HFCheung

I don't think the practice of declaring photography method can help solving any problem.  I will lead to more finger pointings and widen the gap between the views of electronic-assisted birdwatchers and traditional birdwatchers.  I think we should unit all bird-lovers to combat wildlife hunting and wildlife eating.  The anti-bird-trapping project in Guangxi by the HKBWS China Programme Team is in the right direction.

HFCheung

I am trying to say two points.

1. We are not using the right method to co-operate with photographers. I think many of them are decent people and can be convinced to help protecting birds. But we build a strong dis-trust relation with them and so we lost most of their support to protect birds. This actually create problems rather than solving the problems. Many of them decide to work against our effort intentionally.

2. In term of effectiveness in protecting birds, it is much more efficient to put in efforts in mainland China to fight against hunting and bird eating.

HF Cheung

HFCheung

Take for example when we submit bird watching records, what if some authority suddenly require the submitter to state (1) the distance of obsevation, (2) whether the bird has been thrushed, (3) whehter playback or whistle has been used to lure the bird out. Would the submitter think that the authority have not placed sufficient trust in himself/herself? Why should the submitter be assumed guilty and that he has to prove himself innocent?

HFCheung

I am sure the executive committee will consider this issue and possible actions.

Personally I think we should trust other people more. Like our members, they have already decleared that they will follow the birdwatching rule of conduct.  Why do they still need to declear every time they post a photo? Even for non-members, if they already declear that they will support the birdwatching rule of conduct once, I don't think they need to declear any other things.

I have known very bad examples sound playback of traditional birdwatchers.  I think it is wrong to discriminate against part of the birdwatching community.

Mai Po has been putting up baits in waterfowl collection for a very long time. If used properly, this is an excellent method to assist conservation and education. I am sure taking bait photos in Mai Po waterfowl collection is acceptable. Like playback photography, bait photography by itself is not a crime.

The present suggestion of policing against bait photography will hurt decent electronic-assisted birdwatchers only. Instead I believe the society should promote the proper method (like build more hides with waterpools or even baits in Tai Po Kau, Long Valley, Po Toi, etc).

Last, there is a far bigger issues other than this. Why are we spending most of our efforts on policing photography, and doing almost nothing against eating wild birds or swiftlet nests?

HF Cheung