查看完整版本: Will you take bird photos like this 你會這樣拍鳥嗎?

BWA 3/02/2012 21:38

Will you take bird photos like this 你會這樣拍鳥嗎?

9/7/11 A tern island in Hong Kong

mbill 3/02/2012 22:33

I think these photographers will make the terns to abandon their eggs and chicks.
35516184ceba445 35516184ceba445 35516184ceba445

louislee 4/02/2012 00:50

Ridiculous !

They are doing things detrimental to the nature and human.

If the terns are driven away, they can no longer take photos.

But I think they are more than that, out of their greed, they ignore the basic living requirement for birds and others' opportunities to appreciate these magnificent creatures.

kmatthew 4/02/2012 19:54

reckless and brainless act. Let's just hope the more the public are educated, the less we will see a scene like this in the near future.

bittern 4/02/2012 20:15

Selfish and deplorable acts!
Are these 'illegal' (technically)?355163d4808b445

VRII 7/02/2012 00:13

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

ying 7/02/2012 01:28


msamuel 7/02/2012 02:02


EricB 7/02/2012 07:43

Things may not be as bad as they seem.
I am unclear on the absolute legality of approaching particular bird species in this particular tern colony, but that aside ones initial horror of the situation may not based on any real harm.
Terns breed in colonies as protection against predators from their open ground nests. Although physically intruding on their space, I am sure none of the photographers actually predated on the nests, chicks or adult birds in your photo on the ‘Tern Island’.

The relationship is complex between humans and these ground nesting birds.

Data from the Farne Islands in Northumberland where over 10000 visitors walk on  a boardwalk round a small island with Arctic Terns and Eider nesting inches from the path is interesting. Decades ago when the Eiders arrived in May to breed, they preferred the periphery of the island away from the main boardwalk. Now the first Eiders go for the nest sites nearest to the footpath. This is because the success rate of broods is better where the humans walk past frequently, as this deters other predators (mainly gulls).
I’m not saying this is the same situation here, but all may not be as bad as it seems.
Here are 2 photos for pondering.
One was taken on recent on Lady Elliot Island by my brother. A predator like this Sea Eagle would undoubtedly be deterred from snatching a tern near  a group of photographers.

The second pic is from Inner Farne, where in the peak season hundreds of people get off the boat daily and have to walk right next to many nesting Arctic Terns, with no clear detrimental effect.

I can’t really comment on people breaking twigs. I certainly have and would do so again. You can wait the rest of your life trying to see a Flufftail unless you do and I am happy to snap a few twigs in the process – I don’t think  it is a problem , no ones talking about taking half the forest. Mother nature snaps branches off tree as regular as the wind blows.


[[i] Last edited by EricB at 9/02/2012 05:39 [/i]]

BWA 7/02/2012 20:05

[quote]Original posted by [i]VRII[/i] at 7/02/2012 00:13 [url=http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=46576&ptid=15751][img]http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
What is your comment on these men cutting the tree at PO Shan Road?
Will you like to take bird photo like this?
[url]http://i240.ph[/url] ... [/quote]

Of course I do not approve of cutting trees.  Will you?
Could you elaborate more on why you ask this question?
Disturbing terns is not correct.  Nor is cutting trees.

[[i] Last edited by BWA at 7/02/2012 20:18 [/i]]

BWA 7/02/2012 20:12

[quote]Original posted by [i]EricB[/i] at 7/02/2012 07:43 [url=http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=46584&ptid=15751][img]http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Things may not be as bad as they seem.
I am unclear on the absolute legality of approaching particular bird species in this particular tern colony, but that aside ones initial horror of the situation  ... [/quote]

I'm not sure about what happens at the Farne Islands.

When we (Ho Fai and I) first arrived at the tern island on the day when the photo was taken, the photographers have been there for some time.  Many terns were circling high up in the air and dare not land, a reaction similar to the case when a Peregrine Falcon is around.  In fact we were looking for the falcon until we found those people.  The photographers were clearly disturbing the terns, for no good reason other than a selfish purpose.

fkm 7/02/2012 22:21

[quote]Original posted by [i]BWA[/i] at 7/02/2012 20:05 [url=http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=46597&ptid=15751][img]http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

Of course I do not approve of cutting trees.  Will you?
Could you elaborate more on why you ask this question?
Disturbing terns is not correct.  Nor is cutting trees. [/quote]

I have been told those persons snapping off branches are from your side of the camp, i.e. those claim themselves to be conservationists by regularly attacking other photographers' behavior. Are you telling us you can't recognize them?

