At 09:13 PM 5/6/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Observe: I requested photographers to not harass with photographic intent,
>to not disturb with photographic intent, to not displace with photographic
>intent.

Sorry, you were very precise in your wording. You said that
photographers shouldn't do these things because they might
interfere with other birder's being able to observe them.

It was very clear, it was a clash of human interests, not
concern for the subject matter, that you stated in your post.

Maybe you really feel differently, but I know for a fact that
you're a skilled writer able to make your intent clear.

If you choose to.


> This much is a simple reminder about basic good manners.

Exactly. Good birding manners. The entire concept that
good birding manners exist presumes that birders have an
ownership interest in birds.

Please explain to me why birders have a greater ownership
interest in birds than those who photograph them for a
living.

> Note also the liberal use of the smarm-word 'please'.

Of course I noticed the noise word, which you describe as
"smarm". Noise, smarm - not meaningful in the given context.

>>Feeling a bit of the contrarian, while I certainly wouldn't put the
>>bird up in flight intentionally myself, exactly on what basis do you
>>(and other birders) have a greater claim to ownership than photographers?

>No ownership whatever, but I'm not unobservant: on behavior, I can see who's
>showing respect for wildlife and who's not, birder or photographer.

You need to spend more time in the field. There are plenty of
obnoxious birders out there.

If you want to put an end to bird photography, though, quit
buying bird photographs! And don't you dare visit my site
and tell me you like my photographs. That alone would tag
you as a hypocrite.

>>But, you chose not to. You put it in terms which suggest that the
>>Natural Rights of Birders are somehow higher (blessed by God?) than
>>the Natural Rights of Photographers.

>>Just where is this hierarchy defined?

>Only in your straw construct, DB, nowhere else, because it wasn't in my
>intent to develop one. If there's ten people, including a couple of other
>photographers, watching, enjoying, photographing and/or studying this bird
>and one asshole---whether a birder trying to see a particular field-mark or
>a photographer trying for that perfect 'explosive take-off'
>shot---distresses it to the point of leaving, this is bad not only everybody
>present and for all those who have not yet had the chance to vist Iona and
>see it, but also for the bird.

I pretty much agree about manners, as long as you strictly adhere
to the concept that your post deals only with human manners,
and that the role the birds play in this is (morally) not relevant.
I don't go out of my way to display bad manners to strangers.

As far as being bad for the bird, shorebirds and the like are
easily spooked, and birders do their share.

As far as bird photography in particular, if birders feel it
is harmful to birds there's a simple solution - stop buying
bird photographs. That includes magazine subscriptions.
Probably field guides, too - the people who paint the
schematics depend on study skins (historically gathered by
the "bang-bang" method) and photos.

Destroy my market, and I'll photograph something else.

> The bird's needs do not then come first,
>only the ego-needs of the birder/photographer.

You didn't post in terms of the bird's needs.

You commented on the needs of birders. They aren't
the same, I'm afraid.

As far as the bird's needs, one needs to know a little more
about the biology. Was the bird actually harmed by being
spooked off a beach frequented by humans?

Maybe it found a secluded place to feed.

In other words, assertion without proof.

> Also, such a person sets a
>bad example and may prejudice the otherwise non-involved against
>photographers in general.

Your post was prejudicial against photographers in general.

Me, I'm pretty prejudicial against hardcore listers for a
variety of reasons, hashed out here in detail (though I'm
working on a web site service that will in part give good
service to these heathen :)

>>Again, of course I wouldn't intentionally spook the bird just to
>>photograph it.

>Which is not quite the same as saying you would not condone this behavior in
>others. Good god, don't wildlife photographers have a code of ethics?

Define wildlife photographer. Professionals do, but in reality it
isn't always possible to honor such a code and end up with salable
stuff.

It's market driven. Birders bitch about photographers spooking
birds, while buying the publications with the most in-your-face
photographs.

Bird photographers are like any other suppliers of source material
to publishers. If the market changes, they supply images that fit
the market.

Develop a market for images of little dots in the distance, and
photographers will gladly submit them and cash their checks.

Believe me, such photographs involve MUCH less work. Photographers
don't put in the extra work because they're masochists, they do
so because in-your-face photos sell.

