-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Northern Hawk Owl Killed... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mitchelle
- Start date
paul Robinson
Well-known member
There seem to be few problems you can't sort out in the US with a gun..
Paul
Paul
Crawfordian
Member
If birders are ignoring requests from the property owners then there is some blame to be laid at their door.
However, the bird should not have to pay the price for the lack of a willingness to communicate.
However, the bird should not have to pay the price for the lack of a willingness to communicate.
Peter C.
...just zis guy, you know?
From what information I can gather so far, no blame whatsoever should be ascribed to the birders here. People have a right to privacy in their homes, and a right to expect people not to trespass on their land; but neither of these were transgressed in this case.
People do not own the photons bouncing off their property - they cannot ban someone from seeing something that is in view from a public road. To think otherwise involves either an overdeveloped sense of entitlement (my land is special) or genuine paranoia.
P.S. Gotta love the irony - on the Spokesman-Review's website, the first banner add that came up for me was for an upcoming gun show...
People do not own the photons bouncing off their property - they cannot ban someone from seeing something that is in view from a public road. To think otherwise involves either an overdeveloped sense of entitlement (my land is special) or genuine paranoia.
P.S. Gotta love the irony - on the Spokesman-Review's website, the first banner add that came up for me was for an upcoming gun show...
Crawfordian
Member
I disagree I'm afraid - if I asked someone to stop taking photographs of something on my property then regardless of 'ownership' I'd expect that request to be respected.
Peter C.
...just zis guy, you know?
But would you kill a bird because you were pissed off with some people? I think that's the central question here.
Crawfordian
Member
Oh absolutely not, there has been a total breakdown of communication here and to think that killing the bird is a rational and appropriate response is outrageous.
jogresh
Bimble and patch
According to an Audubon blog post, it is indeed a protected species. The blog post was called "Hawk Owl killed - are birders to blame?" or something similar, which seems like a really stupid question to me, for the reasons Peter has pointed out above. Surely a law has been broken here?
rosbifs
PutAin STOP
There is the law of two wrongs not making a right! Morally, if not legally, birders overlooking someones garden have 'forced' the owner to shoot the bird. At the same time these birders may not have been aware that the property owner was already upset with strangers invading his space.
America being what it is he shot it!
Had the birders not been there, presumably on a regular basis, this bird could well have been ignored by the property owner - shooting it solves his problem.
Oh the land of the free and thank god there isn't a gun problem there...
America being what it is he shot it!
Had the birders not been there, presumably on a regular basis, this bird could well have been ignored by the property owner - shooting it solves his problem.
Oh the land of the free and thank god there isn't a gun problem there...
KenM
Well-known member
Presumably the Audobon Society has an "obligation" to respond to this very "public" killing of a protected species, in the same way as the RSPB would, if this same action and circumstances were to prevail within the UK?
Sorry, cannot support that so easily; you might have a good reason for saying "no photos" and I would listen to your argument but we generally do not have the right to ban photography - on public land. In fact, we have a problem in this country with "terrorism and security" being used to block perfectly reasonable photography.
Of course, each case needs examined on its merits; one man's freedom of action is another man's invasion of privacy.
