Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (2 Viewers)

[rahopko]

It's arguably about racism; akin to not wanting to remove confederate statues. (Yeah, they said that was just about preserving history--ha, ha.) Aligning yourselves with it will just fuel the notion that your opposition to the AOS proposal is racist.

In speaking to him about the issue, racism did not come up. I specifically asked him about his motivation and the explanation he gave me was very science oriented. And, I don’t think talking about the fact that this is occurring is aligning with anyone. I think this is the political pushback that the AOS was warned about & chose to ignore. I am sure if other states take this on (FL for example) it would definitely be about their right leaning agenda. But the AOS created the opportunity for this to occur.

 

[jts1882]

I don't think the support of Republican legislatures in Conservative states is a good thing. I doubt they genuinely care about bird name stability, but may have done their homework. You might get Democratic states joining in on the other side. This won't help get the obvious compromise solution of removing the particularly egregious names.

It's a problem of the AOS's own making though.

 

[rahopko]

I don't think the support of Republican legislatures in Conservative states is a good thing. I doubt they genuinely care about bird name stability, but may have done their homework. You might get Democratic states joining in on the other side. This won't help get the obvious compromise solution of removing the particularly egregious names.

It's a problem of the AOS's own making though.

Bio of the rep that wrote the resolution: Snider was raised in Liberty, Utah. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in conservation and restoration ecology, law, and constitutional studies from Utah State University and a Master of Science in environmental science and policy from Johns Hopkins University.

 

[Mysticete]

I don't think the support of Republican legislatures in Conservative states is a good thing. I doubt they genuinely care about bird name stability, but may have done their homework. You might get Democratic states joining in on the other side. This won't help get the obvious compromise solution of removing the particularly egregious names.

It's a problem of the AOS's own making though.

They don't. They may say its about stability, but I doubt they knew the name of a single one of these birds prior to the bill being proposed. This is pure culture war nonsense.

This really doesn't help your cause, but it colors the opposition as being just as political as the proponents.

 

[rahopko]

They don't. They may say its about stability, but I doubt they knew the name of a single one of these birds prior to the bill being proposed. This is pure culture war nonsense.

This really doesn't help your cause, but it colors the opposition as being just as political as the proponents.

I really think you are making judgements here without knowing the facts and thinking behind this particular decision simply because Utah is a red state. The rep I talked to knows a LOT about nomenclature and taxonomy. He is a scientist.

 

[opisska]

I understand that. I don't really agree with this bill, either. But its existence does put additional pressure on the AOS to not change hundreds of birds names, which I think is ultimately a good thing.

I think that this is yet another misunderstanding. If I were a member of AOS, this bill would put additional pressure on me to push for the change even harder, just to make a strong statement that we are not gonna yield to this political nonsense, and I am pretty sure that many proponents of the change will feel similarly.

Ever heard of that time when they almost passed a law in Indiana that made pi equal to 3.2 and square root of 2 equal to 10/7? Indiana pi bill - Wikipedia

edit: the fact that the bill sponsor is a scientists makes it worse for him, not better. He is simply abusing his political position to push his personal agenda. This has no business of being in a law.

 

[Ignatius]

Just so that I may possibly understand what this brouhaha is about: the AOC wants to remove/replace all eponymous birdnames, the IOC possibly wants to follow this on a case-by-case route and the IOU will not be following it at all. Have I got this right?
If so, why should we even care about the 'Muricans being their typical exceptionalist selves? I say let them fill their boots. I am certain the (ornithological) world can live with American names besides English names, French names, Dutch names, Italian names, German names, ... I am sure you get the idea.

 

[rahopko]

I think that this is yet another misunderstanding. If I were a member of AOS, this bill would put additional pressure on me to push for the change even harder, just to make a strong statement that we are not gonna yield to this political nonsense, and I am pretty sure that many proponents of the change will feel similarly.

Ever heard of that time when they almost passed a law in Indiana that made pi equal to 3.2 and square root of 2 equal to 10/7? Indiana pi bill - Wikipedia

edit: the fact that the bill sponsor is a scientists makes it worse for him, not better. He is simply abusing his political position to push his personal agenda. This has no business of being in a law.

And the AOS decision was not politically motivated?