[[i] Last edited by fkm at 7/02/2012 22:23 [/i]]

brendank 7/02/2012 23:02

First, I don't really see any need to land on the island.

Second, maybe I missed something but do you mean Po Shan Road on Hong Kong Island? What bird was there that they needed to improve the scenery?

VRII 8/02/2012 00:21

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 8/02/2012 00:24

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 8/02/2012 00:27

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

BWA 9/02/2012 20:36

[quote]Original posted by [i]VRII[/i] at 8/02/2012 00:21 [url=http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=46607&ptid=15751][img]http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

Ha Ha, you are telling what I mean. I wonder most of the attacking are aimed to attack, not from the benefits of birds/environment.
EricB tells us a real story that human being is not quite harmful  ... [/quote]

I don't know the person who was snapping off a tree branch in the photo.  I do not approve of what he was doing regardless who he is or how he thinks about taking photos inside the core area of a tern island.

Gary's article is not meant to encourage people getting into the core area.  He was talking about fishermen who stay at the perimeter of the island.

EricB 10/02/2012 06:10

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the person who brought this discussion to the forum, as it is an important one.

P1. We all know the only important thing is what happens next year and in the future, rather than what has happened previously.

P2.I think I am right in thinking that all those involved share the same ultimate goal. In this case a sustainable long term ‘Tern colony’.

P3.I believe I am right in thinking that if the Terns were left to their own devices they would prefer to be left alone without humans landing on the islands and the potential for the introduction of other predators – in particular rats.

P4.It is clear that people would prefer not to leave the terns to their own devices and would like to watch and photograph them. Here lies the dilemma.

P5.It is right that the HKBWS looks at the problem and helps orchestrate a considerate solution. Seabirds have a right to live and breed and share the environment with the rest of us. Unfortunately, they aren’t good at defending their turf against humans – but the turf needs to be defended. As far as I’m concerned they are on the brink of disaster from loss of safe havens to breed , pollution and the detrimental effects on their feeding grounds etc..

P6. The are some basic rules on what is legal regarding disturbance to nesting bird species, who owns the island and who makes the rules on who can land etc..
I haven’t got a clue, but clearly this is a key issue of any policy.
I assume the island is not privately owned and is likely to be government land. In which case probably the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation department are the people who are likely to have any real say on the matter.

P7 It would be nice to think that a decision would be taken to maximise the birds success in breeding so that the colony grew and that humans were allowed to watch and photograph the birds from land if possible.

P8. I think professional help should be sought i.e. there are conservationists out there who will have information from other seabird colonies which will guide you on how to manage this situation. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Large organisations like the IOU, RSPB or IUCN can surely help.

P9. From my naïve prospective, this is likely to result in organised limited access, restrictions on where people can stand to view and a fee for further development ( May be to produce Tern Rafts or extra land for breeding?)  

P10. A heavy handed total ban on landing may not be in the long term interests of the tern colony or conservation in Hong Kong in general.

I hope these thoughts help focus attention on a positive way forward rather than dwelling on events that cannot be altered.
Happy Birding.


[[i] Last edited by EricB at 10/02/2012 06:47 [/i]]

thinfor 10/02/2012 10:56

Thanks EricB for some very thoughtful comments for this matter.  I have some comments as follows:

We know our weakness of our government.  In order to maintain the existing prosperity of Hong Kong, the sacrifice is highly likely the terns.  Also legislation takes time and what more important is how to implement.

As far as I know, the 'tern island' may refer to a no of islands in HK that are locations of breeding grounds for terns.  What I refer to is the main 'tern colony' as shown in the photo.  This island is one of the most remoted in HK and I really don't think govt can have a great solution to limit access.  If she can think of any, possibly it may be a couple of years later and if we public still lack the intention to protect this island, there may be no more terns, which I think we don't want to see it happen.

