Dennis Paulson wrote:
>...I would have a
>completely different attitude toward a species with, say, 50 nesting pairs.
>Small islands off New Zealand with the world's entire population of Chatham
>Island snipes and shore plovers are off limits to birders, with which I
>concur entirely. I feel justified at drawing that particular line, and I
>would hope that the people who will eventually be "manageing" more and more
>species of wildlife are able to do so.
>
>Dennis Paulson

My personal experience with a situation in this category has been with the
California Condors both prior to the breeding project capture and since the
re-release. In that case birders access was "managed" by the remoteness of
the viewing area and the roughness of the road. Lots of people, birders and
non-birders had access to the Sespe site (I don't know about the Lion Canyon
site). It was interesting that the deaths of several of the birds had
nothing to do with this activity, or with predators. The deaths were from
high wires and puddles of anti-freeze on the ground and firearms. In other
words the encroachment of human urban "culture" on limited habitat. I
suspect that preservation, or lack of preservation, of large tracts of
habitat overwhelms any other effect on threatened species. I would venture
that the effects of birders approaching nests prompting predators (I am not
advocating disruptive behavior!) is a second or maybe third order effect on
a species survival rate by comparison to adequate habitat. It may not sound
like it but I am agreeing with Dennis.

Charles Vaughan
Woodinville, WA