Some thoughts on giving back (long)
Gyrfal@aol.com
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 09:25:26 EST
Got home last week from my first chase in a couple of years, a successful trip
to see the Nutting's Flycatcher and the Elegant Quail in Arizona.
After staking out Arnie Moorhouse's home in Douglas for the quail (which
didn't show that evening), five of us took Arnie to dinner at the local cafe.
At dinner, Arnie observed that this was the first thing that any birders had
done for him in the two months that they have been visiting his yard.
This got me to thinking. Too often, it seems to me, we birders are willing to
take, but not give a little something back. Common courtesy, of course, is
assumed when we use someone's property. But maybe we should think of more
concrete ways of expresing our appreciation.
Back when I was a hunter, the outdoor magazines urged us to offer some game to
the farmer on whose land we hunted, fix his fences, bring him something from
the big city, purchase his produce, or otherwise do something real for him.
The best of the breed followed this sound advice and had good relations with
land owners.
Could we birders not follow the same advice? For example, leaving a couple of
bucks for Arnie's bird food fund. Often hundreds of us traipse through
private property when there is an unusual bird present, leaving behind little
more than our tracks. It is not that birders are evil. On the contrary, most
I have met are wonderful people. We may just have a blind spot, an oversight
in our thinking.
Which brings me to hunting. I regularly hear birders complain about hunting
and hunters, resenting, for example, partial closures of Bombay Hook NWR to
allow for hunting. Many birders "look down their noses" at hunters and regard
them as adversaries. While I have not hunted for years, I find these
attitudes distressing. Birders ought to thank their lucky stars that hunters
had the foresight beginning way back in the thirties for putting land away for
the future.
Ding Darling, a hunter and conservationist, was instrumental in taxing
waterfowl hunters (even during the depression) to finance wildlife refuges.
The magnificent system in place today is his legacy. Clearly, not just
waterfowl and hunters have benefitted from these refuges. Where would we
birders be without Chincoteague, Blackwater, and Bombay Hook, to mention just
the big three in this area? Hunters money and political clout purchased the
land that we birders like to call Hugh's Hollow, but is really McKee Besher's
Wildlife Management Area.
Ducks Unlimited has poured many millions of dollars into wetlands protection
and improvement over the last half century, and these projects too have
benefitted many more species than huntable waterfowl.
Try to think of an area that we birders use that was purchased and maintained
with birders' money. Yes, some of us contribute to the Nature Conservancy and
benefit from land under its management. And there are a couple of National
Audubon preserves. But think what we could do if we taxed ourselves the way
hunters have done for decades. What about a birding license, with all money
collected to be used for the purchase of critical birding land? Isn't it time
we picked up our share of the load?
Bob Mumford
Darnestown