Farnboro John
Well-known member
Surely North American Goshawks as I guess they live in Canada as well as the USA?
John
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter rahopko
- Start date
John
We disagree about whether the bill might be racist. Please educate yourself so that you learn that something can be racist even if it doesn't say that it is racist.
As for the petition, I agree it is not racist and defended it from such charges on another forum. If you read my post carefully rather than making assumptions beyond the text, you'd realize I am trying to prevent the petition from being associated with racism.
Last edited:
As noted previously, he did not have time for an in depth conversation but I specifically asked him if financial impacts were a consideration in this bill & he said “absolutely not.”
qwerty5
Controversial opinion generator
I am aware.
Here's the definition of racist:
a: having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
b: of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
I'll leave it to you to explain how the bill has anything to do with that. "Racist" accusations most often come when there is a difference of opinion on how racism ought to be combated, not when someone is actually racist.
Kirk Roth
Rarely to be taken seriously
This is an issue that goes well beyond what the bird forum can really address. Your perspective would be called "Libertarian" here in the U.S. (and I recognize that term does not mean the same thing in every country), but very broadly it means that the role of the government should be limited, for example, to things more appropriate than bird names. And personally I don't think you're wrong.
But the term "politics" is not well defined - whether we mean in terms of governmental politics, and the so-called interpersonal politics that we may have with our jobs, our friends, and our identities. We can't pinpoint whether politics is about policy or power or governance or debate or whatever else. Its a "thing."
But whether we like it or not, and whether or not we think its justified, useful, proper, or anything else - its a thing which has extended to bird names now.
Mysticete
Well-known member
This was specifically in reply to the comment from kb57 of the financial implications of changing names.
kb57
Well-known member
Which to be fair, provides further rebuttal of my speculation regarding motivation for the bill.
Well I don't know where you got your definitions from, and don't necessaily accept them, but it is easy to fit the bill within these definitions. A bill that has the effect of preventing the change of honorifics for those who have supported slavery and oppression of indigenous peoples in the past clearly "relates to" systemic oppression of those racial groups. Just as it was racist to support retention of confederate statues.
qwerty5
Controversial opinion generator
It appears there is actually a provision for taxonomic changes:Here is a link to the state code:
HB0382
le.utah.gov
You can do a word search for the section of law: 23A-12-102 or the title "Naming Conventions for Birds"
or just scroll down to line 981
"the division may use an English-language name assigned by a naming entity after January 1, 2020, if before January 1, 2020, there was no English-language name."
Thus if a species is split, they can use the new name, since there was no English name for the split birds before 2020.
qwerty5
Controversial opinion generator
Only if you assume that eponyms are oppressive or imply racial superiority.
I do want to make clear that I am NOT defending or aligning myself with the Utah bill.
In all of my comments on this forum about this bill, I am representing what the sponsor of the bill personally told me today without interpreting his remarks beyond what was actually said.
What I do think is the most interesting and most important issue is the fact that it HAS been written. I know the potential for this type of response was brought to the attention of the AOS prior to their decision.
In all of my comments on this forum about this bill, I am representing what the sponsor of the bill personally told me today without interpreting his remarks beyond what was actually said.
What I do think is the most interesting and most important issue is the fact that it HAS been written. I know the potential for this type of response was brought to the attention of the AOS prior to their decision.
kb57
Well-known member
Thanks for the link - I guess the sections where it gets more 'political' are the following:Here is a link to the state code:
HB0382
You can do a word search for the section of law: 23A-12-102 or the title "Naming Conventions for Birds"
or just scroll down to line 981
(3) The division shall:
995 (a) advocate against the changing of eponymous English-language names for birds; and
996 (b) seek the support of national organizations with which the division affiliates to
997 advocate against the changing of eponymous English-language names for birds.
So this - if I'm reading it correctly - mandates the Division of Wildlife Resources to ally with other public bodies to resist the AOSs changes. Sorry for my ignorance of US politics, but is the Division staffed or led by political appointees, or are they state employees without a defined political affiliation? If the latter, it seems like it could cause a little controversy if people are being asked to promote something they don't agree with - or are they expected to just get on and implement whatever their political masters tell them, like UK civil servants?
I guess what I'm trying to understand is whether this is an unusual thing for a wildlife services department, that seems mostly concerned with managing wildlife and game populations, and issuing hunting and fishing licenses, to concern itself with? And who would the 'national organisations' be? Federal agencies?
If it is anything like Colorado they are paid state employees. Personal opinions typically do not matter when you work for a governmental agency. Employees are mandated to carry out the provisions of any bill whether they like it or not. This would also apply at a federal level (although I believe there are exemptions for religion on some issues). I hope to talk to him again to get specific information regarding national organizations. The newspaper article mentions the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Mysticete
Well-known member
Yes...I am not aware of any sort of similar measure being used in the past. While politics certainly are entangled with wildlife management more often they I would prefer "cough wolf reintroduction cough", I am not aware of a equivalent manner.
