Should birders be conservationists? (2 Viewers)

[Charles Letterman]

i'm sure you know really.

how many people can you fit into a bus ?

how many people can you fit into a car ?

If everyone took the bus how many cars (and resultant pollution) could you take off the road ?

This isn't one of your nice Norfolk 'coast hoppers' Karl, it's as old as me and twice as smelly!

But I take your point completely. I could make all sorts of excuses as to why I don't follow Deborah's examples to the degree she does, but in the end the reason is quite simple. I am not willing to compromise most of my comfortable lifestyle.

And that goes back to one of previous points. Most of us care about the environment right up to the point where we are unwilling to change our lifestyle. Even Deborah admits that she sometimes birdwatches by car and (shock horror!) ferry.

At one end of the spectrum is the bloke who discards empty drink cans on a nature reserve, and at the other end is the bloke who has a house in a tree and lives off the land (Forgetting about the big corporates and government for a moment). I'm nearer the litter lout, and Deborah is nearer Swampy.

I go as far as recycling bottles and taking into account emissions when choosing a new car, Deborah takes the bus.

But going back to the original posters question, how far towards the tree-dwellers end of the scale do you have to be to call yourself a conservationist?

 

[Oasis Toucans]

There are three types of people in the world.
#1 Conservasionist-green minded.
#2 Corporate dirtbags-politicians.
#3 The ignorant.
:t:

 

[Osprey_watcher]

There are three types of people in the world.
#1 Conservasionist-green minded.
#2 Corporate dirtbags-politicians.
#3 The ignorant.
:t:

Must be more than three, because I am none of the above.
​

 

[Karl J]

I could make all sorts of excuses as to why I don't follow Deborah's examples to the degree she does, but in the end the reason is quite simple. I am not willing to compromise most of my comfortable lifestyle.

Fair enough, someone who's honest enough to say it.

But surely a point will come in the future where there is no choice but to compromise your (and you're not the only one, i'm sure) comfortable lifestyle.

When all the oil runs out is one that springs to mind

 

[Sancho]

I posit that being a Conservationist is like being an Alcoholic....only You can decide if you are one. And if you are one, you choose to do certain things in accordance with your beliefs (like cycle, recycle, etc.), and you do other things, of personal necessity or for your own comfort/convenience, that by their nature are harmful to the environment (cook, take a dump, etc.). How these balance out is anyone's guess. I cycle myself and the kids to school on a rickshaw-bike and am terribly proud of myself, but I've no idea of the Carbon Footprint involved in the production of this heavy, steel-framed machine.....ore extraction, smelting, manufacture, transporting the damned thing from Shanghai to Bray.......it may well have been kinder to the environment to drive to school for the next twenty years. But do I designate myself a Conservationist? Yes, I do, because I'm concerned about the Environment and think I should try to alter some of my behaviour in accordance with this concern. Anyone can pick holes in the rest of my behaviour to tell me I'm not a Conservationist, if they like. I don't decide if others are or are not genuine Conservationists, that's for themselves to decide. "Hi, My Name is Sancho, and I'm a Conservationist....." (Resounding Applause and cries of "Hi, Sancho!!!!)

 

[joannec]

I posit that being a Conservationist is like being an Alcoholic....only You can decide if you are one. And if you are one, you choose to do certain things in accordance with your beliefs (like cycle, recycle, etc.), and you do other things, of personal necessity or for your own comfort/convenience, that by their nature are harmful to the environment (cook, take a dump, etc.). How these balance out is anyone's guess. I cycle myself and the kids to school on a rickshaw-bike and am terribly proud of myself, but I've no idea of the Carbon Footprint involved in the production of this heavy, steel-framed machine.....ore extraction, smelting, manufacture, transporting the damned thing from Shanghai to Bray.......it may well have en kinder to the environment to drive to school for the next twenty years. But do I designate myself a Conservationist? Yes, I do, because I'm concerned about the Environment and think I should try to alter some of my behaviour in accordance with this concern. Anyone can pick holes in the rest of my behaviour to tell me I'm not a Conservationist, if they like. I don't decide if others are or are not genuine Conservationists, that's for themselves to decide. "Hi, My Name is Sancho, and I'm a Conservationist....." (Resounding Applause and cries of "Hi, Sancho!!!!)

