Subject: Re: That Damn Millennium Plan
Date: Nov 19 15:41:33 1998
From: Don Baccus - dhogaza at pacifier.com


At 03:11 PM 11/19/98 -0800, Nancy Creighton wrote:
>On 11/19/98 Don Baccus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> So, if you can't convince them that the electricity and $50,000 a year
> and $1.2 million initial expense isn't worth it, at least try to
> convince them to make it look decent.

>I could give a damn about how it looks, Don.

I'd hoped folks would pick up on my somewhat tongue-and-cheek comment. I
think such lighting is an absolute waste of money and energy.

> My concern is the serious
>danger such a lighted structure poses to migratory birds. A World Wildlife
>Federation report states that more birds die from lighted structures each
>year than were lost in the Valdez oil spill.

What kind of lighting do they intend? The kind of muted colored lighting
that shines on our Morrison Bridge is actually a lot less intrusive than the
street lighting on the road surface and onramp, particularly to something
flying overhead. So if you're going to make a credible claim that the
structure would be harmful to migratory birds, you're going to have
to at least aquaint yourself with the lighting scheme, no? In Portland,
at least, the bridges span the Willamette in the heart of town, and
the river's surrounded by a lighted freeway and plenty of lighted tall
buildings so you might have difficulty showing incremental harm to birds.

On the other hand, the argument that it's a needless waste of electricity
and money that could be spent doing real good is irrefutable...this is
more than enough reason to end the silly project.

>Everyone, please voice your opposition to Paul Schell and others in City
>hall who continue to support this asinine plan, and let's get a large,
>informed crowd of birders

Informed that THESE lights WILL harm migratory birds, or armed with
information
that lighting the structure MIGHT cause harm?

When conservationists make absolutist statements that can't be supported
by facts, credibility of activists as a whole is eroded.

If the report you mention indicts all lighted structures equally and can
back that up with data, you can probably make strong statements. My guess,
though, is that the problem with lighted structures is probably similar
to that with windmills - they can vary from deadly to benign depending on
location and design.

Oh, in the "victory for the good guys" department, did anyone notice that
utilities in California have finally agreed to replace 1,300 or so of the
worst "raptor blender" windmills in Altamont Pass with a smaller number
of larger, taller, more efficient (at extracting energy) mills? The
plan has been endorsed by major opponents of the existing windfarm, and
the placement of the windmills will be based on data gathered as to actual
usuage by raptors of the area.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net