1) It has been proven repeatedly that too much human interference can disrupt and kill owls. It is what it is. The precaution in place is to protect them for valid reasons, put there by those who provide the service. This can happen to any bird, yes, of course, but they are particularly sensitive. 2) This list can be viewed as scientific in some ways, but let's not make it seem like a database or official record. It's a public record, which is part of the problem with the owls. It's scientific when we can see specific arrival dates in spring, or note something like the Siskin invasion, but it's not like someone is sitting in front of a database entering in every sighting we send out. I don't want people to think that reporting sightings here is the equivalent of putting them into eBird. You can also find out all of this in eBird in a much easier, faster, and more refined way (though it'd be better if more people put in their data). But this was about the owls - info can be found in many other projects and databases, about owls and any other species. The small group of owls are the only birds not posted here. We regularly have over 300 more species to read about. If you really, absolutely, positively need information about GH, Screech, Saw-whet, Barred, or Long-eared...can't you find another way? From eBird, to the GBBC, I've said it already, it's all there. Or just talk to friends off the list. Or even post a notice on the list that you're studying, say, Barred Owls, and you'd like to have generalized sightings emailed to you privately. I think that would be acceptable to the powers that be. 3) I believe that when the list is making it possible for the birds to be reported, it does, in some cases, have a responsibility to ensure the safety of that bird, etc. It should have some control over the dissemination of information, as it may bear the responsibility of what it done with this information, even if in a strictly moral or ethical sense. 4) It is simply untrue that we do not have owl information, from sightings to studies. It's in all the places I've listed. I don't know how else to say this. When it's placed into a scientific record, why does everyone need to hear about it if it could threaten the bird? You can learn a lot if you know how to us the wealth of information we have available, and if you participate in the projects. There are many other ways to glean baseline information, and when it comes to a few owl species, we should make the sacrifice. 5) This has been beaten into the ground, over and over again. I'm very certain nothing is going to change right now. What can change is the information we have on all birds, and anyone can do that by entering these owls into proper record keeping databases. I certainly hope that everyone who is so concerned about the under reporting of owls on this list is doing their part for reporting owls in every project, from the GBBC, to CBCs, to eBird every day. It would disappoint me to learn this is not the case. Saying we should do away with these reports if behavior can't be trusted is painting a black and white picture - the ignorant or intentionally unethical behavior of the very small minority is what cannot be trusted. We have to be extra cautious because this is a completely public list, and it's a minor inconvenice at most when considered against everything else. With that, I'll try to shut up about it. At least the same old discussion is providing me a good way to bring up good Audubon and Cornell projects. They're dying for more information, so please provide them with it. -- Scott Kruitbosch Stratford, CT http://vimeo.com/kbosch/videos kbosch@gmail.com

I do not agree. Mark ---- Scott Kruitbosch <kbosch@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) It has been proven repeatedly that too much human interference can > disrupt and kill owls. It is what it is. The precaution in place is to > protect them for valid reasons, put there by those who provide the service. > This can happen to any bird, yes, of course, but they are particularly > sensitive. > > 2) This list can be viewed as scientific in some ways, but let's not make it > seem like a database or official record. It's a public record, which is part > of the problem with the owls. It's scientific when we can see specific > arrival dates in spring, or note something like the Siskin invasion, but > it's not like someone is sitting in front of a database entering in every > sighting we send out. I don't want people to think that reporting sightings > here is the equivalent of putting them into eBird. You can also find out all > of this in eBird in a much easier, faster, and more refined way (though it'd > be better if more people put in their data). > > But this was about the owls - info can be found in many other projects and > databases, about owls and any other species. The small group of owls are the > only birds not posted here. We regularly have over 300 more species to read > about. If you really, absolutely, positively need information about GH, > Screech, Saw-whet, Barred, or Long-eared...can't you find another way? From > eBird, to the GBBC, I've said it already, it's all there. Or just talk to > friends off the list. Or even post a notice on the list that you're > studying, say, Barred Owls, and you'd like to have generalized sightings > emailed to you privately. I think that would be acceptable to the powers > that be. > > 3) I believe that when the list is making it possible for the birds to be > reported, it does, in some cases, have a responsibility to ensure the safety > of that bird, etc. It should have some control over the dissemination of > information, as it may bear the responsibility of what it done with this > information, even if in a strictly moral or ethical sense. > > 4) It is simply untrue that we do not have owl information, from sightings > to studies. It's in all the places I've listed. I don't know how else to say > this. When it's placed into a scientific record, why does everyone need to > hear about it if it could threaten the bird? You can learn a lot if you know > how to us the wealth of information we have available, and if you > participate in the projects. There are many other ways to glean baseline > information, and when it comes to a few owl species, we should make the > sacrifice. > > 5) This has been beaten into the ground, over and over again. I'm very > certain nothing is going to change right now. What can change is the > information we have on all birds, and anyone can do that by entering these > owls into proper record keeping databases. > > I certainly hope that everyone who is so concerned about the under reporting > of owls on this list is doing their part for reporting owls in every > project, from the GBBC, to CBCs, to eBird every day. It would disappoint me > to learn this is not the case. > > Saying we should do away with these reports if behavior can't be trusted is > painting a black and white picture - the ignorant or intentionally unethical > behavior of the very small minority is what cannot be trusted. We have to be > extra cautious because this is a completely public list, and it's a minor > inconvenice at most when considered against everything else. > > With that, I'll try to shut up about it. At least the same old discussion is > providing me a good way to bring up good Audubon and Cornell projects. > They're dying for more information, so please provide them with it. > > -- > Scott Kruitbosch > Stratford, CT > http://vimeo.com/kbosch/videos > kbosch@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA) for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut. > For subscription information visit http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.org

>1) It has been proven repeatedly that too much human interference can >disrupt and kill owls. It is what it is. The precaution in place is to >protect them for valid reasons, put there by those who provide the service. >This can happen to any bird, yes, of course, but they are particularly >sensitive. Really all this says is reporting owls may have an adverse affect on the individual owl, which sucks. But in the grand scheme of things, this will have no measurable effect on owls as a whole. Other than Long-eared Owls, no other owl is listed as endangered in CT, though a couple others are listed as threatened or of special concern. But Long-eared Owls in general (outside CT) are not endangered and neither are those other owls. So an owl or two being disrupted by some birders or other humans in CT isn't really all that significant. I feed the birds in my yard. That is technically human interference. And because of it, a fair number of Blue Jays have died because the local hawks have discovered a great snack bar. I have pictures. So, should I stop feeding the birds because it is killing Blue Jays? Would those Blue Jays have been eaten if I didn't feed them and encourage them to congregate in my yard through my interference with nature? Same goes for reporting owls. Not all Blue Jays get eaten because I feed the birds, but some do. Not all owls will die a horrible, tragic death because someone on a bird list told others where they were. This is clearly one of those topics birders will have to agree to disagree about. Another list I am on is debating whether or not birds "count" and can be put on your life list/state list or not. It is a very heated debate, just as this one is. If we all thought the same way, our world would be pretty dull. I have no problem with the list putting rules in place and making people follow them. Emails lists would be total chaos otherwise and completely worthless and we would get no useful bird data. There is however an easy solution for the owl dilemma. Someone could simply go create another bird list for CT birders where it is allowed to report owl sightings... Julie Keefer Lyme, CT