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 ]

ltsunpun

With reference to DR. HF Cheung's two choices above, I suggest slight modifications to provide alternative measure:

We may allow birder to withhold bird information because of sensitivity, however, the sensitivity rule should be defined by HKBWS beforehand, not by the finder's personal judgement. The rule should be better opened for discussion by the members first before it is established.

參考到張浩輝博士的二個選擇，希望做到不是黑便是白的選擇，所以提議改良一下如下：
如果公開鳥况的地點是敏感資料，對鳥可能有傷害性的騷擾，我們可以允許作者不把鳥况的地點公開。但是何為敏感資料應是由觀鳥會事先製訂，经過會員同意才執行，不是個人的主觀意見。

TP Luk

ajohn

Quote:

Original posted by HFCheung at 14/10/2008 15:07
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?  

Ho-fai

I don't think anyone has been advocating threatening membership of the society. Re-reading the previous posts I do not see where you have got the idea that this is the case. Certainly I would very strongly disagree with the idea that someone should be forced out of the society (this opinion applies to almost any situation).

This thread seems to be going on for a long time and becoming unnecessarily heated. I think in fact that most people are arguing the same point - that anyone watching or photographing birds should ensure that they do not cause them excessive disturbance. This applies equally to common and rare species. In most cases it should be possible to release information about the bird so that others can see and enjoy the bird, and I would urge anyone to do so. If there is a reason that the bird may be particularly sensitive (especially if breeding), you should think carefully about disclosing information (and only tell people you trust - hopefully this includes HKBWS members). Ultimately, it is down to the common sense of the finder and I believe the vast majority of people would act appropriately.

Please note that none of this relates specifically to the shrike. I do not know the full details of this case, and I think that this is true for virtually everybody. All I will say on that case is congratulations to twaiyi on finding the bird: be pleased that others were so keen to see it (this shows how lucky you were to find it!), do not take offence that the information spread among bird watchers you did not know (this is the nature of the bird watching community) and above all PLEASE do not be discouraged in future birdwatching by any comments made recently.

tgraham

I agree with John nobody was advocating withdrawing the membership of anyone who does not want to share the location of  birds they find its totally up to the individual.

The more members the better for the Society and birdwatching in general

I think what people are saying is that should somebody not wish to share the information then they should not use the HKBWS web site to ask for help in identification or just to publish their photographs for the following reasons

1.        It is a condition that anyone posting a photograph on the societies web site should include a time and date. You can not have exceptions
2.        It will hopefully mean that executive members, employees and volunteers of the HKBWS are not put in an awkward position where they may be given information regarding a location and told not to publish it

There is a mechanism in place using a Rare Bird Records form for submitting rare bird findings the details of how to do it are one the HBWS web site

With regards to disturbance as far as I can determine most people believe that this is not an issue in HK with the exception of breeding or roosting birds.  Yes there has been the odd minor incident but we can name and shame.

As for my final comment I have always believed that it is unacceptable for somebody who is not willing to share their finds to go and see and photograph birds other people have found and shared.

BTW can you put finding rare birds on hold until I return to HK in five weeks.

HK Twitcher

sammysam

正如"PWMK"所言, 觀鳥其中一個重要的理念/美德, 就是分享, 這跟本就是大家共同的信念, 沒有需要討論的地方. 沒有香港觀鳥會的戶外活動, 沒有這類討論區的設立, 沒有各位專家的提示, 沒有鳥友的資訊, 觀鳥活動不能像現在般普及起來, 讓更多人認識到那麼多可愛及有活力的世界~~ 一直以來, 我很尊敬在香港觀鳥會內的資深鳥友, 一直無私地分享各鳥種的資料, 讓許多朋友有機會見識得更多~~ 當中我就是其中一個得益者.

但就今次的事件, 令我困惑的不在於是否公開稀有鳥類, 而是若有會員拒絕提供資訊給他不願意的人. (而事實上, 這隻伯勞的資訊是有被公開的.) 大家會以什麼態度去面對? 像"戴先生"利用會藉去迫使他說出資訊嗎? 我相信當然不能. 所以我感覺到"會長的回應"讓大家有機會再作反思. 因為在討論當中, 大家只立點於"支持分享", 就像是認同了令次強迫會員提供資訊的行徑...  

在一直的討論, 跟本就沒有人反對公開資料給其他鳥友, 包括我. 但在"twaiyi"的回應中, 讓我想到仍有不少令人擔心的問題未能解決:
1. 是否應該全面公開給所有人?
2. 若同時間出現大量的鳥攝人仕, 如何作出平衡?
3. 一些在鳥攝上過份的行為如何有效避免?
4. 強迫在網上公開鳥攝地點及時間, 是否有效提供分享的平台?

