Re: the common good (ne Smith Island Downy)

Ellen Paul (epaul@dclink.com)
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:13:28 -0500


Dear Todd and others,

There is a line of reasoning that if X isn't as big as problem as Y,
then spend all your energy fixing Y and don't worry about X.  This is
the argument I hear all the time about why those concerned about bird
conservation shouldn't worry about [take your choice of free-roaming
domestic and feral cats, communications towers, window strikes] because
all these problems, individually and collectively, pale in comparison to
habitat loss.  True, habitat loss is a huge problem by comparison, but
the others are enough of a problem that we should work on them, too. I'm
sure there are some human-related causes of avian mortality that aren't
big enough problems to spend extensive time and resources, but that
doesn't mean we should ignore everything just to focus on the big
problem.

The same is true with transportation.  Yes, commuter traffic is the big,
big problem.  So, if you want me to argue that we should curtail ALL our
driving, including commuter driving, shopping driving, errand driving,
along with birding driving, I'd be glad to do so.  However, the argument
that commuter traffic is a better cause to champion is fallacious.  ALL
driving should be kept to a minimum.

Now, I did say that my view was subjective and that I wouldn't draw the
line for anyone, but simply asked that everyone 
keep this issue in mind before deciding to jump in the car and chase
every bird.  Also, there is a difference between taking a birding trip
to see lots of birds (which is what you are describing in your response)
and chasing a single bird. I'm not saying you should never twitch, nor
would I ever make that decision for you or anyone else.  I'm just asking
you to consider one more piece of information when making that decision
for yourself.

As to your point that not all regions are covered by birders and most
don't pass on their records - I agree.  There really is no mechanism for
submitting all sightings of everything, much less sorting and
classifying so much data.  If the information is gathered in the context
of a survey or atlassing effort, then it is recorded.  But now that the
DOWO on Smith Island has been reported, how many more people need to run
down there to see it?  However, most people just out birding don't
report anything except rarities.  Meaning rarities for the entire
region, not just one small island.  If I follow your argument, then I'd
be running all over the place to see common species because I haven't
seen them in a particular county or town yet.  Wow.  I only wish I had
that much time on my hands!  

I'm not suggesting that people don't go out of their yards to bird or
that they only go to places they can reach by foot, bicycle, roller
blade, or ski.  I'm suggesting that people give some thought to how far
they go to chase an individual bird.  I'm sure most people, in making
these decisions, consider the costs (direct costs - actual out-of-pocket
for gas, tolls, food, airfare, whatever) and time.  All I'm asking is
that they also consider the indirect costs.  Use of nonrenewable
resources and the creation of additional pollution.  

Birding and conservation is a phrase that always gets someone angry. 
But the bottom line is that unless we do whatever is necessary to be
sure that the birds continue to exist, birding will come to a halt.  So,
like it or not, conservation is an inherent part of birding.


-- 
Ellen Paul