...Stay at the perimeter of your perception as much of the time as you can because you can see things that you otherwise wouldn’t see. Just one example: Brian picked out a raft of scoters through the scope at last light, way off in the distance…and it had a few Surf Scoters in it—a key bird for us almost literally at the last second of daylight.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
More from Fitz
An excerpt from this web page:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
The webpage of the Big Day Highlights shows exactly what is wrong with "birding" today.
TEN (count them), 10 images of leisure class causcasian males indulging in their birding fantasies in what appears to be a commercial for Swarovski Optics.
It is great that people whose finances and social status allows them to avoid the real male-bonding that can occur in war can find a day of camraderie and "adrenaline-fueled decision-making" but why would they want to post it on the web?
And at a time when movies stars are swearing off private jets due to concerns about carbon emissions the "guerrilla" birders are clueless enough to use a private charter aircraft and thank the company for its help.
Did this group of earnest but clueless CLOnes, that proudly displays their sponsor's optics in their photos, not hear about that whole global warming/carbon emission thing that everyone is talking about? Was there no mass transit that could have allowed them to reduce their carbon footprint? Did they really think the IBWO was the "conservation story of the century"?
Reading the webpage is like being in a restaurant next to a group of people who are talking loudly about themselves and what they consider interesting in their mundane lives. Had they posted pictures of the birds they saw they could have had a mildly entertaining summary of their day - though of course they would have to have Swarovski optics next to the birds to satisfy their sponsor. The principals clearly think they are more interesting than the birds they saw based on both their choice of photos and their inclusion of an audio file of their favorite pisher.
Someone should print the webpage and put it in the time capsule with the issue of Science with the IBWO rediscovery to document how ego, consumerism and the need to do almost anything for funds killed birding and ornithology in the early 21st century. This is how the world ends - not with a whim but a banker.
Anonymous said (way back on 15 May, "Fooling MN)...
.......Not a feather, shell, photo, or anything solid.....three years!!
Well, yes, 3 years since Arkansasgate, but 8 years since Kulivan-Pearlgate, and, of course, 60+ years since Singer Tract......
".....How 'bout it Science? We might as well start describing the Arkansas IBWO as a different subspecies from the Florida IBWO.....we have sooo much evidence."
Actually, it's an altogether different SPECIES, aka Pileated Woodpecker.
Dear Anon:
Please don't assume that just because some of us are "leisure class" that we indulge in fantasies involving birds.
Unless you mean the British variant, of course.
And most movie stars aren't "swearing off" private jets, just being a bit more stealthy about it!
"Actually, it's an altogether different SPECIES, aka Pileated Woodpecker."
Or it might be a Wood Duck, or an Anhinga, or a Double-crested Cormorant (I wasn't the one to suggest this one), or a Hooded Merganser, or a Blue Jay, or a fawn, or a White-breasted Nuthatch, or a Sandhill Crane, or a branch stub, or perhaps gunshots...
Anonymous 1 -
You are free to post your ramblings no matter how delusional - but in the future you should give credit to Paul Desmond instead of trying to pass off his quote about the way the world ends as your own. Idiot.
Anonymous #5:
Anonymous #1 here. You have made my day by knowing the source of that quote. Desmond left many things that we can remember him by and that line is one of my favorites.
While I typically provide the source when I use it in conversation, I didn't for this forum since I thought it would require an explanation of who Paul Desmond was. I certainly was not taking credit for it. Just using it at an appropriate time, as people do with Shakespeare quotes (without attribution) on a regular basis.
Sorry you think my ramblings were delusional. I was simply trying to point out that the ramblings of "Team Sapsucker" were intensely self-referential and commercial. Which is why the first part of the Desmond quote (that I left out) applies:
"..they end up marrying some cat with a factory."
In this case it was a Swarovski factory. But as the last two years have shown the CLO will "marry" just about anyone who can provide them with funds, goods or services.
Recent bumber sticker seen.
Fitz is a Putz.
Anonymous 1: Yet you to fail to notice, or perhaps mention, the $2 million dollars raised in the past years by the Lab's World Series teams, all of which goes to bird conservation...$180000 this year alone. What have you done for the world lately, rode your bike to work instead of a car?
"all of which goes to bird conservation"
How much of this goes to birds that actually exist?
Dear Anon #5:
You mention:
"...the $2 million dollars raised in the past years by the Lab's World Series teams, all of which goes to bird conservation"
The Lab's desire to misportray the importance and reality of bird conservation issues for their own fund-raising purposes was well established before the IBWO fiasco.
Rather than be taken with how much they can generate in donations why not provide evidence of what they have actually done. When ranked on a "benefit per donated dollar" basis, CLO would not fare well - though they would likely be in the Top Ten in the "patting ourselves on the back" category.
