Thank you Dale for your encouragement for subscribers to use place names
that at least get most subscribers from any part of the state to the general
area in question

I would like to think that one of the first rules of posting on any list
serve is to think about who all of the subscribers are (though this can be
challenging on some lists) and write any post so that it is clear to a
maximum number of recipients and of interest to a maximum number of
subscribers. Since subscribers are from all over the state of Washington
(and beyond) and of a wide diveristy of ages and experience levels and know
things by a diversity of names, it would seem appropriate to use bird names,
place names and descriptions that make it easy for a maximum number of
posters to understand. For what I always knew as the "Montlake Fill" and
others apparently know as the "Union Bay Natural Area" I would would make
sense to always add "Seattle" to the subject line and body to make sure that
Spokane birders who don't know those west side place names know that that
Tropical Kingbird that they wanted to see is in Seattle, and may be a long
trek if they want to go and try to see it. You would also want newer west
side birders who still haven't learned one or the other place name that this
exciting bird is in an area that may be worth their while to go and look
for.

An additional advantage in adding an indication of the general area a
sighting is in (especially in the subject line) is that it allows
subscribers to quickly note that a given species is being seen in a given
area. I may not go look for the Tropical Kingbird, but it is valuable for
me to just know that one has been seen in Seattle and in what habitat it was
seen in.

I know it may seem cumbersome, but when I talk about a plant name I
sometimes try to give all of the more used common and scientific names that
are in recent use to cover as many people as possible. In the case of "The
Fill" it may be appropriate to refer to it as "Montlake Fill / UBNA
(Seattle)" or "Montlake Fill / Union Bay Natural Area (Seattle)" (though I
could easilly imagine some of us old timers not being able to remember the
latter name). It wouldn't even be bad to add "NW of UW's Husky Stadium" in
the body, though once you at least give a general area that most subscribers
would know or easily be able to figure out ("Seattle" in this case), it
might not seem unreasonable to me for brevity to let people who need them
ask for directions, google them or look them up in a guide or map. A
Tweeters website or link with place descriptions, maps and directions would
certainly help for this.

Giving place names, abbreviations of bird names or other abbreviations that
the diversity of people on the list couldn't be expected to know or quickly
figure out could seem cliquish.

-Stewart

Stewart Wechsler
Ecological Consulting
West Seattle
206 932-7225
mailto:ecostewart at quidnunc.net

-Advice on the most site-appropriate native plants
and how to enhance habitat for the maximum diversity
of plants and animals
-Educational programs, nature walks and field trips
-Botanical Surveys

-----Original Message-----
From: ravenintherain
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:26 PM
To: Brett Wolfe
Cc: Tweeters
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] OT - Why do birders insist on using outdated
info?



Your "rant" borders on an issue that I have been holding back on for a
while because I am relatively new to birding and haven't wanted to
offend the "old-timers," though as far as age goes, I'm a real
old-timer. My issue is that Tweeters people often blithely refer to
places that are undoubtedly well-known in their communities by terms
such as "Boeing Ponds" or "The Fill," or the "WMS" but are unfindable by
those of us who don't already know where and what the thing is. I
sometimes wonder if there is a subconscious resistance to revealing
one's favorite birding site lest it be overrun. Mushroomers and
fisher-people are notorious for this sort of "security." At any rate,
it would be a great favor to the naive and inexperienced among us (i.e.,
me!) if people would mention the general location of the specific places
they report on.

As regards the Union Bay Natural Area, I visit it about once a week but
I have to admit that I don't think of it under that name, though I am
vaguely aware that that is what the "powers that be" have decided to
call it. When I first encountered the "UBNA," I thought of it as "the
area west of the Urban Horticulture Center." Then in my mind it became
"North Union Bay." The true name of that area is "Union Bay Marsh," but
Union Bay Marsh was destroyed by the atrocity of "The Montlake Fill"
when "the powers that were" decided that it was more important to have a
dump, athletic stadia and parking lots instead of an urban marsh. One
important reason to remember it as the Montlake Fill is as a reminder of
the atrocities we have carried out and continue to carry out against
wild animals and our natural selves.

I'm not sure just what is included in the UBNA, but when I bird North
Union Bay, I cover from east of the Urban Horticulture Center to the
Montlake Cut, which is just south of Husky Stadium.

This discussion probably seems pretty parochial for those living outside
the Seattle area, but if you come to Seattle, UBNA under any name is a
great place to to bird and to "mammal" too.

For anyone who would like to get a sense of what was covered by "The
Fill," the UW Press published a fine study by H. W. Higman back in the
early '50s. It's called Union Bay, The Life of a City Marsh."

And by the way, where ARE the "Boeing Ponds?" And are "Kent Ponds" and
the Green River Natural Area one and the same?

Thanks,

Dale

--
Dale Chase
(AKA ravenintherain)
Seattle, Washington
ccorax at blarg.net



Brett Wolfe wrote:
> Hiya tweets,
>
> This question is not meant to upset folks, but to try to understand
> why so many people insist on using outdated information.
>
> The Union Bay Natural Area (aka UBNA) has zero signs which mention
> that it used to be called the Montlake Fill. I know it is a nice short
> name, but it isn't right, not anymore. I find it amazing that if one
> was to ask anyone at the University of Washington, which is the entity
> that manages the UBNA, I doubt any of them would even know the term
> Montlake Fill, much less use it in everyday language. The folks at the
> Center for Urban Horticulture were, in their words, "appalled" that
> anyone still called it 'the Fill'.
>
> To take it a step further, for those that insist on calling the UBNA
> by the old name, why do you still say Dime Lot for the E-5 parking
> lot? Anyone who hasn't lived in Seattle for 20 years has no idea what
> the heck the "Dime lot" is unless it is explained that it is an old,
> dilapidated name for the E-5 lot.
>
> It actually bothered me that when I reported the Lapland Longspur
> there a few weeks back, I had at least 3 different people ask me where
> the UBNA was located. In every case, they were some old-time
> Seattleite who still called it the Fill. Everyone else knew what I was
> talking about, but it bothered me that so many people had never
> updated and upgraded to a name that was more appropos of what the
> place is now - a naturalized area that just happens to sit on top of
> an old landfill. Can't we celebrate it as a natural area instead of as
> an old dump?
>
> Alright, I'm going to end my rant, but this is soimething that has
> bothered me for a while. There might be a couple of folks who spend as
> much time at the Union Bay Natural Area as I do, but they are few and
> far between. I for one would just like to see my favorite place in
> Seattle accorded the respect that it has earned as the top birding
> place in Seattle. Is that too much to ask?
>
> Brett A. Wolfe
> Seattle, WA
> m_lincolnii at yahoo.com