Mick I think the reason things went quiet on this site regarding the Night
Parrot saga had more to do with Russell's request that some respect and
restraint be shown when discussing the integrity of actual persons. I think
also what had been said did not need re-saying. However people have voiced
concerns elsewhere. Chris's article articulated the frustrations of many and
the very real issues we need to consider -personalities aside. Perhaps this is
not the forum to debate the details but a least be aware is still a disputed
topic.
> From:
> Subject: birding-aus Digest, Vol 89, Issue 1
> To:
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:00:01 +1000
>
> Send birding-aus mailing list submissions to
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.vicnet.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of birding-aus digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Fw: Swift Parrot-Regent Honeyeater surveys (Mick Roderick)
> 2. need for reserve for rare Sunshine Coast birds (Greg Roberts)
> 3. Cranes at Hasties and Fantail at Brown River (Peter Ewin)
> 4. Re: Cranes at Hasties and Fantail at Brown River (Steve)
> 5. White-throated Needletail - Twitchers flocking to see rare
> bird saw it killed by wind turbine (Chris Gregory)
> 6. A fair go for John Young (Mick & Marie)
> 7. Re: A fair go for John Young (Gary Davidson)
> 8. A Fair go for John Young. (Ian Davies)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mick Roderick <>
> To: Birding Aus <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Fw: Swift Parrot-Regent Honeyeater surveys
> Message-ID:
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi all,
> ?
> See note below regarding the Swift Parrot / Regent Honeyeater survey weekend
> this coming weekend.
> ?
> As Dean points out, it has been a tale of no more than scattered reports of
> not-so-large numbers of Swift Parrots and a general lack of Regent
> Honeyeaters in 2013 thus far. We're particularly keen to have people in the
> New England / NSW NW Slopes / Southern Qld regions out searching as these
> areas have provided the most of the small handfull of Regent records this
> year and could be harbouring more birds. I've had reports of White Box
> starting to flower well in some areas too, so getting coverage in these
> landscapes is important.
> ?
> And if you're fortunate (skillful!) enough to find Regent Honeyeaters keep an
> eye out for colour bands (if you've got a camera get some shots).
> ?
> Contact Dean or I if you'd like to get involved (and surveys can be done in
> the days leading up to and after the weekend too).
> ?
> Cheers
> Mick
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Dean Ingwersen <>
> To: Mick Roderick <>
> Cc: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:30 PM
> Subject: Swift Parrot-Regent Honeyeater surveys
>
>
> Dear Swift Parrot-Regent Honeyeater volunteer,
> ?
> The next winter survey is upon us again and we would be delighted if you
> would consider taking part in the upcoming searches to be held on the 3rd-4th
> August.
> ?
> You can find a summary of recent information regarding both species
> (including feedback from recent surveys) and the official survey form here:
> http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/woodland-birds-for-biodiversity/latest-news.?
> This year has certainly been an interesting one, with no really large
> concentrations of Swift Parrots obvious so far, and only scattered records of
> Regent Honeyeaters.? The number of each species seen over the year is also
> lower than we?d hoped for, thanks we think to scattered flowering across
> south-east Australia.? So the challenge is on to track down some flowering
> trees and search them thoroughly!
> ?
> If you participate in the survey or would like to report sightings, please
> contact Dean Ingwersen Mick Roderick
> or call (03) 9347 0757.? Remember ? nil
> reports are also vital information as they give us an indication of exactly
> where searching took place.? Please note that Chris Tzaros
> is currently on extended leave and won?t be
> able to reply to any correspondence until October.?
> ?
> We thank you again for your support of this very important long-term
> monitoring program and hope you will be able to continue to assist us and the
> birds.
> ?
> Best wishes,
> ?
> Dean Ingwersen, Chris Tzaros and Mick Roderick
> ?
> BirdLife Australia?s Woodland Birds for Biodiversity project
> ?
> ?
> ?