I don't think most of you might have known what I have experienced before.  As a hiker (before becoming a birdwatcher), I have paid attention on any local tours organized in HK and some of the tours had included this island also, esp in 80s and 90s.  Very long time ago, I joined once and a boat of people, at least 30, got on this island for sightseeing purpose.  At that time, the local tours of course didn't have much knowledge on the importance of this terns' breeding ground.  Though we had been warned by some guys (possibly the bird lovers/researchers) who were already on the tiny little pier of that island and the tour leader told us not to disturb the chicks and the eggs, some of the participants still stepped on, picked and broke some of the eggs and I remembered at that moment all the terns (at that time, at least a few hundred I thought!!!) had to take off for some time until we all left.

What the members here now should want to know how's the situation now.  I can tell you:  presently one of the local tours that concentrate on exploring remoted places in HK, also stop doing that.  This is the education and I think the correct message, by all means, has been conveyed to the local tours finally.  So before the law has been legislated, we local people can have much to do to minimize the artificial impacts (mostly negative) on the terns.  That should not be out of our common goals.

I don't want to admit that HK people are sometimes selfish.  But in the past I was also selfish before and wished I could step on every piece of land in HK area.  This was just a mindset of an explorer and I thought I had the right and freedom to do so.  However, I now have been known that my right might have jeopardized other species in the world, who should have equal rights living on our Earth.

Last but not least, I would like to comment that humans can dominant the Earth because we are really much more intelligent.  This may be a NATURAL outcome.  But our development has been so quick that hardly other organisms can follow.  If we think it's natural survival logic, nothing other than people should be protected.  Then I'm quite sure that only humans will remain and survive, which I don't want to see.  As the most intelligent species in the Earth, I don't think legislation is the only thing that can stop us from influencing the terns badly.  Lao Zi suggested 無為而治.  With self discipline, many things can be well maintained even no laws have driven us.  This is very hard to do but that doesn't mean we don't do it.  HKBWS has limited authority to handle this matter but I agree that it has done much to educate and show us how to interact with these lovely creatures.  This is much appreciated and should be supported or my explorer mindset might not have been changed, which I now think it's quite naive.

VRII 14/02/2012 01:20

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 14/02/2012 01:32

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 14/02/2012 02:07

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

kmike 14/02/2012 10:44


It is not reasonable to expect that others will give your opinion.  A discussion begins when you add your own opinion. Thank you for doing so.  Your further participation in the discussion is also welcome. Even if I or others do not agree with your opinion, it is still welcome.

Language such as "blaming organisation" is not helpful.

Hong Kong Bird Watching Society has a duty to protect birds.  

You may not be aware that it is against the law (CAP 170)  to disturb the nest or eggs of a breeding bird.

Since the tern nesting island is about 150 m long, about 80m wide long and 30 metres high and birds nest on every part of the island it is very difficult to land or stay on the island without causing disturbance (when all the birds fly up as a person approaches this is disturbance).

I have visited the Farne Islands which EricB mentions.  This is a much larger island. It is large enough to have a house where wardens stay to educate the public and manage the number of visitors. The situation is therefore rather different from the small, steep uninhabited island where the terns breed in Hong Kong and where disturbance is unavoidable.

HKBWS works with AFCD to monitor the tern colony for scientific study and conservation purposes. This also causes disturbance. However the work is done by experts who work hard to minimize their disturbance, by limiting their visit to a minimum and limiting their time on the island.

HKBWS is encouraging photographers to minimise their disturbance by taking pictures from boats instead of landing on the island. Many of the excellent results have been shown on this Forum. It would be helpful to explain why this method is not appropriate and it is essential to land on the island.  

Mike Kilburn
Vice Chairman

thinfor 14/02/2012 12:08

Thanks all for the messages.  In order to express more to the point, I would choose to post this in Chinese.  Sorry for those who have followed this message but do not know Chinese.  I hope I can do the translation afterwards.  And, more importantly, this is my personal view, no matter in Chinese or English.