You appear to be implying that people who ride their bikes are doing less for the environment than Team Sapsucker. Assuming that Taughannock Aviation flew the Team in one of their Gulfstream's they were emitting about 8000 lb. of CO2 per hour.
If I were to drive a Prius for 20,000 miles I would emit a similar amount of C02.
Birding is obviously a fun hobby and it gives the upper middle class a good deal of pleasure, but I suggest that next year Team Sapsucker take your advice and see how many species they can get while on foot or bicycle. Beyond eliminating all of the corporate jet exhaust it would also help educate their supporters about the excesses of transportation that are now so taken for granted that a group claiming to work for "bird conservation" can be flown around in a corporate jet and be oblivious to their hypocrisy.
ibwo atheist:
Apparently this year's WSB proceeds went to fund Ebird projects in Latin America as well as work on the illegal Mexican trade in Painted Buntings and other neotropical migrants. Donations for the Lab's student team apparently helped to fund undergraduate research in ornithology.
I don't see any mention of any money being funnelled towards Ivory-bills, and I don't believe the Lab has been pumping much money into it lately.
Perhaps we should consider the possibility of an institution as powerful and financially-able as the Lab actually doing something positive for bird conservation, as it appears they did this year. Certainly, the IBWO issue is a different story...but as someone who has visited the Lab and has several friends working there, there's a hell of a lot more going on there...some really neat, groundbreaking stuff, and a lot of conservation-oriented projects.
We shouldn't automatically assume that the IBWO issue defines the Lab and the people that work there, nor should we assume it's still at the top of the Lab's agenda, as anyone who's visited the Lab recently can attest to.
Birding is certainly something that those outside the "upper middle class" can and do enjoy:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/programs/urbanbirds/celebration/temporary/celebrate-urban-birds-at-central-park
http://americanbirding.org/bex/index
Also, in regards to "When ranked on a "benefit per donated dollar" basis, CLO would not fare well - though they would likely be in the Top Ten in the "patting ourselves on the back" category."...what is your evidence or basis for this statement?
A colleague of mine recently participated in the Lab of O's trip to Cuba to teach bird sound recording and bioacoustic analysis workshops to Cuban biology students who are without the benefit of modern scientific technology and research tools.
He not only had a fantastic time with the Cuban birds, but also with the Cuban students (mostly undergrads), who he said could easily rival any Ivy League Ph.D with their grasp of scientific concepts and ornithology in general. It was thanks to the generosity and effort of Lab of O researchers that these Cuban students were able to learn about new techniques in recording bird sounds and analyzing them. With all the desire on this blog to vilify the Lab for the IBWO saga, I feel stories like these are ignored, and sometimes purposefully.
I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to IBWO issues, but a "True Believer" in regards to the mission of the Lab of O, and the skill and talent of the folks who work there.
"...thanks to the generosity and effort of Lab of O researchers that these Cuban students were able to learn about new techniques in recording bird sounds and analyzing them."
I understand that some people applaud the CLO's conservation efforts but the work mentioned above (i.e. Ebird projects, undergraduate research, outreach to Cuban high school students, etc.) exemplify the sort of "feel good" work that can get donors to write a bigger check but do nothing to actually save birds. Was an earlier poster implying that having high school students analyze bird songs in any way benefited bird conservation? Are we meant to believe that populations with a higher percentage of people aware of avian biology (and an ability to analyze bird song) are somehow having less of an effect on bird populations? Would California be a good example of that?
I have no doubt that the two million dollars raised by the lab's World Series Teams has done some good (though most groups getting 2 million dollars can figure out a way to do some good with that amount of money) but any assessment of how much good they have done now needs to be balanced with the fact that they sold ornithology and the conservation community a bill of goods. Funds for real conservation issues were not available because of a conservation issue that the CLO made up. Should the Lab now have the integrity to admit their error on the IBWO they would go a long way to regaining the status they once had.
"I don't see any mention of any money being funnelled towards Ivory-bills"
They've obviously pumped a ton of money into the IBWO that should have been spent elsewhere, even if the WSB donations do indeed all go to real bird conservation.
"I don't believe the Lab has been pumping much money into it lately"
If not, the reason is surely because they don't really believe in the "rediscovery" anymore either, as the toning down of their formally triumphant IBWO website seems to suggest. If they still sincerely believe the IBWO exists shouldn't they continue spending money on it?, and if they don't believe anymore, when will they admit this publicly?
"nor should we assume it's still at the top of the Lab's agenda, as anyone who's visited the Lab recently can attest to"
Further evidence that they no longer believe their own hype.
Post a Comment