Dear XXXXXX
多年前，在七股看到有人為了攝影，竟然涉水趕黑面琵鷺 、鼓掌趕黑面琵鷺，期望拍到滿天飛舞的瀕危鳥種；前年2-3月 ，有人在新中橫餵帝雉拍照；去年7月在玉管處塔塔加有人放鳥音拍 鳥。今年1月宜蘭有人使用預製錄好的鳥音，來誘鳥捕捉 ，即使是非保育類的鳥類，罰則還是很重的。(國家公園法與野生動 物保育法式兩個法律，後者並不限定地點)
台灣攝影者眾多，在野外常常遇到，小弟也會適時做好紀錄，私底下 ，不少人也很怕在野外遇到我，因為我曾經找警察隊來取締 。可惜當時警察隊以和為貴，勸導為主，並未開罰，其實 ，誘鳥本身就是干擾，國家公園法法則不明，但野生動物法在今年1 月宜蘭的案例，卻是很明白的。
有些攝影者說：拍手拍照不干擾、放音誘鳥不干擾，不然你找文獻來 證明!! ---這固然有一些文獻支持，重點還是心態問題。
在野外不尊重野生動物，就如同登山時不敬山一樣，如果一味滿足人 類的欲望，後果就可能觸法，也可能對生物及人類本身都有危險性 ，這也突顯一般人不了解尊重大地萬物的環境與土地倫理的意涵。
攝影就如同生態研究一樣，可以撰寫計畫書，只要明標明確 ，合理利用某些方式拍攝，都不會太困難申請。(各政府單位都可以 申請。)
如果有錢買攝影設備，卻沒時間申請攝影計畫許可，那就失之偏頗了 。常常『餵食拍鳥(或生態研究)、誘音拍鳥(或生態研究) 、在家操縱環境拍鳥(或生態研究)』，而不重視法令 ，那就失去文明、法律人的身分了。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
我的回信
Here is my 2 cents; my graduate degree is wildlife management. So, basically I only care about species at the population level. Well, people may say that I am kinda human self-center. But, heck!
I don't know why there is so many BS about feeding wild birds? A lot of people have bird feeders in their backyard year-round in the States (I have 2, to be exact). Cornell, the top Ornithology University in the US even has a bird feeder watch project to monitor urban bird population trends (http://www.birds.cornell.edu /pfw/). What damage would this bird feeding do to the wild bird communities?
I don't care about people hunting wild species as long as the game is not endangered or threatened and it is in a sustainable way, either. The purpose of conservation is to achieve sustainable usage of natural resources, not just for the fun of banning the usage. Bird watching is just a branch of using natural resources, although it doesn't damage the bird communities directly, the company you are working for the money(to buy your fancy German or Austrian binos), the food your are eating from might have a more significant impact on the bird habitats. Hunting is just another way of using natural resources, doing it right, it might be more sustainable than people doing bird watching. When people living in the cities talking about people living in the country side. We are talking about two different life styles. There is no good or bad, it is only sustainable or not. Tell me what do you people think where is more nature, big cities where no people kill a single wild bird for a living, or Papua New Guinea and Kalahari Desert where the sole way of living is killing wildlife? I think in this partridge poaching case, the local government has failed to set up hunting or fishing areas, which was their responsibility in Wildlife conservation act, chapter II, 17. Wildlife conservation act has been adopted for almost 20 years, but not a single hunting area has been set up by local government. Through these years, hunting has been forced into underground activity, because of the indolence of local natural resources management authority. The whole wildlife conservation act is only a toy to please animal right groups, not really an active regulation that promotes conservation, sustainable resources management and recovery of endangered species.
I don't do photography, but heck again, as long as the photographer honestly tells people how he got the shot and he didn't violate any regulation, I don't care. I have worked with BBC filming crew before. What do you people think those magnificent documentaries came from? It is just part of the movie industry, nothing sacred.
