HFCheung

I need to apologise for HKBWS if these things really happen.  I need some time to find out myself.  We do have a volunteer name Mr. Tai helping to carry out some duties for HKBWS, but no Executive Committee member called Mr. Tai.  If there is any possible confusion, call the office or to me direcly (6131-8520) to confirm.

I think the decision whether to withhold information of special birds is in the hands of the discoverer.  I will be happy if proper records (such as good photographs) have been collected, and information submitted to HKBWS at a non-sensitive time.  To me, I have not seen the bird yet, and will not force anyone to tell me the information.  I hope members can do the same as well.  If we cannot respect all observers, all of us will be losers at the end.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

I can foresee a very high number of birdwatchers and photographers wishing to see the birds, and that might cause unacceptably high level of disturbance to the bird.  We always say the welfare of the bird goes first.  We need to demonstrate in action what we really mean.  The worry that tens of observers would crowd around the bird for the whole day has already be expressed.  To avoid this, I have the following suggestions to HKBWS members.

1. Reduce the disturbance as much as possible
2. Limit the time that you observe the bird, say to 1-2 hours  
3. Don't release information to people that cannot be trusted
4. Report clear violation of the bird protection law

HF Cheung

[ Last edited by HFCheung at 9/10/2008 13:51 ]

HFCheung

Often, discussions on the BBS quickly turning into unhappy situations because the wordings would often imply someone have done something although in fact they have not.  While I will not want any discussion to stop, I would like to see all of us to make an effort to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding.  I think there is a main issue that need to be reosolved.  That is:

How should we collect information of rare bird location from the finder?  What is the line?  And if the finder request us not to disclose the information to other HKBWS members or the public, should we refuse collecting these information?

There are also other questions as well.  For example, we still need to find out what exactly happened in this case.  Although the relevant parties have expressed their view, if there is any people that can contribute relevant information, please pass that to me or HKBWS office.  I would suggest not to post it on this BBS but that is up to you.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

I have been watching this discussion while thinking what are the main points.  As I said before, I think there are two.

1. Review the present guideline and working procedure for collecting and releasing rare bird information
2. Investigate what happen in this case, because there is a serious accusation on a HKBWS volunteer

No.1 we can continue the discussion on BBS.  No.2 is involve collecting information and interviews, and is best done behind the scene.

On no.1, I have the following points to make.
1. I think there is general agreement that sharing of bird information in HKBWS is desireable and should be continued in some way.

2. There are still concern that a large crowd of birdwatchers (including photographers) can casue unwanted disturbance.  Say, it takes only a few people to cause the damage.  The public including some HKBWS members may not follow birdwatching guideline to the extend that we want.  We simply cannot control them.

3. At present, the main method of publicizing rare bird information are the English and Chinese birdlines, and the HKBWS bulletin board / discussion forum.  Both HKBWS members and non-members can access that.  Do members think that a more user-restricted system is the way to go?

4. In my opinion, respect to all other people is the most important.  It is very common in our society to have different opinion and judgement.  When a birdwatcher finds a rare bird, he/she can decide whether to release the information to anybody immediately.  The society can encourage information sharing, but should never enforce that.  Especially at present, we cannot solve the problem of controlling the disturbance after we publicize the information.

5. When the information is released to the society, say the birdline operator, then it should be understood that the information will be made public.  If the finder do not want this to happen, then a request should be made and some terms agreed.  If people getting the information cannot accept the terms, then they should not get that information.

So much for now.  I am sure we need more.  The AGM will come up in 10 days.  It will be another good chance to have some discussion, although I think we cannot solve this in a short time.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

I agree very well with Sammy that this discussions sound very negative to TWAIYI.  It sounds as if she have done somethings terrible wrong by refusing to reveal the exact location to Mr Tai.  I understand that the information has been revealed to somebody she trusted, and eventually the information was passed onto the English birdline operator and then opened to HKBWS members through the birdline, although only for a short time.  To me, she have done the society a great favour.  Through her, we now have a possible first for HK.  I praise her for what she have done to the society.

I agree with Sammy that there are at least several incidences that people think that disturbance has been excessive, and that is outside HKBWS control.  I think all of us understand that the key is whether all observers are following an acceptable rule, but in reality, there are often somebody willing to step into grey areas in the rule, and thus others find the act unacceptable.  The concern for too much disturbance is real.  I have a lot of respect fot those who are willing to share the information, but I also respect those who give some thought to the potential disturbance.  In practice, many forums would not force photographers to reveal the location.  When HKBWS force photographers to reveal the location, I guess the feeling would be: HKBWS does not take bird protection as serious as other forums.

In the end, the question is: when we open up the full information to members and the public, can HKBWS gaurantee that the bird will not be disturbed excessively?  If yes, then we can enforce the guideline that members need to reveal the information to all other members.  If no, we have no ground to ask our members to reveal information to all.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

I think most of the discussion is missing the point.  I don't think there is a difference in principle.  HKBWS will continue sharing all information to members.  That is what I beleive.  The main difference is in the choice whether HKBWS should allow some members to withhold bird information that they think sensitive, or to force every member to give up their own secret information by threatening their membership.

From what I heard so far, it seems most members prefer the second choice, right?  If that is the case, I am really shocked.  What has HKBWS become?

HF Cheung

[ Last edited by HFCheung at 14/10/2008 22:12 ]

HFCheung

Thank's Sammy.  I think we should start thinking how to release the information effectively, many be in another link.  There is one hypothetical case that I like people on this forum to comment on.

A rare Owl is a passage migrant in HK.  Most members in the society have not seen it.  It is not very difficult to see.  All you need is to know the site information.  The problem is that the road of the site is very narrow, so that there is real difficulty for two individuals to pass each other.  And, I understand that few photos have been taken on this Owl.  The urge to take good photos must be in the mind of many birdwatchers.  The place is not as brightly lit as Lai Chi Kok Park where taking photos without touch or flash light is still possible.  Once the place is open to the public, or even to members, my guess is that many members will get there and spend hours searching for it.  Once it is found, the urge to use touch and flash light must be unstoppable.  I am not saying that it will harm the bird.  I am quite sure that the bird will move away to protect itself.

Now I like to listen to opinions on how the society should handle this information, if the information is available.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

I welcome Owen's post.  It help me understand how some members think.  It is important to listen to all opinions.

My immediate reaction is that members and the public should not confuse individual's view/action to society's view/action.  I believe some accusations on the society should be diverted to individual.

If the society have done something wrong, the executive committee of which I am the Chairman should be responsible.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

More reply to Owen's post.

I think Owen is quite concern about HKBWS.  That is why he is suggesting us to think more deeply on the function of the discussion forum.  Of course he is extermely experienced in running forum.

Although it has been decide that the date and location need to be specified in the HKBWS discussion forum, if there are sufficient support to re-set the rule, we will do that.  Actually, the society also runs a China Programme discussion forum jointly with Birdlife International.  In that forum, the focus is on China birds, and the rule are not as strict.  If people do not mind the possible lower expertie level, feel free to use that forum for bird ID questions.

There is one point he mentioned that I strongly feel the need to reply.  Over the years, although we discuss rules for our members to observe, there is indeed no cases that we discontinue someone's membership.  Although the principle is clear: "Any member that acts against the objective of the society can have their membership revoked".  In practice, HKBWS will not actively check our members.  If evidence comes to us directly or indirectly, then I beleive the BoD should act.  If anybody think that there is sufficient evidence against any members, HKWBS would like to get those information, and act accordingly.

HF Cheung