Wild Marsh harrier

Following a debate about whether it\'s better to see a species in the wild or in captivity in the chatroom, I thought I\'d post a couple of pictures to highlight my opinion:

Here is my best view of a wild Marsh harrier at Martin Mere in November 2012. It was the first time seeing this species, and I\'ve not seen one since. I can\'t help but think I\'d have appreciated seeing it more if I actually \'saw\' it up close. To me, my image of a marsh harrier is another bird of prey that\'s a dot way off in the distance. I also saw peregrines and a few passerines, but every second of being in the hides I was itching to get back to the captive waterfowl.

To me, it was so much more enjoyable to see the mandarin duck I\'ve posted a picture of than it was to see the marsh harrier. It was up close, I could appreciate the bird up close and actually see what it looked like. I know some people don\'t get it, and it\'s all down to personal opinion, but to me at least it was a better experience seeing the mandarin duck than it was seeing the harrier.

What do you prefer, seeing animals in the wild or being able to see them up close where you can really appreciate them? Of course a mixture is nice, but not really commonplace - to me, fleeting or distant glances don\'t come close to seeing diversity up close.

what's up in the sky? Pink-footed geese?

definitely wild is better than captive. If I was at Martin Mere I doubt I'd give a whole lot of time to the captive waterfowl if there were so many wild birds everywhere.

Would I rather see, for example, a binturong sleeping in the zoo or a one minute view of it clambering through a tree in the forest by torchlight....? Definitely the latter. No question.

An interesting argument.

Part of the reason we all like zoos are those experiences and encounters which you can't get otherwise. Conversely, there is an enormous range of animal experiences which zoos will never be able to replicate.

For me, the thrill of seeing even a common zoo animal in the wild can be amazing. Obviously it depends on the circumstances of the experience, but a good personal example would be a boat trip I took from Lima, Peru. I saw a lone Humboldt penguin briefly in the wild, swimming in the waves with a mouthful of fish. It's a species I rarely even photograph in zoos anymore, but that sighting was a real thrill. On the same trip, the islands stacked with Patagonian sealions were amazing to behold; definitely beating any captive pinnipeds I've ever seen: http://www.zoochat.com/284/patagonian-sealions-177699/

In the UK, I would generally have not disagreed with you until last year. I have never had a good look at a live badger (only glimpses when driving at night), nor have I ever seen otters in the wild, even though I've been looking in a number of popular reserves. But my revelation also came at a WWT centre, Arundel, when I had the best sightings of water voles in my life: http://www.zoochat.com/1092/wild-water-vole-17th-october-2012-a-294569/

devilfish said:

But my revelation also came at a WWT centre, Arundel, when I had the best sightings of water voles in my life: http://www.zoochat.com/1092/wild-water-vole-17th-october-2012-a-294569/

Click to expand...

that is a brilliant photo, so I had to go comment on it. Thanks for linking to it!

Javan Rhino: Let me ask you three unrelated questions -

1. What if you saw the Mandarin Duck that close - and it wasn't captive, it was a wild bird? Would that have been a better experience than seeing a captive one?
   
2. What if the Marsh Harrier had flown incredibly close and you got a great picture of it almost filling the frame? Would that make it a better experience than seeing a captive Mandarin Duck?
   
3. And finally, considering the view you actually got of the Harrier in the distance, would it make any difference to your perceptionof it if it was an endangered species and there were only, say, 30 left in existence?

Hix

Hix said:

Javan Rhino: Let me ask you three unrelated questions -

1. What if you saw the Mandarin Duck that close - and it wasn't captive, it was a wild bird? Would that have been a better experience than seeing a captive one?
   
2. What if the Marsh Harrier had flown incredibly close and you got a great picture of it almost filling the frame? Would that make it a better experience than seeing a captive Mandarin Duck?
   
3. And finally, considering the view you actually got of the Harrier in the distance, would it make any difference to your perceptionof it if it was an endangered species and there were only, say, 30 left in existence?

Hix

Click to expand...

Valid points, and as to your first couple of points then kind of, it would alter my perceptions to some degree, not so much for point one. For the Mandarin duck, if I see it wild or captive it is a beautiful bird. Seeing it wild is more of an accomplishment, but at the end of the day the bird doesn't look any different, and it doesn't alter my perception of the bird itself.

If the marsh harrier, however, had flown closer it would have been better than the experience I had, but seeing it in captivity would offer the same close up views.

I think it would also alter my perception if it was rarer, simply because something about the rarity of something just makes it that little bit more special. I think when a species is so endangered that it makes seeing it more of a privilege for anybody - to put it in a simple way, everybody prefers a diamond to quartz.

I've heard it argued that seeing an animal in captivity isn't an accomplishment as you know it's there, and when you see it you haven't actually achieved anything. I must say I disagree, whilst it's more of an achievement to see a wild animal, spending time staking out an enclosure is still investing your time, travelling to whichever collection is still investing money - all in all you've still made an effort to see the species, and when and if you do see it you still feel rewarded. Personally, I would rather invest my time and know I was going to get something out of it, than to spend hours in the countryside looking for things and returning without seeing anything.

I never really thought about which was better - they're just different ways of seeing animals (which is what we like).

So far this year, wild is winning for best animal experience (Great Northern Diver) but that could easily change.

I'm off to Martin Mere next week, as an aside.

Chlidonias said:

what's up in the sky? Pink-footed geese?

Click to expand...

Probably - they do get the odd one-or-fifteen-thousand there: http://www.zoochat.com/208/pink-footed-geese-martin-mere-28-a-201110/

Javan Rhino said:

.

If the marsh harrier, however, had flown closer it would have been better than the experience I had, but seeing it in captivity would offer the same close up views.

Click to expand...

A Marsh Harrier in captivity would never be able to hunt by quartering the reedbeds like this one, display-flight, breed etc as this one can. I always feel sad to see BOP's in captivity, unless they are flown in falconry displays, and even then they are closely confined the rest of the time and not free to fly should they choose to. IMO raptors are among the species Zoos can least cater for properly and which have the greatest elements of their natural life removed by captivity.

I would actually prefer not to see a Marsh Harrier in captivity.

I have been visiting Martin Mere fairly regularly this winter. I only visit the captive birds on very odd occasions. The pinkfeet and whooper swans are reliably spectacular, but there are so many other wild birds to see: my best views this year have been three peregrines together (the falcon feeding on a teal), brambling and a hunting barn owl. I have not yet spotted their woodcock, merlin or the green-winged teal (a moving needle in a haystack). Last week I also had amazing views of a stoat hunting.
JR, for good views of a marsh harrier, install yourself in the Lower Hide at Leighton Moss on a nice summer day, cross your fingers and be patient (if you're in luck you could see a bittern and/or an otter too ).

Alan