Well said Sancho! We can only do our best. I know I could do more. I live in the country where bus services are very limited and scarce, non existent on some days. I have 3 children; too late to do anything about that given that having children is the biggest carbon footprint increaser of everything! Their primary school was 4 miles away so had to drive them as there was no bus. Secondary schools were a bit more carbon footprint friendly as they could take buses but I still have to drive them to the bus stop! The nearest town is 3 miles away. How am I to carry shopping back for a family of 5 on a bike?

I'm somewhere in the middle....not as extreme as Deborah (but then going on power bills it works out about the same per person as hers.) But I recycle as much as I can. I'm of the generation where I was taught to 'make do and mend' and still do it. With everything. 'Waste not, want not' is what I was taught. As a family we also produce food, growing vegetables etc. Yeah we reduce food miles! How many people can say that, even people who call themselves conservationists? But I'm getting older now and it's not so easy. Physical limitations are taking their toll and it's harder than it was.

While I'm living here I can't give up the car given all the things I have to do. But I don't make unnecessary journeys and try to combine as many as possible. Work is mostly home based but I do work part time at another job some 7 miles away which I drive to.....again no buses to where I need to go.

Birding and traveling by car? Yes I do it. I would never get there or back if I relied on public transport given my rural location and most birding spots are also rural. But I've never twitched anything out of my home county and any twitching is combined with about one day or less a week general birding. (Apart from my patch which I walk from my house.)

So am I a conservationist? Well....I plant native species in my garden and garden in an eco friendly way, I recycle stuff as much as possible, I'm not extravagant in any sense of the word but I do have a car and take the occasional foreign holiday by plane. As I said I know I could do more.......but I do my best.

 

[Sancho]

So am I a conservationist?

Well said you too, Joanne!:t: If you consider yourself to be one, you are one. You do your bit. We have 3 kids too, so we've contributed to the Great Buggering-Up of the Planet. First do the damage by having them, then try and limit it by cycling them around the place.....pointless, eh? But if only non-reproducing humans are conservationists, there won't be any conservationists left in a generation (unless our kids convert....a bit like Anabaptists or Cathars, no?). If nothing else this very interesting thread has caused a lot of introspection. But do we now tell our kids not to reproduce, like Hitler's Irish-German nephew Patrick Hitler told his three sons? (P.S. That's not a joke, that's absolutely true....)

 

[deborah4]

I'm somewhere in the middle....not as extreme as Deborah (but then going on power bills it works out about the same per person as hers.)

I find that surprising considering I don't have a washing maching, a TV or a dishwasher, nor do i use heating or lighting in more than one room at a time ... but still if as you say, you do your best and can't do any more, that's all that can be expected.

PS.How about getting rid of the 4 x 4 and getting a smaller car ... just a thought.

Guess we can all make excuses. I use public transport to go birding, I could just not go, but heh, I enjoy it ... I could walk, but live in the centre of the City and the nearest decent patch is well beyond walking distance but it's not an essential use of fossil fuels - I know what I'd personally do if I lived in an excellent rural area for birding just on my doorstep, I'd not twitch stuff over 30 miles away using a large car, as I don't twitch anyway, I also would find my own rare birds, but that's just me and i realise that might be rather extreme for the middle of the road people.

Well moving away from climate change before it becomes one long justification from each of us for our own choice of lifestyles and the reasons why we don't all do more:

RE: Pollution

1) This is something we can all do without any sacrifice I'm sure - 'now hands that do dishes' blah blah blah

2) Remedial activity: On 8 March I commence a course training me to be a volunteer in oiled seabird rescue and clean up and later graduating to marine mammal rescue medic. (will also cut into limited birdwatching time as I will thenceforth be part of an emergency call out patrol in the local area). If anyone is interested that lives in Devon, Hants, Cornwall, Kent or Sussex, PM me and i'll forward some details. (or can sell me a second-hand wet suit size 12/30!!!)