在我回應Filming a Little Bunting的thread中, fkm君提到有人"經常性地對其他愛鳥人肆意攻擊, 隨時上綱上線", 那麼VRII兄在放大我那句可以做到攻擊的"Though we had been warned by some guys (possibly the bird lovers/researchers) who were already on the tiny little pier of that island and the tour leader told us not to disturb the chicks and the eggs"都是上鋼上線吧? 由讀者判斷, 諸君不用愁, 公道自在人心.

有很多想回應, 逐個逐個來.  先講自私.  在我自己看來, 你放大的一句, 是表示出"有人口口聲聲話唔好上島, 自己又上, 咁想點先? 點解我又唔得先, 雙重標準, 鳥會有乜特權淨係俾部份人咁做?"  好, 就用我這個第三身份去拆解你的怨懟.

1) 上唔上島熟是熟非, 可稍後或開新thread探討.  先入回正題. 我只想講這種想法及往後在forum中窮追猛打也像小學生嗌交互相告發給老師一樣的不成熟.  大家可以用權利與義務及背後的動機這一層面去想想道理在哪一邊.  
首先, 那些你認為可以有特權上島的人在做什麼? 是否純粹影雀? 是否像攝影者般在等到光線最靚雀鳥動靜最引人入勝的一刻在拍攝?  據我所知, 他們主要是數雀及觀察多, 而這些我會歸於科學研究的範疇.  科研很多時會無可奈何干擾自然生態, 所以他們處理自己及別人的時候, 亦會隔外小心, 因為基點在於盡量減少干擾, 所以有些準則是要play safe, 不可以take risk, 我們不知道上島會給雀鳥帶來多少影響, 可能像ericb所講影響慢慢會少下來, 也可能像我們最差的預期雀鳥一去不返.  以較保守的思維去處理這個問題我覺得是合理, 往後如何去調節也應該可以討論, 但核心應該不是你所quote的那句話或者在上邊我寫過我認為你想表示的論點囉. 是不是理性去看這個事件, 所有讀者心裡有數啦.
若你再反駁"我鳥攝上島也可以說是科研啦, 你何必講到那麼偉大?" 你心目中若果有思毫飄過這樣的一個反駁, 我希望你從心底中拿回那些對這些你講有"特權"之士應有的尊重才好.  科研像你可以等影數到毛的雀那麼開心麼?  定期數雀, 做文件, 分析, 公開報告, 處理公文, 還有其他一大堆的功夫, 並不是影雀興趣那麼的好玩, 甚至可以講乏味.  要ring雀, 更要攞牌, 定時定候天未光走去同一地方等, 看的雀未必振奮人心, 而你這時候很多時就是三兩知己收到風高高興興去影雀之時.  你可以講他們有特權, 但正正因為他們有就要做我以上所講的東西向人交待, 而最重要的, 就是背後的動機 - 愛鳥!!!  諸君, 愛鳥並不是只在viewfinder看牠們的明媚!!!  你們想不到這點, 一是表露自己想法的峽隘, 一是完全不知道他們為雀鳥做過些什麼. 我慶幸結識一些青少年, 除了喜歡影雀外, 他們也有心去了解更多雀鳥周邊的東西, 如生態, 繁殖行為等等, 有一個更去看怎樣環誌, 做一些義務工作, 他們都知道愛雀鳥可是一門學問, 並不是攝入鏡頭裡那麼簡單.  不是有這樣愛鳥的情操, 一個人很難每星期山長水遠走到同一地點做這些完全不像看到罕見鳥那般振奮的工作.  我自問我自己都未必可以拋棄那麼多自由去做這些工作.  自私? 我懇請你收番呢兩個字.  又或者你去了解人地點做這些工作, 才再講這些話吧.  還有, 很多時他們的對象不是什麼'正雀', 麻鷹, 雨燕, 你細心看過雨燕的時間有幾多?  有一隻棕腹大仙鶲出現的話, 你揀雨燕定隻鶲? 3551df13952b445  我會尊重他們, 而並不會問為什麼你有特權我沒有!!! 除非我認為我可以代替他們的角色.
我可以告訴你, 那個已在島上的人勸戒我的時候我也是跟隨領隊繼續行, 他們並沒有追上來, 他們仍然在自己的位置, 我們實在太多人了. 當時在我看來, 我覺得只要我們走了鳥就沒有事, 我自己也沒有觸碰任何雛鳥及鳥蛋, 但其他旅友未必. 到頭來也是有一定程度的破壞. 這或許就是他們沒有追上來的原因, 已經太遲了.  著眼點在於, 人的數目, 島的大小, 前者多, 後者小, 影響可以很大.  我還記得我們離開島後, 在老遠也能看到那些燕鷗小黑點, 看來牠們仍在盤旋, 不知何時才著陸.
2) 觀念的改變可減少對雀鳥的破壞, 保守一點不見得完全不可取. EricB的意見很中肯, 表示出我們的access範圍應該可以有多大, 不是像你們的著眼點在於"為什麼我的範圍那麼遠, 你的那麼近, 還要以科研做借口, 不公平!".  燕鷗島是個島, 它最近岸的方向也是西貢極東的邊陲, 如何保護是一個很大的課題, 至少不只在於"你上島就得, 我上就唔得"這層面吧? 你想大家雙方像黃毓民和詹培忠在議會嗌交般咁唔體面嗎? 黃詹兩人咁燥火都識在會後賠個不是話教壞細路呀.  你們不會像他們那樣的火爆吧? 3551em011445

