Durose v Saunt
I was astonished to read the diatribe from Kevin, with its unwarranted, high-octane, invective and inaccurate suppositions. I first became aware of him, through a mutual friend, as a taker of high-quality photographs of the natural world; have had little contact with him (none negative) and have no personal axe to grind.
Mick is one of the most well-respected birders in County, with a quietly mischievous, twinkly sense of humour. His list of co-/found raries speaks for itself.
That Kevin has, so far, made not even a partial retraction of the personal attack on Mick’s birding ability can only be to his detriment. To allow some generosity, he has possibly been out of internet contact, since his post.
His defence of photographers at twitches is risible. We have all been victim, too many times, of their scaring activities; often, it is they who exhibit rank cluelessness in their ‘fieldcraft’. (That is, of course, not to say that ‘pure’ birders are not guilty of flushing, through carelessness or stupidity, or talking too volubly, in/out of hides.)
Photographers and (mere) birders, obviously, have somewhat different aims. These need to be understood and, if possible, accommodated. (In some places in the US, for example, they even have different hides/blinds.) But, this should not be to the detriment of the bird’s welfare and should have respect for others observing and in the vicinity (again, see
http://www.aba.org/about/ethics.html).
Some of the most characterful shots of The Starling were of its bathing. (Why did I then recall Ursula Andress in ‘Dr No’ ? !) Moreover, they tended to be in strong light, with no need of flash- let alone flush.
To deny this, is to excise an important part of its ‘documentation’ at that site.
It would show grace on your part, if slightly more than a smidgen of apology (to Mick) was forthcoming, Kevin.