Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names? (7 Viewers)

[pbjosh]

I thought the original reason that the ABA excluded Mexico was to keep Big Years more competitive with easier to manage numbers? AT the very least, that's the reason the organization claims in the modern day.

Also some mental gymanstics there... fly to Attu and all over the US myriad times but don't go to Puerto Rico even, and people were loathe to add Hawaii to the the ABA purely because of the listing aspect.

 

[Mysticete]

I thought the original reason that the ABA excluded Mexico was to keep Big Years more competitive with easier to manage numbers? AT the very least, that's the reason the organization claims in the modern day.

I mean, I have personally always thought that the "real" reason, not the stated one, is that a lot of birders are just not comfortable birding in Mexico by themselves, for a variety of reasons. A large chunk of a ABA list that included Mexico would be largely unavailable or at least expensive for those folks.

 

[kb57]

If you read the AOS page about the change, vagrant and pelagic species have a lower priority, and any name change will only occur with consultation of local checklists. They don't really comment on what happens if those regional authorities have no interest in a name change however. My guess is that those birds will probably not get names changed and be in a sort of perpetual limbo.

I have read the AOS page, and to be honest I'm staggered that they would even consider they had any authority to change a species like (for example) Fea's or Zino's petrels. That in itself is an example of the attitude I alluded to.
And as I think I've said upthread, it's also a North American-centric attitude to change species like Blackburnian warbler which could spend at least as much of their life in Andean cloud forests as they do in USA or Canada.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have read the AOS page, and to be honest I'm staggered that they would even consider they had any authority to change a species like (for example) Fea's or Zino's petrels. That in itself is an example of the attitude I alluded to.
And as I think I've said upthread, it's also a North American-centric attitude to change species like Blackburnian warbler which could spend at least as much of their life in Andean cloud forests as they do in USA or Canada.

To be blunt, the fact that the AOS Committee did not turn round and say to the Sub-Committee - "hold on a minute. You intend to rename Zino's Petrel. You must be off your head." - shows their lack of knowledge of birds....

All the best

Paul

 

[Farnboro John]

To be blunt, the fact that the AOS Committee did not turn round and say to the Sub-Committee - "hold on a minute. You intend to rename Zino's Petrel. You must be off your head." - shows their lack of knowledge of birds....

All the best

Paul

Not to mention something of a neo-colonialist attitude.....

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

Bringing things back to the eponyms... really recommend a quick read of this article for all those interested Names Are Power: Let’s Talk About Decolonizing Bird Names

Speaking for the UK at least, I think it pretty hard for anyone to deny that the birding/naturalist community is facing a serious lack of diversity, and especially in birding's case, a rapidly ageing population. Studies back this up, the fact is, most of the birding demographic in the UK is older, white, straight, and male, and this also applies for much of Europe and the Anglosphere. Recognising the barriers to people of diverse backgrounds from accessing nature and engaging in interests like birding is really important, for the value that birding can bring to individuals and communities, and also to bring in more public support for conservation. There are obviously bigger concerns than bird names, but the AOS recognising this impact is a big step forward in them acknowledging their role in improving access to nature for people of diverse backghrounds.

So what!

You cannot shoehorn people in to activities that do not appeal to them or, blame imaginary barriers because certain demographics don't take part. Birdwatching is a minority activity, even amongst straight, white males, I get mocked for it all the time.

Show me the barriers to accessing anything in the UK, this is woke b******s and I for one am sick of hearing it.

 

[Andy Adcock]

If you read the AOS page about the change, vagrant and pelagic species have a lower priority, and any name change will only occur with consultation of local checklists. They don't really comment on what happens if those regional authorities have no interest in a name change however. My guess is that those birds will probably not get names changed and be in a sort of perpetual limbo.

And I hope they tell the AOS to take a running jump...................

 

[Andy Adcock]

Diversity in birding is a good thing, of course. And any barriers that specifically prevent people with a certain skin shade from participating should be removed. The question now is, can an eponym block or prevent someone from accessing birding? No, that's ridiculous. People go birding because they enjoy watching birds. Birding is the enjoyment of BIRDS, not the enjoyment of a bird's NAME. Therefore what a bird is called is not going to stop someone from enjoying the bird itself, and it cannot prevent the person from participating in birdwatching. And it is furthermore impossible that changing names can in any way increase access to birding

Bang on, well said!!!

 

[Lerxst]

I would really like to see these boycotts mentioned here - of eBird, of guide books and what not - come to happen, only for the people to see that they are literally just what they accuse their opposition of being - a vocal minority - and the boycotts having no effect because most people either support the changes or, more likely, massively don't care.

Source?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Source?

