BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AlexC" data-source="post: 1712135" data-attributes="member: 27416">I take issue with disturbing birds in torpor, but I'll get to that in a minute.I don't necessarily disagree with you here, Jos. However, you're skirting around my issue. A BF poster reading that advice has already reached the point where they are going out of their way to inform and equip themselves with the necessary information. Some random, unknowledgeable person could find a bird in torpor and have no idea what to do, let alone what "torpor" is.With the exception of Fugl in the first thread, I've noticed that people seem to be using the term "torpor" on par with "deathly cold" - if not in text at least via implications. A bird in torpor is NOT INJURED. It's not "frozen" either. Torpor is a natural safety precaution: a hibernation-like process specifically used to help animals SURVIVE cold temperatures by allowing them to conserve energy. Birds have survived cold temperatures for millions of years longer than we have been around! Now this is not to say that bird conservation is not important - humans are absolutely destroying the natural world at an alarming rate and action must be taken, but "do-it-yourself rehab" for birds that may not even be in trouble is NOT the way to go about it! Especially when BF veterans take that attitude and encourage it amongst BF newbies who don't have the breadth of bird knowledge to handle situations like that. It is NOT okay. And yeah, it's part of why we have the MBTA.Finally, it seems to me that disturbing a bird in torpor and moving it at all could easily panic the bird, quickly raising its level of activity. The bird could need food immediately to replenish its now depleted energy, and with an ignorant caretaker not knowing what to feed a bird they can't identify, we are left with the unfortunate example of the kinglet.I would contend that the law is clear, but the situations are not. I think Humminbird had the best of intentions in the first thread when talking about the law - it's important information that the OP should absolutely be aware of for current and future reference. The law is meant to protect the birds, and that's what Humminbird meant by "the MBTA is clear for a purpose" - the purpose of protecting birds. The lines split when the birds survived and the logic of the law was "disproven," based on a presupposed outcome if the birds had been left alone. In the end both sides were looking out for the well-being of the birds. Many responses to Humminbird's posts, however, were totally out of line and missed the entire point of his assertion. It was never about fear of the law or reprimanding the OP, it was about the safety of the birds and correctly informing a possible new member of the birding community. Somewhere in these last 6 pages, between petty insults, self-righteous mockery, and misrepresenting paraphrases, that got lost.</blockquote>

Verification