 

[joannec]

PS.How about getting rid of the 4 x 4 and getting a smaller car ... just a thought.

I'd not twitch stuff over 30 miles away using a large car,


2) Remedial activity: On 8 March I commence a course training me to be a volunteer in oiled seabird rescue and clean up and later graduating to marine mammal rescue medic. (will also cut into limited birdwatching time as I will thenceforth be part of an emergency call out patrol in the local area). If anyone is interested that lives in Devon, Hants, Cornwall, Kent or Sussex, PM me and i'll forward some details. (or can sell me a second-hand wet suit size 12/30!!!)

Well.. it's not a 4x4.....I would have a smaller car but I have to carry a cello around. LOL

Not twitched anything over 30 miles away. Cuckmere Haven is 16 miles, Horseshoe plantation about the same. Rye still less than 30 (I think) and that was part of something else.

Well done re a volunteer for oiled seabird rescue.:t:

 

[deborah4]

But I take your point completely. I could make all sorts of excuses as to why I don't follow Deborah's examples to the degree she does, but in the end the reason is quite simple. I am not willing to compromise most of my comfortable lifestyle.

Now that's a response that really deserves some respect! It's the same for all of us, if we only admitted it. Next week I shall be travelling with a friend up to Norfolk for a few days in his car (business related) - I could insist on going up on my own via public transport and meet him at our destination, but OH NO - there's no way, when a nice comfortable ride is on offer! However, there may be a few arguments if we decide to get out and do some birding up there

 

[Johnny Allan]

But do we now tell our kids not to reproduce, like Hitler's Irish-German nephew Patrick Hitler told his three sons? (P.S. That's not a joke, that's absolutely true....)

I'm not sure about the point of this remark but I would also point out that Hitler's National Socialist Party gave out medals to women who had more children.

Over population will destroy most or all of what we would like to conserve in the world today. It's (sadly), inevitable because humans, in the end, will always come first. It's just a matter of time. Very few politicians would get up and talk about the subject, let alone suggest that we have less children. If laws were brought in to enforce this, there would be riots. Only in a totalitarian system of government such as China is this possible (and we wouldn't want to live under that kind of system, would we ?).

Whilst a lot of life on this planet will ultimately be destroyed (including most or all of the human race), the planet will re-generate. All we can do is try and conserve what we have for as long as possible (and I would class myself as someone who contributes something to conservation but will not do everything I possibly could).

In the developed world, we are lucky just now as we live at a time when we are able to travel and enjoy nature first hand. In a hundred years time, lot's of it will only be on film.

 

[steve west]

This debate seems to be getting on better without me, so I think I'll make a quiet retreat and apologize for any "violence" I may have generated. I have a temperament that is rather intolerant of wilful ignorance.
As to what a conservationist is I think Sancho answered that question better than I would have, so it would seem fitting to add nothing other than a personal reflection as to the existence of differnt levels of "conservation conscience", irrespective of the specific actions that one takes or is prepared to take if others will also do so. I will suggest one, perhaps there are others:
i) Awareness of environmental problems, receptiveness to news and messengers bringing news about "new" problems. Perhaps a certain predisposition to believe in the cause of those who are involved and apparently have the least possible material gain compared to other parties. A projected ski slope in the Picos de Europa will affect the habitat and population of Brown Bears. Someone starts a petition against the ski slope, although they do not live in the affected area. Someone from California signs it. Someone from Lancashire would sign it if it was going to happen in the Lake District, but is not familiar with the Picos so doesn't sign it. Someone else reads about it but does nothing, and forgets about it altogether. Someone sees the title "Petition agianst ski-slope in the Picos" and thinks "better things to do". Most people don't see it because they have no interest at all in birds or nature.
STamp-collecting is not a hobby that requires a conservation conscience, should birding be?

