David/All,
Thank you for the thoughtful message. No worries here. As you said, this is a really challenging subject and both sides have valid points and strong feelings.
So, let's all breathe a collective sigh of relief that this appears to have been a misunderstanding and that some awesome birds persist in our area despite a lot of attention. I think the subject of dealing with sensitive species is important and should be revisited regularly. Clearly no one on this list is anti-sharing or anti-conservation. I'm also confident that no one would argue with the simple
statement that "disturbance can affect birds." There are obviously things people can
do to disturb them and affect their wintering or nesting success.
Unfortunately, every situation is different, and it is impossible to quantify the precise amount of disturbance that causes abandonment of wintering or nesting sites. In the case of the reclusive Long-eared Owl, there isn't even consensus on whether they vocalize away from the breeding grounds, so hoping for a scientific study on how exactly they respond to extended human disturbance is unlikely and seems unnecessary. So we're left with anecdotal evidence and opinions. I am in the conservative camp on this subject, but I admit freely there are valid points on both sides.
I think the important thing is that we try to keep these discussions polite and solution-oriented. I was a little surprised that poor word choice in my initial e-mail led to a photographers vs. birders discussion, as I certainly consider myself to be both. I think it's clear that there is a need to reinforce good ethics across all areas of the extended community. Overall, I think we got lucky this time and that awful things like active nest disturbance will happen occasionally, probably more so if we're not proactive. The region's human population is still growing and prime habitat is still declining. Communication technology continues to advance steadily, allowing information about sensitive sites and species to be disseminated more quickly than ever. When speaking to birders from Europe, they freely discuss crowd control challenges that seem impossible to us today. I'm sure those situations weren't always the case, and I'm sure they didn't emerge as a
surprise all at once. To use a local example, a catastrophic decline of the region's bobwhite probably seemed impossible 20 years ago. Just as conservationists are proactively considering the effects of sea-level rise on marsh habitats, we should think ahead about how increased pressure from a growing community will affect the places and species we care about. Marshall, I really appreciate eBird's plans for increased emphasis on the handling of sensitive species in the near future. For everyone here in Maryland, we are still discussing what changes we need to make to the Long-eared Owl filters and processing of reports. Defaulting all Maryland Long-eared Owl reports to a "hidden" status during the birds' stay is likely.
Good points were made on the BGE topic. I agree it's interesting that some of the rarest species at the site rely on the ROW habitat that is, of course, not a natural feature of the site. This is the same perplexing situation we faced in identifying former strip mines as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for Henslow's Sparrows. These are very complex topics. I do agree that finding the ideal means to manage ROW habitat is critical (as is the topic of pesticide/herbicide overuse in many public lands), and that this community should be very actively involved in pursuing better policies.
To end on a lighter note, I think I found the REAL problem we need to be discussing. Please see the attached image, which I believe authorizes the use of cannons, spears, and catapults for hunting in Maryland.
Good birding!
Bill
�
Bill Hubick
Pasadena, Maryland
<bill_hubick...>
http://www.billhubick.com
http://www.marylandbiodiversity.com
>________________________________
> From: "David Flynt (Arlington, VA)" <dflyntemail...>
>To: <mdbirding...>
>Cc: Marshall Iliff <MIliff...>; Christopher Wood <chris.wood...>; Brian Sullivan <bls42...>; Bill Hubick <bill_hubick...>
>Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Bad News--Disturbance of Long-eared Owls
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>I do not think we have met and I have not met many MD birders until last year when I became more active in birding after a long break, so let me first introduce myself to the MD birding community.� My family and I have lived in Arlington VA for about six years, and I am very close to DC via Chain Bridge.� I began birding about 25 years ago while in college in San Diego.� I have been a member of ABA for many years, and while I am not currently a member I very much respect and embrace the ABA principles of birding ethics.
>
>Next, and most importantly, I need to make a public apology to Ross Geredian and Anne Arundel Bird Club.� In responding to Ross on his post of Sensitive Species and eBird, I was rude toward Ross and AABC and I sincerely apologize.� I think you are referring to me in your post above:� �There have been some barbs thrown recently that were unwarranted.�� You are right, it was unwarranted and bad manners on my part.� I am sorry, and will avoid any such barbs in the future; I hope my apology can help dilute some of the discord and rancor I may have contributed towards this discussion.
>
>I am glad that the amended posting guidelines for mdbirding email group do not preclude reporting all species of owls.� I know that birders like to share information and they generally want to share what they have seen with other birders.� Sharing information makes birding more fun and meaningful, but it also has other benefits which I believe indirectly affect avian conservation in a net positive way.� Imagine a hypothetical world where there are no birders at all.� In such a world, who would notice that a particular species is declining, and who besides a handful of scientists would even care about birds?
>
>I was in NE Minnesota last week viewing Boreal Owls and other owls and birds where I met many local and out of state birders.� In general, birders went out of their way to help me find the owls and other birds like Spruce Grouse and BB Woodpecker, and I witnessed zero birding ethics problems.� Several people in Minn make their living though paid guiding service, and these same people are the most generous with their information mainly via frequent updates to MOU-NET listserv.� I would not have traveled to Duluth if I did not happen upon the reports of Boreal Owl in eBird and MOU-NET.� My presence helped their economy a little and I feel certain that the many birders that viewed Boreal Owl, N. Hawk Owl, Saw Whet Owl, Great Gray Owl, Snowy Owl, etc. have not affected the individual owls nor the owl population in any negative aspect.� There are communities there that depend on revenue from ecotourism, and I claim that creates a need to protect the
natural habitats in those areas.�
>
>Marshall, I think that the obscuring feature to eBird to prevent visitation of certain species in certain areas is a good tool for eBirders who do not want to share the exact location of a bird.� The current means to do so results in loss of data integrity and also could have the side effect that a birder will spend time looking in the wrong area for a reported bird.� I would like to offer a suggestion which you and the application developer staff may have probably already thought of.� If a bird location has been purposely shifted or obscured, using a boolean flag to denote the this in the eBird API and the primary eBird search GUI would be helpful to alert an application developer and birder (respectively) that the sighting location is not where it appears on the map.�
>
>I am just one voice and one opinion which is that I trust my fellow birder and I do not think that the problem of disturbance as it relates to avian conservation is as severe a problem as the level of discussion would indicate.� However, in 25 years of birding I did witness one particularly egregious birding ethics violation in Texas that involved trespassing and an extremely sensitive species -- Attwater Prairie Chicken.� The result of this violation was the end of all public reports of APC at the last known wild-bird APC lek.� This type of ethics abuse can have a permanent and significant effect on the ability of others to view a sensitive species or visit a particular birding site, and so while I am advocating balance in bird reporting guidelines as already mentioned by me and others, I am aware that a single ethics abuse could permanently scar the reputation of the birding community.� I am also aware that there are some very strong opinions on
the matter of birding ethics, and in the future I will tread lightly and know that there are many other viewpoints.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>David Flynt
>Arlington, VA
>
>
--
|