> Dean Ingwersen| Woodland birds for Biodiversity
> Regent Honeyeater recovery coordinator
>
>
> BirdLife Australia
> Suite 2-05, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> M0409 348 553 | T03 9347 0757 ext 247 | F03 9347 9323
> | birdlife.org.au
> ABN 75 149 124 774
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:56:38 +1000
> From: "Greg Roberts" <>
> To: "birding-aus" <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] need for reserve for rare Sunshine Coast birds
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I have today written the following letter to Sunshine Coast Mayor Mark
> Jamieson about the need to protect former cane farmland as a reserve for
> rare and threatened bird species in the region. Anyone wishing to do the
> same can email Mayor Jamieson at
>
>
>
> Mayor Jamieson,
>
>
>
> I draw your attention to the urgent need for the Sunshine Coast Regional
> Council to give consideration to the acquisition of privately owned former
> cane farmland for environment purposes.
>
>
>
> There presently exists on the market an excellent property on River Road,
> Yandina Creek, that would make an ideal wildlife reserve.
>
>
>
> Several rare and threatened bird species have adapted to the grasslands and
> wetlands created in areas once planted with cane. Many of these species once
> occupied the wallum heaths and swamplands that originally occurred in the
> region. We have a unique opportunity to restore much of the fauna that
> formerly frequented the Maroochy River flatlands.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that the council has dismissed suggestions for the
> property acquisition in River Road because the land is not natural and is
> human-modified. There are numerous examples around Australia and the world
> of excellent wildlife reserves being created from human-modified land. There
> is no reason to believe that cannot be the case here.
>
>
>
> In the property presently for sale in River Road, I have recorded rare and
> difficult-to-find birds such as Eastern Grass Owl, Lewin's Rail, Spotless
> Crake, Brolga, Black-necked Stork, Black-tailed Native-hen and Australian
> Painted Snipe.
>
>
>
> There has been some media coverage of this issue:
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/q5r2nc9
>
>
>
> I have also written about some of the damaging developments that have taken
> place in the area:
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/olnqwse
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, my representations to your council's environmental officers
> have been ignored.
>
>
>
> I hope you will give urgent consideration to council acquiring the property
> available for sale before the opportunity is lost.
>
>
>
> Greg Roberts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:13:52 +1000
> From: Peter Ewin <>
> To: ? birding-aus <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Cranes at Hasties and Fantail at Brown River
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Evening all,
> Just back from an eight day trip to PNG with a couple of days in Cairns (trip
> report to follow) - had a great time, though birding is ridiculously
> difficult.
> A couple of questions about a couple of IDs.
> We visited Hasties Swamp near Atherton on Monday and cranes could be heard on
> the private land behind the swamp, but could only be vieiwed (without a
> scope) from the road over the hill. It is probably a long shot but does
> anyone have a potential ID on these - my thoughts are Sarus, based on
> location (and comments in Weineke) but any local knowledge would be
> appreciated (if both likely then I will have to leave as unknown)
> The other concerned a fantail seen at Brown River near Port Moresby. We were
> looking at a group of birds in lowland swamp forest west of Brown River with
> our guide Daniel Wakra, Black Thicket and Northern Fantails were present but
> another fantail was also there, which Daniel called as a Friendly Fantail. It
> wasn't until I got back that evening that I looked at guides and this would
> appear to be an exceptionally low altitude for this species. The bird
> certainly looked like the picture in Beehler et al. and behaved much more
> like a typical fantail (i.e. certainly not like a Northern with much tail
> fanning and movement) and there were was no rufous present (the thought was
> possible juvenile Chestnut-bellied but this would also appear to be too high
> as well). The problem is no other species seems to occur at this altitude and
> so I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this or other species of
> Fantails in this are/habitat.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:11:35 +1000
> From: Steve <>
> To: Peter Ewin <>
> Cc: Birding Aus <>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Cranes at Hasties and Fantail at Brown
> River
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> G'day Peter
>
> HBW Alive (www.hbw.com) reports that the Chestnut-bellied Fantail inhabits:
>
> "Hill forest to c. 1370 m, locally to 1750 m; also in lowlands in vicinity of
> hills and locally in upper and lower Trans-Fly region. Replaced at higher
> elevations by R. albolimbata".