And the rest rot.

Because of you and yours who buy the products that photo-buyers
produce.

> I stopped putting owl
>locations on the Vancouver Bird Alert to protect these birds against the
>sometimes absolutely disgraceful behavior of some photographers.

Oh, crap. Many owls couldn't care, and those that do tend to flush
before you're within a hundred feet of them. No one who understands the
difference is a bird photographer in my book.


> In the
>defining instance, birders trying to watch a Great Gray Owl east of town
>related watching two photographers ignoring the entreaties of fifteen other
>associated birders and photographers and harassing the owl for *two miles*
>along a fence line getting shot after shot from as close as four feet,
>constantly flushing the bird along to the next fencepost down, until finally
>the bird, probably hungry after such a long time not being allowed to hunt
>peacefully, finally left the road and went into woods on private property.

Some photographers are assholes.

There's a very well known birder in Oregon who once shot a western
sandpiper on Sauvie Island because he was determined to show it was
a rarity. Not with a camera, with his 22. This was about 15 years
ago, and he's still a well-known and active birder, and still relates
how embarassed he was to find out it was really a western. He
doesn't apologize for shooting it, though.

So let's kinda take a break on the self-righteous trip, OK? I can't
think of any professional photographer who'd kill a bird over an ID
question.

>It's a measure of how well-mannered ('passively non-confrontational' is the
>term I'd use) birders are here that those two fuckheads didn't get their
>lights punched out and their equipment fandango'ed upon.

In Oregon, if they'd done so they'd be measure 11 offenses, and rightly
so. You destroy my camera equipment in my home state, and I guarantee
you'll do years of state pen time.

>I never gave an owl
>location or nesting site again after hearing usually normally objective,
>easygoing observers recounting the story and begging me never to air them
>for fear of giving another opportunity to these two rooting-hog
photographers.

As though birders don't do similar things. At least we shoot birds
with cameras.

>Nice to have that luxury. Not many have made it this far north, though; it's
>our fifth-only, which is why a fair number of BC and northern WA
>birders/photographers want to see it at length and hope it stays awhile
>without some jackass scaring it out.

Ahhh, again, it is the human right, not the bird, that is the problem.

Admit it, at heart it is the fact that some folks might not get to
see the bird.

Province list a little thin, gotta take it out on photographers?

>>"Don't make it hard for birders to see this bird!"

>Incompletely expressed: more fully, don't make it hard for *anybody* to see
>this bird.

Why? More precisely, why does it matter?

I got into birding as a conservation-minded individual (dragged
kicking and screaming, I might add, onto the Portland Audubon
board where I figured I better learn my birds in self-defense).

I've never quite gotten why we it is important that people see
individual rare birds.

It's really more important to conserve birds, and in reality
you don't have to see them to play a role.

> Don't scare the bird away to satisfy a selfish personal goal.

Don't scare away the bird, so later birders can satisfy a selfish
personal goal.

In other words, don't put your selfish goals on the same plane
as a birder's selfish goal.

I see.

It's all about selfishness, face it.

I generally agree that one should avoid dashing the hopes of
other selfish observers if possible. But I won't agree that
the selfish motivations of birders is somehow more noble than
teh selfish motivations of bird photographers who, at the
professional level, are simply photographing in order to
satisfy the selfish need of birders to buy bird photographs.

>Basic civility as well as observed etiquette. No-brainer.

Depends on who's watching. There are some people in this
world that I'll piss off whenever I'm given the chance.

>>You're asking photographers to stay away for the benefit
>>of BIRDERS. And, I ask, why should they care?

>>(I'm one of each, so I'm a somewhat special case, but not
>>all bird photographers are dedicated birders, so why should
>>birders have "special rights' to birds, superior to the
>>rights of bird photographers? Where is it writ? Where is
>>this 11th commandment cast in stone?)

>In the same place as bricks made with straw.

>(I say, that *is* a rather useful allusion, isn't it?) '-)

Not at all. Your prejudicial belief that birders have a
special claim to birds is very transparent in your two
posts, and yet you refuse to give a reasoned answer to
the obvious question. "why?"


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net