Yep, unsubstantiated bull.......

 

[Lerxst]

Recognising the barriers to people of diverse backgrounds from accessing nature and engaging in interests like birding is really important

I agree.

How, exactly, is the name "Anna's Hummingbird" a barrier?

 

[kb57]

Diversity in birding is a good thing, of course. And any barriers that specifically prevent people with a certain skin shade from participating should be removed. The question now is, can an eponym block or prevent someone from accessing birding? No, that's ridiculous. People go birding because they enjoy watching birds. Birding is the enjoyment of BIRDS, not the enjoyment of a bird's NAME. Therefore what a bird is called is not going to stop someone from enjoying the bird itself, and it cannot prevent the person from participating in birdwatching. And it is furthermore impossible that changing names can in any way increase access to birding

Couldn't agree more - it's just making people feel better, in the same way that having a bowl of granola and some fruit in the morning makes you feel like you've atoned for the damage you did to yourself with a few too many beers the night before.

As an older white male of part-British ethnicity and pretty mainstream sexual preferences, it dismays me to be constantly portrayed as part of the problem - whether that is because we're an active barrier to participation - a camo-clad long-lensed flock of intimidatingly grumpy old men, or simply because our impending demise will leave an irreplaceable void in popular advocacy for nature conservation, I'm not sure.

A better question would be to ask why there are so many male British birdwatchers of a certain age, and seek to replicate the conditions which led so many to take an interest in birds and the wider natural world.

The 1970s in Britain were a grim decade in some ways, and women and non-white people for sure had their own, harder battles to fight. But it was a period of unprecedented income equality and social mobility. Schools had flexible curricula and were relatively well-funded, so we could get out an do 'nature studies' at a young age, and follow that up with locally run birding groups aimed at young people. As a working class youth from an Irish background growing up in a poor area of industrial NE England, I really felt at the time that we were breaking class barriers, joining and participating in organisations which had previously been the preserve of the entitled middle classes.

It is, as @qwerty5 so accurately puts it, 'ridiculous' that an eponym would prevent someone from accessing birding. I might instead quote the words of George Bush senior - 'It's the economy, stupid'. Economic barriers, inequality of opportunity and social class barriers to participation need addressing. Changing eponyms is irrelevant, but I guess easier to do and makes people feel good about themselves.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Bringing things back to the eponyms... really recommend a quick read of this article for all those interested Names Are Power: Let’s Talk About Decolonizing Bird Names

Speaking for the UK at least, I think it pretty hard for anyone to deny that the birding/naturalist community is facing a serious lack of diversity, and especially in birding's case, a rapidly ageing population. Studies back this up, the fact is, most of the birding demographic in the UK is older, white, straight, and male, and this also applies for much of Europe and the Anglosphere. Recognising the barriers to people of diverse backgrounds from accessing nature and engaging in interests like birding is really important, for the value that birding can bring to individuals and communities, and also to bring in more public support for conservation. There are obviously bigger concerns than bird names, but the AOS recognising this impact is a big step forward in them acknowledging their role in improving access to nature for people of diverse backghrounds.

I have read it. It has nothing to do with increasing diversity in birding. There are organisations doing positive things. I look forward to hearing from them about this topic. Their views would carry weight.

The professor in question I suspect is not taking any steps to encourage diversity in birding.

I would be interested in the professor's views on Zino's Petrel or Blackburnian Warbler as clearly, anyone who writes with such hyperbole about John James Audubon being my "Jesus" must have researched the topic thoroughly rather than be shooting nonsense from the hip....

All the best

Paul

 

[Steve Babbs]

A better question would be to ask why there are so many male British birdwatchers of a certain age, and seek to replicate the conditions which led so many to take an interest in birds and the wider natural world.
.

I genuinely think that would be difficult as life is very different. I went to a very rough comprehensive school which served what, at the time, was meant to be the largest council estate in Europe. Most kids there were interested in wildlife. I think there are two main differences:

Adults were much less paranoid about something happening to their children and I, and most my friends, were allowed to go off on foot, or by bike, exploring from a young age in the countryside.

There were few other attractions. Maybe if I could have played existing video games, or had television on demand, I wouldn't have become the obsessive naturalist that I did become.

On a general point as a middle-aged man and, now days, middle-class white, heterosexual male, I do not feel in any way qualified to state categorically, as some people here are, what is, or what is not, a barrier for people of a different ethnic background or a different sexual orientation. Of course that works that applies to both view points.

 

[dantheman]

Not forgetting that in the US (where this happening), it's much more of a 50/50 split in male and females engaging in birding.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Not forgetting that in the US (where this happening), it's much more of a 50/50 split in male and females engaging in birding.

