Maine birds And MOAC mountainbiking

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

[Maine-birds] Moderator request regarding Great Gray Owl posts

Hi Maine-birds:

This conversation about the ethics of viewing the Great Gray Owl in Searsmont is going beyond the scope of this listserv. Please keep in mind that we have over 1200 members signed up for this group who are interested in learning about birds that are being seen around the state. Please limit posts about this bird to updates on its status and location.

I do want to congratulate Fyn Kynd again for finding this bird. It was a pleasure to see it with him last week and share the excitement of having such a rare and majestic bird on one of his patches. He shared this inspiring note on his Facebook page recently:

Ever since I started seriously birding it has been my dream to find a rare bird myself and have it stick around long enough for others to see it.
That dream became reality when I stumbled upon a Great Gray Owl while cross-country skiing on Wednesday evening. I rounded the bend and looked upon my favorite bird, perched precariously on a small Alder a few yards away.
The next morning I went down with a friend to try and relocate it, we were unsuccessful for a couple hours until we checked a nearby Christmas tree field only a mile away as the Owl flies.
When we drove up the bird was perched on a tiny Christmas tree, half the size of the large bird, maybe 15 feet off the road.
The crazy thing is that it was very foggy that morning with visibility only being around 100ft, if that bird had been perched a few trees back we never would have seen it.
I stayed with the bird for the next 10 hours, accompanied by over 30 birders and photographers throughout the day. Great company!
I am in awe of this bird, the size, the penetrating eyes, the smooth head movements, the completely silent, moth like flight on it's huge 4ft long wings (the largest wingspan of all North American Owls).
Thanks so much to everyone who has come and seen this bird over the past couple days. Thank you for being respectful and giving this amazing Owl the distance it needs to hunt.

Congrats Fyn!

Thanks all,

Doug Hitchcox

Maine-birds Moderator

[Maine-birds] Woodcock - York

I just heard my first AMWO of the season at about 8:50 pm this evening outside the York Public Library.

Jeff

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maine-birds] Great Gray in Searsport

Got a chance to have a look at my bucket list bird today, thanks to all you folks here on this site! Everyone was happy to see this rare bird and gave it the respect it deserved...On Cloud 9 tonight!

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Wow. Harsh.

Apparently this owl didn't get the word on being upset by birders.

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Go and take a nap- we all get the point-

Skip Small

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2017, at 17:51, Seth Davis <kd7gxf@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard-

Though I'm inclined to do a point-by-point response but truthfully I'm getting tired of repeating myself (and I'm sure everyone else is sick of me too) thus I want to limit my response to your last point with regard to hunting. I just want to remind you that GGOW's are primarily nocturnal hunters, therefore a majority of their kills are going to be made when the gaggle of birders are not present. The fact that people have witnessed it feeding diurnally A.) is awesome, B.) indicates that the bird is not in a lack of food sources. So yes. Those couple of voles actually mean a lot. If it continues to hunt despite onlookers that suggests behaviorally that the bird is not in distress.

Seth

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:15:30 PM UTC-5, Richard Harris Podolsky wrote:
I know some find this back and forth tiresome - or maybe even devisive. But we are all adults here and while opinions clearly vary - lets keep sharing and learning from each other! That is what a good and healthy forum like this is all about.

My beef was with the practice of leaving the road and entering into the field to watch and photograph the bird. And the ABA Code of Birding Ethics, posted by Kristen recommends, not doing that - specifically, "1(d) Stay on roads, trails, and paths where they exist; otherwise, keep habitat disturbance to a minimum." Good roads exist at both locales - lets use them even if the land owners permits you to enter the fields - just say not thank you.

I did some checking and in the Birds of North America it states that research has shown that wild, adult GGOW's consume up to 7 Microtus -sized prey items per day during the winter months. So, even if you see the owl catch a couple of voles during a few hours spent watching from within the fields - the owl may have caught more mice if everyone stayed on the road as ABA Code recommends. Clearly, we cannot be sure of that - but let us err on the side of caution. We want this bird to go home and breed successfully.

I personally respect everyones opinions and I welcome any chance to be enlightened from the research and field experience they have.