To VRII君的觀點: 像EricB所講, 雀鳥可以容許人幾近接觸, 未有人知(至少在這個島上來說), 大家也在努力研究, 所以保守一點我覺得可以接受, 忍一忍讓燕鷗仍在, 我們的研究才會有意思, 已嚇跑了的不知會不會來, 風險咁大點take? 正如有朋友叫你買六合彩, 你咁唔咁吞咗佢個本唔買? 點都要買定條飛做保險喎, 萬一真係中咗(啲鳥走晒), 你點同你朋友交待? 而觀鳥會作為一個愛鳥的組織, 定出一些建議, 我覺得係順理成章, 若質疑那些建議是不是有科學的跟據, 我覺得鳥會當中亦不乏很多有經驗對雀鳥有研究之士, 他們的意見應不會過份偏頗, 只在於程度的鬆緊, 而像我所講, 先緊而知後再調節影響會較少. 個人意見, 可再找機會討論.

P.S. 岔開少少, 講番個旅行登島trip, 諸君知道是什麼時候的事?  是98年的事了!  那時旅行隊沒有意識, 我沒有意識, 諸位可能覺得勸告的那幾位人兄也沒有意識. 不要緊, 錯要去認.  14年前的事, 我也找回來說, 除咗要認錯, 也可以做一個例子去看看影響吧? 跟據1998 bird report, 那時粉紅燕鷗最高紀錄130隻. 之後已沒有這麼多, 直至到2008 bird report, 最高紀錄91隻, since 1999!!!  不知是否巧合, 1998有旅行隊上了島後, 紀錄就跌, 直至2008年, 大家想希望那些數字繼續跌嗎?  若沒有這些紀錄, 我們也很難估計我們對燕鷗的影響.  做這些紀錄的人是不是應該得到一點尊重? 1998年的record count, 可能就係嗰幾個話有特權留在島上的人數出來.  你看年報的數字時看到人家的心機嗎? 是不是又是必然的呢? 甘迺迪講得好啱,"唔好問社會給予你什麼, 問自己可以貢獻社會什麼!" 很多人講權利唔睇義務, 民主自由的社會時時不斷提出前者, 而往往忽略後者, 願各位鳥友共勉之.  世上的事很多時何其簡單, 但人心叵測, 將之複雜, 再加些誤會, 就一發不可收拾. 理性討論, 未必能得到如所有人願的結果, 但至少過程是實際的, 有用的, 總好過爭拗得來為啖氣. 鳥兒們不知我們在做什麼, 所以我地自己要諗清楚自己做什麼才對, 牠們不懂投贊成反對票, 但牠們每一個生命就是一票, 當你見到"票數"少的時候, 我們便要反省. 3551f60952e1445
你怎樣去愛鳥? It's your choice.  35511894c7a1445

[[i] Last edited by thinfor at 14/02/2012 12:17 [/i]]

ying 21/02/2012 02:21


[[i] Last edited by ying at 21/02/2012 02:26 [/i]]

