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


What is your comment on these men cutting the tree at PO Shan Road?

Will you like to take bird photo like this?

[ Last edited by VRII at 7/02/2012 01:31 ]


Original posted by fkm at 7/02/2012 22:21

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  ...
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 to the terns except disturbing the nest directly. But none of them recognize the 'FACT' that different with their emotionally speculation. An article of HKBWS's bulletin no. 214 winter 2009 was telling the same thing.

[ Last edited by BWA at 9/02/2012 20:36 ]


Original posted by EricB at 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  ...
Thanks for telling a good reference but they will not agree with you. So sad!!


Original posted by brendank at 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 scener ...
Hi brendank,
The photos were taken at Po Shan Road when a Large Niltava & a Small Niltava were found on 2011.


Original posted by EricB at 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 th ...
I don't know how much you know about the history of different groups' contradictory. This is not a discussion thread, it is a blaming thread. The blaming organization never accept any opinion from their blaming targets even it is scientific or truth.


Original posted by thinfor at 10/02/2012 10:56
Thanks EricB for some very thoughtful comments for this matter.  I have some comments as follows:.....

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. ...
It is interesting that there is some guys landed earlier than you and gave you advise. Are they selfish?
By the blaming organization's mind, people land on tern island must be bad guys. But it is very funny that bad guys gave you advise!

[ Last edited by VRII at 14/02/2012 01:33 ]


Original posted by BWA at 7/02/2012 20:12

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.
People take boats over there is also disturbing the terns. I saw photos from the web that birds landed. When birds feel you are not threatening them, they will be relax. Why not to take a survey to sit over there (not nearby the nests that I also disagree) for hours to check if the terns still uncomfortable?

See? This is a typical sample that your opinion is omitted and only aim on what they want to blame. So I say it is not a discussion.


Original posted by kmike at 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.
No matter it is helpful or not, 'blaming organization' is a lot of people's & my opinion that you should be welcome even you do not agree.

Hong Kong Bird Watching Society has a duty to protect birds.
Yes, HKBWS should protect birds but some people always attack others in the name of HKBWS.
Here is a smaple, please ask someone to translate what the speech I bold. ... &extra=page%3D1

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 do not know the definition of disturbing nests or eggs. Is it sitting on the top of the island become guilty?

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.
I know that photographers also work hard to minimize their disturbance such as the expert's mind. Photographers always sit on a position for long time. I saw some bleeding photos on the web last August which I believe those were taken on the island. It proves that the speeches "dare not land", "make the terns to abandon their eggs and chicks" are totally wrong.

Mike Kilburn
Vice Chairman
If landing on the island is guilty, I suggest AFCD to build a notice to state that landing on the island is illegal and not the one now.


Original posted by thinfor at 14/02/2012 12:08
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.
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.

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?   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?
"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?

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.
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??????

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.

你怎樣去愛鳥? It's your choice.  

[ Last edited by VRII at 22/02/2012 02:09 ]


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.


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?


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!

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?

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.
奇怪地佢又好sure個度發生咩事. ... &page=1#pid5809
所以我話佢地唔係討論,係"blaming organisation"


或者咁耐都影唔到靚imperial eagle 既我就係無放過野... 下個冬天要試下買隻白兔入米埔試下.....