Richard

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

So I want to say that the Owl tonight was showing off to all the people there, it was a great display. Everyone there was very respectful and kept their distance and stayed together as a group. The owl was in a tree in the distance and no one rushed the tree, with that patience the group was allowed to see the owl hunt several times. We even got to see that the owl was able to feed, the owl then flew to the far left of the field where it continued to hunt and was successful. At this point people packed up and started to leave, once at the top of the hill where the cemetary ends the owl flew in and landed on a rock as if almost posing, it was a treat because it came to us, after sitting there for 10 minutes or so it flew within 30 feet of the group and posed again for about 10 minutes then flew off. I am not writing to get into the middle of the bird harassment issues just giving an update on tonights events it was spectacular.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:

I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

[Maine-birds] Hoodies and Mallards in Brewer

A pair of Hooded Mergansers and a pair of Mallards in Felts Brook off Wiswell Rd

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Perfect example! Here is the guy who wrote the article's gallery page. It's fantastic stuff. He is a real artist and a guide.

http://www.danieldietrichphotography.com/pointreyessafaris

All most folks want to be is as close as this guy got.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:58:19 PM UTC-5, wrenyen wrote:

Thanks for those links. All interesting and they led me to others. Including this one on the very subject of this thread: http://www.audubon.org/news/why-closer-not-always-better-when-photographing-birds. It's a neat article with three superb and stunning images.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:52:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Creamer wrote:

How close was the photographer in these shots

Link #1 won a prize from the Audubon

http://www.audubon.org/news/11-fun-facts-about-owls

Link #2 has a head shot maybe 40 feet away of a great gray owl while talking about global warming

http://climate.audubon.org/birds/grgowl/great-gray-owl

Todays cover of the Audubon is 10 feet away from waterfowl?

http://www.audubon.org/

Yesterdays lead article of the Audubon the photographer is so close you can see the reflection of the photographer in the birds eye, where the bird itself is clearly on a nest. I few ethical no no-s in one shot

http://www.audubon.org/news/proposed-wyoming-bill-allowing-sage-grouse-captive-rearing-deeply-flawed

Look to the right on this very page, you'll see an ad for American Birding Association Birders Guide to Gear with a photographer 8 to 10 feet away from a bird.

So here are examples of both the Audubon and the ABA not following their own ethical guidelines for content on their own websites. The Audubon sponsors a photography contest every year, charges per picture to enter. I bet most photos in that contest don't follow all of the guidelines. Were the animals in the above photos stresses to starvation, being prevented from thriving in any way, did any die? I don't know it wasn't mentioned in the articles, but I'd bet they were not.

The point? A 600 MM lens is no where near the magnification of a 60X top of the line scope. For some to get a decent shot of the animal (and it's truly no ones business to that person motives) they need to be 100 feet away from a bird 3 feet tall, closer if its smaller. $6K for a camera and $12K for a lens can get you some nice shots but not at 300 to 500 feet from the car, through a hill. So if both the ABA and the Audubon can use content from the vilified "long lens photographers" for fund raising purposes perhaps you should aim some of the anger at those institutions. A better suggestion is to look at the world in shades of gray and not in terms of black and white. These sites are a powerful force for conservation, at a time when it is the governing party seems not to care about the environment. Think big picture. If there are 20 folks staring at an owl, chances are they are there for the right reasons. Consider not having a reflexive reaction to every guy/gal in a field with a camera. Discussions like the ones we are currently having, based on calm facts, research and articles from reputable sources can sway opinion. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Just food for thought for the group.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-5, trit...@yahoo.com wrote:
Amen

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:10, Kristen Lindquist <kelin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we PLEASE stop going back and forth on this, stop the criticisms on both sides, stop pretending we know what disturbs a bird or not, and just USE COMMON SENSE? In other words, follow the ABA Code of Birding Ethics--(here's a link; everyone should read it: http://listing.aba.org/ethics/), it was instituted for this purpose, we don't need to reinvent the wheel--and be nice to one another. Please.

Kristen

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Seth Davis <kd7...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes making the comparison between an Owl and a Warbler is not by any means equal. But my argument is that the owl has been seen hunting and eating rodents despite the presence of people in the field thus one can't really claim that people are preventing it from hunting (which a majority of is done at night when people are very unlikely to still be there anyway). To be fair, I've only seen one person say that people were encroaching on the 20-30 foot distance, while most others claim to be 100-300 feet if not further away.

And the second part of my argument is that people are way too quick to jump and say that taking photos is harassment or that being X distance from a bird automatically = harassment. With the last GGOW in Milford, if you parked on one side of a two lane road, you were good, you parked on the other you were harassing the owl. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between true harassment and what at most could be considered a disturbance.