老實說, 在這觀鳥會的討論區, 大部份的鳥攝相片都是近年新加入的新鳥友, 一些資深的鳥友已很少在討論區內分享鳥攝相片, 不知會不會是因為不想分享地點而不再在此貼相..., (這只是我的估計, 若有冒犯, 先說對不起! )

wcaptain

可否考慮以下方案

(1) 如以往，觀鳥者可以自由發表雀鳥地點

(2) 若觀鳥者不確定發表雀鳥地點會否造成滋擾，可通知鳥會，再由數位專家組成鳥會小組考慮個案，及统一發表。觀鳥者可把任何有關地點查詢轉介給鳥會。

隊長

Options for announcing special bird locatons

(1) Members are free to release the information as usual

(2) If members are uncertain about the impact due to the release of the location, he/she can inform HKBWS. A special task force (comprising several experts) will consider whether the location should be released. The observer has the right to divert all enquiries to the HKBWS (i.e. the observer has the right to remain silent).

Captain

lmunchong

Response to Sammy's thread.

1. As a old birder, we used to share, you are very welcome to use our birdline to gain information. No need to thank.
2. The case of the Twaiyi accusing Mr. Tai, is up to the committee to investigate and to take action. Not up to us to judge.
3. Your apology on wrongly assuming old birders not posted images, is out of selfishness, is accepted. No next time.

Lee

[ Last edited by lmunchong at 15/10/2008 10:27 ]

深藍-Owen

Give and Take.  有多小人真的可以做到?

Internet 分享模式衝擊傳統主因就係因為分享而不問回報. 從來架個網係到. 就預左任人睇. 唔想比人睇. 就唔好整個 web, 各位駛用 internet 享受資訊同時. 你又有否想過你地有多小回報到你得到資訊的網站? 報紙, portal, forum, 搜尋器..etc 你 input 過幾多?

鳥會 Forum 都係. 出聲既人. 只係漸極小數. 但唔出聲日日係到睇係到 grap info 既. 卻佔左 9 成以上. 如果以你地既邏輯. 呢 d 人係咪就要全部摒諸門外?

今日. 係呢個 Thread 到出聲既人. 過往. 又有幾多之前係積極參與呢個 forum 的討論? 當問題似乎影響到佢地利益時. 就出來大義凜然說一番話.

Ramsar 危在旦夕. 圍住 Ramsar 的發展伸請有 5 個之多. 如果批晒會陸續有黎. 你地有無人理過個 post? 大是大非你地唔去理. 一隻雀你攪到好似十惡不赦?

**

講返之前一個相同 Case. Slaty-backed Flycatcher.
隻雀根本唔係 post 係鳥會. 但有 d 有心人睇到. 就將 info forward 落鳥會.
當其時大家都唔知係乜. 只當可能係幼雌鳥之類, 私低下有人問有關權威. 換來結果係一句 :

"No location, No ID"

Fine, fair Deal. 你唔答.找其他人答. post 去其他網站. 甚至 post 去外國網站問人. 一定有人答. 但居然有人追殺到外國網站說三道四. 似乎想阻止其他人協助 ID, 鳥會勢力幾時變到可以控制全世界 forum? 幾時變到可以咁霸道, 我地已經唔係鳥會發. 外面既世界你都要管埋?

**

查實呢個 topic 有咩好 argue? 大家都成年人. 我 disclose 唔 disclose. 你可以點? 只要唔觸犯法律. 你唔會囉支鎗逼我答呀?  掉石登島果 d 你地都容忍到唔開除會籍. 唔 disclose 隻雀 ID? 你地容忍唔到? 點解..? 因為直接影響到你地既利益乎?

睇左雀咁耐都唔明? 就算真係比你知. 都唔等於可以比你見. 但唔比你知唔等於你撞唔到. 講左咪多隻雀睇下. 唔講咪繼續自己去睇. 從來到係自己發現開心過靠人地架啦.

WaiYi post 左 location. 地區可能對某 d 人黎講覺得模糊. 但睇睇大陸觀鳥 forum 既 location 公怖方式. 已經縮窄好多. 如果用佢地個套. 就會寫 : 廣東.

