Waterfowlers monitoring rare bird alerts to shoot vagrants (1 Viewer)

Ok, I honestly did not know this occurred.

Apparently last fall a trio of Harlequin Ducks were shot in Utah at an easily assessable (and legal to shoot at) location. Harlequins are vagrants to the state, with only ~13 records. Apparently there are a good number of hunters who monitor rbas to get the scoop on rare ducks and geese they can add to their trophy collection. Another birder in the thread mentions on how on a California shooting forum various posters were brainstorming ways to spook all the ducks off a protected wildlife refuge so they could shoot the Falcated Duck hanging out with them.

What the hell people?

http://blog.aba.org/2012/05/shooting-rarities.html

I can't believe you're surprised - its just another form of collecting mania - just like us really!

....and if you believe that you'll believe anything.

Where your law goes wrong is in assuming everything is fair game unless its protected, whereas ours defines legal quarry and expects hunters to leave other things alone, in return for which we are expected to understand that once in a while a mistake will be made.

John

Deplorable, but not all that different in principle (& to a certain extent in effect) from the more extreme forms of twitching. The chaining of grassland for Yellow Rails comes to mind. . ..

Thats just whats done legally, protected by law if you will. Add illegally hunted and killed there is no way to even quantify the damage. Every winter we get an "ear full" from fowlers who complain about Trumpeter swans that winter here. Every year we witness "accidental" slaughter of the same birds. Every year we witness impotence, reluctance, or down right apathy when it comes to laws that govern those actions.

Wont disagree that small minority of birders often stress birds in order to increase tally on a list. Birds that are stressed, at least have a chance to move on to other enviroments less stressful. Fowling along mississippi flyway here is nothing but a gaunlet of death, with hunters applying modern technology in a lethally efficient manner.

Dutch and Belgian bird catchers use the open access databases as well (Snow Bunting has been targeted). Disappearances of real rarities have sometimes been circumspect, but nothing has ever been proven.
Probably plant collectors are worse though...

Well, I knew that their were people into trophy hunting, and I knew that you shouldn't release information about falcon nests because of falconers monitoring the internet, but it never occurred to me that trophy hunting for waterfowl would be a problem.

The obvious solution is to, as you said, list specifically what ducks are okay, so that waterfowlers could thereby assume that anything that wasn't on this list was not fair game. The thing is, these protections lie in place for mammals in many states; if a mammal isn't listed as a nuisance species or a sport/fur-bearing species, you can't harm it.

Still don't think the comparison with twitchers if fare however. If I were to go twitch a rare duck, I would be adding a tick and maybe photos, and other birders would be able to get that same tick/photos. Can't say the same thing about hunting.

We don't have that problem in Belgium. There is only 3 species of duck that can be hunted (and one of them only during one month):t:

Shocking. What makes it worse in some ways is the deliberate targeting of individual birds which the hunters know provide enjoyment to birders.

Since there is no chance of getting the law changed in the US to restrict morons with guns, it seems the only solution would be for the rare bird alert services / internet forums to voluntarily limit rare wildfowl reports to birds in locations where they can't be shot.

fugl said:

Deplorable, but not all that different in principle (& to a certain extent in effect) from the more extreme forms of twitching. The chaining of grassland for Yellow Rails comes to mind. . ..

Click to expand...

Perhaps the basic motivation is similar (trophy hunting), but the end result is starkly different. Even 'chaining' for Yellow Rails doesn't mean the birds die (or at least I would think not). Futhermore, 'twitchers' want an open information scenario where dozens, hundreds or even thousands of like minded enthusiasts can share an enjoyment in seeing the birds. In contrast wildfowlers of the ilk described want to curtail such enjoyment and in effect claim sole ownership of the bird. In this way they act more like serial 'suppressors' than twitchers (although I do accept that suppresion is the only option in some well established situations),

Perhaps we are over-analysing here: the bullies we encountered at school were bullies because they couldn't achieve a sense of importance by their own efforts, nor did they have any empathy with anyone who was looked up to because of something done or something said.

The bullies' attitude later in life essentially is unchanged, and so they always, usually covertly, have to do something that they can snigger about to their cronies, and the more it upsets people who can soundly articulate a reasonable and rational case for behaving decently, the more the bullies enjoy it.
MJB

I would not be surprise to learn that something of this happens in southern Europe and particularly around the Mediterranean. There have been occasions when rare birds were shot in the UK including an American wigeon drake at loch Leven but these are sheer accidents.

possible response: create a militant organization known as rarity guard, and guard rarities.

Legally sanctioned harvest will not be stopped by bird provost. Be a shooting war allright, with birds looking on from sideline. As mentioned in link provided by OP in original post, a number of major national birding orgs were founded by hunters. Audubon to begin with. Thats were the greatest opportunity for meaningful and constructive dialog between rank and file of opposing interest can find common ground and compromise.

Not a hunter anymore, have in past. Wont villify every hunter. What OP's thread points to is a very small minority. Birders could very well be embarrased to discover just how much land has been reclaimed by waterfowling orgs for example, and are of huge benefit in every enviromental aspect. Biggest complaint against hunters I have nowdays is how reliant they are to technology. Fowlers in past relied on vocalizations or calls a great deal. Were remarkably educated in fieldcraft, in my opinion less prone to mistakes than shoot now and devil may care attitude of younger hunters currently that are more able to point out first ammendment rights than ID a surf scooter.

A number of states adjacent to great lakes have come to realization that minimum approach regulations would be much beneficial to shorebirds breeding in those areas. Implementing those regulations is and will continue to be virtually impossible because of overwhelming negative reception by birders. Why the double standard? How about it birders, going to abide to 500 foot minimum approach distance to get that pic of those cute little shorebird chicks?