- Nov 24 9:39 am
#28178
This is a surprisingly poor article, and not just on account of the ludicrous notion that it's ok to rob birds of their eyesight temporarily, because they rely mainly on hearing. Knd of tough to hear branches, hydro wires, cell phone towers, and barbed wire fences while you are hurdling through the dark at 25 miles an hour relying on your hearing to locate prey, isn't it? Several studies in England have shown that temporary blinding by headlights along highways is one of the chief causes of owls striking wires and fencelines.
Note that the article does not even touch on the problem of the cumulative effects of disturbance. Again, we go back to previous discussions, where the difference between one person taking a couple of shots in one solitary instance, vs. one person taking hundreds of shots, vs. several people taking photos, vs, many people taking many photos, and so on.
The part of the article that bothers me the most, is the paragraph where it talks about the educational value of a photo justifying disturbance. This holds no merit whatsoever, and this "ends justifying the means" argument has been used countless times in courts of law where it has been roundly rejected in matters such as these.
And speaking of law, it amuses me that this is the one area which is so often overlooked in these discussions. Ethics are one thing, but there are also laws involved in some of these matters. A few years ago it took Conservation Officers to stem the tide of stupidity going on in Boundary Bay. Not a lot of wiggle room or arguments about your rights to get photos or tick a species for your life list when law enforcement catches you intentionally disturbing wildlife in a designated Wildlife Management Area.
thanks,
Guy L. Monty
Nanoose Bay, Vancouver Island, BC
Note that the article does not even touch on the problem of the cumulative effects of disturbance. Again, we go back to previous discussions, where the difference between one person taking a couple of shots in one solitary instance, vs. one person taking hundreds of shots, vs. several people taking photos, vs, many people taking many photos, and so on.
The part of the article that bothers me the most, is the paragraph where it talks about the educational value of a photo justifying disturbance. This holds no merit whatsoever, and this "ends justifying the means" argument has been used countless times in courts of law where it has been roundly rejected in matters such as these.
And speaking of law, it amuses me that this is the one area which is so often overlooked in these discussions. Ethics are one thing, but there are also laws involved in some of these matters. A few years ago it took Conservation Officers to stem the tide of stupidity going on in Boundary Bay. Not a lot of wiggle room or arguments about your rights to get photos or tick a species for your life list when law enforcement catches you intentionally disturbing wildlife in a designated Wildlife Management Area.
thanks,
Guy L. Monty
Nanoose Bay, Vancouver Island, BC