Re: Birders, unite!

Ellen Paul (epaul@dclink.com)
Fri, 05 Mar 1999 19:29:17 -0500 

NORM - I wrote to you privately and you responded to me and to
MdOsprey.  I think you should have asked me if I minded your posting my
personal e-mail to you in a public forum.  I am really surprised at this
tactic coming from you.  Since you chose to share my private e-mail to
you, and aired your grievance with me publicly, I feel I have every
right to post my response to you.  

Dear Norm,

Thanks for your reply.  I would like to discuss the idea at a board
meeting, but not one with such a full agenda.  Maybe it would be a good
idea for me to write-up a few paragraphs, after consulting with Rich,
that can be distributed to the board and then it can be discussed at the
following meeting (or via e-mail in the interim).

Now, lets set the record straight.  At no time did I pick on MOS.  In
fact, I gave Rich credit for getting the written testimony done and over
to me so I could submit it.  My quarrel was with ANS.

I'm sorry you feel I'm picking on birders, but my quarrel wasn't with
getting the word out.  Never said it was.  In fact, what makes me feel
that birders really fell down on the job was that we did such a great
job in getting the word out and they still didn't show up. We all did a
great job of that - via MdOsprey, personal communications, etc.  My
quarrel is with the response. And they didn't even have to show up. 
They could have submitted written testimony.    And my assessment isn't
taking place in a vaccuum.  It's taking place in the context of the ABA
battles over having one lousy conservation-oriented article in Birding. 
It's taking place in the context of hearing birders (personal friends,
acquaintences, and complete strangers) profess that they don't get
involved in conservation issues, except to the extent of joining NAS or
TNC.  In my experience, there is great apathy among birders, and
sometimes, even downright hostility to conservation issues.  The fact
that Rich is carrying the burden entirely alone is a good example.  

I realize that many people with f-t jobs can't show up during the week. 
I wasn't suggesting that people take time off.  In fact, Leslie Fischer
re-arranged her work schedule so she could be there and when she told me
she was going to do that, I told there was no need to do that.  She
chose to do it anyway.  But holy double hockey sticks - there are surely
more than 2 of us in the entire state who can take the time off,
re-arrange schedules, who are retired, or for whatever reason, could
have been there.  Many professionals have a certain amount of
flexibility in their schedules - i.e., as long as they get their work
done, no one cares if they take the afternoon off.  I was an attorney
for 10 years and this was the rule in the legal field.

Now, I have to say that no matter how many volunteers you get to take on
certain activities, we're all going to burn out if no one pitches in to
help out.  And if you are telling me that most people can't be counted
on to help out with even one activity per year, then I'd have to
conclude that there is apathy at work.  We're all busy.  We make time
for things that matter to us. If things like the Sunday hunting bill
don't matter to birders, then I can't imagine what does.  And that's
what I call apathy.

Good Darwin, Norm, now you are really getting me wound up again.  Short
notice and work schedules haven't prevented dozens of people from
showing up in St. Mary's City ON WEEKDAYS to see the Kelp Gull.  

Sorry you felt I offended MOS.  I don't think I did.

I'm also sure you feel I'm an interloper since I've never been involved
in anything before and you're probably right.  OTOH, most of the MOS
activities are birding or social activities, and I prefer solitary
birding with my husband and I'm not much for social events.  Believe it
or not, I am actually uncomfortable in social situations.  

I'll talk to Rich and see if I can't put something together that can be
distributed to the board for consideration.

Ellen