 

[Kirk Roth]

I really think you are making judgements here without knowing the facts and thinking behind this particular decision simply because Utah is a red state. The rep I talked to knows a LOT about nomenclature and taxonomy. He is a scientist.

I commend you for speaking with the rep, and I'm certain they defended their decision in as professional a manner as possible. But to an outsider, the law looks far more sloppy than a scientist or someone with a biology background should be putting out:

988 (2) (a) The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a
989 naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name
990 while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.

Now does that mean the division uses a name in effect in 2020 or any name used by an entity in 2020? Scientist or not, most legislators know to craft language more carefully - which makes the political gamesmanship suspect to me.

Someone with the basics of ornithological understanding in the U.S. should know that if this does indeed mean Utah is "freezing" names to 2020, then administratively they stand alone in having Cordilleran instead of Western Flycatchers. If a split of Yellow-rumped Warblers happens, what does that mean for the state?

If all of these consequences were indeed thought out, there is nothing in the law or the press release to indicate as such.

 

[Kirk Roth]

I think this is the political pushback that the AOS was warned about & chose to ignore. I am sure if other states take this on (FL for example) it would definitely be about their right leaning agenda. But the AOS created the opportunity for this to occur.

Absolutely agreed that this was entirely predictable (even if I'm saying so myself!) and that more consequences and counter-consequences are likely to come. It will be difficult to get the bird names genie back into the ornithological society bottle - now that other people feel the issue "belongs" to them too.

 

[rahopko]

I commend you for speaking with the rep, and I'm certain they defended their decision in as professional a manner as possible. But to an outsider, the law looks far more sloppy than a scientist or someone with a biology background should be putting out:

988 (2) (a) The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a
989 naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name
990 while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.

Now does that mean the division uses a name in effect in 2020 or any name used by an entity in 2020? Scientist or not, most legislators know to craft language more carefully - which makes the political gamesmanship suspect to me.

Someone with the basics of ornithological understanding in the U.S. should know that if this does indeed mean Utah is "freezing" names to 2020, then administratively they stand alone in having Cordilleran instead of Western Flycatchers. If a split of Yellow-rumped Warblers happens, what does that mean for the state?

If all of these consequences were indeed thought out, there is nothing in the law or the press release to indicate as such.

I totally agree. I see a lot of issues with it as written. I have asked for more time to speak to him or one of his staff. I read the resolution before calling him but he did not have the time to discuss it more fully. I think the more important issue is that it was even written. And will be interesting to see if other states follow.

 

[opisska]

And the AOS decision was not politically motivated?

Well this is this weird thing that happened to the world "politics" in the US, where you took a selection of topics that are in practice disconnected from the actual governance of the country, but you decided to also call them "politics" for some reason. I just do not think that naming of the birds is a political question. What does it have to do with government? As far as I understand, AOS is not a government organization, but a voluntary group of people with shared interest, am I right? Then this group used its internal processes to express an opinion about how birds should be named. How is that politics? Is it politics because the position was motivated by their moral values and disdain for honoring people who did not share those values? Why? For me "slavery is evil" is not "politics" - nobody is arguing for a change of policy on slavery ... or so I hope? I personally fond it just dishonest, or even abusive, to frame this as "politics" because this relativizes the underlying moral values as something that's just a "political opinion".

So I insist that it was the conservatives who made "politics" out of it by bringing it into the legislature.

 

[kb57]

I can see why the bill can be counterproductive in terms of entrenching positions, and may work against the opponents of wholesale change.

However, is it not legitimate for a political body like a state legislature to challenge this decision? One of the predictable outcomes set out by Stability for Bird Names is the cost of updating literature and display boards at publicly run parks etc. I don't know what it's like in the States, but I would imagine that budgets available for managing these sites are finite and fixed, so it's reasonable for them to mandate that they don't spend them on name changes imposed by AOS.

The link to the Salt Lake City Tribune that's provided upthread just takes me to a paywall, so I can't comment on the details of the bill or whether it has been well-drafted - I'm sure Kirk's criticisms are correct and perhaps this has been poorly thought through and needs further work.

 

[opisska]

Are you sure that this expenditure would have been larger than the costs of the time that the legislature spent on the bill?

 

[rahopko]

Are you sure that this expenditure would have been larger than the costs of the time that the legislature spent on the bill?