Lastly, I am an amateur photographer and I took several hundred photos of the GGOW in Milford. I did it for me not anybody else. I want to look back and see the birds that I've had the pleasure to witness and share those experiences with my friends and family. I personally don't think I should feel shamed or looked down on because I took a picture of an owl. I didn't violate any part of birding ethics, and nobody I witnessed there did either, and from a vast majority of the posts I see with the Searsmont GGOW, people are continuing to do more of the same, with maybe one or two reported instances of people crossing the line, which has yet to be well defined anyway.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kristen Lindquist

website: www.kristenlindquist.com
haiku blog: klindquist.blogspot.com

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
--Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Richard-

Though I'm inclined to do a point-by-point response but truthfully I'm getting tired of repeating myself (and I'm sure everyone else is sick of me too) thus I want to limit my response to your last point with regard to hunting. I just want to remind you that GGOW's are primarily nocturnal hunters, therefore a majority of their kills are going to be made when the gaggle of birders are not present. The fact that people have witnessed it feeding diurnally A.) is awesome, B.) indicates that the bird is not in a lack of food sources. So yes. Those couple of voles actually mean a lot. If it continues to hunt despite onlookers that suggests behaviorally that the bird is not in distress.

Seth

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:15:30 PM UTC-5, Richard Harris Podolsky wrote:

I know some find this back and forth tiresome - or maybe even devisive. But we are all adults here and while opinions clearly vary - lets keep sharing and learning from each other! That is what a good and healthy forum like this is all about.

My beef was with the practice of leaving the road and entering into the field to watch and photograph the bird. And the ABA Code of Birding Ethics, posted by Kristen recommends, not doing that - specifically, "1(d) Stay on roads, trails, and paths where they exist; otherwise, keep habitat disturbance to a minimum." Good roads exist at both locales - lets use them even if the land owners permits you to enter the fields - just say not thank you.

I did some checking and in the Birds of North America it states that research has shown that wild, adult GGOW's consume up to 7 Microtus -sized prey items per day during the winter months. So, even if you see the owl catch a couple of voles during a few hours spent watching from within the fields - the owl may have caught more mice if everyone stayed on the road as ABA Code recommends. Clearly, we cannot be sure of that - but let us err on the side of caution. We want this bird to go home and breed successfully.

I personally respect everyones opinions and I welcome any chance to be enlightened from the research and field experience they have.

Richard

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

Re: [Maine-birds] Red Winged Blackbirds

I had flocks in Belgrade and Sidney today too.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Kathy <azwickfish@gmail.com> wrote:

So glad to see red winged blackbirds returned to the swamp and pond across the road from my house.

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

I know some find this back and forth tiresome - or maybe even devisive. But we are all adults here and while opinions clearly vary - lets keep sharing and learning from each other! That is what a good and healthy forum like this is all about.

My beef was with the practice of leaving the road and entering into the field to watch and photograph the bird. And the ABA Code of Birding Ethics, posted by Kristen recommends, not doing that - specifically, "1(d) Stay on roads, trails, and paths where they exist; otherwise, keep habitat disturbance to a minimum." Good roads exist at both locales - lets use them even if the land owners permits you to enter the fields - just say not thank you.

I did some checking and in the Birds of North America it states that research has shown that wild, adult GGOW's consume up to 7 Microtus -sized prey items per day during the winter months. So, even if you see the owl catch a couple of voles during a few hours spent watching from within the fields - the owl may have caught more mice if everyone stayed on the road as ABA Code recommends. Clearly, we cannot be sure of that - but let us err on the side of caution. We want this bird to go home and breed successfully.

I personally respect everyones opinions and I welcome any chance to be enlightened from the research and field experience they have.

Richard

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:

I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Thanks for those links. All interesting and they led me to others. Including this one on the very subject of this thread: http://www.audubon.org/news/why-closer-not-always-better-when-photographing-birds. It's a neat article with three superb and stunning images.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:52:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Creamer wrote:

How close was the photographer in these shots

Link #1 won a prize from the Audubon

http://www.audubon.org/news/11-fun-facts-about-owls

Link #2 has a head shot maybe 40 feet away of a great gray owl while talking about global warming

http://climate.audubon.org/birds/grgowl/great-gray-owl

Todays cover of the Audubon is 10 feet away from waterfowl?

http://www.audubon.org/

Yesterdays lead article of the Audubon the photographer is so close you can see the reflection of the photographer in the birds eye, where the bird itself is clearly on a nest. I few ethical no no-s in one shot

http://www.audubon.org/news/proposed-wyoming-bill-allowing-sage-grouse-captive-rearing-deeply-flawed

Look to the right on this very page, you'll see an ad for American Birding Association Birders Guide to Gear with a photographer 8 to 10 feet away from a bird.