Of course, who knows...maybe this is now the new normal. Maybe we can expect a opposing bill from California soon that mandates the removal of eponyms. I would like to think we can all agree, with high inflation, escalating rents, climate change, and rampant gun violence, that state governments have more than enough actual work to do without this sort of meaningless culture-warring.
Yet with all these difficult and possibly insoluble problems, here is something they can make a statement on that could be popular with their constituents.
Mysticete
Well-known member
Well...yeah. That is the entire point of folks on the left and right taking up culture wars in legislature. When you don't have policies or even a real platform, or the actual fix would annoy your funders/voting base, just find a trivial thing to legislate about that either effects nothing or targets a group that your voting base doesn't care about.
Pay wall. Can you copy it and paste it please?The Utah Legislature apparently doesn't like the AOS decision, either. Maybe this will put some additional pressure on them to reverse the decision, especially if some other states decide to follow suit:
Politically correct bird names? That doesn’t fly with Utah Legislature.
The American Ornithological Society has launched an effort to change the names of bird species that are named after people, the reason being that all the people are white men and some of them have racist histories. But this doesn't sit well with the Utah Legislature, which included language in a...redirect.viglink.com
qwerty5
Controversial opinion generator
The culture wars have come home to roost in Utah after the Legislature passed a bill forbidding state wildlife officials from following the American Ornithological Society’s effort to find new names for birds named after people.
The AOS, which has maintained a list of bird species since the 1800s, has been studying the issue of bird names since 2021, and last fall it committed to changing the names of up to 80 species, most of them named after white males, including some with racist histories.
The organization says it will diversify membership on the committee that will choose the new names and promises a process that includes public involvement.
“The AOS commits to changing all English-language names of birds within its geographic jurisdiction that are named directly after people (eponyms), along with other names deemed offensive and exclusionary, focusing first on those species that occur primarily within the U.S. or Canada,” the organization said in a statement last November.
But under HB382, a wide-ranging wildlife bill that passed the Legislature on its last day Friday, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources would be required to use “the English-language name assigned to a bird by a naming entity that was in effect on Jan. 1, 2020, when using an English-language name while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.”
The measure, which hasn’t been signed by the governor, also would require the division to “advocate against changing the name of eponymous English-language names for birds,” and the division would be tasked to “seek the support of national organizations with which the division affiliates to advocate against the change.”
“What this does is say to the division that we’re going to maintain the standards that have existed for 100-plus years,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep Casey Snider, R-Paradise, told the House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee. “We’re going to maintain that scientific integrity by freezing in time those naming conventions, and then the division is going to work with sister agencies to ensure that our sister states are moving in that direction.”
DWR spokesperson Faith Jolley said because the bill would keep things as they are, there are no materials that need to be updated or costs associated with that part of HB382.
Jolley said the division employees “work closely with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and also with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and we will coordinate with them on this matter.”
How many Utah birds could be affected?
The wildlife division lists 462 species in its field checklist of Utah birds, but only a few of them include the names of people.
Among the birds to be renamed is the Wilson’s phalarope. About a third of the world’s Wilson’s phalaropes spend summers at the Great Salt Lake. The bird is named for Scottish American naturalist Alexander Wilson, who has been called “the father of American ornithology.”
Cooper’s hawk, which is named for American naturalist William Cooper and can be found throughout the U.S., is also on the list.
Also slated for renaming is the Scott’s oriole, which can be found in Utah along the Colorado River. The bird is named for Winfield Scott, a legendary 19th-century general who oversaw the forced relocation of Native Americans.
Arguments for and against
“Eponymous common names are essentially verbal statues,” says the website for Bird Names for Birds, an advocacy group that has pushed for the name changes. “They were made to honor the benefactor in perpetuity, and as such reflect the accomplishments and values that the creator esteemed. We are not bound by either the intention or the regard; we should make decisions about who and what we honor based on our own values, values that create a more equitable world for all.”
Another group, meanwhile, has gathered more than 5,800 signers to a petition asking AOS to reverse its decision.
“The attempt by AOS leadership to appear more diverse and inclusive has created an unprecedented and unnecessary division within the birding community unseen in our lifetimes,” the Change.org petition states. “… There is much to remedy in a science that has historically been dominated by white males, but changing bird names, many of which were described and named in a different era, and trying to hide ornithological history will not remedy this history.”
A lot of the eponyms that people are whining about losing commemorate the person who funded the expedition that discovered the bird, rather than the scientist who wrote the paper that described it. So basically that's exactly where the original names came from.
Doubtless someone will be demanding that the Facebook Partridge be renamed the Buff-throated Partridge, on the ridiculous grounds that it has a buff-coloured throat. And then where will be be?
Similar threads
- Poll