VRII 22/02/2012 00:22

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 22/02/2012 02:07

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

Sze 23/02/2012 01:01


我想分享一下給予別人(尤其對方是陌生人)勸告的人,很多時給予勸告並不會需要了解對方是否一個自私的人,亦不太會考慮因為對方自私就不給予勸告(除非有可能帶來生命危險),是否給予勸告的取決很多時只是建基於那個勸告是否有其需要性。我不太了解當年的人只是勸告大家不要騷擾鳥蛋及幼鳥而沒有勸告大家不要登島所取決因素包括那些,可能是由於他好心不想大家掃興,又或者由於他礙於自己不是執法人員故此不敢嘗試提出,正如你所說,因為我不是那個人,我不能代答,但我卻不太認同你所說的勸告大家不要登島,要求大家做的事較以前嚴厲就等於是一個倒退。香港法例第170章《野生動物保護條例》是在1976年頒發的([url=http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/conservation/con_fau/con_fau_local/con_fau_local.html#what]http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/conservation/con_fau/con_fau_local/con_fau_local.html#what[/url]) ,在1976年前之法例沒有禁止市民獵殺野生動物,但在1976年之後就不准大家對某些野生動物進行獵殺,要求嚴厲了,但又是否等於法例倒退了?沒有以前的開明呢?

法例的訂立或者修訂跟給予勸告一樣都是基於當中是否有需要性。需要性是比以前多了還是少了亦很建基於周邊的環境或人事是否有改變而有所增減。「以前」我不太清楚你指的是多久之前,但我個人第一部數碼單鏡反光相機(簡稱「單反」)是在2004年購入,當年一部入門級的Canon 300D要索價$8XXX,CF咭(其中一種相機用的記憶咭類型)的儲存量價值1MB = $1,但近年單反及記憶咭的售價大跌確實令到更多人加入攝影的行列,令到攝影人士數目暴增,這點我相信是沒有人會有異議的。除了攝影人士會有機會登島,某些戶外活動(如:攀石行山,磯釣等)的參與者也有機會登島,而且他們的參與人數也是與日俱增中。當登島的人數日漸增多,當中混有害群之馬的機會率也會增加(純粹以或然率來想),樹大有枯枝的情況也很自然會有更大機會。當人數越來越多,領隊們或者執法人員要完全制止所有人登島後都不會做一些危害燕鷗的事的難度將會越來越大,因為參與者的人數一定會比領隊或者執法人員多數十倍,這個問題我想大家不難理解。對於一些殺人放火,姦淫擄掠的「肯定是罪」的違法行為,要執法,不難;但當某些行為(如:地產霸權)是存在於一些「灰色地帶」內時,要執法,卻不易,甚至未能。但對於這些未達「肯定是罪」,有些人卻發現此等行為已開始對事情的原本狀況帶來一些從前沒有那般頻繁的問題或負面影響,然後將問題提出時,又是否等於這班人阻住香港經濟發展?阻住別人生活享樂?個人思想正在倒退中呢?



[[i] Last edited by Sze at 23/02/2012 02:05 [/i]]

Sze 23/02/2012 01:50


thinfor 23/02/2012 03:46

以上問題我可以答覆你, 你認同與否則屬後話:

[color=Blue]我想說的是有人說上島的人都是自私的,而根據你先前所講,十多年前已有人上島,在島上的疑似觀鳥者/研究者卻告誡你們不要騷擾雀鳥,試問自私的人會給你勸告嗎. 而並非你代我表達的意思,可能係我那些比小學雞更雞的英文令你睇唔明.

不明白你的邏輯. 我想你的理解為: 自私的人不會給你勸告 -> 但在島上的疑似觀鳥者/研究者給我勸告, 所以他們不是自私的人 -> 所以有人說上島的人都是自私的是不成立.  這是正確. 但重點不在於哪些人, 而是那些人登島的目的及意識形態. 少量的人在碼頭最遠的位置以最小的影響去做紀錄, 以科研為目的, 可以接受(不接受的話可再找位置討論怎樣最適當); 政府工作人員緊急維修燈塔, 以確保附近航行船隻安全, 可以接受; 像旅行隊般在繁殖季節多人在島上流連, 並沒有必要. 所以沒有必要而在繁殖季節登島對燕鷗有一定程度的騷擾, 本人並不認同, 而以鳥攝為由的話, 我會認為這可能是一種自私的表現, 因為沒有這個必要.  現在搞清楚個重點就可以了.