敬告各位. 世界變左好多. 你地出去睇雀. 見到你地所謂既"Birder" 多. 定係所謂既"photographer" 多. 好多你以前用開果套. 係新時代已經不合用. 更加唔好囉外國果套過黎. 香港. 就係香港. 同一隻雀. 係 UK, 大陸, 香港, 印尼出現. 可以有好唔同既命運.

語畢.

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

BWA

如果我個人知道消息，好簡單：
話畀幾位相熟而又可靠（明白、認同及會主動避免于擾）嘅鳥友知，
包括可以協助確認鳥種的資深鳥友，
同時要求對方要小心處理，
唔好令情況失控。

當然，如果能夠控制現場于擾則可以將消息廣為傳播，
但是目前重未有任何可靠方案，
坦白講，我並不相信人人可以自律。

If I got the information personally, very simple:
Tell a few birdwatchers that I know well and can be trusted (those who would understand， agree and will actively avoid disturbance), including experts who may help to confirm the ID.
Ask them to take discretion in spreading the news so that the situation wouldn't get out of control.

Off course, the news could be spread farther and wider if a system is in place to control the disturbance at the site.  However no reliable system is currently in place.  Frankly speaking I don't believe that all people will exercise self discipline without some form of control.

[ Last edited by BWA at 15/10/2008 20:32 ]

tbob

I would like to see this question sent to other bird watching societies around the world to see what action, if any they would take.

I think we should be careful if we decide to give some bird watchers information and withhold it from others. The aim of the Society is to promote bird watching and conservation and we should not start creating several tiers of members or otherwise we may loose the lower tier. Remember the junior bird-watcher today will be our senior member in a few years time.

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

BWA

我在 #60 以個人角度回答了主席在 #59 提出的問題，
如果是鳥會收到相關消息，理想中我們或許應該這樣做：

1. 評估如果大量鳥友出現會有甚麼後果（但是由誰做呢？），然後決定如何發放消息，防止給不可信任的人（尤其是已知曾于擾雀鳥和破壞自然的人，或和這些人有密切關係的人）得到。

2. 要尊重發現者的意見，預防措施要得到他的認同。

3. 有系統地組織會員分組到現場看，由義工帶領及維持秩序，參與的人在未知道詳情前要同意只會和可信任的人分享。

好像很複雜，不過我自己在 2006 年曾不慎洩露類似消息，至今仍在後悔。亦因為這樣，私人搞的燕鷗調查只招待熟人。


In post #60 I replied to HF's question in #59 as if I personally got the info.
If the Society receives the news, ideally we should:

1. Assess (but who shall do it?) the consequence if a large crowd turns up, and decide how to release the news while avoiding leakage to unreliable persons (especially those known to have caused disturbance or damage, or are associated with such persons).

2. Respect the view of the informer and obtain his agreement regarding the precautionary measures.

3. Organise the visits in small parties led by volunteer leaders, who would monitor the situation.  Participants should commit beforehand that they would only release the information to trusted persons.

Sounds complicated? but I have leaked similar information inadvertently in 2006, and regret it ever since.  And because of that, I only entertain close friends in my private tern surveys.

[ Last edited by BWA at 15/10/2008 21:11 ]

sammysam

Quote:

原帖由 lmunchong 於 15/10/2008 09:55 發表
Response to Sammy's thread.

1. As a old birder, we used to share, you are very welcome to use our birdline to gain information. No need to thank.
2. The case of the Twaiyi accusing Mr. Tai, is up to  ...

首先很多謝你的諒解. 另外, 既然你作為一位資深的鳥友, 可不可以去解一解我的困惑...
1. 看來你是一個資深的鳥友, 你說你是"old birder", 為何你不加入香港觀鳥會, 你連會員也不是..., 只是一名BBS member.
2. 你用"our birdline"字眼, 可否說明一些你在birdline的角色? 讓我好謝謝你!
3. 既然你是"old birder", 可不可以分享為何在此討論區中, 我找不到你在此分享的資訊?! (只找到你質疑私人出資的燕鷗調查為可不公開的討論) 讓我明白到自己亂估計中的"selfishness".

老實說, 對於自己亂估計的言論, 實在有點懊惱. 而事實上我每次瀏覽觀鳥會的討論區, 都佷想看到更多資深觀鳥前輩的分享, 像Geoff, Jemi & John, thomos, matthew等, 他們都很樂意讓更多人了解觀鳥的樂趣. 每次也能從他們的分享中, 一點點地讓自己的觀鳥路上成長.

看到這大義凜然的說話, 現在真的有點怕, 感受到Owen所講... 問題出在那裡?!

自己的說話太多了....語畢