Hi,

I find this issue a difficult one. I take great pleasure in observing
birds, rare and otherwise, going about their business. This pleasure
translates into action in defense of habitat for birds and in educational
efforts to enhance others awareness and appreciation of wildlife. To NOT
bird in order to avoid any disturbance to the objects of our
appreciation, if carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to my
never leaving the confines of my house for fear of inadvertently flushing
a starling from its nest in the eaves of my house or a pigeon from its
meal of crumbs on my sidewalk. Truly, this issue is not subject to a
logically elegant and morally impeccable solution. A line must be drawn
at a level of critical disturbance not justified by the benefits that
acrue from nature study and appreciation. Where I most comfortably draw
that line may not be where you or someone else would draw it. Discussion
with specific examples will help keep our attention focused on the issue,
but accusations, etc., will simply generate hostilities of no help to
anyone, least of all the birds.

Gene Hunn (hunn at u.washington.edu)

On Wed, 31 Aug 1994 CASSIDYM at delphi.com wrote:

> I read with interest Dennis' post concerning ethics regarding visiting
> nesting sites of interesting birds. Apparently, it's pretty much an
> accepted fact that if I hang out over a nest, a predator is watching me
> and taking note of my interest. Since I wear a Birdchat pin and carry
> binocs and scope, the predator simply waits until I leave, then takes an
> easy dinner. Hmmmm.....
>
> Since the discussion concerned ethics, I checked thhe ABA code again just to
> make sure I recalled it correctly. I found "Keep an appropriate distance
> from nests and nesting colonies so as not to disturb them oor expose them to danger". I interpret this personally as meaning tha
> f I happen acorss a
> nest, I should immediately do a 180 and leave the family alone. Perhaps
> this particular "code" is to address the very problem of predator
> attraction.
>
>
> Dennis also wrote about a "tiny proportion of the population of [species]
> as 'expendable'". Now, who decides what is "tiny"? Of which species?
> I have a hard time accepting starlings as expendable (or rock doves), much
> less species I haven't seen. Is someone going to post the acceptable
> expendable list on Tweeters regularly?
>
> OK, maybe sometimes the advance of man's knowledge is worth a slight cost
> to nature. Or, "but the line has to be drawn". Again, who is drawing thhe lines and where can I get this information? I will gladly not cross any line
> drawn when I see it.
>
> With thhe success of Tweeters, Dan's efforts, the contributions of many
> people in the NW, the expansion of internet discussion groups regarding
> birding, the number of clubs and magazines devoted to birding, and
> increased environmental awareness of a hhuge section of the American
> population, stricter ethics are called for, not exceptions.
>
> Less Dennis thinks I am attacking him, he's a scientist empowered by
> the rest of us to exercise his judgement in gathering facts that we
> use to enhance our hobby (or sport). I carry his book in my backpack
> along with NGS; that means the weight on my shoulders caused by his
> ideas is worth it.
>
> Buut I don't believe he should be advocating sport birders attract
> predators to expendable populations of certain species....
>
> Marty Cassidy
> cassidym at delphi.com
> Seattle, WA
>
> PS. Sorry about the typos. I've been swearing for months now that
> i will replace this keyboard...
>
>