Goshawk sightings..... (1 Viewer)

[KenM]

Several months ago, I attempted to put out news of a ''passing'' Goshawk to a news provider service..but was politely ''declined'', because they had been directed/advised from ''above'' to the effect that, the only Goshawk sightings that can be ''put out,'' are where they are seen coming off the sea, or at established reserves, where there might be a video cam set up at the nest.

Thus it would appear that even if a bird is seen out of the breeding season, in an assumed non-breeding area, and clearly in transient mode, it is to be ''un-reportable''.

Accepting that sensitivities, regarding the presence of breeding birds is justified to an extent within a known breeding area, reports of birds observed outside this remit are Verboten!

And FWIW I got the same response, for the same reasons as above, for an Inner London Black Redstart report, albeit during the breeding season, in an area that would have been totally inaccessible to any would be egg collectors or photographers..ie...all ''high rise'' commercial dwellings.

Is this an edict too far...or totally justifiable..by reducing exposure to these species, does it have the potential to perhaps discourage ''new converts'' to our common pursuit...particularly where any perceived threat to the species mentioned, are ''non-existent,''(particularly regarding BR), except in the PC minds of those that might have Big brother ''controlling'' reasons?

 

[Mark Lew1s]

I think you hit the nail on the head with some of the language you use Ken - 'assumed non-breeding area' and 'perceived threat'. The truth is that we don't know everything re bird distribution or the lengths that egg collectors will go to, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

Perhaps more importantly, bird information services may not have the same info on specific breeding sites and their apparent safety as you do, and as such, hedge their bets a little by not reporting them.

 

[KenM]

I think you hit the nail on the head with some of the language you use Ken - 'assumed non-breeding area' and 'perceived threat'. The truth is that we don't know everything re bird distribution or the lengths that egg collectors will go to, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

Perhaps more importantly, bird information services may not have the same info on specific breeding sites and their apparent safety as you do, and as such, hedge their bets a little by not reporting them.

There are well known areas for breeding gentilis, and have been for decades.. I believe the population is holding it's own?), poisoning and shooting are the real threat, I am in favour of blanket bans ie RBShrike...but where the ''risk'' factor is zero...particularly with BRedstart (although Spiderman..If he takes up egging, might wipe out the entire Inner London population).

A ''tailored approach'' would be more appropriate in my opinion..I think ''coming in off the sea'' and at ''flagship reserves'' being the only acceptable exemptions, with transient and out of habitat/breeding season sightings being outlawed is a bit OTT.

I for one, would keep any ''sensitive'' sightings (and have done), outside the public domain. I'm hardly suggesting that ''carte blanche'' should be the order
of the day...just common sense.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

FWIW, I think that its good that bird information services have a policy on this sort of thing and I think that it's good that they stick to it. Why take risks?

I should imagine that staff time at any bird information service is too precious for them to be chasing up details of sightings, and then making judgements about publishing the information. Where exactly would they be able to find information on breeding sites for goshawk for example? How would they know for sure whether records are away from breeding areas?

If the choices are having people stick to a policy - or alternatively, make quick judgement based on not very much information, I know which I would prefer. It seems like a sensibly cautious approach to me.

 

[Jos Stratford]

I for one, would keep any ''sensitive'' sightings (and have done), outside the public domain.

FWIW, I think that its good that bird information services have a policy on this sort of thing and I think that it's good that they stick to it. Why take risks?

Completely agree with Fat Paul Scholes here. You have said you would keep 'sensitive' information quiet, but the bird alerts cannot be expected to double check with every submission whether the nest is potentially accessible, whether the information might possibly lead to persecution, etc.

Nobody needs bird alerts to see Goshawk or Black Redstart, established viewpoints exist for the former and the latter easy enough on migration points, etc. So, without better reason to do the opposite, I agree with Fat Paul's comment 'Why take risks?'

 

[KenM]

FWIW, I think that its good that bird information services have a policy on this sort of thing and I think that it's good that they stick to it. Why take risks?

