The depths some twitchers will go to tick the Night Parrot

By Birding-Aus, on February 20th, 2015

I have just received this email from John Young, part of which I find very disturbing. How someone who purports to be a birdwatcher could suggest setting fire to a fragile environment as spinifex country, just so he could tick the Night Parrot is quite unfathomable. Utter contempt is not adequate enough to describe my feelings towards this person. Unfortunately, if I were to use the phraseology I would like to, I would likely be kicked off BA for life. Suffice to say, they would be a suitable candidate for retrospective sterilisation. Enough of my raging, here is John Youngs email: Hi Carl, I could not resist complimenting you on your quote about governments “Cloud Cuckoo Land” how good and factual is that. Personally I think they are a baby kissing, weak hand shaking waste of space – hence my stand to avoid them at all costs. The scary part was I recently had an individual wanting to see the bird for his list at all costs and cost was the word. He actually implied that a spinifex fire would force them out the other end so people could see them if lit when in position. If I would have been closer I would have beat the #!%# out of him. Surely our priceless fauna mean more than just a bloody tick. Our focus as a serious group of people now should be the killing of this feral menace that has the potential in the VERY near future of wiping some of our precious fauna off the face of the earth. A huge thankyou to you and those who are driving this point home..well done. My turn is coming and I will take no prisoners. Kind regards John Young

Birding-Aus mailing list
Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org

andrew

February 20, 2015 at 7:54 pm

Sounds to me like a birder brought up on a diet of Monty Python with tongue pressed firmly in the cheek. (One birder I could imagine making such a quip is Bill Oddie, and I wouldn’t put it past Jeremy Clarkson dropping a line like that either). Cheers, and remind me never to make such a twisted remark, even in jest… Andrew Bell

l.knight

February 20, 2015 at 5:58 pm

I’m not sure what the fuss is about. From the limited context in Carl’s original post, I presume John was referring to a conversation he had with a birdwatcher – possibly at one of his lectures – where the use of fire was mentioned as a hypothetical means to see a bird. I don’t believe that John is in the habit of taking people to Night Parrot locations, so there was no likelihood of a night parrot actually being disturbed. It is not unknown for birdwatchers to beat the ground to flush out birds, and I think that beating or selective spinifex lighting was a technique used to see Night Parrots back in the nineteenth century. Actually, I think many observations came from horse riders who saw birds flushed by their mounts. The bottom line is there are many people who don’t care about the welfare of the birds they see. All we can do is educate people … As for John’s comments about governments, I would remind you that there have been many successful government programs to conserve birds in places like Macquarie Island, Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island and in New Zealand. There is a place for both public and private sector conservation efforts. Regards, Laurie. On 20 Feb 2015, at 2:01 pm, Carl Clifford < carlsclifford@gmail.com> wrote:

tarburton.m

February 20, 2015 at 3:14 pm

G’day All Some people! Could I suggest that the ecotraps made in Melbourne are a very good way to catch cats and dogs. I used them in the bird sanctuary in PNG, better known as Pacific Adventist University. 50% of cats (from some old research I read) will not go into cage type traps, but this trap does not look like a trap at all, even to a cat or dog. It has a 1.5m zip on the narrow end so that if it is a Bilby or other native animal you have caught, you can easily release it. Some nights I sat nearby and watched it work. Highly recommended – though a tad expensive. Cheers Mike =================== Michael Tarburton tarburton.m@optusnet.com.au =================== On 20/02/2015, at 12:54 PM, Carl Clifford wrote:

goodfellow

February 20, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Having guided birders for 30 + years, I’ve some idea what mad keen birders are capable of. And knowing John (and Carl), I don’t doubt at all what Carl wrote. Denise Goodfellow goodfellow@bigpond.com.au On 20 Feb 2015, at 1:31 pm, Carl Clifford < carlsclifford@gmail.com> wrote:

carlsclifford

February 20, 2015 at 2:01 pm

1. I not only have John’s permission but encouragement to forward this email which he sent to me this morning. 2. It is not hearsay, the forwarded email is John’s word written in his own hand detailing what he heard and saw. 3. The accused person has the opportunity to state his/her case on Birding-aus. Indeed, I look forward to their side of the story 4. It is up to the list members and/or moderators to decide when it is “enough on this matter”, not one individual. As for intemperate language, what I wrote is a greatly modified version of what I feel towards a person who would use such tactics as described by John, just to tick a bird. Carl Clifford

peter

February 20, 2015 at 1:19 pm

I’m hoping this is the situation, and that they weren’t serious. I can’t believe anyone would be dumb enough to suggest that John get involved in burning them out, even if they were prepared to do that themself. I doesn’t seem very practical anyway, given that you’d get a fleeting glimpse at best, if you could see it in the smoke. Peter Shute

richardnowotny

February 20, 2015 at 12:47 pm

I’m going to weigh in again here with a plea for us all to be thoughtful, considered and temperate in our language when we post messages on a public forum such as Birding-Aus. I’m sure Carl had only the best of intentions, but here are some thoughts/comments on his post. 1. Did he seek John’s permission before sending John’s personal email to the list? John may not wish his private comments to be broadcast in this way (and they may not do him any favours by being made public). 2. Is second-hand information (“hearsay” in legal terms) sufficiently reliable to justify such strong and emotive language directed at another person [“Utter contempt is not adequate enough to describe my feelings towards this person.”], particularly when this person has had no opportunity to put their side of the story? (John himself knows all about this.) 3. John states that the supposed miscreant “implied” that a fire might do something. I would like to have the actual statement before concluding that this was a statement of genuine intent or serious consideration, rather than say a careless or even whimsical comment (possibly misinterpreted in a sensitive and volatile setting). I know some might find all of this altogether too prissy and purist, and of course megaphone commentary makes for much more entertaining reading (or listening – think shock-jocks). But shouldn’t we try on this forum, particularly with its slightly scientific pretensions, to remain objective, reasonable, fair, decent – you know, all that stuff? And surely that’s enough on this matter. Regards. Richard

davidtorr

February 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm

Well – I guess if we hear of a mysterious fire and someone’s life list goes up by one will have a good suspect!

Birding-Aus

The depths some twitchers will go to tick the Night Parrot

8 comments to The depths some twitchers will go to tick the Night Parrot

Mailing List

Book Search

Meta