It occurred to me that, with all the discussion of late about hunter vs
birder support of their respective hobbies, we in the USA are poised one
day before national and state elections, in which candidates more or less
friendly or hostile to land uses dear to our hearts are up for election.

I'm a lot less happy walking through forests in my later years as opposed
to those earlier years of my life because of one realization: most of the
big decisions that determine how a particular tract of land or shore is
going to be used (preserved, developed or stripped) are made in the
administrative capitols like Washington DC, Portland, Oregon and Seattle
and Olympia, WA.

One of my very pettest (sic) peeves over the years has been that of
birders who take from the hobby as if all the world is theirs to bird in
as a freebie, and put little or nothing back into it financially. The
Romans said "Pecuniae nervous belli" or "money is the sinews of war." One
way birders can help their causes is to contribute $$$ to candidates with
views and agendas similar to our own or at least better than another
candidate's, and while it's a bit late to do so in this election, in
states or localities where candidates are in close races, a call to an
office to tell them that a contribution is coming might help buy
additional advertising time which could influence an outcome. Advertising
time is expensive, but very necessary, and close races depend on it.

In a way, this is a form of taxation, but voluntary and one over which we
have control and may garner brownie points for birders with the
politicians. Just a thought.


Charles Easterberg
University of Washington
easterbg at u.washington.edu