[Birdtalk] Politics of birding (was "Time for Birders to Flock Together")

[David Wheeler]

Amen to that!  If we can't be bothered with the "inconvenience" of e-mails alerting us to the very environmental issues which most affect our hobby, we have to ask ourselves what we really stand for and why we are doing this.  If caring is too difficult, the delete button beckons.  But before you press, ask yourselves what all you are deleting.
 
Mark, this is why I love you, dude!  Rant on, baby!!
 
David

>>> Mark Stackhouse <westwings at sisna.com> 8/16/2008 11:17 AM >>>
"Rant Alert "- if you don't want to read this, hit delete now.

Let's consider the topic of "Birding Ethics," something that is not  
only considered appropriate for this forum, but has been discussed  
many times and has been the subject of numerous posts. No one objects  
when birders are admonished for playing recordings or excessively  
pursuing a far-out-of-range, non-breeding (unless someone can show  
evidence of a pair being present), Whip-poor-will in Green Canyon.  
Such concerns are entirely valid, and this forum is the proper place  
to express opinions on the subject.

Most who advocate for "ethical behavior" while birding do so out of a  
concern for the welfare of the individual bird and the population of  
its species. The more unusual the sighting, the stronger the call for  
"ethical" birding practices. But please don't kid yourself into  
thinking that "behaving properly" around a rare bird has any benefit  
whatsoever to the bird, or especially its species. Not harassing an  
extra-limital individual may increase the chances that other birders  
may see it (a valid concern), but even shooting such a bird will have  
absolutely ZERO effect on the species.

The fate of a breeding pair of White-faced Ibis at Bear River MBR is  
infinitely more important to the future of birds and birding than the  
fate of whatever out-of-range or edge-of-range rarity that catches the  
fancy of the birding community.

Inasmuch as the future of ibis (and many thousands of other birds) is  
threatened by plans for a dam on the Bear River, and that said dam is  
proposed in order to meet demand for water on the Wasatch Front, then  
a birder not practicing greatest possible water conservation, over- 
watering their lawn (or even having a lawn), not having low-flow  
toilets and showers, etc. should be considered in gross violation of  
birding ethics.

That is, of course, assuming that "birding ethics" is all about  
concern for the birds themselves and not just about protecting  
sighting opportunities and birder's lists.

If, indeed, "birding ethics" is about protecting birds and ensuring  
that they, and therefore our shared hobby, have a future, then being a  
strong environmentalist, and living a "green" lifestyle should be  
considered an integral part of practicing good birding ethics. Birders  
should view the use of pesticides and weed-killers around the home  
with the same condemnation as turning a pack of dogs loose into a  
waterfowl nesting area at Farmington Bay, for example. It's more  
harmful to birds than an army of iPod and spotlight wielding birders  
in Green Canyon.

That brings us to the "elephant" in the room. Political decisions, and  
who is in control of our government, have a profound and long-lasting  
effect on the health of our environment and therefore the future of  
birds and birding. That isn't a political statement in itself, it's  
simple reality. Another simple reality is that the current  
administration in Washington, supported by so many in Utah and  
virtually all elected representatives from our state (even Jim  
Matheson hasn't shown concern for the environment equal to his  
father), has been among the most damaging to the environment and birds  
in our nation's history. The gutting of endangered species protections  
by administrative fiat just a few days ago is but the latest of a long  
list of insults to our environment promulgated by the Bush  
administration.

Now decisions of for whom to vote (our ultimate political power as  
individuals) are complex, and rarely based upon a single issue.  
Perhaps your concern for gays getting married in California eclipses  
your concern for the future of birds and our planet, much in the same  
way that Boyd K. Packer once explained to me the lack of a strong pro- 
environment position by the LDS church by stating that doing so would  
cause the church "to be associated with groups with whom they didn't  
want to be associated."

But if you helped elect a representative whose actions have not been  
helpful to birds, and you consider yourself to be an ethical birder,  
it's your duty to let said representatives know that you don't agree  
with their actions. It's exactly what Doug Roberts was asking you to do.

Consider it your duty in fulfilling your pledge as an ethical birder.  
Consider it your part in helping ensure that you, your children, your  
grand-children and their children will continue to be able to enjoy  
birds as you do now.

If such subjects aren't appropriate in this forum, then no one should  
ever post here about "birding ethics."

End of rant.

Mark Stackhouse
(currently) San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico
mark at westwings,com
_______________________________________________
Birdtalk mailing list
Birdtalk at utahbirds.org 
http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20080818/f729e25b/attachment.htm