Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
and your posts are so birdy... maybe you should be somethinged ? > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:10:07 -0500 > From: wjk...@mac.com > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > > That's one person in one day. > > Bill Kahn > Minneapolis > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Bill Kahn wrote: > > > Over a dozen posts from one person without any report of a direct > > observation of a bird, unusual or not, has to be some sort of record > > for this list serv. Mr. Harrold is to be congratulated, or > > somethinged. > > > > Bill Kahn > > Minneapolis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rick Hoyme wrote: > > > >> That's what the delete button is for. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of > >> jbaum...@usfamily.net > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM > >> To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a > >> hunting issue > >> (SHCR) > >> > >> Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? > >> > >> -- > >> From: "Eric Harrold" > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM > >> To: > >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a > >> hunting issue > >> (SHCR) > >> > >>> Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would > >>> also > >>> agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and > >>> inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this > >>> decision > >> > >>> will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future > >>> decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, > >>> I don't > >> > >>> think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or > >>> unjustified > >> > >>> decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. > >>> > >>> Eric Harrold > >>> Urbana, IL > >>> > >>> > >>> --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> From: linda whyte > >>> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a > >>> hunting > >>> issue (SHCR) > >>> To: "Eric Harrold" > >>> Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu > >>> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM > >>> > >>> > >>> They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited > >>> quantity to > >>> make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. > >>> Most > >>> folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic > >>> online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of > >>> decisions. > >>> It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on > >>> appropriate > >>> study, and the decision process > >>> had some transparency. > >>> Linda > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to > >>> say on > >>> this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such > >>> information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. > >>> > >>> Eric Harrold > >>> Urbana, IL > >>> > >>> --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> From: linda whyte > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a > >>> hunting > >>> issue (SHCR) > >>> To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > >>> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Eric, > >>> Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps > >>> when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as > >>> needs be, when a
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
That's one person in one day. Bill Kahn Minneapolis On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Bill Kahn wrote: Over a dozen posts from one person without any report of a direct observation of a bird, unusual or not, has to be some sort of record for this list serv. Mr. Harrold is to be congratulated, or somethinged. Bill Kahn Minneapolis On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rick Hoyme wrote: That's what the delete button is for. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? -- From: "Eric Harrold" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: "Eric Harrold" Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold wrote: Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: Terence, Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during winter. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: From: Terence Brashear Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM Eric You state: "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Cran
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Over a dozen posts from one person without any report of a direct observation of a bird, unusual or not, has to be some sort of record for this list serv. Mr. Harrold is to be congratulated, or somethinged. Bill Kahn Minneapolis On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rick Hoyme wrote: That's what the delete button is for. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? -- From: "Eric Harrold" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: "Eric Harrold" Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold wrote: Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: Terence, Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during winter. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: From: Terence Brashear Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM Eric You state: "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010. Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological basis for them
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
That's what the delete button is for. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of jbaum...@usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:42 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? -- From: "Eric Harrold" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) > Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also > agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and > inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision > will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future > decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't > think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified > decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: > > > From: linda whyte > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting > issue (SHCR) > To: "Eric Harrold" > Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM > > > They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to > make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most > folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic > online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. > It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate > study, and the decision process > had some transparency. > Linda > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold > wrote: > > > > > > > Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on > this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such > information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: > > > From: linda whyte > > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting > issue (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM > > > > > > Eric, > Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps > when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as > needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. > > As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither > more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users > of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless > and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on > care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on > foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in > clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in > breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in > citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine > concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no > negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was > setting a poor precedent. > Linda Whyte > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold > wrote: >> Terence, >> >> Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during >> the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency >> personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird >> species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as >> monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover >> and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge >> the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess >> many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during >> winter. >> >> Eric Harrold >> Urbana, IL >> --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: >> >> >> From: Terence Brashear >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting >> issue (SHCR) >> To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" >> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> You state: >> >> "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold wrote: > Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this > is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And > those dollars are getting harder to come by. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > --- On *Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte * wrote: > > > From: linda whyte > > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM > > > Eric, > Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps > when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as > needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. > > As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither > more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users > of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless > and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on > care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on > foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in > clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in > breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in > citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine > concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no > negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was > setting a poor precedent. > Linda Whyte > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold > http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com>> > wrote: > > Terence, > > > > Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during > the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency > personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird > species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring > rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering > habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as > a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering > waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during winter. > > > > Eric Harrold > > Urbana, IL > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear > > http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=birdn...