If you read the bill the part about eponymous names is a tack on to a huge wide ranging bill of wildlife issues. Doubtful to me that much time or money was spent on this small issue.

 

[Mysticete]

I commend you for speaking with the rep, and I'm certain they defended their decision in as professional a manner as possible. But to an outsider, the law looks far more sloppy than a scientist or someone with a biology background should be putting out:

988 (2) (a) The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a
989 naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name
990 while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.

Now does that mean the division uses a name in effect in 2020 or any name used by an entity in 2020? Scientist or not, most legislators know to craft language more carefully - which makes the political gamesmanship suspect to me.

Someone with the basics of ornithological understanding in the U.S. should know that if this does indeed mean Utah is "freezing" names to 2020, then administratively they stand alone in having Cordilleran instead of Western Flycatchers. If a split of Yellow-rumped Warblers happens, what does that mean for the state?

If all of these consequences were indeed thought out, there is nothing in the law or the press release to indicate as such.

There would be a hell of a lot of irony if the law meant that Audubon's Warbler couldn't be used for Yellow-rumped Warbler in their state...

 

[qwerty5]

It's arguably about racism;

Arguable indeed, and I am very tired of this accusation being flung around every time there's a difference of opinion between left and right. This bill is not racist, the AOS opposition is not racist. Please, PLEASE, learn what racism actually is.

 

[cajanuma]

The bill could use some modification. I just talked to the Utah rep who sponsored it. He is coordinating with other western states. He emphasized to me that this was not about politics but about stability in English names & was science oriented.

I signed the petition but frankly I think this development with the Utah state legislature getting involved is terrible news. It seems very disingenous of the Utah rep who sponsored it to say it's not about politics, it seems pretty clear to me that this is being used as a culture wars wedge issue and I think that's the last thing anyone wants (and sure, AOS "started it", but I think it's just best not to go down that road). If this was truly science oriented, the issue would be left up to a scientific organization like AOS, or other taxonomic authorities, and not to a state legislature which is a political body.

 

[Mysticete]

I can see why the bill can be counterproductive in terms of entrenching positions, and may work against the opponents of wholesale change.

However, is it not legitimate for a political body like a state legislature to challenge this decision? One of the predictable outcomes set out by Stability for Bird Names is the cost of updating literature and display boards at publicly run parks etc. I don't know what it's like in the States, but I would imagine that budgets available for managing these sites are finite and fixed, so it's reasonable for them to mandate that they don't spend them on name changes imposed by AOS.

The link to the Salt Lake City Tribune that's provided upthread just takes me to a paywall, so I can't comment on the details of the bill or whether it has been well-drafted - I'm sure Kirk's criticisms are correct and perhaps this has been poorly thought through and needs further work.

This argument gets used, but I have been to plenty of parks and museums in this country that clearly haven't updated signage in decades. So I am not convinced this is that significant a reason. If it was, it's an argument for stasis overall, because every time you split or lump your signage gets out of date. Were folks in Utah concerned about the fiscal impact of all their Northern Goshawks turning into American Goshawks this year?

 

[rahopko]

Well this is this weird thing that happened to the world "politics" in the US, where you took a selection of topics that are in practice disconnected from the actual governance of the country, but you decided to also call them "politics" for some reason. I just do not think that naming of the birds is a political question. What does it have to do with government? As far as I understand, AOS is not a government organization, but a voluntary group of people with shared interest, am I right? Then this group used its internal processes to express an opinion about how birds should be named. How is that politics? Is it politics because the position was motivated by their moral values and disdain for honoring people who did not share those values? Why? For me "slavery is evil" is not "politics" - nobody is arguing for a change of policy on slavery ... or so I hope? I personally fond it just dishonest, or even abusive, to frame this as "politics" because this relativizes the underlying moral values as something that's just a "political opinion".

So I insist that it was the conservatives who made "politics" out of it by bringing it into the legislature.

I think we just disagree on what is political. We do not disagree on the underlying moral issues about which I have made my position very clear. In the U.S. all of these morality based decisions are turned political simply by our raging culture wars sad as that may be. There is no way the AOS could have made this decision (viewed as left by most which in itself is political) without realizing they would be joining political culture wars.