Da Beers!

Da Beers!

Sunday, July 22, 2012

The wildlife killers

BLUF:  Wildlife Services is an Orwellian agency monicker if ever we heard one.  Generally speaking, it appears that Wildlife Services is to "serving" wildlife, as Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler were to "serving" humanity.


* * *

There was a bit of dust-up amongst the "elite" birders in our home town recently on the subject of "predator control," and about the division of the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service known as Wildlife Services.

The hub-bub all started with an article written by Rob Davis in the "Voice of San Diego." (The Voice of San Diego says it is a "member-based nonprofit investigative news organization that gives concerned citizens the tools they need to engage in important conversations about their community.") 

A number of highly-esteemed local birders have stepped up to defend Wildlife Services.  The fact is, however, that Mr. Davis is by no means alone in expressing concerns about this very active, but little-known federal agency. 

The Sacramento Bee earlier this year published a three-part report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tom Knudson.  And the SacBee also doesn’t paint a pretty picture of a benign federal agency staffed exclusively by conscientious wildlife managers.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, while recognizing that much of the work of Wildlife Services does benefit the public, has also come out strongly in favor of reforming the Wildlife Service predator control program. 

Oregon Public Radio's "Thinking Out Loud" has also just done an interesting show on the subject with representatives from Predator Defense and the ranching industry.

Finally, two U.S congressmen – one a Republican, the other a Democrat (to preclude those shrill cries of partisanship) – are calling for a congressional investigation of the federal government's wildlife damage control program.  "We have an agency that appears to be wasting federal dollars and actually causing harm while doing it, but yet perhaps covering up what they are doing and why.  That's something Congress should investigate," Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) has said. 

The SacBee series, along with numerous other editorials and features, can be accessed at the Predator Defense website.  And yes, we here at SDVO get it ... Predator Defense is itself biased in its views.  But that doesn't automatically discredit the views of these dedicated professionals.  Moreover, it appears that these folks have actually spent some time studying this troubling subject.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Birding ethics

There are plenty of posts on the web on the subject of birding ethics.  Most are some variation on the American Birding Association (ABA) PRINCIPLES OF BIRDING ETHICS.

Rather than replicate the ABA guidelines here, we'll just start with a nutshell version - albeit with a few comments added:

1. Promote the welfare of birds and their environment.
  • Support the protection of important bird habitat.  (But in my humble opinion, it's ALL important in over-crowded places like Southern California.) 
  • Avoid stressing birds or exposing them to danger.  (Easier said than done!  This will likely be an often-recurring theme as we go along here.)
2. Respect the law, and the rights of others.
  • Do not enter private property without the owner's explicit permission.
  • Use public property in accordance with posted rules and regulations. 
  • Practice common courtesy in contacts with all other people. (And notwithstanding the comments of a certain SoCal bird-jerks that we will re-visit in a later post, this should include limiting the scanning of people and their private property - and especially their homes - with binoculars, scopes, cameras, and sound recording devices.)
3. Ensure that feeders, nest structures, and other artificial bird environments are safe.
  • If you're going to attract wild birds, find out first everything you need to know about protecting them from artificially induced predation, disease, or other physical dangers.
4. Group birding, whether organized or impromptu, requires special care.
  • Probably the most common problem, and also the least understood and most overlooked ethical issue.
  • For-fee tour operations (whether commercial or non-profit do-gooder types) bear a special responsibility to place the welfare of birds, and the benefits of public knowledge, ahead of economic gain.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Who are the San Diego Virtual Ornithologists?

San Di·e·go [San Dee-egg-oh]  noun 1.  A nice place ... that was so much nicer before most of the current population showed up in the latter decades of the 20th century, and before it was discovered by the unwashed masses of the Greater Los Angeles Basin as a relatively cheap, quick getaway from the bunghole in which they live and work.

Vir·tu·al  [vur-choo-uhl] adjective  1.  Being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly – e.g., such: a virtual dependence on objective reality.

Or·ni·thol·o·gists [awr-nuh-thol-uh-jists]  pl. noun  1.  Ornithologists study birds, but there is no clear job description for the practice.  2.  An ornithologist may practice professionally or informally (see, e.g., Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (1963) at 01:14:24 (MRS. BUNDY:  "I have seen jays doing everything it is conceivable for jays to do. Ornithology happens to be my avocation, Miss Daniels.").

***

MISSON:

To get people's heads out of their atlases, and to get them looking at what's actually happening around them.

CREDOS:

Virtual Ornithologists understand that yesterday's hard-won personal knowledge, range map, or bird atlas may have been rendered virtually (there's that word again!) obsolete by changing global, regional, or local conditions brought on by climate change, human development, species overcrowding, food-supply failure, or myriad other factors.

Virtual Ornithologists know that perceived knowledge about the migration, distribution, and behavior of birds is never absolute.  It has always been, and will always be, subject to limits on data-gathering fiscal and human resources, physical or legal limits on access to all parts of any geographic terrain, and sometimes because the %$#&ing bird simply never called or came out of that %$#&ing hedgerow!

Virtual Ornithologists comprehend that collecting bird data always requires some quantum of subjective data – that it is often impracticable to actually count all birds in a flock, hard to identify a particularly young or odd-looking individual, and humanly impossible to perfectly enter all collected data error-free in a database. 

Virtual Ornithologists understand that the best source of information is the individual on the ground, and that it is the height of arrogance and hubris to interpose one's own judgment for any but the most absurd bird reports (e.g., a wild Emperor Penguin in the Mohave Desert!).  And when such an interposition is made, it should be done only by officially sanctioned bodies (e.g., the California Bird Records Committee) following clear and objective review guidelines, and as free as is humanly possible of ego-driven speculation, jealousy, or personal animosity.

Virtual Ornithologists strive for an ethics-based approach to birding that doesn't glorify, first and foremost, seeing in person the most birds in one year, one county, one lifetime, etc.  In other words, we recognize that all those birds are or are not objectively "out there" – whether or not we personally see them ... or not.

Virtual Ornithologists recognize that in many instances, (more on that soon!), most rare or unusual birds would be better of if we just stayed put.  (Think carbon footprints, clogged roads, smog, stress on the bird, etc., etc., etc.).  The real trick is to figure out how to balance our natural desires as birders, with the needs of the birds we want so badly to see.