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

[M. H. Wallace]

I second the Amen!

Matthew Wallace
East Mill Creek / Salt Lake County

David Wheeler wrote:
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080818/491cd0e2/attachment-0001.htm