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

[Connie McManus]

The rant rocks!!   You said in a very concise and elegant way my own
feelings.  However, had it been me ranting, I would have made some very
extremist comments that would get everyone flared up.  You said it right.
Connie McManus

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Mark Stackhouse <westwings at sisna.com>wrote:

> "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
>



-- 
Connie McManus
Nibley, Cache County, Utah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20080819/2a551973/attachment.htm