Hello, tweets.

I agree with Gene entirely on this matter. Lists of Species of Concern end up with a life of their own, and it's much easier to get a species onto the list than to get it off. Perhaps anyone who is involved (I assume usually agency staff, as well as regional experts) can nominate a species, and if there are no strong objections, it goes on the list. Thus the lists end up being more inclusive than exclusive. These lists are of course very valuable exercises and important guides to conservation actions, but the ones I have looked at critically for many years often have species on them that knowledgeable observers would not have included. Pileated Woodpecker is a great example. They are all over Seattle now in wooded tracts (there is one at my feeder as I write this), by no means limited to old growth as some have claimed. This may even be a species on the pathway to adaptation to the presence of Homo sapiens. Not that we shouldn't be concerned about it, but probably not much more than our concern about all wildlife.

At the same time, it's not always easy for state and federal agencies to judge whether species should be on these lists, and I suspect they would much rather make errors of commission than errors of omission. This would offer protection to more species. But I wonder if it might also be diluting the lists and their value. As Gene wrote, it is habitat loss that is affecting so many of our species, and the simple solution would be to protect those habitats that are in the most need of protection. Not as much of that is being done as would satisfy most of us, and the big question to me is this. By being on this list, are Flammulated Owls (or any of the other species) less likely to decline in Washington? I mean in practice, not in theory.

There is no reason why those birders who use iPods to attract birds should be impugned for what is a much bigger problem. There is already too much fractionating and factionating in the world; let's not do it within birding as well. We all have our own ways of interacting with nature, and on the grand scale of things, birders as a group inhabit the benign end.

Dennis

On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:02 PM, tweeters-request at mailman2.u.washington.edu wrote:

> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:13:38 -0800
> From: "Eugene and Nancy Hunn" <enhunn323 at comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: [Tweeters] re: Ipods/ABA code of ethics
> To: "'Scott Downes'" <downess at charter.net>,
> <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <00d201cb9012$b087c510$11974f30$ at net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello tweets,
>
> Nancy and I are settling into our rental house here in Sonoma, California,
> amongst live and black oaks. The weather is fine. Thanks to all for your
> parting thoughts. We'll miss you all but plan the occasional return visit.
>
> I've been following this discussion from afar and would just like to comment
> on the list Scott posted of "Species of Concern in Washington." I often have
> this reaction when I see lists such as these, puzzling over why certain
> species are included and others not and who compiles the list and by what
> criteria. For example, in my experience Pileated Woodpeckers are common and
> highly adaptable to all sorts of habitats. Why they should be of "concern"
> is beyond me. Several of the other species listed appear to be "of concern"
> due to habitat loss, which does not suggest to me that disturbance by eager
> observers is likely to contribute to whatever threats they may face, e.g.,
> Black-backed, Lewis's, and White-headed Woodpeckers; Sage Sparrows, Sage
> Thrashers, and Loggerhead Shrikes; as for Flammulated Owls, I wonder why
> they should be in this list, as they are now probably as uncommon as they
> have always been.
>
> My two centavos.
>
> Gene Hunn
>
> 17353 Buena Vista Ave.
>
> Sonoma, CA 95476

-----
Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206-528-1382
dennispaulson at comcast.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20101201/0f8f0a99/attachment.htm