同意sze的說法, 不是開不開明, 倒不倒退的問題, 我那段長篇大論已提過: "那時旅行隊沒有意識, 我沒有意識, 諸位可能覺得勸告的那幾位人兄也沒有意識". 覺今是而昨非, 就要去改了, 以前勸告不要騷擾鳥蛋及幼鳥,現在不准上島, 我覺得反而是進步.  知道有機會令燕鷗數目減少, 仍然堅持不限制遊人的數目及接觸距離, 這才是真正的倒退.


請留意這一點第二段第一個字, 是"若", 英文係if.  你沒想過會有反駁, 不用理會, 可當我練倉頡打字算了, 那些comments是表示觀鳥會有很多時間會放在科研身上, 希望大家會意識到及表示認同.  
你post文咁多, 又成日可以去鳥攝, 影普通雀的時間肯定比我睡眠的時間還多.  難得你那麼多留意家燕, 你或者真的可以幫幫手做一些義務工作, 總比在這裡為啖氣拗餐死有意義得多!!  

[color=Blue]"為什麼我的範圍那麼遠, 你的那麼近, 還要以科研做借口, 不公平!" 敢問邊位講過呢d野?點解你咁喜歡幫人講埋?[/color]

係, 我多口講埋, 因為之前都有人討論過有人上過島的問題, 而有些人可以登島, 應當有合理的理由, 而這種理由未必會得到人贊同(如科研), 在此補一筆, 你唔喜歡我講埋就skip, 唔好意思要你睇多幾十字.

[color=Blue]要知道可以幾近,試下就知啦,一味靠估,點得? 好似之前好多人影黑卷尾巢,跟住有人話咁近咁多人黑卷尾會棄巢唔要bb,但事實係黑卷尾冇棄巢,仲繼續餵bb,個d人又話黑卷尾無可奈何,呢d就係叫做"咩都你講晒啦",有咁好嘅機會觀察唔去,反而返去鬧人,去阻住人,嘥晒d研究機會. 新藥都揾完動物再揾人試啦係咪? 六合彩??????[/color]

咦, 你真係無留意我個比喻, 真係要局我打多啲字, 寫長啲, 你先至會明我講乜喎.  答你啲問題先: 你都知新藥要搵動物試, 但都唔係亂搵對象吧?  我話吸毒有害上癮我搵你去試, 你會唔會睬我? 如果你認為呢件黑卷尾事件像吸咗毒無得番轉頭咁嚴重, 你就唔會咁諗嘢. 你甘願冒險而不去計後果的這一點我不苟同, 我舉番mark6 個例, 中頭獎="隻雀仔會有壞影響"(像你所講機會可能其實不大, 只係我地庸人自擾, 大隻講), 朋友叫你買的錢="你想要靚相片而試雀仔最近的距離", 你幫朋友買的舉動="一點犧牲,離雀鳥遠一點,相片差一點沒所謂", 而兩件事大家都有份(六合彩大家可以買, 雀大家一齊睇). 宜家你就係嗰個寧願要你朋友的錢(靚相片), 都唔補番條mark6, 到後來中咗頭獎個case囉.  係咪你賠番個頭獎(隻雀)俾我地大家先? 仲有, 你冒呢個險我地成班observer都要承受, 雀走咗我地全部無得再觀察, 你又無得影, LOSE-LOSE-LOSE SITUATION. 自私呀, 又係呢兩個字.  你呢句"咩都你講晒啦"也應該說給自己知.

