MOU-RBA Archives

September 2011


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
linda whyte <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
linda whyte <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:51:14 -0600
text/plain (59 lines)
All those "mitigating circumstances" came to my mind also. I would
assume the well-being of the birds was as important to the person in
the field as to any of us, and that he had no reason to believe his
close proximity posed a problem. That said, some of us who learned of
the bird's sensitvities from last spring's Whooper visits, during
which we heard from Whooper experts why and how to exercise care in
viewing, have some obligation to share what we learned with others who
might not have that information. Of course, speaking directly and
neutrally with someone, assessing their situation first, is best, but
it sounded as though doing that was out of the question at the time.
As for the "no trespassing," at least one of the wet areas is
surrounded by farmed fields, which makes it likely to be private
property, and the birds were also spending lots of time in what was
clearly tilled land. It doesn't hurt for any of us to be reminded to
show respect for others' property when doing birding of any kind.

I am grateful to those who had patience in educating me about
appropriate Whooper viewing when I posted last spring. I hope people
continue to share special sightings, include ethical reminders when
they do, and engage others directly and respectfully in ethics
dialogues if they have an issue in the field.
Linda Whyte

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:20 PM,  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> First let me state that I'm not trying to start an argument, just looking to gain insight into this compelling scenario.
> I appreciate people that put forth the time and effort to be in the field and then share sightings of the birds that they
> see.  I did not go look for the cranes.  I've never chased after any birds south of Carlton County....yet.  I can easily
> tell from the posts about the cranes and subsequent ethical issues, that the posters care deeply for their subjects
> of interest.  That is very admirable, uncommon in this day and of age of mass disconnection from the natural world,
> and deserved of respect.  So it is with that background of thought that I am putting forth these questions.  I do make
> a few assertions that are merely opinions and perceptions.  Basically, I am just looking for greater insight into this
> situation because I am at a point in my relationship with nature where developing my own ethical guidelines is an
> ever increasing matter of importance.  I readily admit that I've made many mistakes in regards to ethical scenarios
> regarding birds thus far.  No one is perfect, and I am certainly part of the "no one" in that sense.  But, I seek to do
> better, and with that in mind, any feedback to these questions will be greatly appreciated.
> 1: In the original posting about the cranes, the poster stated that the birds were in a "wetland". Later, in the same post, the writer states his wish that people not "trespass into the field or wetland." So, is there, (was there) a "No Trespassing" sign posted? Is this private property? Because if it's not private property, what law is being broken by entering the area?
> 2: If there are "No Trespassing" signs, did the poster have a dialogue with the land owner prior to posting the sighting? Knowing full well of course that a number of people would visit the area, I would think this paramount. Frankly, if he did not, that, in and of itself was unethical in my opinion. Similar to obtaining permission from homeowners to post information about a rare bird being seen at their feeder....
> 3: If this was private property, how does ANYBODY know that the individual photographing the birds was not the owner of said property??? Or, did not have permission from the owner to go into the field???
> 4: Is it not a HUGE assumption (unless the individual's identity was already known by the poster who took his picture/license plate picture), that the person in question went to the field based on information posted on the MOU? Whooping Cranes are huge, white, and very noticeable. Anybody might have been driving by that area, (and or observed others with optics viewing the birds), and been interested in what was going on, and made a subsequent approach on the birds, possibly even unaware of their endangered status...
> 5. In his post on MOU about wether or not he should put the photos of the individual on his website, the writer only states that the person was in the field next to the cranes. He does not state wether the cranes were moving away from that location and the individual was pursuing them...If not, how can this be construed as harassment? For all that is known, based on the posts on MOU, the cranes did not mind the presence of the individual in the least and there was zero "harassment" going on.
> 6. Why in the world, if so bothered by the activity of the photographer, did the MOU poster not attempt to have a dialogue with the person about his concerns? Honestly, the way this has played out, seems to portray "birders" (over generalizing quite a bit there), as elitist snobs, who believe their way of interacting with wildlife is the "only" appropriate way. I can envision a number of scenarios where the "photographer" was just struck by the sheer beauty of the subjects and wanted to be closer, with nothing but the purest of motivations. Why must the worst be assumed, i.e. "selfish, un-ethical".
> There are millions of people in this country that don't even know what a whooping crane is, why vilify somebody who obviously recognized something special in the natural world and wanted to get close?
> Regards,
> Shawn Zierman.
> ----
> Join or Leave mou-net:
> Archives:

Join or Leave mou-net: