At 08:33 PM 2/28/99 -0600, Eugene Kridler wrote:
>Mike Price shouldn't hold his breathe waiting for bird people to get off
>their keisters to exercise the economic clout with politicians so that
>nonconsumptive users of wildlife are given equal consideration to
>consumptive users like hunters and anglers. It has been my experience
>that only a pitiful few take l0-l5 minutes of their time to even write a
>letter to the powers that be.

This is a succint description of the chasm separating conservationists
from most outdoor recreationists (birders included, others not excluded).

OK, on average birders are more likely to be involved in conservation
efforts as volunteers than, say, ORV users. But it's a difference
only in scale, in far too many cases, and far too often list-hunting
birders couldn't give a shit.

Hunters and fisher[folk?] overall do more, and more willingly, for
conservation than birders et al. Conservation vs. recreation is
the major reason we see splits between local Audubon chapters and
"X-state Field Ornithologists" organizations. Audubon chapters are,
if they're at all effective in the first place, pushing on conservation
issues, and we all know that fighting for conservation makes it much
harder to chase that mocker that might be in Oregon and might be
your only chance to add it to your state list. Ignore the fact
that a brief, one-day drive south will put you in everyday mocker
territory, and significance of seeing it here has to do with
ancient Spanish and British boundaries on colonies that no longer
exist...yes, we must ignore that and put it on our STATE LIST.

(well, some do so, I don't really even have a life list)

> The vast majority won't even do that
>because of their busy, busy schedules like jumping up and down in ectasy
>when they add a bird to their weekly, monthly, yearly and perhaps life
>list. Whoop-dee-doo!

Yeah...amen, brother!

>Most do nothing for the welfare of birds they see.

Oh, hell, when it comes to rare state, or county, or
whatever birds, if you get a first record, SHOOT IT. Means
it's yours forever, and you get a leg up on potential
competitors (I won't mention the Oregon top birder I have
in mind, here).

>Hunters and anglers have to buy licenses. In addition there is a l0%tax
>on sporting arms and ammunition and also on fishing gear. Through the
>Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnston bills. This is returned to state
>fish and wildlife agencies based on the number of license buyers and
>other conditions for use of their programs. So its no wonder hunters and
>fishermen are given first consideration. It's mother's milk for the
>agencies. A few have nongame programs, but they're usually bottom man on
>the totem pole. Birders are grousing about the requirement to buy a
>license to enter a state wildlife area. A lot of those areas were the
>result of the taxes paid to these agencies by hunters and fishermen.
>Also grousing about a proposed national tax on equipment they use for
>wildlife watching.

Portland Audubon has long supported this Teaming With Wildlife
tax initiative you mention - another reason hard-core birders
keep their distance. Except, of course, for the monthly Birder's
Night, when they gladly use our space, our AV equipment, and
our generosity in the name of interest in birding to put on
their program. (again, I sweep too widely, certainly as many
as 50% of birders involved take part in Portland Audubon
conservation or education [they're the same, in the long
run :) ] activities). The other 50% deserve an afterlife
in hell, with nothing but starlings, house sparrows, and
row houses populating the landscape.

Hey, why isn't that in the Bible? Starlings must've
evolved after Genesis was written :)

> A tax similar to the two aforementioned bills. They
>are literally getting a free ride for their form of recreation.

And conservation-minded outdoorsfolks, not just birders, but
others, realize this. Unfortunately, too many look at
outdoor recreation as being just a cheap alternative to,
say, bungee-jumping.

> They found that 32.2 million
>people fished and they spent $35 billion when so engaged, while l4
>million hunters spent $2l billion. Now get this, 62.9 million persons
>watched wildlife and the spent $29.2 BILLION in l996. That was a hell of
>a lot more money spent by hunters!

Oh, blah blah blah! Of course all of us who care know that.
To not know it involves hiding behind one's bins looking for,
oh, an early TV or something :)

OK, I'm exaggerating, obviously there are folks out there who
don't know the rough scale of figures who need their eyes
opened.

But, unfortunately, too many recreational birders have open
eyes and excellent eyesight and just don't give a shit.

As we both know. And both lament. And probably react to
in public at times (in my case, with some of that profanity
you don't care for).

> Something that should be brought to
>the attention of the powers that be. But it won't be by most birders.
>Wildlife watchers have a hell of a lot economic clout, Mike, if they
>would use it. Maybe you and I are just racing our engines and spinning
>our wheels. Think of all the l00 plus birding festivals plus birders
>going to Belize and other places in Central and South America, Asia,
>Galapagos, Arctic and Antarctic, Africa, Europe, Canada, Alaska. All
>spend big bucks. Birders indeed have economic clout. But its the old
>story that the squeaking wheel gets the grease, and they won't squeak.

The birding festivals are a great thing, and here I'll disagree
with you.

Because birding festivals don't really attract the sports
birder, for the most part. Most of them celebrate numbers,
and those numbers frequently don't involve much chance of
a rarity. Shorebird festivals are perhaps different,
but the vast numbers of folks around makes it difficult
to study flocks for long periods of time, things get
flighty, people want to talk, crowds jiggle the boardwalk,
etc etc.

The great thing about bird festivals is the opportunity
to wow the general public with huge numbers of birds.
Without exposing themselves to the disgruntled birder
grousing because among the 1,000 widgeon not a single
Eurasian is in site...

Sadly, sadly, sadly ... I think the general public,
kicked in the pants with say 100,000 snow geese
flying overhead, or 30,000 crane or whatever at
Bosque del Apache, are more likely to drop $1 bills
in donation jars than the hard-core birder, who will
sniff..."but, there was no siberian crane!"

>I contacted some so-called outdoor writers from various newspapers and
>told them where they could get copies of the reports. No
>acknowledgements. They have a mindset just to write about hunting and
>fishing.

The Oregonian for a long time had as it's #1 outdoor/hunting
writer Tom McAllister, a Portland Audubon member since, oh,
well before the WWII (and a childhood birding buddy
of Dave Marshall, and lifelong friend afterwards, and Eugene
knows who Dave is). He used to publish, shall we say, a
broad range of articles, certainly heavily slanted towards
hunting and fishing ("the readership") but sneaking in
birding stuff, too. Bill Monroe, his successor, TRIES to
get things right vis-a-vis conservation, wildlife observation,
and the like but apparently mostly observes his dog. Too
bad. He tries...he fails...we weep. But, at least he
TRIES.

But, our situation in Portland is different than that with
most daily rags. Heck, for awhile they published a
"NW Naturalist" column that was run by Portland Audubon
(i.e. several of us took turns writing it, and got to
write what we damn well pleased).



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