• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Corona virus threat to birding (3 Viewers)

Speaking from the frontline here in Italy, the coronavirus threat is no longer a threat but a dismal reality. Movements between towns are severely restricted and permitted only for work or health reasons or for emergencies or assistance to family members. This means, as the president of EBN Italy, Italy's foremost birding organisation pointed out in an email to members earlier today, that birding will be possible only walking or cycling around town or in its immediate vicinity.

This has an impact not only on our favourite pastime but also on conservation activities, such as the Lanner Falcon surveillance camps which were being organised for this spring. Conservation NGOs are currently discussing how to ensure at least a minimum level of monitoring of threatened species etc. Needless to say, poachers and falconers will probably not be deterred by the new rules as they were defying or breaking the law already.

:-C

Of course we also are unable to plan holidays and/or short breaks, also considering that the government has requested that those employers who can spare their workforce give them paid leave to minimise travel and contagion. This will mean that some people will have to use up their weeks of paid leave now and have no or few days left at the end of this mess. Personally speaking we had to cancel our usual skiing trip, fortunately we hadn't booked anything yet.

We'll just have to travel by proxy reading the trip reports on BF!

The idea that people should be using their paid leave for this is absolutely abhorrent. It's yet another manifestation of the idea that a person is nothing more than a biological robot to those people in power. If the state concludes (hopefully bases on expert opinions) that people should stay off work, then that's a completely valid move, but the burden can't be transferred to the affected people.
 
I am totally with you, as being stuck in quarantine has not the same restorative powers as going on holiday. But, TBH it is still not clear if the paid leave will be on top of the ordinary one, but I fear this will not be the case, as employers will certainly want to go back to work full steam once this is over and not have people go on holiday just because it's August and too hot to work.
 
Reading this thread one would imagine that the only birding people do involves flights & trips to distant lands whereas for most birders at best this accounts for a couple of weeks a year.
 
well, those are the trips that generally are the ones we often most look forward to, plan ahead for, and daydream about. So those trips getting cancelled is going to hurt

For me, I worry that this might end up impacting my Panama trip, which I have been literally trying to pull off for over a decade now. It's not until the end of May so I am not worrying that much, but it's a concern in the back of my mind

On the other hand, it's getting more and more likely that we might end up cancelling the face to face contact here at the university, which means going online only and cancelling labs. If that happens, it will be an enormous pain the ass, but on the bright side, my schedule will become a lot more flexible, which should allow me to twitch more?
 
Reading this thread one would imagine that the only birding people do involves flights & trips to distant lands whereas for most birders at best this accounts for a couple of weeks a year.

As I have already explained, for some of us that is simply the case. Maybe not "only" but in my case the majority of for sure ... until now, that is. I would just like to remind everyone that this is a hobby and different people enjoy it in different ways and none of those ways is inherently superior.

That having said, already I have read stories from Italy, where you can't go outside your own city, even to the surrounding nature, however little sense that means.
 
well, those are the trips that generally are the ones we often most look forward to, plan ahead for, and daydream about. So those trips getting cancelled is going to hurt

For me, I worry that this might end up impacting my Panama trip, which I have been literally trying to pull off for over a decade now. It's not until the end of May so I am not worrying that much, but it's a concern in the back of my mind

On the other hand, it's getting more and more likely that we might end up cancelling the face to face contact here at the university, which means going online only and cancelling labs. If that happens, it will be an enormous pain the ass, but on the bright side, my schedule will become a lot more flexible, which should allow me to twitch more?

Have you got a list of local targets, or is that a silly question? ;)

John
 
That having said, already I have read stories from Italy, where you can't go outside your own city, even to the surrounding nature, however little sense that means.

We enjoy both: locally and abroad, but as you say, we can't leave town, or we can if we take a walk or cycle nearby but we can't drive anywhere even if we go to places where we don't meet anyone else. It's going to be a problem for conservation efforts all over the country, never mind the birding! And no, it doesn't make sense. It does in a city or other populated areas, but not if you by yourself in the countryside or on a beach, or in a wetland.
 
Some interesting thoughts from all contributors - it kills people and there is no vaccine at present:eek!:

It will hopefully take immense pressure off the consumption and trade in wildlife and if there is one country that can enforce this sort of thing it’s China although i would not like to live under a de-facto dictatorship myself. When it becomes illegal and socially unacceptable that’s when things change imho.

By coincidence i have been watching flights to either TLV or ETM like a hawk and would have booked this week for a flight on Saturday - thankfully i didn’t as arriving with no or 2 nights billet at TLV would not have gone down well and could conceivably seen me on the first plane back.....but not without a box of Cubans if they sell any:t:

What will happen to those booked on a package or the Festival itself?