I should imagine that staff time at any bird information service is too precious for them to be chasing up details of sightings, and then making judgements about publishing the information. Where exactly would they be able to find information on breeding sites for goshawk for example? How would they know for sure whether records are away from breeding areas?

If the choices are having people stick to a policy - or alternatively, make quick judgement based on not very much information, I know which I would prefer. It seems like a sensibly cautious approach to me.

Being party to (supplying and withholding), and a known contributor to various services over the years, I as would most people, not compromise a potentially scarce breeding species.

Regarding staff time at a BIS, a simple question (if there was any doubt?)
as to the relevant ''birds'' status at the locale, would take less time to make an informed decision, than it would for directions to a eg. Orphean Warbler.

As far as the blanket ban..cautious approach is concerned..a few choice questions might be the difference between people enjoying a singing Black Redstart or Peregrine Falcon perched up in the heart of the metropolis...chances of interfering with or disturbing....zero!

That's what I would call the common sense approach.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

Regarding staff time at a BIS, a simple question (if there was any doubt?)
as to the relevant ''birds'' status at the locale, would take less time to make an informed decision, than it would for directions to a eg. Orphean Warbler.

But who would you ask? Who's opinion would you seek on the birds status at the locale? How would you know to trust any opinions given? There's every chance that the observer supplying the news might not know anything about the status at the locale.

Again, why risk it? I think the fact that there may be a very small number of examples of where a BIS policy seems to be overkill doesn't mean that the policy needs to change.

 

[KenM]

But who would you ask? Who's opinion would you seek on the birds status at the locale? How would you know to trust any opinions given? There's every chance that the observer supplying the news might not know anything about the status at the locale.

Again, why risk it? I think the fact that there may be a very small number of examples of where a BIS policy seems to be overkill doesn't mean that the policy needs to change.

In reply to your first question...I'm talking about not just ''out of habitat'', but ''out of breeding season'' sightings, as for trusting peoples credentials isn't the whole BIS built on trust?

Trusting that any Information supplier...Has accurately ID'd the subject, considered parking arrangements, if any? depending on the rarity value of the ''said'', knowing that the release of news could result in a mass exodus of people from one end of the country to anther (extreme case scenario).

Yes the whole BIS have a huge burden of responsibility and I applaud them for it, having to weigh up the pros and cons of a ''news release''...and guess what? they have to make executive decisions in a very short space of time...that's what I call ''trust'' Mark!

And to apply the ban to those sightings within ''Spiderman's domain'' in or out of the breeding season...Is quite frankly farcical!

Secondly...Change of policy?...surely tailoring where possible, is better than (your word...overkill) ''one hat fits all ?''

 

[Jos Stratford]

Still, for a pair of relatively widespread species, both easily seen without too much effort at known sites or on migration, etc, the basic question remains 'why take the risk?'. Other than yourself, I suppose few care that this information is withheld (and probably more are supportive of this stance), so again why should the information services change policy with regard to schedule 1 species? To see these species, nobody needs this information, so no reason for the bird alerts to make it public as a policy.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

Yes, a lot of trust is involved, and as a result of that trust, misidentifications make their way onto the BIS with some frequency. I guess that's a risk we're all aware of, and it comes downto us as individuals whether to respond to the news. I'm not having a pop at any BIS by the way as I think they do a brilliant job. If errors of judgement extend however to publishing details giving away breeding locations of sensitive species, then that's a whole different kettle of fish.

If I was responsible for disseminating rare bird news I'd be looking to a) ensure that the welfare of the birds wasn't compromised, and b) make sure that customers didn't think I was doing anything dodgy.

Ans as a customer of a BIS I'd hope and expect that they went out of their way to suppress info on rare breeding birds, apart from where well known watchpoints etc exist.

With your specific examples, you're asking why they haven't been published. Perhaps the question should be turned around - why would a BIS publish sightings of a goshawk or a black redstart, when there is the slightest bit of risk attached to letting that info out. It's not a BIS job to chase up and ask more questions about each record they receive, especially when it's records of birds as easy to see as your examples.

Maybe we should just agree to differ on this!