@yahoo.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > From: Terence Brashear > > http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=birdn...@yahoo.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting > issue (SHCR) > > To: > > MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU<http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mou-...@lists.umn.edu>, > "Eric Harrold" > http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gentili...@yahoo.com> > > > > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > You state: > > > > "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " > > > > Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there > are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill > Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010. > > > > Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no > biological basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. > > > > Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background > she has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: > > > > "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically > opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of > the science or the management implications for the several crane > sub-species." > > > > Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. > > > > Terry Brashear > > Hennepin County, MN > > http://www.naturepixels.com > > birdnird AT yahoo.com > > > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, E
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Why can't you few people talk to each other OFF-LINE?? -- From: "Eric Harrold" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: "Eric Harrold" Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold wrote: Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: Terence, Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during winter. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: From: Terence Brashear Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM Eric You state: "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010. Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. Terry Brashear Hennepin County, MN http://www.naturepixels.com birdnird AT yahoo.com --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harr
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: "Eric Harrold" Cc: MOU-NET@lists.umn.edu Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold wrote: Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: > Terence, > > Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the > stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel > routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do > not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than > research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no > bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this > time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on > NWRs in the southern US during winter. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: > > > From: Terence Brashear > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM > > > > > > > Eric > > You state: > > "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " > > Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are > no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I > did a search from 1989-2010. > > Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological > basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. > > Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she > has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: > > "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically > opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of > the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." > > Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. > > Terry Brashear > Hennepin County, MN > http://www.naturepixels.com > birdnird AT yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold wrote: > > &g
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte wrote: From: linda whyte Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: > Terence, > > Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the > stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel > routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do > not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than > research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no > bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this > time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on > NWRs in the southern US during winter. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: > > > From: Terence Brashear > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM > > > > > > > Eric > > You state: > > "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " > > Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are > no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I > did a search from 1989-2010. > > Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological > basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. > > Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she > has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: > > "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically > opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of > the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." > > Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. > > Terry Brashear > Hennepin County, MN > http://www.naturepixels.com > birdnird AT yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold wrote: > > > From: Eric Harrold > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM > > > Kurt, > > Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any > particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or > anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data > were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no > adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just > pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would > largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although > they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest > other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, > can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. > Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than > any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they > disturb nesting bird
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold wrote: > Terence, > > Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the > stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel > routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do > not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than > research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no > bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this > time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on > NWRs in the southern US during winter. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: > > > From: Terence Brashear > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM > > > > > > > Eric > > You state: > > "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " > > Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are > no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I > did a search from 1989-2010. > > Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological > basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. > > Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she > has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: > > "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically > opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of > the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." > > Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. > > Terry Brashear > Hennepin County, MN > http://www.naturepixels.com > birdnird AT yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold wrote: > > > From: Eric Harrold > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM > > > Kurt, > > Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any > particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or > anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data > were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no > adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just > pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would > largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although > they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest > other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, > can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. > Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than > any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they > disturb nesting birds, trample habitat, and have a huge carbon > footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of miles. > > In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss wrote: > > > From: Stefanie Moss > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Terence, Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on NWRs in the southern US during winter. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear wrote: From: Terence Brashear Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU, "Eric Harrold" Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM Eric You state: "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010. Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. Terry Brashear Hennepin County, MN http://www.naturepixels.com birdnird AT yahoo.com --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold wrote: From: Eric Harrold Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM Kurt, Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they disturb nesting birds, trample habitat, and have a huge carbon footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of miles. In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss wrote: From: Stefanie Moss Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:08 PM I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process to express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt. As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as much. In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would like an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object. Their opinions are no less valid than yours. Kurt On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" wrote: > I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this > forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the > DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits > that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a > convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any > hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections > on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and > their distribution in the state where