So here are examples of both the Audubon and the ABA not following their own ethical guidelines for content on their own websites. The Audubon sponsors a photography contest every year, charges per picture to enter. I bet most photos in that contest don't follow all of the guidelines. Were the animals in the above photos stresses to starvation, being prevented from thriving in any way, did any die? I don't know it wasn't mentioned in the articles, but I'd bet they were not.

The point? A 600 MM lens is no where near the magnification of a 60X top of the line scope. For some to get a decent shot of the animal (and it's truly no ones business to that person motives) they need to be 100 feet away from a bird 3 feet tall, closer if its smaller. $6K for a camera and $12K for a lens can get you some nice shots but not at 300 to 500 feet from the car, through a hill. So if both the ABA and the Audubon can use content from the vilified "long lens photographers" for fund raising purposes perhaps you should aim some of the anger at those institutions. A better suggestion is to look at the world in shades of gray and not in terms of black and white. These sites are a powerful force for conservation, at a time when it is the governing party seems not to care about the environment. Think big picture. If there are 20 folks staring at an owl, chances are they are there for the right reasons. Consider not having a reflexive reaction to every guy/gal in a field with a camera. Discussions like the ones we are currently having, based on calm facts, research and articles from reputable sources can sway opinion. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Just food for thought for the group.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-5, trit...@yahoo.com wrote:
Amen

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:10, Kristen Lindquist <kelin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we PLEASE stop going back and forth on this, stop the criticisms on both sides, stop pretending we know what disturbs a bird or not, and just USE COMMON SENSE? In other words, follow the ABA Code of Birding Ethics--(here's a link; everyone should read it: http://listing.aba.org/ethics/), it was instituted for this purpose, we don't need to reinvent the wheel--and be nice to one another. Please.

Kristen

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Seth Davis <kd7...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes making the comparison between an Owl and a Warbler is not by any means equal. But my argument is that the owl has been seen hunting and eating rodents despite the presence of people in the field thus one can't really claim that people are preventing it from hunting (which a majority of is done at night when people are very unlikely to still be there anyway). To be fair, I've only seen one person say that people were encroaching on the 20-30 foot distance, while most others claim to be 100-300 feet if not further away.

And the second part of my argument is that people are way too quick to jump and say that taking photos is harassment or that being X distance from a bird automatically = harassment. With the last GGOW in Milford, if you parked on one side of a two lane road, you were good, you parked on the other you were harassing the owl. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between true harassment and what at most could be considered a disturbance.

Lastly, I am an amateur photographer and I took several hundred photos of the GGOW in Milford. I did it for me not anybody else. I want to look back and see the birds that I've had the pleasure to witness and share those experiences with my friends and family. I personally don't think I should feel shamed or looked down on because I took a picture of an owl. I didn't violate any part of birding ethics, and nobody I witnessed there did either, and from a vast majority of the posts I see with the Searsmont GGOW, people are continuing to do more of the same, with maybe one or two reported instances of people crossing the line, which has yet to be well defined anyway.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kristen Lindquist

website: www.kristenlindquist.com
haiku blog: klindquist.blogspot.com

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
--Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maine-birds] Red Winged Blackbirds

So glad to see red winged blackbirds returned to the swamp and pond across the road from my house.

[Maine-birds] GGOW

Being seen now by 20 people- in cemetery field- all at a respectable distance/
Skip Small
Rockport

Sent from my iPhone

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Very well said on a topic that has passed its sell by date. Thank you.

On 2/28/2017 1:52 PM, Scott Creamer wrote:
> A better suggestion is to look at the world in shades of gray and not
> in terms of black and white. These sites are a powerful force for
> conservation, at a time when it is the governing party seems not to
> care about the environment. Think big picture. If there are 20 folks
> staring at an owl, chances are they are there for the right reasons.
> Consider not having a reflexive reaction to every guy/gal in a field
> with a camera. Discussions like the ones we are currently having,
> based on calm facts, research and articles from reputable sources can
> sway opinion. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with
> vinegar.