還有咁近影相叫觀察? 我攞枝單筒好遠都可以看得好好, 點解要咁近?  有無必要又係一個著眼點.  敢問你分得出needs同wants嗎?  3551a50445


你真係講得好啱, 就係因為有咁多不同的因素影響燕鷗, 我們更加要將一些因素剔除才可以有更深入的研究, 呢啲就係中學學的control experiment. 我地不登島, 令每次研究的人為干擾都keep constantly in negligible level, 才容易捕捉到其他因素對燕鷗的影響, 你唔係想講人為干擾要keep住高個結果先準下話?
我好想問你後面嗰兩條問題, 想問什麼? 全球數量有增無減就代表我們可以繼續上島因為香港數目好狹義不足惜? 這些就是你所謂的愛鳥? 我想問你覺得我們要唔拘泥香港可以拘泥哪裡? 不丹定危地馬拉? 做這些研究人力都唔夠香港雀都數唔切, 計到香港record已不錯吧? 一有Loss of habitat, 雀仔可以無晒.  我想睇啲真雀喎, 唔係睇你啲靚2D相片喎, 就算你做到3D效果! 3551lol445

我就答晒你問題喇, 你又答唔答到我嗰啲先(directly quoted from previous messages):
i) 只看到鳥但拍不到好照片, 會略有所失嗎?
ii) 若果要去到那麼緊張的地步, 你問心當雀鳥是不是只是素材?
iii) 大家日日勞勞役役, 上班的同事可能已有小圈子, 香港的政治又已經是這樣令人疲憊, 你們喜歡的興趣也要這樣下去, 是攞苦黎辛, 抑或是承認自己像小學生嗌交互相告發給老師一樣的不成熟?  想想為什麼要這樣做可以嗎?
iv) 1998有旅行隊上了島後, 紀錄就跌, 直至2008年, 大家想希望那些數字繼續跌嗎?
v) 若沒有這些紀錄, 我們也很難估計我們對燕鷗的影響.  做這些紀錄的人是不是應該得到一點尊重?
vi) 你看年報的數字時看到人家的心機嗎?
vii) 你怎樣去愛鳥?

[[i] Last edited by thinfor at 23/02/2012 03:51 [/i]]

VRII 28/02/2012 00:40

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

VRII 28/02/2012 00:49

*** The author has been banned or deleted ***

thinfor 28/02/2012 09:54


你只會在不斷的兜圈又當自己已答了問題卻答非所問, 之前在filming a little bunting我已講過"以我這個第三者看來, 什麼某派系人士, 對我來說什麼也不清楚.  只知道一些誤會或私人結怨, 有點不合適的放在這個討論區上".  呢件事若像你所講, 有人搶嘢, 請聯絡有關部門, 在這裡和我談判這個話題你搬這個來幹什麼?


你沒有address我的問題. 所有你講的事件我不是當事人, 我主要講的是如何鳥攝做到對雀鳥最低的騷擾, take最少的risk.  來來去去又是"承認自己像小學生嗌交互相告發給老師一樣的不成熟". 在討論上你的確沒有進步. 3551sweat445

你唔好諗住咩都要有人答到你啦, 呢到唔係南宮夫人信箱呀, 莫非你問我點炒牛肉我又要答你

BWA一句"I'm not sure about what happens at the Farne Islands."已將EricB的例子置諸不理,矛頭繼續指向佢目標人仕.
[url]http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/view[/url] ... &page=1#pid5809
所以我話佢地唔係討論,係"blaming organisation"[/quote]

我不認為你quote一件事件出來就等於答我的問題, 你答了我什麼? 我問你問題, 你quote別人的事件來幹麼? 你好像並沒有理解我問的問題是什麼.  不過也不要緊, 我也不寄望你會答到我的問題, 道不同不相為謀. 我的意見已發表, 若不回討論問題的核心, 你所有的posts都是那些"誤會或私人結怨","像小學生嗌交互相告發給老師一樣的不成熟", 那並沒有繼續討論的必要, 和你們那條"<一派胡言>缺德龍友影雀變殺雀thread"一樣, 像玩photohunt及捉字蝨遊戲而忽略了解背後帶出的信息, 你們不是在討論, 若人家是blaming organization, 你們也是blaming people, 也是在想排除異己, 要人接受你們鳥攝的行為不會有過多騷擾雀鳥生態的風險, 而缺乏理據(縱然對方已清楚表達立場).

HKBWS Vicky 28/02/2012 12:52

頁: [1]
查看完整版本: Will you take bird photos like this 你會這樣拍鳥嗎?