Steve
http://birdinginspain.com

 

[ColinD]

......Over population will destroy most or all of what we would like to conserve in the world today. It's (sadly), inevitable because humans, in the end, will always come first. It's just a matter of time. Very few politicians would get up and talk about the subject, let alone suggest that we have less children. If laws were brought in to enforce this, there would be riots. Only in a totalitarian system of government such as China is this possible (and we wouldn't want to live under that kind of system, would we ?).....

Exactly. Until we control our population levels, all conservationists can do is hold back the flood waters. More and more habitat will be lost and populations of the species we are trying to protect will become fragmented and confined to small islands of land, until they fizzle and die out.

Can you imagine a World with twice the population we have now? Stick around until 2035, and you won't have to imagine any more. It will be here. And where to after that?

Yet as you say, nobody will even dare talk about the subject.......

 

[deborah4]

This debate seems to be getting on better without me, so I think I'll make a quiet retreat and apologize for any "violence" I may have generated.....
STamp-collecting is not a hobby that requires a conservation conscience, should birding be?

Steve
http://birdinginspain.com

Yeah, me too Steve. I'll leave this thread for everyone else to discuss what they do about conservation and why they don't do more.

As for sustainable birding practices, I'll return to my Bigby thread (which has attracted minimal interest compared to to here and dying a slow death :-O) and continue with trying to raise awareness of the Bulgaria windfarm being erected on the Via Pontica. (signed the bear petition btw)


PS. I am currently trading QUOTAS in exchange for optic equipment if anyone's buying:

Quotas representing 2 x children - 1pr of Zweiss binoculars 8 x 32
Quotas representing 50 fuel miles - 1 Canon body 40D

 

[Charles Letterman]

This debate seems to be getting on better without me, so I think I'll make a quiet retreat and apologize for any "violence" I may have generated. I have a temperament that is rather intolerant of wilful ignorance.
As to what a conservationist is I think Sancho answered that question better than I would have, so it would seem fitting to add nothing other than a personal reflection as to the existence of differnt levels of "conservation conscience", irrespective of the specific actions that one takes or is prepared to take if others will also do so. I will suggest one, perhaps there are others:
i) Awareness of environmental problems, receptiveness to news and messengers bringing news about "new" problems. Perhaps a certain predisposition to believe in the cause of those who are involved and apparently have the least possible material gain compared to other parties. A projected ski slope in the Picos de Europa will affect the habitat and population of Brown Bears. Someone starts a petition against the ski slope, although they do not live in the affected area. Someone from California signs it. Someone from Lancashire would sign it if it was going to happen in the Lake District, but is not familiar with the Picos so doesn't sign it. Someone else reads about it but does nothing, and forgets about it altogether. Someone sees the title "Petition agianst ski-slope in the Picos" and thinks "better things to do". Most people don't see it because they have no interest at all in birds or nature.
STamp-collecting is not a hobby that requires a conservation conscience, should birding be?

Steve
http://birdinginspain.com

Very nice Steve, apologising and then throwing an accusation of 'wilful ignorance' at other posters! I may well be ignorant, but it's certainly not wilful. Oh well, the games people play......

A pity because the rest of your post makes complete sense to me, and if you'd posted that in response to my original enquiry I would have been able to understand where you were coming from.

 

[James_Owen]

birding without a car of course

Sure can be limiting, I'll admit that. For that reason I keep a carbon neutral list, it's great motivation, plus you're birding like Gilbert White!
Otherwise if the girlfriend and I have reason to drive somewhere of a weekend, we'll take the opportunity for a minor detour along the way to extend our birding reach. Then at least the petrol we burn had a dual purpose beyond our desire to see some birds.

To be perfectly blunt, I do agree with all the Malthusians out there on the over-population nightmare, we are on the road to social and environmental oblivion, so being a conservationist might seem pointless in the grand scheme of things. For me, that's where your lifestyle becomes a moral question.
Do you submit to our collective doom and join the crazy/ignorant masses polluting the planet with scarcely any concern, or do you try to live in the sustainable way you know is right?

For what it's worth, I think conservationists are generally happier people because it feels worthwhile, there's a meaning to life beyond your own interests, and you get become a self-righteous prig like me.

