Timothy, First of all, I’m sure everyone applauds your commitment to preserving habitat. Second, while the agency’s rationale may seem inexplicable, I’d strongly urge you NOT to go back and (as you say) “find a nest in the right place.” Why? Because to get visual confirmation of any nests of sensitive and secretive species like bittern and rails, one almost always has to: 1) get very close (too close) to the nest itself just to find/see it; and 2) thereby crash through the marsh (it may not sound like crashing to us, but to birds sheltering young or eggs it does, and you may well force them to abandon their nests); moreover, even careful movement through a nesting area will open the reeds -- avenues for potential predators (e.g., raccoons, snakes, etc.) Perhaps the thing you should do is the following. Document breeding in the area by reliable, but non-intrusive means. For example, watch for and photo-document parents carrying food back to the nesting areas, and/or young birds as they begin to forage and emerge from the reeds in the area. This can be done from an appropriate distance, with binoculars or a scope, and is a reliable way to confirm breeding. Nests themselves need not, and should not, be sought out. So yes, “habitat preservation” is important. But the first priority is protecting the few birds already there. Running the risk of disturbing them again, even when one is nobly trying to preserve the habitat, is likely to be not only counterproductive -- but harmful. Again, there is no need to take the actions you describe (“the very unfortunate but necessary disturbance of more nesting bitterns”). In fact, if you take those actions, you are making yourself again liable to charges of wildlife harassment, which is prohibited by federal and state law. Finally, by entering your findings into eBird (which can be done in a number of ways without revealing any sensitive species data) you’re contributing to an important citizen science database and thus, a long-term conservation effort. Best wishes, John Workman
In a message dated 7/5/2010 5:04:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Dear Mr. Workman and others, Thanks so much for the correction about eBird. Apparently I missed how to abbreviate the mapping stage of the questionnaire, and as I said I was not about to plot a threatened bird's nest in such detail. I certainly wouldn't like to spread misinformation about eBird, and I am eager to submit my data there. Regarding disturbing or not disturbing nesting birds, it is unfortunate that the bitterns are still in need of documentation for that specific site. Or, are they? As the ABA's first principle of birding ethics states, "1(a) Support the protection of important bird habitat." In this case, the unfortunate minute-and-a-half disturbance of a nest of bitterns has changed the score of an entire Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (a SCFWH currently under review). Merely hypothesizing that the bird "probably" breeds in the Greenport North Bay is not enough to change its score. I wouldn't have thought a return visit to North Bay was required at all until I spoke with someone at the Columbia Land Conservancy. (The Conservancy manages the area for the property owner, the Open Space Institute.) I informed the Conservancy's Land Protection Management division that confirmation of nesting bitterns makes the North Bay eligible for inclusion in the DEC's Bird Conservation Area program. Indeed it is the clincher for BCA status, especially important since the City of Hudson intends new recreational uses for the very area of the bay in which I photographed that bittern nest. I was told by the Conservancy that even though the bittern nest I photographed was on North Bay, unfortunately it was just outside the preserve's boundary. I was dumbfounded. BCA status would apply to the entire marsh, including the property which the Conservancy manages, just as any of the several bittern nests waiting to be documented on Open Space property would qualify the whole of North Bay for BCA status. My news was curtly received and deemed insufficient for the Columbia Land Conservancy to become involved. For reasons that make no sense, I'll now have to find a nest in the right place. Working unaffiliated and on my own, my influence is severely limited. My emails to the Coastal Resources division of the Department of State about the bitterns have gone unanswered, and I have grave doubts whether I can get anyone else's attention at the DOS or the DEC. For major organization like the Conservancy or the Institute, perhaps it is as easy as picking up the phone. I am confident that with additional photo-documentation - and the very unfortunate but necessary disturbance of more nesting bitterns - the breeding colony of bitterns on this property will quickly secure the entire North Bay as a Bird Conservation Area. Our first ethical duty is to "support the protection of important bird habitat," but sometimes even land conservancies display inexplicable attitudes. Columbia Land Conservancy Executive Director - Peter Paden: (518) 392-5252, ext. 213 Open Space Institute's Albany Office - Joe Martens, Katie Stone: (518) 427-1564 I thank everyone for staying on top of this. Timothy O'Connor Hudson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
