Hi Tweets,

I see Don Baccus has gone public with my private response to his private
reply to my publicly-posted request for photographers not behave like
assholes and spook the stilt for that frame-filling action shot. So things
are in context, here's is my previosusly private post from which he
excerpted. If he wants, Don can provide you with the text of his private letter.

M


Set up a straw man, knock him down. Set up a straw man, knock him down. Must
get tiring. '-)

Observe: I requested photographers to not harass with photographic intent,
to not disturb with photographic intent, to not displace with photographic
intent. I would say the same thing, suitably altered, if there had been a
birder doing the same thing in seeking that diagnostic roof-of-mouth-color
mark without showing due courtesy. This much is a simple reminder about
basic good manners. Note also the liberal use of the smarm-word 'please'.

>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.

>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. The bird's needs do not then come first,
only the ego-needs of the birder/photographer. Also, such a person sets a
bad example and may prejudice the otherwise non-involved against
photographers in general.

>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? Even
to honor more in the breach than the observance? I stopped putting owl
locations on the Vancouver Bird Alert to protect these birds against the
sometimes absolutely disgraceful behavior of some photographers. 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.
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. 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.

>But, of course, having seen bazillions of these birds I wouldn't
>bother going to observe it anyway.

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.

>Harumph.

Heehee. I always think of Major Hoople (kaff-kaff) when I see that word.

>"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. Don't scare the bird away to satisfy a selfish personal goal.
Basic civility as well as observed etiquette. No-brainer.

>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?) '-)

Best,

M