Subject: [Tweeters] Re: Birding History
Date: Jan 14 12:04:56 2006
From: camelama - camelama at speakeasy.net



Please note I'm not arguing re: how Edwin sees himself. It's just ... to me,
"bird watching" has always seemed such a 'static' phrase. Like all you do
then is *watch*. No learning, no helping, no exploring, no working. Just
static watch. To me, it has never seemed to include in the term, anything
like ... bird banding. Working ecological sites (our loosestrife removal, for
instance, or all the stream-bank work I've done). Working for legislation to
protect birds and habitat. Educating others around you. Encouraging others
to join in doing more than just watching.

It's just a personal feeling, mind you - I'm not saying that's how EVERYONE
sees it. It's just how I've always felt about the "bird watching" term. For
me, "birding" covers all of the above activities. So it's not from any sense
of superiority, or morality, or grammarality (!!) that I choose to use the
term "birding".

Anyone else ever get that feeling from "bird watcher"?


Perhaps growing up in the 60's in Michigan, "bird watchers" were scary adults,
and kids my age went "birding"? :)


And if anyone is an English major here, I query: why is "I'm a birder" wrong,
but "I'm a quilter" not? "I'm a knitter"? "I'm a brewer"? "I'm a gambler"?
They're all a noun with an -er added to make it an active term... Ain't
language grand?!

Cheers,

Susan Collicott
Ballard, WA


On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Edwin D. Lamb wrote:

> All right Mike! That's what I do, I watch birds. I don't
> know what it is to bird something. The word doesn't make a
> very good verb, in my opinion.
>
> Edwin Lamb in Bellevue, WA
> edsplace2 at comcast.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Patterson" <celata at pacifier.com>
> To: "Tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 7:46 AM
> Subject: [Tweeters] RE: birding history
>
>
> > At the risk of being accused of picking nits, people who
> > studied
> > birds before the mid-60's would not have called what they
> > did
> > birding. They would have been as repulsed by the term
> > birding
> > and reacted in the same way many did a few months ago to
> > "googling".
> > They would probably have cringed the way I cringe when I
> > hear
> > "journaling" or "scrap-booking".
> >
> > Back in the day, people referred to themselves as
> > bird-watchers,
> > ornithologist, naturalists, but not birders. The term
> > came into
> > common usage in the late-60's and early-70's as a
> > mechanism to
> > distinguish a class of "extreme" birdwatchers focused on
> > bird study
> > as a sport. It was an unabashedly elitist way to separate
> > the list
> > building, ID focused bird chasers from the little old
> > ladies, eccentric
> > gentlemen and shotgun ornithologists most people thought
> > of when
> > characterizing bird-watchers. Since that time it has
> > come, more less,
> > to identify all classes of bird students, much to the
> > annoyance of some
> > old school birders.
> >
> > It is this difference in the definition of what a birder
> > is that
> > often leads to hurt feelings and impugned characters.
> > This is the
> > a big chunk of the reason why some folks were so grumpy
> > about the study
> > done by the USFWS claiming 46 million birders.
> >
> > Me? Even though I came of age in the age of the "true
> > birders" and
> > have an elitist streak in me, I still call myself a
> > bird-watcher and
> > celebrate my eccentric gentlemanliness... or a
> > naturalist... or an
> > ecologist. I only use birder when talking with the press,
> > for
> > efficiency sake...
> >
> > --
> > Mike Patterson
> > Astoria, OR
> > celata at pacifier.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>