--
Stan DeOrsey jsmd@att.net

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

How close was the photographer in these shots

Link #1 won a prize from the Audubon

http://www.audubon.org/news/11-fun-facts-about-owls

Link #2 has a head shot maybe 40 feet away of a great gray owl while talking about global warming

http://climate.audubon.org/birds/grgowl/great-gray-owl

Todays cover of the Audubon is 10 feet away from waterfowl?

http://www.audubon.org/

Yesterdays lead article of the Audubon the photographer is so close you can see the reflection of the photographer in the birds eye, where the bird itself is clearly on a nest. I few ethical no no-s in one shot

http://www.audubon.org/news/proposed-wyoming-bill-allowing-sage-grouse-captive-rearing-deeply-flawed

Look to the right on this very page, you'll see an ad for American Birding Association Birders Guide to Gear with a photographer 8 to 10 feet away from a bird.

So here are examples of both the Audubon and the ABA not following their own ethical guidelines for content on their own websites. The Audubon sponsors a photography contest every year, charges per picture to enter. I bet most photos in that contest don't follow all of the guidelines. Were the animals in the above photos stresses to starvation, being prevented from thriving in any way, did any die? I don't know it wasn't mentioned in the articles, but I'd bet they were not.

The point? A 600 MM lens is no where near the magnification of a 60X top of the line scope. For some to get a decent shot of the animal (and it's truly no ones business to that person motives) they need to be 100 feet away from a bird 3 feet tall, closer if its smaller. $6K for a camera and $12K for a lens can get you some nice shots but not at 300 to 500 feet from the car, through a hill. So if both the ABA and the Audubon can use content from the vilified "long lens photographers" for fund raising purposes perhaps you should aim some of the anger at those institutions. A better suggestion is to look at the world in shades of gray and not in terms of black and white. These sites are a powerful force for conservation, at a time when it is the governing party seems not to care about the environment. Think big picture. If there are 20 folks staring at an owl, chances are they are there for the right reasons. Consider not having a reflexive reaction to every guy/gal in a field with a camera. Discussions like the ones we are currently having, based on calm facts, research and articles from reputable sources can sway opinion. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Just food for thought for the group.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-5, trit...@yahoo.com wrote:

Amen

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:10, Kristen Lindquist <kelin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we PLEASE stop going back and forth on this, stop the criticisms on both sides, stop pretending we know what disturbs a bird or not, and just USE COMMON SENSE? In other words, follow the ABA Code of Birding Ethics--(here's a link; everyone should read it: http://listing.aba.org/ethics/), it was instituted for this purpose, we don't need to reinvent the wheel--and be nice to one another. Please.

Kristen

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Seth Davis <kd7...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes making the comparison between an Owl and a Warbler is not by any means equal. But my argument is that the owl has been seen hunting and eating rodents despite the presence of people in the field thus one can't really claim that people are preventing it from hunting (which a majority of is done at night when people are very unlikely to still be there anyway). To be fair, I've only seen one person say that people were encroaching on the 20-30 foot distance, while most others claim to be 100-300 feet if not further away.

And the second part of my argument is that people are way too quick to jump and say that taking photos is harassment or that being X distance from a bird automatically = harassment. With the last GGOW in Milford, if you parked on one side of a two lane road, you were good, you parked on the other you were harassing the owl. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between true harassment and what at most could be considered a disturbance.

Lastly, I am an amateur photographer and I took several hundred photos of the GGOW in Milford. I did it for me not anybody else. I want to look back and see the birds that I've had the pleasure to witness and share those experiences with my friends and family. I personally don't think I should feel shamed or looked down on because I took a picture of an owl. I didn't violate any part of birding ethics, and nobody I witnessed there did either, and from a vast majority of the posts I see with the Searsmont GGOW, people are continuing to do more of the same, with maybe one or two reported instances of people crossing the line, which has yet to be well defined anyway.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kristen Lindquist

website: www.kristenlindquist.com
haiku blog: klindquist.blogspot.com

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
--Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Snow Goose

It was still pretty close to the Audubon building until about 1:00 when it was flushed by a low flying Adult Bald Eagle. Now it is closer to Rt.1. Also had a Northern Pintail across the street from the Audubon building.
Bill Blauvelt
Portland, ME

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, flomag@maine.rr.com wrote:
>
> Continues in the same location as Kevin reported at the Scarborough Marsh. Thanks Kevin.
> Flo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> --
> Maine birds mailing list
> maine-birds@googlegroups.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
> https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Amen

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:10, Kristen Lindquist <kelindquist@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we PLEASE stop going back and forth on this, stop the criticisms on both sides, stop pretending we know what disturbs a bird or not, and just USE COMMON SENSE? In other words, follow the ABA Code of Birding Ethics--(here's a link; everyone should read it: http://listing.aba.org/ethics/), it was instituted for this purpose, we don't need to reinvent the wheel--and be nice to one another. Please.