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Eric You state: "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I did a search from 1989-2010. Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. Terry Brashear Hennepin County, MN http://www.naturepixels.com birdnird AT yahoo.com --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold wrote: From: Eric Harrold Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM Kurt, Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they disturb nesting birds, trample habitat, and have a huge carbon footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of miles. In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss wrote: From: Stefanie Moss Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:08 PM I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process to express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt. As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as much. In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would like an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object. Their opinions are no less valid than yours. Kurt On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" wrote: > I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this > forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the > DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits > that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a > convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any > hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections > on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and > their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all > anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question > in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any > biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? > > Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl > season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have > significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are > biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the > best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: > > > From: Liz Stanley > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR)
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Kurt, Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they disturb nesting birds, trample habitat, and have a huge carbon footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of miles. In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less validity than those that do...in my book anyway. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss wrote: From: Stefanie Moss Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:08 PM I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process to express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt. As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as much. In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would like an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object. Their opinions are no less valid than yours. Kurt On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" wrote: > I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this > forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the > DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits > that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a > convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any > hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections > on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and > their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all > anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question > in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any > biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? > > Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl > season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have > significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are > biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the > best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: > > > From: Liz Stanley > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM > > > I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I > thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision > made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the > end result of it are two different things. > >> Folks, >> >> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
I am not, nor ever have been anti-hunting (and yes, I buy duck stamps, support the Nature Conservancy, etc.). I was dismayed that the decision seemed not open to a discussion, or at least a well-publicized presentation, of rationale for the decision (other than "other states do it".) Like Richard, I wondered how hunters would know the difference between the members of the two populations; honestly, I didn't even realize there was such a clear distinction to be made. It will be interesting to see what the current MN Breeding Bird Atlas project will tell us about how the Sandhill Cranes are distributed for nesting. It's that kind of wide, long-term, data-gathering would seem important as a basis for the kind of decision in question. Perhaps that sort of information is available, but folks making the policies just haven't communicated it well Linda Whyte On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Bernard P. Friel wrote: > The process is for among other matters to share information and to ally any > concerns, reasonable or unreasonable that someone might have regarding > impacts on populations. Furthermore if our science is as unassailable as has > been suggested, we wouldn't be cleaning up the Gulf. > -- > Bernard P. Friel > Member: > North American Nature Photography Association > American Society of Picture Professionals > International Society of Aviation Photography > The Explorers Club > Web Pages - http://www.wampy.com ; > http://www.wampy.com/bn Owl Gallery > http://www.wampy.com/bn2 Songbirds > http://www.wampy.com/GalapagosGallery > http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=1113 > On Line Gallery: http://www.fiveships.com > > > > >> From: Eric Harrold >> Reply-To: Eric Harrold >> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:49:25 -0700 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue >> (SHCR) >> >> I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on >> this >> forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the >> DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits >> that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a >> convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent >> any >> hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections >> on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and >> their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all >> anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question >> in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any >> biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? >> >> Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl >> season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have >> significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are >> biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the >> best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. >> >> Eric Harrold >> Urbana, IL >> >> >> --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: >> >> >> From: Liz Stanley >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue >> (SHCR) >> To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU >> Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM >> >> >> I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I >> thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision >> made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the >> end result of it are two different things. >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >>> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >>> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in >> >> >> -- >> Liz Stanley >> Bloomington, MN >> l...@lizstanley.com >> Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ >> Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites >> Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley >> >> >> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net >> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html >> >> >> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net >> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > > > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process to express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt. As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as much. In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would like an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object. Their opinions are no less valid than yours. Kurt On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" wrote: > I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this > forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the > DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits > that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a > convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any > hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections > on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and > their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all > anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question > in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any > biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? > > Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl > season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have > significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are > biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the > best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: > > > From: Liz Stanley > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM > > > I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I > thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision > made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the > end result of it are two different things. > >> Folks, >> >> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