I also have a 2 week trip to Albania and Italy in mid-May. Flying to Tirana then down on the coastal wetlands for a week followed by a ferry to Bari for a coupla days or so then train to Naples for Pizza - what else! We finish by train to Verona.....oops then fly back. Fortunately we have only booked the flights and nothing else as we travel ad-hoc. We shall see how all this pans out.....

Looking ahead to 2 weeks mid-Sep to Batumi but no flights booked as yet but fingers crossed. At 63 and in good health i do not wish to push the envelope:t:

Good birding -

Laurie:t:
 
From what i have read overnite things change from Thursday and it appears that you have to self-isolate for 14 days as a foreign visitor which begs the question why go? That means birders travelling to Eilat cannot go birding unless i am missing something:C

Some things are more important than chasing birds but it is a bummer for those that have planned and paid well ahead. A mate who has had his trip to the South by SouthWest musicfest at Austin cancelled has shelled out about $1400 for the basic 5-day ticket alone and is not being offered his money back and then there are the flights, hotels etc.....

Good birding -

Laurie:t:
 
From what i have read overnite things change from Thursday and it appears that you have to self-isolate for 14 days as a foreign visitor which begs the question why go? That means birders travelling to Eilat cannot go birding unless i am missing something:C

Some things are more important than chasing birds but it is a bummer for those that have planned and paid well ahead. A mate who has had his trip to the South by SouthWest musicfest at Austin cancelled has shelled out about $1400 for the basic 5-day ticket alone and is not being offered his money back and then there are the flights, hotels etc.....

Good birding -

Laurie:t:

If the show is cancelled, he'll get his ticket money back, surely. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop me arranging a huge concert in the field behind my house, then canceling at the last minute and keeping the money.

But sadly, the flights and hotels are a different matter, as no one is stopping him from flying or staying in the hotel so the insurance wouldn't kick in.
 
What a great time to go to Angkor Wat, and other tourist-blighted sites! Croudless, once in a lifetime (!) chance to enjoy these places.

Woman on the radio today: runs a B&B in the Dales: lots of cancellations, yet IKEA was packed when she went there.

There is no common sense in this.
 
Luckily I do most of my birding close to home, but if twitching becomes impossible that could hurt.
I am not positive about my planned Easter trip... with people from Germany being banned from many countries already (my Dutch passport will not help if I need to give my address).
It's also affecting my work already - was not allowed to visit a Finnish plant this week (so had to stay in my hotel). The good thing is that I can show I don't need to travel to do my job...
 
From what i have read overnite things change from Thursday and it appears that you have to self-isolate for 14 days as a foreign visitor which begs the question why go? That means birders travelling to Eilat cannot go birding unless i am missing something:C

Some things are more important than chasing birds but it is a bummer for those that have planned and paid well ahead. A mate who has had his trip to the South by SouthWest musicfest at Austin cancelled has shelled out about $1400 for the basic 5-day ticket alone and is not being offered his money back and then there are the flights, hotels etc.....

Good birding -

Laurie:t:
The situation with Israel is that from Monday 9th March Israeli's returning to country have to self isolate for 2 weeks. From Thursday 12th March Non resident visitors arriving have to provide they can 'Home' isolate or will not be allowed into the country thus visiting for birding is not going to be possible. If visitors arrived before Thursday they would be allowed into the country but the Israeli Government are also advising all visitors to leave the country; on the FCO Travel Advice Website they have been told to leave within 72hours so basically if you made it into the country you'd have to leave within just a few days anyway.

Currently British Airways are not cancelling flights, presumably as at least some (or all) of the passengers on those flights will be returning israeli's. Flights are thus still operating so you wouldn't be entitled to a refund, even though as a visitor you'd not get past immigration and would then have to get a flight straight back.

Also at present anyone who booked their flights between 3rd and 16th March are allowed to change their flights free of charge to a later date (still no refund though unless the flight is actually cancelled). So if you booked months ago you are not given the same option to those who booked between the above dates, you can change but you have to pay.

With me I booked months ago, I will not be allowed access to the country due to the new restrictions, I will have to pay for a change in date (it cannot be open ticket but specified dates) if I choose or will not get a refund (as the flight is currently going).

Its a catch 22. No point in travelling as not allowed in but no options allowed to change flight (without cost) or a refund.

The same catch 22 applies to claiming through travel insurance: flight is operating so likely you cannot claim against it despite no access to the actual destination.

