Date: 2/27/17 7:02 am From: Seth Davis <kd7gxf...> Subject: Re: [Maine-birds] Great Grey
Many people have reported this bird actively hunting/eating prey, so this tells me the bird is not distressed to the point of what many are so keen to call "harassment". I very much believe and abide by birding ethics, but to be honest people need to lighten up, standing in a field taking pictures (provided that field is not private property) is not harassment. How many times has the bird flushed as a result of photographers getting closer? I honestly don't know as I haven't gone and seen this one, but people running around saying that photographers are harassing the bird when A. it's still performing a life maintenance behaviors, B. not being flushed, and C. continuing to stay in the same location all indicate that this bird is not distressed. Again, lighten up and enjoy the bird. If you see someone acting inappropriately ask them to stop, but from all accounts that I have heard (and seen with the previous Great Gray in Milford) people are NOT harassing the bird.
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 6:15:05 AM UTC-5, Richard Harris Podolsky wrote: > > I only went because it was so close to my home - 20 mins! Plus I haven't > seen a great grey in over 20 years. Generally the embarrassment and > mortification I experience at rare bird stake-outs overwhelms any desire to > see a rarity. I'd rather stay home and watch a nuthatch. > > To the few birders staying on the road, out of the field or at least > 300-500 feet away I applaud you. To the folks sticking their lenses in the > owls face from 20-30 feet away, shame on you. > > Yesterday I heard on good authority that "long lenses" were harassing the > bird at times from 20-30 feet away! Imagine what that must look like to a > creature with the visual accuity of an great grey owl? I thought the whole > point of huge lenses were to get shots from a distance. Talk about > overcompensation! Who sticks a 600mm lenses in the face of a rare owl here > in search of food??! Who does that? Well, now we know. > >