Posted by Forrest Brownell on August 28, 1997 at 15:31:46:
Some time ago, a member of this list (call him 'Q') wrote a brief note in which
he described 'stalking' a Common Loon (Great Northern Diver) that he encountered
while sailing. As it happened, I knew something at first hand of the adverse
effects such seemingly innocent sport can have. I therefore wrote a short,
cautionary note to this list, in which I encouraged TARS to enjoy these
beautiful birds at a distance, and not to pursue them in order to get a closer
look. Q replied, I responded, and the subject, I thought, was closed.
Not so, it seems. In a letter entitled 'Re: Toronto Corroboree', Robert Dilley
speaks of a recent meeting with Q, describes him as 'The Terror of the Loons',
and concludes by musing rhetorically that it would indeed be good if it were
possible to get Q to 'stop tormenting those poor divers'.
What am I to make of this? Is it a harmless jape, or is it a back-handed
condemnation my earlier expressions of concern? I've tried to contact Mr Dilley
to find out, but I've had no success. I'm left, therefore, in a rather awkward
position. Do I make a fuss, reiterate my earlier concerns, and accept the fact
that, should Mr Dilley subsequently answer that his casual remarks were merely
innocent fun, I'll look a perfect fool; or do I ignore his remarks, even though,
on their face, they trivialize a very real, and growing, problem? The answer,
obviously, is that I'd rather be thought a fool than allow any reader to assume
that my earlier concerns were either trivial or contrived.
To reiterate my former cautions, then, in somewhat more forceful terms: To
pursue, harass or stalk a Common Loon, for whatever purpose, whether on land or
in the water, puts the bird's life, and the life of any accompanying chick, at
immediate hazard. Canoes and sailboats are as much of a threat as power boats;
indeed, the degree of stress experienced by the bird may well be greater when
the pursuing craft is slow or the pursuit prolonged.
The common loon is under threat everywhere in North America; its former refuges
in the Canadian North are succumbing to the effects of logging and subsequent
water quality degradation. There are no surplus loons. There are no expendable
loons. No man or woman who values these beautiful and vulnerable birds will
attempt to approach them closely at any time, for any reason. (An exception, of
course, must be made for legitimate research, though, in my experience,
researchers are among the most careful and least disruptive of observers.)
If Mr Dilley's remarks were made in jest, I apologise, though I still wish that
he had found some other subject for his wit. If, on the other hand, Mr Dilley's
intent was to disparage or trivialize my concerns, I invite him to reconsider
his words. Arthur Ransome, I suspect, would have found nothing trivial in an
individual's concern for the well-being of a loon, or a coot, or any other bird,
come to that -- and in this, as in so many other things, I am at one with
Ransome.
Forrest