Kristen

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Seth Davis <kd7gxf@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes making the comparison between an Owl and a Warbler is not by any means equal. But my argument is that the owl has been seen hunting and eating rodents despite the presence of people in the field thus one can't really claim that people are preventing it from hunting (which a majority of is done at night when people are very unlikely to still be there anyway). To be fair, I've only seen one person say that people were encroaching on the 20-30 foot distance, while most others claim to be 100-300 feet if not further away.

And the second part of my argument is that people are way too quick to jump and say that taking photos is harassment or that being X distance from a bird automatically = harassment. With the last GGOW in Milford, if you parked on one side of a two lane road, you were good, you parked on the other you were harassing the owl. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between true harassment and what at most could be considered a disturbance.

Lastly, I am an amateur photographer and I took several hundred photos of the GGOW in Milford. I did it for me not anybody else. I want to look back and see the birds that I've had the pleasure to witness and share those experiences with my friends and family. I personally don't think I should feel shamed or looked down on because I took a picture of an owl. I didn't violate any part of birding ethics, and nobody I witnessed there did either, and from a vast majority of the posts I see with the Searsmont GGOW, people are continuing to do more of the same, with maybe one or two reported instances of people crossing the line, which has yet to be well defined anyway.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kristen Lindquist

website: www.kristenlindquist.com
haiku blog: klindquist.blogspot.com

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
--Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Maine-birds] Re: Owl again

Could we PLEASE stop going back and forth on this, stop the criticisms on both sides, stop pretending we know what disturbs a bird or not, and just USE COMMON SENSE? In other words, follow the ABA Code of Birding Ethics--(here's a link; everyone should read it: http://listing.aba.org/ethics/), it was instituted for this purpose, we don't need to reinvent the wheel--and be nice to one another. Please.

Kristen

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Seth Davis <kd7gxf@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes making the comparison between an Owl and a Warbler is not by any means equal. But my argument is that the owl has been seen hunting and eating rodents despite the presence of people in the field thus one can't really claim that people are preventing it from hunting (which a majority of is done at night when people are very unlikely to still be there anyway). To be fair, I've only seen one person say that people were encroaching on the 20-30 foot distance, while most others claim to be 100-300 feet if not further away.

And the second part of my argument is that people are way too quick to jump and say that taking photos is harassment or that being X distance from a bird automatically = harassment. With the last GGOW in Milford, if you parked on one side of a two lane road, you were good, you parked on the other you were harassing the owl. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between true harassment and what at most could be considered a disturbance.

Lastly, I am an amateur photographer and I took several hundred photos of the GGOW in Milford. I did it for me not anybody else. I want to look back and see the birds that I've had the pleasure to witness and share those experiences with my friends and family. I personally don't think I should feel shamed or looked down on because I took a picture of an owl. I didn't violate any part of birding ethics, and nobody I witnessed there did either, and from a vast majority of the posts I see with the Searsmont GGOW, people are continuing to do more of the same, with maybe one or two reported instances of people crossing the line, which has yet to be well defined anyway.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-5, BAB wrote:
I wonder if the controversy over the great gray might not be solved with an appeal to respecting comfort distances. While it's true a warbler can still find food in its immediate vicinity even with a photographer 25 feet away, it's quite different for an owl that needs a hay field to hunt over. Professional wildlife photographers don't harass their target species. What is the purpose of an amateur needing to get so close, especially with a 500mm lens? Is it for stock images? There are currently more than enough excellent stock photos of great gray owls, and any additional images would yield about $0.75 in that particular market. Or is getting close just a personal objective, sort of like Hemingway proving he can still shoot one more elephant? If you love the wildlife you are pursuing with a camera, why would you purposely harass the animal? If you don't love your wild photographic targets, perhaps it's time to move on to landscapes, architecture, or portraits.

BAB

--
Bruce Bartrug
Nobleboro, Maine, USA
bbar...@gmail.com
www.brucebartrug.com

•The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein
•In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King

--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Kristen Lindquist

website: www.kristenlindquist.com

haiku blog: klindquist.blogspot.com

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."

--Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama