I am continually surprised at the vociferous animus generated by anything political; given especially that everything we do in the course of a day has political consequences. You would think people would learn first, not to take themselves so seriously as to feel the need to proselytize, and second not to be so outraged at the mere thought of discussing politics in a typically apolitical forum. That said, I think that political issues and discussion of particularized conservation issues surrounding birds are wholly on limits for this or any other bird related forum. In the context of our national election, policy impacts of either candidates plans that will benefit or harm the very birds we are talking about day in and day out on this forum, are of the highest relevance. While arial wolf hunting is probably not on topic, the concerted plan to open ANWR to oil drilling, or wide scale plans to erect wind power corridors in flyways are both highly relevant. I would hope people !
would be able to connect the dots on these issues and be reasonable.

Best wishes to all of all parties,
Blake Matheson
Carmel California & Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Hoffman <tweeters at dartfrogmedia.com>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Sent: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 8:46 am
Subject: [Tweeters] RE: Help Put Palin's Wolf-Killing Record on TV


Hello fellow birders,

I've been reluctant to join this thread, since discussions of this sort tend to generate more heat than light, as they say. Also I haven't wanted to get anyone mad at me -- I value this list and the friendships it supports.

Nevertheless, I want to say a bit about the issue of "political" discussions on the list. I don't think it's a cut-and-dry matter.

Example: A couple of years ago a Tweeters member posted a message of last-minute alarm about a fireworks display to be held near the Montlake Fill (Union Bay Natural Area). A number of list members (including myself) consequently attended a City of Seattle hearing, and the fireworks were halted in view of the damage that could be done to migrating bird populations. Clearly there were politics involved: a municipal board was permitting a large, private company to use a public space for a controversial activity, and through a political process the city was pressured to reverse its decision. The outcome was hailed by Tweeters members and I don't recall anyone objecting to the use of the list to do political organizing.

Now we have a situation potentially impacting the environment on a much wider scale than a local fireworks display: a candidate for vice president whose positions are diametrically opposed to protecting wildlife and the environment. Should this not be of concern to bird lovers?

I am not sure of the best way to have this discussion. Certainly we should all be respectful and not attack anyone for their views or party affiliations. But this discussion, however uncomfortable, is still appropriate for our list. This includes questions of whether vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's anti-environment beliefs and practices are being sufficiently disclosed to voters.

Marc Hoffman
Kirkland, WA
http://www.dartfrogmedia.com
mailto: tweeters at dartfrogmedia dot com



_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters