Hello Greg,
It sure is concerning that these days someone would do this kind
of disturbance for the purpose of being able to photograph the nest of a rare
species. I suspect this has been generally contrary to the ethics for decades. Even
so, Bill’s questions are valid. However the statement that: “The bird was sitting on
eggs at the time the tree was lopped” directly goes against the very
next word: “Presumably”
If it was stated as sitting on eggs, then why presumably was it
not? What is the presumption based on and why? Did this take longer than a
normal period that the bird would be off the nest? Even so, what about
immediately after? I guess the main point to challenge those who did this, is
how would they know before doing this, (in order to justify the risk) that it
would not disturb the birds?
About the aspect of “as endangered bird flies vast distance”. Fine
but I don’t see why that is relevant, to the activities at the nest.
Philip
From: Birding-Aus
[ On Behalf Of Greg Roberts
Sent: Monday, 7 January, 2019 6:31 AM
To: birding-aus
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Red Goshawk nest tree pruned as endangered bird
flies vast distance
Bill
Stent should have read the blog post concerned before asking for his
"evidence":
1.
An arborist was hired to lop the limbs off the tree.
2.
The bird was sitting on eggs at the time the tree was lopped. Presumably it
would have not remained sitting on the nest while the lopping was underway.
3.
I provide a first-hand account from somebody who was actually there and
prepared to go on the record. This was the person who discovered the nest. His
claim was put to the Queensland Environment Department, which declined to
respond.
Queensland Government officers studying the endangered Red Goshawk on Cape
York lopped the limbs off a nesting tree while a bird was sitting on eggs to
improve photographic opportunities.
That’s a fairly serious accusation, Greg, and it comes in three
parts:
- It
was the Government officers who were the ones studying the Goshawk who
lopped the tree (and not, for example, the local electricity
company)
- The
bird was sitting on eggs when the tree was lopped (and not while the
parents were off hunting)
- The
reasons they lopped the tree was to improve photographic opportunities
(and not, to continue the alternative example, to lessen fire danger)
What evidence do you have to support these three separate
accusations?