 

[KenM]

Still, for a pair of relatively widespread species, both easily seen without too much effort at known sites or on migration, etc, the basic question remains 'why take the risk?'. Other than yourself, I suppose few care that this information is withheld (and probably more are supportive of this stance), so again why should the information services change policy with regard to schedule 1 species? To see these species, nobody needs this information, so no reason for the bird alerts to make it public as a policy.

Quite right! widespread species easily seen without too much effort...so why the ''the restriction'' from above?...clearly no need for it!

 

[Jos Stratford]

Quite right! widespread species easily seen without too much effort...so why the ''the restriction'' from above?...clearly no need for it!

So why not just knock off the schedule one protection too?

Given the basically minimal value to birders of publicising these rare breeding species, I fail to see why it's a bee in your bonnet that the information services have taken the fairly sensible approach of erring on the side of caution.

 

[KenM]

So why not just knock off the schedule one protection too?

Given the basically minimal value to birders of publicising these rare breeding species, I fail to see why it's a bee in your bonnet that the information services have taken the fairly sensible approach of erring on the side of caution.

Don't understand the rationale of your first question..seems a somewhat extreme comment to make?

It's the big brother directive/suggestion from ''above'' that worries.

''Erring on the side of caution'' for something of ''minimal value''...slight contradiction there?...doesn't stack up!

As for ''bees in the bonnet'' can't help you there!...a-h-h-h! they must Bee hibernating

 

[Jos Stratford]

''Erring on the side of caution'' for something of ''minimal value''...slight contradiction there?...doesn't stack up!

Do you choose to selectively quote to suggest a contradiction?
- minimal value to birders,
- erring on the side of caution to protect birds
No contraction.

As for the schedule one comment, they have that protection for a reason. The bird information services choose to not release information for the same reason.

 

[Jos Stratford]

And what's with 'big brother' , 'directives' and 'from above'?

Regardless of how you view the decision, we are only talking about a simple decision regarding a little bit of bird news.

 

[KenM]

And what's with 'big brother' , 'directives' and 'from above'?

Regardless of how you view the decision, we are only talking about a simple decision regarding a little bit of bird news.

As I was led to understand...It came from that rather large ''charitable'' organisation that protects hooked beaks and long bills, at the expense of small declining song birds, that sports the Royal prefix.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Flipped

 

[Sangahyando]

As I was led to understand...It came from that rather large ''charitable'' organisation that protects hooked beaks and long bills, at the expense of small declining song birds, that sports the Royal prefix.

Excuse me, but what is that suppposed to mean?

 

[Farnboro John]

If you really feel the need to tell someone, tell your local recorder.

But as for open reporting... an important fact to remember about criminals is that they don't respect the law. Your inaccessible may well be their challenge... and the chances are corporate security is not as smart, as complete or as focused on the outside of the top of the building as you think.

It is not sensible to reveal breeding sites/possible breeding sites openly. Loose lips sink ships.

John

 

[KenM]

If you really feel the need to tell someone, tell your local recorder.

But as for open reporting... an important fact to remember about criminals is that they don't respect the law. Your inaccessible may well be their challenge... and the chances are corporate security is not as smart, as complete or as focused on the outside of the top of the building as you think.

It is not sensible to reveal breeding sites/possible breeding sites openly. Loose lips sink ships.


John

I have absolutely no need to tell anyone, anymore than your need to publish a 2013 Review, accepting that your review is no more of a security breach, than any urban reports of transient species.

My point being...that in certain circumstances, where the ''risk'' factor is negligible to non existent, (for nationally easy species), that ''diktat'' from the largest avian charity in the country should ''prevail'' overall.

I've attempted to ascertain the core territories of singing BR within the relevant areas (from a ground level viewpoint in narrow canyoned streets), as the song posts change, and are at (private) roof level, between perhaps 60-100'+. Almost impossible! to hear because of (traffic noise), let alone find, probably about as secure as it gets!

I do know the area quite well and the accompanying security (City of London)..and Farnboro it ain't.

As for the WW2 slogan ''loose lips'' sink ships..you'd have trouble hearing, let alone seeing!