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
===============================
|
