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

Mon Aug 18 13:38:12 MDT 2008

Doug,

I think that Birdtalk is the perfect forum for discussing  
environmental issues that affect birds. It was originally separated  
from Birdnet  to provide a place for a wider discussion of birding  
issues, and leave Birdnet for reporting rare sightings. The point of  
my post was that raising environmental issues that affect birds, and  
even publicly arguing (in a civil fashion) about them is exactly what  
should be happening here. If we start another forum for "birding  
politics," only the "greenies" will join, the birding community will  
fracture, and it'll be a forum for "preaching to the choir."

I would rather see disagreements discussed among all of us in a  
respectful fashion.

I've noticed that environmental issues are discussed rather more  
freely without objection in other birding listservs, such as  
Washington state's "Tweeters." I think part of the problem here in  
Utah, that I tried to put rather more delicately in my original post,  
is that environmental issues get branded as "liberal," and most  
Utahns, including, perhaps a majority of Utah birders, consider  
themselves "conservatives." Political/environmental issues have  
affected the Utah birding community for years - being instrumental in  
the forming of Utah's most active birding group, The Utah County  
Birders, whom we can thank for the very existence of Birdtalk. Perhaps  
many Utah birders don't know that the Utah County Birders was formed  
to fill the void left by the demise of the Timpanogos chapter of the  
Audubon Society, when the National Audubon Society was viewed as too  
political and environmentally activist for the Utah County membership.

But I would hope that what unites us as birders can help us transcend  
trendy and shallow political labels and allow us to talk about things  
we can do on both a personal and a political level to help the birds  
we love.

Birdtalk should be the place to do this.

Mark Stackhouse
(still in) San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico

On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Doug Roberts wrote:

> Hi  Mark,
> Thanks for one fabulous "rant"! I truly appreciate your support.  I  
> checked out [your website], and I see that you have many years of  
> amazing experience with birds.
> I've had about 6 supportive emails vs just that 1 negative.  I was  
> about to suggest to the  BirdTalk members that we create  a new and  
> different list,  one that is about Utah environmental issues for  
> birders. There, birders can discuss politics all they want, and can  
> keep birdtalk focused on bird identification. What do you think?
> Thanks again,
> Doug Roberts
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Stackhouse <westwings at sisna.com>
> To: Birdtalk Talk <birdtalk at utahbirds.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 11:17:18 AM
> Subject: [Birdtalk] Politics of birding (was "Time for Birders to  
> Flock Together")
>
> "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/20080818/34be31a7/attachment-0001.htm