>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 22:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Byron Butler (GD 1995) <bbutler at minerva.cis.yale.edu>
>To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"
> <BIRDCHAT at listserv.Arizona.EDU>
>Cc: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
>Subject: Re: May-August is dull. ?????!
>
>On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Wavell Fogleman wrote:
>
>> Come on Byron......
>>
>> I took the "dull" statement to be *very* tongue in cheek. Must you
>> take EVERY opportunity to knock listers? Lighten up!
>>
>When I had just arrived in New England from Montana Wavell and Sue were
>the first birders I met in the east. They were kind enough to let me come
>over to their house to learn about birding NE and they helped me in many
>valuable ways. I am forever indebted and thankfull to both Wavell and
>Sue and I like them both immensely. I hope everyone will keep this in
>mind while I argue with Wavell for a bit. BTW, Wavell is a scientist (a
>chemist) and so understsands the role of argument and defense in sharing
>ideas and that this confrontational style is not to be misunderstood as
>hostility between the individuals involved.
>
>Bob Lewis may have had tongue in cheek when he wrote his line, I do not
>know what was or is in his heart and I no longer have his original message.
>But, gee whiz, Wavell, you know as well as I do that the statement
>that May-August is a dull or slow period for birders in the east is an
>extremely common one. I hear it all the time, always in a serious vein.
>I deleted Bob's name from my reply so I could respond to this "truism"
>without appearing to be jumping on any one particular induvidual. I
>don't know why Bob wants everyone to know he wrote the line.
>
>There are dozens of birders in New England who play state listing games
>wherein they annually try to see how many birds they can "get" in a
>particular state every year. For example, 300 birds per year in MA & CT,
>225-250 birds per year in VT & NH. For these people the summer nesting
>season *is* a dull period in that the number of new species added to
>their year list per week is lower than at most other times of the year.
>These people aren't joking when they state "the truism."
>
>And that is precisely my point. It is the mindset of birders to concern
>themselves with The List, not with the birds. This takes birders
>completely out of the realm of ornithology, they are not studying birds
>or bird biology at all. They are playing a game where birds are simply
>objects to be used for the purpose of the game. In other discussions, but
>never before on BirdChat, I've compared the way birders objectify and use
>birds to feminest views of how men objectify women. I've found this to be
>a very good analogy in that people pick up on it quickly, suggesting to me
>that I'm not the only person to feel birders simply *use* birds.
>
>People who love birds see birds not as objects to be scored but as
>living entities which share our planet with us. We love birds for what
>they are and marvel in the details of their lives whether they be highly
>sought after rarities, Brown-headed Cowbirds, House Sparrows, or even
>"lowly" European Starlings. A bird lover could never make the statement
>that May-August is dull because that thought would never enter the mind.
>May-August is the time for reproduction, the period when birds carry
>out those activities most important to the survival of the species.
>As a result, the most interesting bird behaviors occur during this time,
>as has been mention by other contributors to this thread.
>
>Birders, more correctly, listers, dominate the amateur ranks at this
>time to such an extent that many, probably most, people just entering
>amateur ornithology never realize that there are alternatives to listing.
>Thus, in order to be "one of the crowd" most birders simply conform to
>the behavior existing in the amateur birding community. My arguments as a
>birding iconoclast (I accept the label Dennis Paulson has pinned on me)
>is to advertize loudly that there are alternatives to listing and to show
>why they are better than listing.
>
>I've been accused of "bashing" listing and listers - I don't accept this
>language because it suggests all I'm doing is being negative without
>offering anything positive. Those who believe so have completely
>misunderstood my message and my motives. Regarding listing, the emperor
>has no clothes. Grandoise claims that locating rarites, establishing new
>state records, etc. somehow add important bricks to the great wall of
>ornithological knowledge are sophistry - they do not. Listing per se has
>made no significant contribution to the science of ornithology, excepting
>perhaps by producing numbers of observers with good bird identification
>skills which can be later used in projects of genuine ornithological
>merit. It is important to note that these projects (e.g., breeding bird
>censuses) are *not* exercises in listing. Although some of the
>participants in these projects may otherwise consider themselves as
>listers, the sport of listing can not take credit for the success of
>these projects.
