WWF Mai Po

A dead Great Egret found at Tam Kon Chau on 2nd February has tested positive for H5. Mai Po Nature Reserve will be closed for 21 days starting 6th February.

Government Press Release

kmike

More ignorant, bad science and meaningless actions from The Centre for Health Protection.



1.
If the bird was collected on 2 Feb why is the reserve closed for 21 days from the press release? - this is 25 days in total, instead of 21 days from the collection of the bird?

in contrast

When a bird was found in Mong Kok Bird Market with H5N1 the market was closed for only 18 days.

2.
Mai Po (where people do not come into close contact with birds) has been closed several times when birds with H5 or H5N1 were found within 3km of the reserve

in contrast

The Bird Market (where traders and visitors come into close contact with stressed concentrations of caged birds) was not closed at all on the many more occasions when birds were found within the 3km zone, but not actually inside the market.

3.
When Mong Kok Bird Market ws closed compensation was paid to the bird sellers who imported the disease into Hong Kong.

in contrast

WWF has never been paid compensation for the numerous closures of Mai Po

Such inconsistency suggests that:

A  the 3km 21 day protocol is  meaningless,
B  the Hong Kong Government is closing Mai Po for other reasons,
C  it does not care if WWF is losing money as a result of its decisions

Some interesting facts:

The total number of human cases worldwide of H5N1 coming from contact with a wild bird is zero.

Hong Kong's top virologists Dr Malik Pereis and Dr Lo Wing Lok have publicly stated that the risk of human infection from wild birds is minimal.

The 3km 21 day rule which has led to the closure of Mai Po is based on measures to prevent H5N1 spreading from one infected chicken farm to another. It was never intended to be used to prevent human infection from wild birds.

Global best practice is not to close nature reserves. This is unique and scientifically unsupportable position developed in Hong Kong.

What conclusions should we draw?

Cheers
Mike K

Mike Kilburn
Vice Chairman, HKBWS
Chairman, Conservation Committee


[hr]
1. 如果死鳥在二月二日撿得，為何封閉自然保護區的期限要由新聞稿發表後才開始計算？由撿得死鳥之後計起是廿五日而不是廿一日？
之前在旺角雀鳥市場發現H5N1，市場只封閉了十八天。

2. 在米埔人們不會和鳥類有密切接觸，但是米埔卻已多次因在周圍三公里內發現 H5 或 H5N1而被封閉。
相反：雀鳥市場的商販和遊人會和集中而且受壓逼的籠鳥有密切接觸，而且市場以外周圍三公里發現帶 H5N1雀鳥的次亦遠比米埔多，可是市場卻沒有被封閉。

3. 旺角雀鳥市場被封閉的時候，將帶病雀鳥入口的鳥販會得到賠償。
相反：米埔多次被封，自然基金會從未收到任何賠償。

如此不一致的做法，顯示：

A. 三公里加廿一日的標準絕無意義，
B. 香港政府封閉米埔為的是其他理由，
C. 自然基金會因當局的決定而蒙受金錢損失，香港政府卻莫不關心

一些有趣的事實：

全球並沒有人類因為接觸帶 H5N1 病毒的野鳥而染病。
本港數一數二的病毒學家裴偉士教授和勞永樂醫生都曾公開聲明，人類從野鳥感染禽流感的機會極微。

當局用來封閉米埔的三公里加廿一日標準，其實是用來防止H5N1 在受感染雞隻養殖場之間散播的措施，並不是用來防止人類從野鳥身上染病。
全世界防治禽流感都不會關閉自然保護區，當局發明的做法獨步全球，在科學上根本完全站不住腳。

我們可以從以上資料得出甚麼結論呢？

吳敏
香港觀鳥會副主席
香港觀鳥會自然保育委員會主席

(W中譯)

puppymic

The guideline only apply to Mai Po Nature Reserve & Wetland Park & Walk-in Aviaries

Management of Public Access to Mai Po Nature Reserve / Wetland Park / Walk-in Aviaries (content are extracted from the ACFEH Paper 65)

This paper briefs members on the criteria set for managing public access to the Mai Po Nature Reserve, the Wetland Park and other walk-in aviaries after any live or dead bird samples tested positive for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) viruses are collected from these area or their vicinity.

If dead wild birds are found to have H5 virus within 3 km radius of the Mai Po Nature Reserve, the Mai Po Nature Reserve will be closed to public access for a period of 21days. A similar mechanism should be in place for the Wetland Park. The proposed criteria will also apply to the closure and re-opening of the walk-in aviaries managed by the LCSD and Ocean Park.

http://www.fhb.gov.hk/download/committees/board/doc/paper20060629_65.pdf

http://www.fhb.gov.hk/download/committees/board/doc/min20060629.pdf

:evil:  :evil:  :evil:

puppymic

Nothing we could do to object this 'unreasonable' arrangement   

yvicky

I think this 3km 21days protocol applies ONLY to MPNR!!
You can guess from the Ocean Park case, a dead bird was found in the Ocean Park aviary, but only the aviary was closed but not the 3km area. I doubt if the government will close Wetland Park if a dead bird infected with H5N1 is found there.
It seems that the Government follow straight the "one country, two system" policy and apply this to the H5N1 protocol...."one protocol, two enforcement"!! :evil:

WWF Mai Po

If any member feels strongly about the closure of Mai Po, they can make a complaint to government.

Either write or call:

Dr. CHOW Yat Ngok, York,
Secretary for Food & Health,   
Murray Building, Garden Road, Hong Kong

Tel: 2973 8100
Fax: 2840 0467
e-mail: fhbenq@fhb.gov.hk   

If possible, please copy WWF (publicvisit@wwf.org.hk) on any letters or e-mails sent to government.

Thank you,

WWF Mai Po Office

wmartin

The witch hunt vs wild birds has eased, but is clearly not over.

Hong Kong was the first place to blame wild birds for spread of H5N1 (poultry flu variant); and not gonna stop blaming wild birds no matter the evidence.

Here's a bureaucratic, knee-jerk reaction, driven not by science by by paper pushers who likely barely leave the office (anyone ordering Mai Po closures ever walked around the reserve at such times, ever noticed that - as yet - not one case of H5N1 poultry flu at the reserve?).

I've protested before, long railed against blaming wild birds for being major vectors of H5N1 poultry flu. But what's the use; logic and commonsense go out the window when a witch hunt is in progress.

mbill

the Government follow straight the "one country, two system" policy and apply this to the H5N1 protocol...."one protocol, two enforcement"!!   
  
一國兩制, 親疏有別嗎!!! :evil:
Do the birdwatchers  need a protest parade?  是否鳥友們需要出來呢?:evil:

ttakyan

這兩次米埔封閉, 已令我失去這年冬季最佳觀鳥的機會.

wmartin

Is Mai Po set to reopen on 27th?
- maybe getting confused by occasional dead reports, but thought I'd read of another h5n1 victim in the area, so wondered if date might be pushed back.

Anyone at all able to justify the closure on scientific grounds?
(I imagine bureaucratic bumbling paper pushers look at the ground when asked such things, or rather desperately try to refer questioners to info from elsewhere, which the bureaucrats themselves don't have solid grasp of.)