At last, I think every one including myself who proclaim themselves as a natural lover, should have some self-reflection, when the American hunters and anglers who kill cute little Bambi and pretty little fish provide the funding for wildlife management and conservation, how much money did we ever paid for buying wildlife habitat or conduct recovery projects etc. or buying local produce and tell local people that conservation will bring profits in Taiwan? How much money did we spend on buying fancy binos or cameras or birding trips?
How much?
台灣攝影者眾多，在野外常常遇到，小弟也會適時做好紀錄，私底下 ，不少人也很怕在野外遇到我，因為我曾經找警察隊來取締 。可惜當時警察隊以和為貴，勸導為主，並未開罰，其實 ，誘鳥本身就是干擾，國家公園法法則不明，但野生動物法在今年1 月宜蘭的案例，卻是很明白的。
有些攝影者說：拍手拍照不干擾、放音誘鳥不干擾，不然你找文獻來 證明!! ---這固然有一些文獻支持，重點還是心態問題。
在野外不尊重野生動物，就如同登山時不敬山一樣，如果一味滿足人 類的欲望，後果就可能觸法，也可能對生物及人類本身都有危險性 ，這也突顯一般人不了解尊重大地萬物的環境與土地倫理的意涵。
攝影就如同生態研究一樣，可以撰寫計畫書，只要明標明確 ，合理利用某些方式拍攝，都不會太困難申請。(各政府單位都可以 申請。)
如果有錢買攝影設備，卻沒時間申請攝影計畫許可，那就失之偏頗了 。常常『餵食拍鳥(或生態研究)、誘音拍鳥(或生態研究) 、在家操縱環境拍鳥(或生態研究)』，而不重視法令 ，那就失去文明、法律人的身分了。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
我的回信
Here is my 2 cents; my graduate degree is wildlife management. So, basically I only care about species at the population level. Well, people may say that I am kinda human self-center. But, heck!
I don't know why there is so many BS about feeding wild birds? A lot of people have bird feeders in their backyard year-round in the States (I have 2, to be exact). Cornell, the top Ornithology University in the US even has a bird feeder watch project to monitor urban bird population trends (http://www.birds.cornell.edu /pfw/). What damage would this bird feeding do to the wild bird communities?
I don't care about people hunting wild species as long as the game is not endangered or threatened and it is in a sustainable way, either. The purpose of conservation is to achieve sustainable usage of natural resources, not just for the fun of banning the usage. Bird watching is just a branch of using natural resources, although it doesn't damage the bird communities directly, the company you are working for the money(to buy your fancy German or Austrian binos), the food your are eating from might have a more significant impact on the bird habitats. Hunting is just another way of using natural resources, doing it right, it might be more sustainable than people doing bird watching. When people living in the cities talking about people living in the country side. We are talking about two different life styles. There is no good or bad, it is only sustainable or not. Tell me what do you people think where is more nature, big cities where no people kill a single wild bird for a living, or Papua New Guinea and Kalahari Desert where the sole way of living is killing wildlife? I think in this partridge poaching case, the local government has failed to set up hunting or fishing areas, which was their responsibility in Wildlife conservation act, chapter II, 17. Wildlife conservation act has been adopted for almost 20 years, but not a single hunting area has been set up by local government. Through these years, hunting has been forced into underground activity, because of the indolence of local natural resources management authority. The whole wildlife conservation act is only a toy to please animal right groups, not really an active regulation that promotes conservation, sustainable resources management and recovery of endangered species.
I don't do photography, but heck again, as long as the photographer honestly tells people how he got the shot and he didn't violate any regulation, I don't care. I have worked with BBC filming crew before. What do you people think those magnificent documentaries came from? It is just part of the movie industry, nothing sacred.
At last, I think every one including myself who proclaim themselves as a natural lover, should have some self-reflection, when the American hunters and anglers who kill cute little Bambi and pretty little fish provide the funding for wildlife management and conservation, how much money did we ever paid for buying wildlife habitat or conduct recovery projects etc. or buying local produce and tell local people that conservation will bring profits in Taiwan? How much money did we spend on buying fancy binos or cameras or birding trips?
How much?
No comments:
Post a Comment