 

[Euan Buchan]

I think we can be three things Ornathologist, Naturalist and Conservationist

 

[Sancho]

I'm not sure about the point of this remark but I would also point out that Hitler's National Socialist Party gave out medals to women who had more children.

Sorry Johnny, I got a bit tangential there. In short, what I mean is, it´s a tough choice to make, not to reproduce, or if you have children, to try and persuade them not to reproduce. I acknowledge it´s pretty essential though, as I agree that overpopulation is The Issue. The reference was to Adolf Hitler´s nephew William Patrick, son of Alois H. and a Dublin woman named Bridget. They met in Dublin, eloped to Liverpool, had a son, who grew up to fight in the U.S. Navy during WWII. After the war he married in the States, had four sons, three of whom survived, and they made a pact to put an end to the family´s paternal bloodline by never reproducing. What I meant was, that must have been difficult for them, i.e. making a pact to put an end to your DNA for the Greater Good. But it looks like that´s exactly what we´ll have to do, unless some Malthusian Pandemic comes and does the job for us.

 

[deborah4]

Sustainable birdwatching would be the buzzword for me, to make sure my lifestyle and birding activities mean there will be more birds in the future, not less.

Couldn't agree more James - well said :clap:

 

[Anas]

In the USA, *no one* does more for conservation, and wetland restoration, than hunters do. "Ducks Unlimited", one organization started by hunters has so far restored over 12,000,000 acres of wetland habitat. This benefits waterfowl, and the entire ecosystem that depends on wetlands. There is a substantial amount of "grass roots" activity done by hunters too; setting up nesting boxes, cleaning up waterfowl areas, etc. "Birders" by contrast contribute little, and my anecdotal experience has been, at least in the US, that they're more likely to litter, park illegally (without the access permit, a whopping $11/year in my state) and disrupt the habitat.
The relatively small numbers of birds harvested by hunters has no impact on the health of the population of legal game birds, and is carefully controlled by both Federal and State game departments.
I must admit that I love shooting ducks and geese whether it's with a shotgun or a camera. I have given over $10k to conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, and I plan on giving a lot more as finances allow in the coming years. If Birders were one-tenth as conservation minded (and willing to open their wallets for the cause) as hunters are, then a LOT more acres, in the US at least, could be preserved.

Now, to climate-change BS. Yes, the climate is warming. But it's still nowhere near as warm as it was just a few hundred years ago. The IPCC are a funded *political* group to find ONE answer -- not "what is causing CC", but rather "find evidence to support that man is causing CC". Scientists who find differently have their funding cut and lose their livelihood. To describe IPCC as "operating on an agenda" is an understatement of the highest order, as is the term "Biased". The simple fact is that the whole of mankind is responsible for only 3% of the entire CO2 generation. There is substantial evidence to support (lookup 'global dimming') the fact that pollution may actually save us from sunspot activity and GW. To me, it is obvious to anyone with "two-eyes and the matching two brain-cells" that the sun's heat output is responsible for any change in climate that is occurring. It is egotistical of man, in the extreme, to think that we are capable of more impact to the climate of the world than the sun's natural variations. I am SO glad and feel SO lucky to live in a country that is not obsessed by Chicken Littles screaming "The sky is falling!". I took my Ferrari F430 Spider out for a drive this weekend with some other Ferrari owning friends for NO other reason that to drive and enjoy a beautiful day with the top-down and listen to the sound of that gorgeous V8 sucking fuel at 12-15mpg. We all get the "thumbs up" and cheers from other drivers, or pedestrians who are excited to see some sports cars, to see us enjoying the American Dream. In England, the same car would be covered in spit after parking it somewhere. Morrissey summed up the British attitude perfectly in "We hate it when our friends become successful". I don't understand the British fascination with guilt and hating the rich or successful. I do think though that the preoccupation with cars (a small percentage of that total 3%) is really an extension of the "have nots" vs "haves" type of socialism. The "greens" all seem to be miserable and want everyone to be as miserable as they are. Thank God, they're not over here in any numbers ruining everybody's lives here....