My trip was not only being really looked forward to but perhaps more importantly was really 'needed' as have been feeling pretty exhausted with work etc recently. An earned break to recharge internal batteries especially as my trip to the Gambia fell through end of last year due Thomas Cook going bust

Without a refund on the flights etc I cannot currently look at other options.
 
The same catch 22 applies to claiming through travel insurance: flight is operating so likely you cannot claim against it despite no access to the actual destination.

My trip was not only being really looked forward to but perhaps more importantly was really 'needed' as have been feeling pretty exhausted with work etc recently. An earned break to recharge internal batteries especially as my trip to the Gambia fell through end of last year due Thomas Cook going bust

Without a refund on the flights etc I cannot currently look at other options.


Surely not,
this clause covers what they call 'disinclination to travel', which is clearly not the case here. You can demonstrably show that due to a change in local conditions, you will not be allowed to enter the country.

It must be equivalent to the visa situation whereby an airline is liable to substantial fines, if they do not ensure that passengers have the right documentation to enter a country. If I arrived in e.g Russia with no visa, that is a problem for the airline, that's why all airlines now check that passengers have a valid visa for their intended country and I think it's analogous. An airline should not allow you to travel in the knowledge that you won't be allowed to enter the country.
 
Surely not,
this clause covers what they call 'disinclination to travel', which is clearly not the case here. You can demonstrably show that due to a change in local conditions, you will not be allowed to enter the country.

It must be equivalent to the visa situation whereby an airline is liable to substantial fines, if they do not ensure that passengers have the right documentation to enter a country. If I arrived in e.g Russia with no visa, that is a problem for the airline, that's why all airlines now check that passengers have a valid visa for their intended country and I think it's analogous. An airline should not allow you to travel in the knowledge that you won't be allowed to enter the country.

If you come for a check-in, the airline will check you visa, because, as you have stated, they would get in significant trouble if they let you in the plane without a visa, should you need one. However, if they find you not eligible for entry, they will simply deny you boarding and NOT refund the ticket. That's the crucial problem here.
 
If you come for a check-in, the airline will check you visa, because, as you have stated, they would get in significant trouble if they let you in the plane without a visa, should you need one. However, if they find you not eligible for entry, they will simply deny you boarding and NOT refund the ticket. That's the crucial problem here.

The airline cannot decide who is or is not, eligible to enter any country.

This would be very bad PR for both airline and insurer if no refund were available in what is an unprecented scenario.

Suffice it to say that I'm not booking anything for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
Surely not,
this clause covers what they call 'disinclination to travel', which is clearly not the case here. You can demonstrably show that due to a change in local conditions, you will not be allowed to enter the country.

It must be equivalent to the visa situation whereby an airline is liable to substantial fines, if they do not ensure that passengers have the right documentation to enter a country. If I arrived in e.g Russia with no visa, that is a problem for the airline, that's why all airlines now check that passengers have a valid visa for their intended country and I think it's analogous. An airline should not allow you to travel in the knowledge that you won't be allowed to enter the country.
Thats what I would have thought and still waiting to hear from British Airways. As my flight was due in 3 days time and still no cancellation I'll have to try the Travel Insurance but I always pretty wary of insurers as they will often find a way out of paying if they can.
 
Have you got a list of local targets, or is that a silly question? ;)

John

Of course! Worm-eating, Kentucky, and Connecticut Warblers, and Smith's Longspur, are probably my top spring targets, as all four would be lifers. I thankfully also haven't lived in the state that long, so there are decent numbers of birds I still need for my state checklist.

Of course, picking up a Worm-eating and Kentucky Warbler is not going to compensate for all the antbirds, toucans, tanagers, etc I would miss from cancelling my Panama trip...
 
Of course! Worm-eating, Kentucky, and Connecticut Warblers, and Smith's Longspur, are probably my top spring targets, as all four would be lifers. I thankfully also haven't lived in the state that long, so there are decent numbers of birds I still need for my state checklist.

Of course, picking up a Worm-eating and Kentucky Warbler is not going to compensate for all the antbirds, toucans, tanagers, etc I would miss from cancelling my Panama trip...

Understood! Good luck :t:

John
 
The airline cannot decide who is or is not, eligible to enter any country.

This would be very bad PR for both airline and insurer if no refund were available in what is an unprecented scenario.

Suffice it to say that I'm not booking anything for quite some time.

This is not true.

Under Carriers' Liabilty Law any airline who carries a passenger who is not able to enter the country because of , eg Visa restrictions, is liable to a fine (£2,000 per passenger in the UK) . And may be liable for the cost of, (and will have to carry) returning that passenger to where they originated.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top