(I was going to remove this post because I realised that I had gone ahead and published it even though I certainly do not know all of the details behind 'the situation'. I was, without doubt, premature and should keep out of an argument that is going on a couple of hundred miles away. It's nothing to do with me and my thoughts are worthless. I am keeping it live though as I do believe in the right of individuals to tell as many birders - or as few - about the presence of a rare bird as they please. I do, however, accept that if you do invite a select band of birders to see a good bird (in other words, to a site that wasn't sensitive enough to stop the chosen few entry) then you will have to reap what you sow. In a tight birding community that can only lead to fractures. I'll move away now...)
When a county bird recorder questions his relationship with birding, birders and in particular 'rarities', you know that something is up. Please read Steve Waite's post here to see what 'the grubby few' can do to the mind of a decent person who, in his own free time, acts as a conduit between birdwatchers and the information that they crave.
I know that there are those of you who think that I see only the bad in the birding world, pick on the negative and wallow in all that is broken. That's not entirely true. But do take the time to visit Steve's post and ask yourself this. If the dissenting voices (via tweet, forum, blog or good old fashioned speech) are readily identifiable, then surely they should be told the error of their ways by their peers. There have always been loose cannons in birding, but now they have many platforms from which to spew their bile. What will happen is that more and more decent people will retire from 'public ornithological service' and the release of rare bird news will lessen. I won't blame those that decide to keep the bird news to themselves, but the ones that will complain are the ones that need only blame themselves,