Bird-flu and closure of MPNR a mandatory action?
Dear all Members of the Society and of WWFHK
In the past and during the past three weeks in particular, we have been just helplessly and haplessly watching the closure of MPNR by a directory of AFCD, strictly by the finding that a dead wild bird
found within three kilometres of the reserve's perimeter. And MPNR and N.T. in general is just a short
distance from other semi-wild habitats of north-west N.T.
Don't forget that Hong Kong is just small place inside the migratory route of wild birds, and HK is small in width when compared with that of the m.r. of the birds. Will AFCD close all public areas including country parks and even Kowloon Park becuase they care about we Hong Kong citizens according to its present
closure policy? They dared to close MPNR because it is directly under it? Has it taken equal concern
when we birded on the access road. Did they come out and advise and even drive us away? They didn't.
Because the law just protects them withing MPNR.
What evidence that AFCD could directly co-relate bird-flu with infection of human in the past
pathological history and record in the colony and the whole world in general? The answer is
there is none. According to what we have learned in the forum alone, there has not even one
established case that a human being has been infected by visiting wild places. And remember,
we never, and the wild birds never allow us go close to them to effect bodily touch. And
yet AFCD 'love' us so much that MPNR was closed at short notice.
It is not that I as birder can't wait and make some hobby-kind of sacrifice. It is the rationale,
the evidence and sense that surround the case in question that arouse me beyond bearance. And Hong
Kong at the moment is surrouded by all that nonsense and false logic or pretext that allows a
particular HK gov't department to exercise its statuory power or non-statutory adminstrative power.
Just on last Sunday, I experienced unlicensed streetsellers blocking most of the paedestrian walkway
without exercising the least alertness of intervention by the law-enforcers. And yet the dep't
concerned will not hesitate to arrest and brought a licensed ice-creamer seller to court on receiving
a complaint from the public, according to newspaper report or a documentory of RTHK.
Now an example of such nonsense confronts us. Should we allow those power-holders to dictate upon
us on whatever grounds they think fit?
It is time for us to take action. I myself will take on a course of action shortly. In the meantime
I sincerely hope that an organized, well-thought out and well-orchestrated plan be effectively
carried out, still best by the management side of both HKBWS and WWFHK. I will volunteer to devote
my time for the fight, if necessary for days, if necessary for months.
Meanwhile, keep voicing your thoughts and suggestions here. English and Chinese both will serve well
here.
S L Tai