>
>Dennis is correct when he states I wish to encourage birders to *think*
>about what it is they are doing when they look at birds. By demonstrating
>that the emperor has no clothes I hope to help birders realize that they
>do not have to just blindly follow the crowd. In amateur ornithology
>there are alternatives to listing which are far more rewarding, far more
>intellectually stimulating, and far more ornithologically meaningful than
>mind-numbing list keeping. I believe these alternative pursuits (e.g.,
>genuine bird study or serious conservationism/protectionism) should be
>where we look for leaders of amateur ornithology, not from the 700-club.
>By encouraging the return of bird study as the dominant influence in
>amateur ornithology I believe I'm doing something very positive.
>
>This will come, of course, at the expense of amateur listing. Listing
>and top listers will loose some status as birders come to realize that
>number of birds on one's life list is a measure of nothing important.
>Because I hold this view some argue that I wish to eliminate listing.
>Nothing could be further from the truth, I do not wish to eliminate
>listing at all. What I wish to do is ensure that everyone understands
>there are more meaningful ways to enjoy birds and that you, too, can be
>worthy, even if you don't have an impressive life list, by expressing
>your interest in birds in another way. You do not have to throw away
>years of your life trying to keep up with the birding Jones' by building
>a socially acceptable life list.
>
>It has also been suggested that I might not like listers - that is
>individual birders who choose to list. This is not so at all. If a
>person realizes there are alternatives to listing, understands these
>alternatives, yet still favors listing over the other choices, this is
>fine with me. I have no problem liking listers nor in getting
>along with birders whose primary passion is listing. Remember: *I* keep
>lists and I encourage everyone to keep lists also. Sometimes I will spend
>a day just listing for fun and relaxation. But, I do not allow listing to
>become *the* reason for my interest in birds. I only have trouble when
>listers overstate the importance of listing to the field of ornithology
>or when listers seek elevated status in the birding community based
>solely on the length of their life list. I'll say it again, the length of
>the list means nothing unless one has a knowledge of birds to back it up.
>
>Macklin has stated in a past discussion that after all is said and done
>listers do no harm anyway so what is all this fuss? I agree that listers
>in general are good people and, as individuals, are not hurtful. However,
>I disagree with the suggestion than listing has not caused harm. I
>believe that listing has been very detrimental to amateur ornithology in
>that it has taken the focus away from the study of birds and placed
>it on The List. Statements like "May-August is dull," support my view -
>this is a listing statement, no birdwatcher would think the thought.
>The emphasis on Attu is another example. Attu is important for listing,
>it is not important for North American ornithology - no matter how many
>first occurance records are established there. Now with people reaching
>the 700-club without ever going to Attu, Attu won't even be important for
>listing.
>
>Finally, no, Wavell, I don't take EVERY opportunity to knock listers.
>BirdChat, like all amateur ornithology is dominated by the listing
>mentality. As a result there are many examples of listing-dominated
>thinking here every day. It would be a full time job for anyone to even
>attempt to list them all (a good job for a lister!). I take a glaring
>example from time to time then comment on it. This makes me recall Carly
>Simon's song, "You're so vain," - I don't mean *you* Wavell, I mean the
>collective you - listers in general, all listers upset by my words.
>In her song she says, "You probably think this song is about you, don't
>you." This has importance when listers think my words are intended mainly
>for them, just to "bash" them. Not so, sorry. My words are intended
>primarily for those amateur birders who have not yet been possessed by
>the nefarious listing spirit - those who can still be saved - those who
>still have a chance to become birdwatchers!
>
>Tis' June now, an exciting time to "watch" birds. Set aside your list for
>this month, find a nest and follow it until the young are fledged. Keep
>notes on your observations then share them here on BirdChat.
>
>Byron K. Butler, Guilford, CT

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416