How anyone could show such determination and persistence for that length of time and in such rugged and demanding environment is quite beyond me. Then when he finally did identify a call, it took him another five years to obtain the evidence needed to verify his find. If you heard one of the radio interviews at the time, you will have heard the excitement in Young’s voice and so get some understanding of how he felt about this bird that he had worked so long to find. Clearly in his view the bird will come first ahead of any other considerations, and that extends to his determination to see it adequately conserved and protected.

Against this background, two major issues have emerged – the release of the call and how the bird can be best conserved and protected – that are legitimate matters of debate. I can see both sides of the argument in regard to the release of the call, but it is not valid to assume that because Young has stated that he will not be releasing the call generally that it may not play a role in future research ( read Friarbird’s notes on research and conservation).

Similarly everyone agrees that conservation/protection is essential, but views differ on how it should best be managed. One position is put that it should be handed over to Government for best results. This at a time where Government is proposing to permit shooting in National Parks. If it were to be passed to Government, we would see TV bites and headline-grabbing press releases, and then it would become just another item of expenditure. How long adequate funding would be available in the tight future budgetary years that are being forecast , as it becomes just another program to be pruned back, is anybody’s guess. If we think outside the square, there are a number of privately funded organisations which already carry out valuable work of this nature. An obvious example is the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, which took over the running of Newhaven Station from Birds Australia. So in the end, we all agree that conservation action is critical. From Friarbirds notes, that includes Young perhaps more than any of us. Maybe action will be taken by both Government and privately funded organisations. Let’s keep an open mind in the interim.

If commentary was restricted to these legitimate debates, I probably wouldn’t have put pen to paper myself. However other comments have been made which I think are so negative that they need some sort of response. It has been stated that there are “numerous inconsistencies in Young’s recounting of his latest (my italics) discovery”. The author’s previous paragraphs were highly critical of the standard of journalism and the lack of good science journalists, but as the author stated that he has never spoken to Young, the recounting referred to had to be what the media said Young had said. I have had some experience with the media, to the point that I always prepared a written handout of the key points I wanted to make , but even that seldom prevented inaccurate reporting of what had been said.

The author went on to say that if Young “had located an active nest, as he claims (my italics again), then it should have been as straightforward as placing a camera trap at the entrance to the nest and he would have procured images of birds coming and going in short order.” That may be right. However two earlier postings are relevant; Rob Morris (3 July): “Having listened to John and seen his presentation - I am just beginning to get a sense of how sensitive this species is”; Ian Davies (4 July): “John really stressed the value of disturbing the species as little as possible, as they are an extremely shy and wary creature, and as he says they are the hardest bird he has ever worked with". With the birds being so sensitive to disturbance, anyone who put the birds first would not even consider intrusion around the next site even if there was only the slightest risk of the nest being abandoned . I’m not sure when the last Night Parrot chicks were sighted, but who would want to risk these historic ones being abandoned?

Another criticism was that Young had known of the population of the birds for 5 years but had told no-one. Its one thing to know something, another all together to be able to prove it. If he had simply announced that he had found the bird, but had no physical evidence to support the claim, what sort of response might he have expected?

I won’t go on to react to the many personal asides that are made in Young’s direction, such as
a.. “Raises suspicions as to John’s motives”
b.. “By trying to hold on to a monopoly of information..he has create a situation that almost guarantees his irrelevance” c.. “the depiction of John in that future natural history is right now on the knife-edge, teetering between legend and infamy” d.. “again this brings us back to John’s sharing of the call or eventual irrelevance when another recording becomes available , as it certainly will” e.. “it makes one wonder at his motivations for the big reveal in the first place ... What forced his hand? Rivals threatening to steal his thunder?” f.. “I have been told the location of the site...this just points to John’s complete inability to manage the on-going stewardship of the site and the species..” Why must people be so negative? It seems that those who have had issues with John in the past are unable to put them aside and must continue to view whatever he does through that prism. Invariably they will include their apparently sincere congratulations of his undisputed achievement, but then can’t just leave it at that. Another of Young’s major detractors has been blacklisted as by two reputable bird tour operator (not Young!) because of an unpleasant experiences he has created on previous tours, as well as by a significant Government scientific institution, but then writes as (hanging) judge and jury in constantly critical articles about Young.

Perhaps the best way I can conclude this article is to quote Russell Woodford, Birding-Aus Founder and List Owner, from his posting of 30 June... “Can I please make the point that dragging up old issues that have been debated, argued and fought over is not likely to resolve them any better this time around? I don't stifle genuine debate, but I will do whatever I can to prevent mud-slinging, bullying and abuse on this forum. Stirring up old arguments is unlikely to do anything but generate resentment and intemperate invective.” ...
and simply ask that John Young be given a fair go

Mick Brasher
===============================

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: 

http://birding-aus.org
===============================


===============================

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: 

http://birding-aus.org
===============================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU