Harrassed wildlife

[pressld2]

I was going to let it go but the irony is just too great...

Originally Posted by rona

If people wish to swamp an area it's up to them, they don't seem to see the disturbance they cause.
I have many many sites around me that are hardly used by humans.
Myself and my dog will go and watch wildlife there, where it isn't on constant alert.

If you are out in the countryside with a dog then the wildlife is one of two things: it's either "on constant alert" or it's gone. And you think it's other people who don't see the disturbance they cause?

Dave P.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Deb London

I really didn't particularly see rona's posts as having a hidden agenda. I tend to write as I find and I assume others do likewise. I sometimes get viewed with suspicion for just asking an honest question or giving a truthful opinion. It is hard to correctly judge someone from how they write and even sometimes from how they behave. But such are forums and that's that.

If someone trampled over some ground that I was helping to conserve, disturbed me whilst I was trying to photograph something, or generally behaved how I didn't think they should, I'd have something to say on the matter. And if more people would give a care about "their environment" then I don't think that would be such a bad thing.

Give and take on all sides.

I agree with much of what Deb has said here. I also tend to write based on what I see - and in this case I have not any real evidence from Rona that increase numbers of visitors have caused undue disturbance, but Rona has indicated that she (or he - it's not really possible to say for certain based only on the username which could be based on an affinity for the Scottish Island!) likes their solitude. However, if people do get the wrong impression of you from your posts surely the best way to change that is to clarify your meaning by answering and expanding on points that have been made.

I whole-heartedly agree that it would be a good thing if more people cared about "their environment" - but how are we suposed to achieve this 'goal' if we always try and restrict their access to the environment and its wildlife? When people are able to visit sites to see unusual wildlife their increased interest is potentially a step forward (and they may then inspire others to go out and look by telling them how thrilling it was to see a Purple Emperor, or whatever).

Originally Posted by davecatt

In light of Ronas' original question I find it hard to understand why people are questioning her refusal to identify the site

No one has asked for the Purple Emperor site to be identified, it is the refusal to identify the National Trust farm site that Rona says has lost most of its wildlife since being taken over by the trust and opened to the public that has been questioned. As I have said, I really can't see any reason to withhold the name of this site (including Rona's privacy, which I sincerely doubt would be affected).

Originally Posted by davecatt

Also I notice only three people answered the question.

How about a straight yes or no answer from all the posters who dodged the question.

Are you in favour of publicising the whereabouts of rare species (of any kind) on the internet?
My answer is a definite NO

I have in no way tried to dodge this question. Although I have not posted a direct answer I would hope that my opinion could be seen from the answers that I have given.
If a direct answer is really necessary, then my answer is "yes, I am in favour of publicising the whereabouts of rare species in certain circumstances" (and the internet is as good a medium as any), because if people know that rare species are present they will generally be more inclined to help protect an area - especially if they have been able to see the species for themselves (even if they saw them at another site).
There are of course exceptions, and each site should be considered individually before details are made public. Considerations include the potential benefits of allowing people to see the species, potential disturbance to the 'target' species, potential disturbance to other species (some of which may also be rare, but perhaps not as appealing to the public), whether there are already local sites where the species can be seen, whether the site can cope with the expected number of visitors (parking, facilities etc), local reaction to increased numbers of visitors etc. etc..
I have made details of the presence of scarce species available in the past, and will do so again - but I have also frequently withheld similar information (either because it has been passed to me in confidence or because I did not feel that the site could cope with the potential increase in visitor numbers).

Originally Posted by rona

As you say, I have no agenda. The wood isn't even somewhere I use regularly, it was just an observation.
If people wish to swamp an area it's up to them, they don't seem to see the disturbance they cause.
I have many many sites around me that are hardly used by humans.
Myself and my dog will go and watch wildlife there, where it isn't on constant alert.

The point here is that based on what you have said in your postings, you are a private person and would prefer to watch wildlife in solitude. Wherever you want to believe this or not this will affect how you view the activities of others. You have given very little information about the disturbance that you say is taking place at the sites that you mention, and because you have not named the sites no one else who may know them is able to comment.
To me the level of disturbance that you describe sounds relatively minimal (deer will almost certainly continue to exist in the woods even though they may alter their behaviour, and although it sounds harsh a fawn that is readily separated from its mother and then "cries" for attention would perhaps not destined to survive anyway - nature is cruel). Sites near me which attract large numbers of visitors, you just have to know where, and when, to look - the wildlife is still there but it is not always going about its business openly.
There is a balance that has to be reached between enabling people to see nature and retricting access to protect the same wildlife - and in my opinion, if dog walkers are allowed in a wood groups of people looking for butterflies will not upset the balance.

Originally Posted by rona

I have requested that my account be deleted, I don't need to be judged like this by people who don't even try to get to know me.

I think that it's a shame that you feel this way. It is an unfortunate fact of life that everyone is judged by others based on first impression (even if those doing the judging don't want to admit it). Sometimes they will get the wrong impression, and perhaps this will be entirely their fault.
If you want people to get to know you, and perhaps correct inaccurate initial impressions, the only way to do this is to respond to their posts and add new information - it is very difficult to get to know someone if they won't do this!

[rona]

Originally Posted by pressld2

And yet you seem quite happy to judge others - photographers - without making any effort to get to know them.

Dave P.

Originally Posted by pressld2

I was going to let it go but the irony is just too great...



If you are out in the countryside with a dog then the wildlife is one of two things: it's either "on constant alert" or it's gone. And you think it's other people who don't see the disturbance they cause?

Dave P.

I really cannot believe that you are a moderator on this forum. Do you drive everyone off that doesn't fit your views?
For your information I was not judging photographers, it was the use of the Internet which floods a previously quiet site with a huge influx of humans, but hey that's ok the needs of the humans are far more important than the wildlife
I have picked up throughout this thread that many here are dog haters, but I can assure you that my dog with the wind in the right direction (which I consider) can pick up the presence of wildlife long before I can, giving me the opportunity to either beat a retreat or sit silently, therefore not disturbing anything.
Yes occassionally we do, no one that spends time in the countryside can ever say they never disturb.
Why are you so vicious with your replies?

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by rona

I really cannot believe that you are a moderator on this forum. Do you drive everyone off that doesn't fit your views?

You've stated your views and I've stated mine. We disagree. I'm no more "driving you off the site" than you are driving me off.

Originally Posted by rona

For your information I was not judging photographers,

It seemed like it to me. On re-reading your opening post, it still does. But I've already admitted that I may be taking it too personally bearing in mind that I was with a group of people at Southwater trying to photograph purple emperors the day before you posted.

Originally Posted by rona

but hey that's ok the needs of the humans are far more important than the wildlife

Your words, not mine. Nor anyone else's on this thread as far as I can see. I just think that under most circumstances it's perfectly okay for people to wander through the woods photographing butterflies. You seem to disagree. That's fine, you're as entitled as anyone else to hold and express your opinion but if I disagree I'm perfectly entitled to say so. That's all I've done.

Originally Posted by rona

I have picked up throughout this thread that many here are dog haters

Completely wrong. I for one am rather fond of dogs. I'm just fed up with being accused of disturbing wildlife with my camera by people with dogs. The mere presence of a dog disturbs wildlife, however well-behaved and under control it may be.

I can see from your web site that you are a responsible dog owner, one who does keep them under control and cleans up after them. But surely you must have noticed that you're in a minority and quite a small one at that?

Originally Posted by rona

I can assure you that my dog with the wind in the right direction (which I consider) can pick up the presence of wildlife long before I can, giving me the opportunity to either beat a retreat or sit silently, therefore not disturbing anything.

And I can assure you that, nine times out of ten, the wildlife will have picked up the presence of your dog just as quickly.

Originally Posted by rona

Why are you so vicious with your replies?

I don't believe I have been vicious in any of my replies. But once again, you are entitled to your opinion.

Dave P.

[Burko]

Some top 'intranetz' arguing here.
Serious business indeed.

[BloomingMarvellous]

Originally Posted by rona

I've been walking in this wood for several years now, nice quiet wood that is just used by locals.
Well, now it has been invaded by people from far and wide due to the siting of Purple Emperor Butterflies.
I saw a Roe Doe with twin fawns in a terrible state being harried here and there by this constant movement of people with cameras. I'm sure the local dogs don't cause half the distress that these enthusiastic photographers were causing.
Do you think the websites that allow people to give out locations of unusual wildlife are doing more harm than good?
Would you give out a location if you had seen something unusual?
I wouldn't

These sort of people are just the same as the Paparazzi, they'll do anything for a picture.

I think you were right not to give out the location, you may have had another stampede of enthusiastic photographers.

[UB4 gardener]

welcome to WAB and what a first post

i have this very debate with myself when i go a local wood near me, i have been there approximately 10 times this year and i'm still yet to see anyone, and if i'm honest if i found purple emperor over there i really don't know if i would tell anyone. as stated in earlier posts it isn't a rare butterfly, i too enjoy the solitude of a quiet wood in human terms (probably rarer than the butterfly) and yes selfish. so sue me also local parking and residents wouldn't appreciate the extra attention. So in some ways i'm actually hoping not see a purple emperor

please continue with the forum, debate is always healthy and if nothing else you may have made some photographers just a little bit more cautious.

Chris

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by UB4 gardener

welcome to WAB and what a first post

Erm, rona's been a member for two and a half years. She's never been a prolific poster but this wasn't her first post.

Dave P.

[UB4 gardener]

oops for some reason i thought it the first post. teach me to pay more attention
thanks for pointing out my glaring error

Chris

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by rona

I really cannot believe that you are a moderator on this forum. Do you drive everyone off that doesn't fit your views?

Funny that. I've been on this forum for a good few years and in that time he seems to have built up a reputation as a good mod. I've only ever seen people with extreme/ridiculous views having trouble with Pressdl2's moderating....

Originally Posted by rona

For your information I was not judging photographers, it was the use of the Internet which floods a previously quiet site with a huge influx of humans, but hey that's ok the needs of the humans are far more important than the wildlife

You used the words in your very first post:

Well, now it has been invaded by people from far and wide due to the siting of Purple Emperor Butterflies.
I saw a Roe Doe with twin fawns in a terrible state being harried here and there by this constant movement of people with cameras.

Just the people with cameras causing the problems then....funny when I go to the new forest it isn't big lenses they are running from, its these 4 legged things that run out of the boot of someones car...

Originally Posted by rona

I have picked up throughout this thread that many here are dog haters, but I can assure you that my dog with the wind in the right direction (which I consider) can pick up the presence of wildlife long before I can, giving me the opportunity to either beat a retreat or sit silently, therefore not disturbing anything.

Ok so your dog can detect wildlife before the wildlife detect it at all and be disturbed? If you are so worried about the wildlife being disturbed, which according to the studies I mentioned earlier will be disturbed by your dog, whether it is under control or not, why don't you walk it in area which is not a rich wildlife area before pointing out others supposed mistakes.

And I don't hate dogs, I just see the havoc and disturbance they cause in a SSSI every day and have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by rona

Why are you so vicious with your replies?

So you start a thread pointing out the supposed errors of photographers, 'invading' your woods that you walk your dog in and complain that other are being vicious because they are point out tthe hypocrisy in your complaints?