dimanche 8 mars 2009

Un photographe anonyme (?) de harfangs admet que le propriétaire a donné la permission à son groupe d'être sur sa propriété près de Ste-Rose

SVP voir le dernier commentaire ici d'un(e) supposé(e) photographe de Harfangs des neiges (Snowy Owl) qui dit que les policiers n'ont même pas voulu parler aux membres de son groupe la journée en question. Qui devont nous croire? Le propriétaire qui s'est introduit à moi au téléphone et qui m'a dit que les photographes n'ont pas eu sa permission d'être là ou bien cette personne qui dit le contraire sous le couvert de l'anonymat. Si vous dites la vérité et que vous n'avez rien à cacher mettez dont votre nom quand vous laissez un commentaire!!

4 commentaires:

Mario a dit...

Je seconde ce propos, il est très difficile de suivre de telles discussions et l'anonymat permet de dire n'importe quoi, sans répercutions! Bien dit Jacques.

Anonyme a dit...

I learned one thing over the years, talk is cheap. As far as what people tell me, I tend to believe what I see and not what I hear.

I would not be surprised at all, if one of the landowners allowed a group of photographers onto his land.

You'll have to understand, most people and especially nature photographers will not keep trespassing land like the group photographed and posted on your site. You never know when the police will come.

Besides, if you are there conducting a photography workshop and the police show up, how would that look to your workshop participants who pay a lot of money to take part and only to be confronted by the police? Surely few will take that chance.

If I recall the other thread on this, someone in the area observed activity of the photographers over a number of days and came away with the conclusion that the photogs he or she saw there must have had permission to be on the land.

One day of people trespassing maybe but not over a week. Who would take such a chance unless of course they received permission to be there in the first place.

Anonyme a dit...

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions again. People should get their facts staight before spreading false information. Like Jacques mentioned, he spoke with the land owner and got the information from him. As far as I`m concerned this should end all discussions on this matter.

Anonyme a dit...

He said, she said. Facts cannot be based on that. The "owner" of said land has not posted his/her real name either. There are 2 sides to a story.