Agreed. I can see the frustration in it. I just don't think that justifies the response. And my reaction would have been the same whether the poster was a photographer or just a birder - the response was uncalled for.
I understand your point about "me" time. But you also have to realize that it's also their "me" time, and being friendly and social (and yes, probably a bit loud) in a park might be what they enjoy.
The thing is, if a photographer (or birder, etc.) wants to get close to a rail undisturbed, a lakeshore park in an urban centre probably isn't the best choice. Trying to stake out a Sora in Mississauga and getting annoyed when someone asks what you're doing is just plain foolish.
sorry, but you're wrong.
substitute "park" with "restaurant" or "church" or "library". A place of refuge is a place of refuge, no matter where you are. i was in New York 2 weeks ago. you walk through Central Park and you see so many people (not homeless, but office people) napping on the lawn. No one's going up to them, asking "whatchadoing???" because its a park and people know to give personal space.
it reminds me of a our time in Monteverde cloud forest in Costa Rica. my wife and i are walking in silence, hoping to observe some birds or monkeys on the trail. all the sudden, we hear 3 people coming the opposite way, having the loudest conversation. i have no idea why one would go to a national park to talk loudly. kind of defeats the purpose. it ruined the moment for us and there are silent society rules about parks and public spaces that these people didn't seem to get.
to finally end my point, which is a side discussion of the ORIGINAL post, is that your concept of parks in public spaces differs from some of ours. so i guess if it makes you happy, paint people like me and Meghan as foolish and leave it at that.