The process is for among other matters to share information and to ally any concerns, reasonable or unreasonable that someone might have regarding impacts on populations. Furthermore if our science is as unassailable as has been suggested, we wouldn't be cleaning up the Gulf. -- Bernard P. Friel Member: North American Nature Photography Association American Society of Picture Professionals International Society of Aviation Photography The Explorers Club Web Pages - http://www.wampy.com ; http://www.wampy.com/bn Owl Gallery http://www.wampy.com/bn2 Songbirds http://www.wampy.com/GalapagosGallery http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=1113 On Line Gallery: http://www.fiveships.com > From: Eric Harrold > Reply-To: Eric Harrold > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:49:25 -0700 > To: > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > > I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this > forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the > DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits > that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a > convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any > hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections > on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and > their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all > anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question > in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any > biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? > > Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl > season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have > significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are > biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the > best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: > > > From: Liz Stanley > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM > > > I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I > thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision > made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the > end result of it are two different things. > >> Folks, >> >> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in > > > -- > Liz Stanley > Bloomington, MN > l...@lizstanley.com > Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ > Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites > Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley > > > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on this forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent any hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley wrote: From: Liz Stanley Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the end result of it are two different things. > Folks, > > Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by > finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than > whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in -- Liz Stanley Bloomington, MN l...@lizstanley.com Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
I'm with you Liz. I Too thought the discussion was about process. -- Bernard P. Friel Member: North American Nature Photography Association American Society of Picture Professionals International Society of Aviation Photography The Explorers Club Web Pages - http://www.wampy.com ; http://www.wampy.com/bn Owl Gallery http://www.wampy.com/bn2 Songbirds http://www.wampy.com/GalapagosGallery http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=1113 On Line Gallery: http://www.fiveships.com > From: Liz Stanley > Reply-To: > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:18:43 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > > I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I > thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision > made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the > end result of it are two different things. > >> Folks, >> >> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in > > > -- > Liz Stanley > Bloomington, MN > l...@lizstanley.com > Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ > Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites > Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley > > > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the end result of it are two different things. > Folks, > > Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by > finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than > whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in -- Liz Stanley Bloomington, MN l...@lizstanley.com Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Eric: Or people could buy Federal Duck Stamps http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Info/Stamps/stampinfo.htm#benefit , according to which " Since 1934, the sales of Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $750 million, which has been used to help purchase or lease over 5.3 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the U.S. These lands are now protected in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services National Wildlife Refuge System. Waterfowl are not the only wildlife to benefit from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps. Numerous other bird, mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian species that rely on wetland habitats have prospered. Further, an estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges established using Federal Duck Stamp funds. People, too, have benefited from the Federal Duck Stamp Program. Hunters have places to enjoy their hunting heritage and other outdoor enthusiasts have places to hike, watch birds, and visit. Moreover, the protected wetlands help purify water supplies, store flood water, reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, and provide spawning areas for fish important to sport and commercial fishermen. ", "Ninety-eight) cents out of every dollar generated by the sales of Federal Duck Stamps goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Understandably, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated and is a highly effective way to conserve Americas natural resources" and more. Down here in Texas the wild flock of Whooping Cranes winter at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, south of McAllen TX, has hosted innumerable birds that have caused people to buy airline tickets in order to see them. The reason hunters and fishers get what they want is because they fork out money for licenses and pay taxes on many of the items they use to try to harvest their particular type of wild game. As illustrated above, every once in a while their money benefits us. Onward! Steve Stevan Hawkins San Antonio TX -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Harrold Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:14 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) Folks, Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in Minnesota during a crane season. This is the kind of thing that makes folks like myself (and believe me we are many) who have a wildlife biology/management background sneer at birders. Its wasted useless energy! Pick a habitat issue, any habitat issue, and immerse yourself. Heck even join hands with the blood-thirsty hunters and contribute to funds that set aside acres for wetland conservation or prairie preservation. God knows southwest Minnesota could stand some of that as I briefly lived there. Pheasants Foreever has done marvelous work down there to the extent that they can. Join such an effort, and truly help birds for a change. Don't bite the hand that has so productively fed you! Hunting dollars have done more good per acre (and that's what counts) than any other source of conservation revenue. Many non-game species have places to call home thanks to these funds. There is no logical reason for the antagonism that many birders have toward hunting. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR)
Folks, Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in Minnesota during a crane season. This is the kind of thing that makes folks like myself (and believe me we are many) who have a wildlife biology/management background sneer at birders. Its wasted useless energy! Pick a habitat issue, any habitat issue, and immerse yourself. Heck even join hands with the blood-thirsty hunters and contribute to funds that set aside acres for wetland conservation or prairie preservation. God knows southwest Minnesota could stand some of that as I briefly lived there. Pheasants Foreever has done marvelous work down there to the extent that they can. Join such an effort, and truly help birds for a change. Don't bite the hand that has so productively fed you! Hunting dollars have done more good per acre (and that's what counts) than any other source of conservation revenue. Many non-game species have places to call home thanks to these funds. There is no logical reason for the antagonism that many birders have toward hunting. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