>
> They also say "At R Brown (SE New Guinea), estimated foraging substrates were
> branches 70%, leaves 14%, aerial 15%, trunks 1%." That would be where you
> were I suspect.
>
> They also say "Occurs in Varirata National Park" which is not far from Port
> Moresby but I don't know the altitude.
>
> For Friendly Fantail they say "Found mainly at 1370?3600 m, including above
> timber-line; on occasion as low as 1130 m. Replaces R. hyperythra above c.
> 1380 m."
>
> Cheers
> Steve
>
> On 31/07/2013, at 8:13 PM, Peter Ewin <> wrote:
>
> > Evening all,
> > Just back from an eight day trip to PNG with a couple of days in Cairns
> > (trip report to follow) - had a great time, though birding is ridiculously
> > difficult.
> > A couple of questions about a couple of IDs.
> > We visited Hasties Swamp near Atherton on Monday and cranes could be heard
> > on the private land behind the swamp, but could only be vieiwed (without a
> > scope) from the road over the hill. It is probably a long shot but does
> > anyone have a potential ID on these - my thoughts are Sarus, based on
> > location (and comments in Weineke) but any local knowledge would be
> > appreciated (if both likely then I will have to leave as unknown)
> > The other concerned a fantail seen at Brown River near Port Moresby. We
> > were looking at a group of birds in lowland swamp forest west of Brown
> > River with our guide Daniel Wakra, Black Thicket and Northern Fantails were
> > present but another fantail was also there, which Daniel called as a
> > Friendly Fantail. It wasn't until I got back that evening that I looked at
> > guides and this would appear to be an exceptionally low altitude for this
> > species. The bird certainly looked like the picture in Beehler et al. and
> > behaved much more like a typical fantail (i.e. certainly not like a
> > Northern with much tail fanning and movement) and there were was no rufous
> > present (the thought was possible juvenile Chestnut-bellied but this would
> > also appear to be too high as well). The problem is no other species seems
> > to occur at this altitude and so I was wondering if anyone has any
> > experience with this or other species of Fantails in this are/habitat.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > 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
> > ===============================
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:44:33 +1000
> From: Chris Gregory <>
> To: birdingaus mailing list <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] White-throated Needletail - Twitchers flocking
> to see rare bird saw it killed by wind turbine
> Message-ID:
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> A rare sighting of a WTNT in the Outer Hebrides (UK). Only for it to be
> killed in a Wind Turbine. As the Telegraph reports "The corpse will be sent
> to a museum but obviously this is just terrible. Some people will have lost
> the cost of their flights". Yup - terrible but oddly quite weird, rare
> bird, wind turbines and mad twitchers.
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10146081/Twitchers-flocking-to-see-rare-bird-saw-it-killed-by-wind-turbine.html
>
>
> Chris Gregory
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:06:04 +1000
> From: "Mick & Marie" <>
> To: <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] A fair go for John Young
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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 con
se
> rved 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 in
cl
> udes 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 t
o
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Gary Davidson <>
> To: "" <>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] A fair go for John Young
> Message-ID:
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Well said, Mick, I couldn't agree more!
> Gary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mick & Marie <>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:06:04 PM
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] A fair go for John Young
>
>
> 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
> ===============================
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:18:18 +1000
> From: Ian Davies <>
> To:
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] A Fair go for John Young.
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thank you Mick for a your thoughts. It sure puts another slant on things when
> you discover that certain people have been blacklisted by tour operators in
> the past. You wonder about their real motivation for negative comments don`t
> you. It is good to see that your main concern is for the future of the bird,
> and nothing else. Well done.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> birding-aus mailing list
>
> http://lists.vicnet.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus
>
>
> End of birding-aus Digest, Vol 89, Issue 1
> ******************************************
===============================
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
===============================
|
