No one has to read any posts. Ignore them, delete them if it gives a
satisfying feeling. The eBird rare bird digest is a good case in point.
Some folks objected to it when it was implemented. I find it to be the
greatest innovation to Obol since l first subscribed about 13 years ago.
What harm is a single line in one's in box? Someone suggested today it be
moved to WhatsApp because a high portion of the species are strictly local
rarities. I find such items fascinating. Those and FOS reports are more
meaningful to me in the long run than rarities l may not have time ( and
now money) to chase.
What really disturbs me is the realization that people are replying
privately to harmless posts in very harmful ways. Bald Eagles are a
unifying reality. If someone thinks they are quotidian and unworthy of
remark, it's a given that sentiment should be left unsaid. The older l get
the more interesting Juncos become.
On Thursday, February 25, 2021, Teresa Hertzel <teresa.hertzel@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Joel's post brings up the question, which we all know has come up a
million times before, about the scope and purpose of OBOL. What is it? It
was designed to be about birds in Oregon. Do we also talk about
conservation issues? Do we open it up to safety issues for people birding
alone? Splitting OBOL into sub-groups might be a good idea. Then those
purists who want to only read about birds could do so.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:43 PM Joel Geier <clearwater@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been following the discussion and I agree with most of what has been
said. Many of us men are still not aware, or at least have been late in
learning, of the concerns that women have to deal with all of their lives.
Though considering the amount of discussion in our general society (outside
OBOL) in recent years, that type of ignorance is now hard to understand as
anything but willful.
20 or so years back when I started to report birds from places like
Luckiamute Landing (now part of Luckiamute State Natural Area), I would
often get private replies from women who conveyed, one way or another,
something along the lines of, "The habitat sounds great but it seems like a
scary place." That caused me to start to pay a little more attention to
what women might be feeling, and to be more aware how I might be perceived
as a threat myself. As I became more aware of this, I've tried to help
avoid situations that might cause unease. But I never fully understood how
frightening a place like that could be until I ran across some illegal
activity there, and nearly got boxed in myself while trying to leave.
From that perspective, what the OBA board posted seemed completely
appropriate to me. All of us, especially cis white males like me, need to
take responsibility for helping to make outdoor spaces safer and more
inviting for all to enjoy. We could be thinking constructively about ways
to minimize our own impact on the field experiences of others. I have also
heard from many non-white friends that there are many places where they
feel unsafe, especially in rural parts of our state.
So I'm glad that the OBA is now addressing these issues, instead of
pretending that they don't exist.
About the OBOL guidelines more generally, I believe the boundaries on
discussion are too narrow. It also seems like they consistently tend to be
invoked by a particular social group who have a class interest in
maintaining the status quo and pursuing their hobby without any
distractions.
Over the years, the guidelines have been used (until very recently) to
shut down any meaningful discussion of climate change and its potential
impact on birds. Heaven forbid that anyone should raise concern that
"chasing" rare birds by driving halfway across the state, or even jumping
on a plane from another state, might contribute to the problem. Even more
modest conservation topics that could potentially improve birding
experiences (such as Portland Audubon's initiative to promote a state
bird-seed tax to fund non-game habitat conservation) were considered to be
in violation of the blanket prohibition on "political" topics.
Yes, some of these topics may lead to uncomfortable discussions and even
arguments. But if we only stick to topics that no one finds uncomfortable,
we are tacitly favoring a subset of birders who are happy with the status
quo. In some cases that means perpetuating the dearth of economic and
racial diversity among birders here in Oregon. In other cases it means
expecting women and people of color to just accept that there are places
where they won't be safe birding on their own, or perhaps not even in the
company of certain birders. Or it might mean ignoring our own impacts on
the environment, rather than finding ways to make birding more bird- and
environment-friendly.
To paraphrase an old song by Peter Tosh, sometimes calls for peace get in
the way of calls for justice.
Joel
------------------------------
*From: *"Teresa Hertzel" <teresa.hertzel@xxxxxxxxx>
*To: *"boo" <boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:01:28 AM
*Subject: *[boo] Discussion
BOOers,
Here are some questions for you, although you certainly don't have to
stick to these topics.
Do you think the OBOL guidelines need to be changed?
Do you think the Board violated their own policies by posting a statement
about violence against women on the birding listserv?
How should OBOL handle people who are perceived as bullying others?
How can OBOL be more friendly and welcoming?
OBA has a few hundred members, I think it's right around 300, but I don't
have the exact number. OBOL has almost 2,000, so the vast majority are not
OBA members. Do you think OBOL should be broken off from OBA and no longer
be under their umbrella?
Treesa