Yes. It was a long time ago that I spent a few months in Cape May but that really hit me as a huge difference.

 

[kb57]

I genuinely think that would be difficult as life is very different. I went to a very rough comprehensive school which served what, at the time, was meant to be the largest council estate in Europe. Most kids there were interested in wildlife. I think there are two main differences:

Adults were much less paranoid about something happening to their children and I, and most my friends, were allowed to go off on foot, or by bike, exploring from a young age in the countryside.

There were few other attractions. Maybe if I could have played existing video games, or had television on demand, I wouldn't have become the obsessive naturalist that I did become.

On a general point as a middle-aged man and, now days, middle-class white, heterosexual male, I do not feel in any way qualified to state categorically, as some people here are, what is, or what is not, a barrier for people of a different ethnic background or a different sexual orientation. Of course that works that applies to both view points.

The freedom to explore thing is indeed highly relevant in a British context at least, but the highly constrained school curricula I think play a part too - I used to work loosely in the environmental education field in the 1980s and 90s (from a site provision perspective, not as a teacher) and I'm sure there was more freedom and more resources available for out of school activities then. I don't think it was the same in other countries - I remember working in Poland in the early 2000s and there were loads of school groups doing outdoor environmental education.
I wouldn't purport to state what constitutes a barrier to inclusion either, other than to say that socio-economic class barriers are sometimes overlooked, and given there is a lot of diversity in the economic working class now, easing those barriers would help increase diversity.
I recently read Mya-Rose Craig's 'Birdgirl' book, which apart from being an excellent 'twitching' biography, does address the issue of access to nature for non-white people in UK - she debunks the 'self-imposed cultural barrier' argument by simply pointing out there are now quite a few Bangladeshi birders in Bangladesh, but hardly any in UK. The other thing that anyone who took up birding at a young age has in common of course is the big barrier of being perceived as deeply uncool by your peers, something that was surprising and a little disappointing to learn had affected her just as it affected me 50 years ago - I'd kind've thought that kids were more environmentally aware, less racist and more accepting of difference now.

 

[Steve Babbs]

quite a few Bangladeshi birders in Bangladesh, but hardly any in UK.

Yes and a very large number of keen naturalists in India and Sri Lanka and many other countries of the world.

The predominance of white people is not just a natural history thing, when I go hill walking in Snowdonia, the Lakes or Scotland it is a very similar picture. I don't think there is an easy answer for the reasons but I think any possible ways to make people of colour feel that they would feel at home in the birding community should be considered calmly and logically without keen-jerk reactions from either side.

 

[qwerty5]

Bringing things back to the eponyms... really recommend a quick read of this article for all those interested Names Are Power: Let’s Talk About Decolonizing Bird Names

One thing in reference to the article: I don't yet know whether I will use the new names or not, but calling Lincoln's Sparrow "tsook’all" is a line I won't cross (not that I expect such a name change to happen).

 

[l_raty]

My comment was flippant but then I think this line of argument is just silly semantics. The NACC is a committee that is part of the AOS (and formerly AOU). It's members are all part of voting members of the AOS. Their checklist is housed on the AOS page which is put together and financed by the AOS. Their annual updates are published in the journal operated by the society. They are not some separate body that is unanswerable. Their are also AOS committees for Budget, Bird Collections, Conservation, and Diversity and Inclusion. Are they also not answerable to anyone and can do whatever they want?

Sure, the checklist committee must answer to the council, I have no issue with this. Trying once more with other words, because I don't get the feeling from your reply that you understood what I was writing... Facts -

• Even if they are parts of the same body, the checklist committee, the council, the English bird name committee, are all (obviously) very distinct sets of individuals, with different competences, priorities, sensibilities, that will undoubtedly treat many issues in very different ways.
• In reality, the "AOS's authority over bird names", which the council claims (and apparently felt a need to justify in a FAQ list), is granted to them by the various other stakeholders from what has been called up-thread "the space they operate in", when they adopt the names of the AOS checklist on a voluntary basis.

What I take issue with, is this : when the AOS claims its authority to have a basis in history ("since 1886", etc.), this implies directly that the authority granted today, by these "other stakeholders", remains directed towards "the same AOS" as historically. I do not perceive the deep structural changes that were implemented recently as being (remotely) compatible with this... It looks like they would like to have their cake, and eat it too -- have continued legitimacy based on historical continuity, and implement deep changes too. Of course, this is not possible. I'm afraid, therefore, that the gut feeling I get from this justification of the AOS's authority is that it is dishonest; and that, if they have nothing better to offer, their claim is probably best regarded as illegitimate.