Subject: NAS Field Notes (fwd)
Date: Jul 27 17:45:10 1994
From: Dan Victor - dvictor at u.washington.edu


Hello,

There hasn't been much communication on tweeters recently so I'm
forwarding an interesting exchange a few of you have already read on
Oregon Birders online.

Dan Victor, Seattle, WA <dvictor at u.washington.edu>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 17:23:47 -0700
From: Tom Crabtree <tcrabtre at ednet1.osl.or.gov>
To: obol at gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: NAS Field Notes

On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Alan Lee Contreras wrote:

|>
|> The new version of American Birds will be called National
|> Audubon Society Field Notes. Where do those people get off?
|> First they dump American Birds, then they glue the organization's
|> name to whatever is left. Is there no shame in New York? I can
|> say with pride that I have not been a NAS member for many years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This seems to be a common attitude among birders; is it surprising that
>birders have a diminishing influence on NAS? I trust that all the
>birders who gripe about NAS dumping _American Birds_ at least subscribed
>to it when it existed. As to the shamelessness/hubris of NAS, well
>*they* are publishing the Field Notes...

>David Wright
>dwright at u.washington.edu

I find the comments of David Wright puzzling. Birders including Alan and
myself among many thousands of others have been supportive of American
Birds for years. I have subscribed to it since the late 1970s. Unfortunately
the direction of Audubon under Peter Berle has been moving further and
further from its roots as an organization for birding. If you pick up an
Audubon Magazine from the 60's, 70's or early 80's you'll find at least one
and often more articles about birds. Les Line was the editor of the Magazine
and it won awards for its excellence. Peter Berle wanted to change it to
fit his own image. First he eliminated virtually all the bird articles.
Next he fired Les after years of working there. Have you looked at Audubon
Ragazine lately? What a piece of junk. Now he has eliminated the one
outlet birders had. Berle has turned Audubon from an organization of
birders who were interested in other aspects of the environment into
another Sierra Club of environmental-types with virtually no interest in
birds.

While NAS is publishing the new field notes, that is anything but a
credit to their generosity. They gutted all the good features of American
Birds - which was a first rate publication - and are turning it into nothing
more than an accumulation of data with no articles, illustrations or features.
They are charging as much for it as they did for AB. From what I understand
they are preventing anyone else from taking over American Birds and keeping
it alive for birders.

Peter Berle might have succeeded in turning Audubon into a big political
lobby in Washington, D.C. But he has done this at the expense of birders
and birding. As far as I'm concerned he can take the organization he has
recreated and perform a biologically impossible act. It used to be an
organization for birders. Now it is merely another generic environmentalist
group. I for one, deplore its demise.

--
Tom Crabtree tcrabtre at ednet1.osl.or.gov
1667 NW Iowa Home (503) 388-2462
Bend, OR 97701 Work (503) 389-7723
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

=============

>From wrightdb at pigsty.dental.washington.edu Wed Jul 27 14:08:06 1994
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 18:51:30 -0700
From: wrightdb at pigsty.dental.washington.edu
Reply to: dwright at u.washington.edu
To: obol at gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Re: NAS Field Notes

>On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Alan Lee Contreras wrote:
>
>|>

>|> The new version of American Birds will be called National
>|> Audubon Society Field Notes. Where do those people get off?
>|> First they dump American Birds, then they glue the organization's
>|> name to whatever is left. Is there no shame in New York? I can
>|> say with pride that I have not been a NAS member for many years.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This seems to be a common attitude among birders; is it surprising that

>>birders have a diminishing influence on NAS? I trust that all the

>>birders who gripe about NAS dumping _American Birds_ at least subscribed

>>to it when it existed. As to the shamelessness/hubris of NAS, well

>>*they* are publishing the Field Notes...

>
>>David Wright
>>dwright at u.washington.edu

>I find the comments of David Wright puzzling. Birders including Alan and
>myself among many thousands of others have been supportive of American
>Birds for years. I have subscribed to it since the late 1970s.
>Unfortunately
>the direction of Audubon under Peter Berle has been moving further and
>further from its roots as an organization for birding. If you pick up an
>Audubon Magazine from the 60's, 70's or early 80's you'll find at least
>one
>and often more articles about birds. Les Line was the editor of the
>Magazine
>[more stuff about Berle and demise of Audubon deleted for brevity]
>--
>Tom Crabtree tcrabtre at ednet1.osl.or.gov
>1667 NW Iowa Home (503) 388-2462
>Bend, OR 97701 Work (503) 389-7723
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

From: wrightdb at pigsty.dental.washington.edu

Well, first of all I agree with your statements regarding Berle and
Company. My intended point above was simply that if birders desert NAS,
why should we expect NAS to care what we want? i.e., shouldn't the board
(which has the power to can Berle) take the gripes of members more
seriously than those of non-members? I find it puzzling that some people
apparently expect otherwise. And I don't doubt that Alan and many others
who care ardently about _American Birds_ are/were faithful subscribers. I
apologize if I gave the impression I thought otherwise. But viewing the
mediocre circulation numbers for AB in the context of the very large
potential audience (North Amer. birders) forces the conclusion that the
vast majority of birders did *not* support AB with subscriptions. AB was
in the red for something like $100K last year, having reached only half
its modest target (break-even) circulation. Obviously I think NAS should
have kept AB alive, but in the face of millions of dollars of red ink
(courtesy of Berle & Co.) the board had to make cuts (and hey, the birders
have already left anyway...). Would AB have survived the cutting block if
so many birders hadn't already deserted NAS?


As to whether or not NAS deserves to place its name on the pared-down
_Field Notes_, folks who think that the name NAS is *not* synonymous with
Berle's but rather denotes the membership of an organization that has
weathered many storms -- and that will survive Berle & Co. -- would argue
that the name is entirely appropriate.


David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu