I used to send bird lists weekly to OBOL but not any more. I got plenty
of negative comments about posting common birds on a list every week, or
why did I list participant names etc. I always thought new birders asked
great questions and I liked to get their names on the list.
I really appreciate reading about bird arrivals and departures
statewide, changes in range, habitat changes statewide etc. It can be
about learning, not just chasing rare birds. To me, those are all bird
related and appropriate. I would dislike OBOL being only for rare bird
reports. I do agree about conservation issues being more and more
important but how do we keep politics out of it?
So good to hear the many voices on this. So glad we have Boo. Judy,
jmeredit@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 2021-02-25 21:21, Joel Geier wrote:
To draw a finer point here:... about the scope and purpose of OBOL. What is it? It was designed to be about birds in Oregon.
My understanding is that OBOL originally grew out of an informal e-mail chain that was formed to share state-level rare-bird-alerts, with a Slaty-backed Gull as one particularly formative example. So if we go by the "founding fathers' original intent," it should only be about very rare birds.
In the early years (around 1999 or 2000 when I was a relative newbie on the list) there
was at least one individual who took that idea seriously enough to send threatening
anonymous postcards to at least three of us. One woman received a card saying, "Shut
up, you talk too much!" The card that showed up in my mailbox told me to stop
posting about commonbirds. Another woman got a card with a threat to drive to her house
and kill her pet geese if she ever mentioned them on OBOL again.
However, despite such opinions, OBOL quickly became a place for people to talk about non-rare birds and topics more peripheral to birding. By the time I joined, OBOL was already being used for coordination of the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, which led to many discussions about distribution of species as common as Spotted Towhees, and also personal experiences of birders who volunteered on that project.
Birders also used it to discuss encounters with hostile residents. One particularly memorable discussion in early 2001 concerned a "pizza-box-tossing cul-de-sac resident" who vented his unhappiness at birders who were flocking to a Summer Tanager in Beaverton, which led to a broader discussion/argument about the rights of private residents to control access to public rights-of-way. Impacts vs. benefits of ranching and grass-seed farming were also frequent topics in those years.
Some prominent birders used OBOL as a soapbox to fault the EPA for limiting manure
seepage into Tillamook Bay, on the grounds that this was detrimental to shore-birding
opportunities. ODFW was criticized for letting "scrapes" become vegetated. Even
the OBA board (then called OFO) was a regular target of criticism. One very well-known
birder was fond of discussing the culinary possibilities for waterfowl and other wild
fauna, often provoking a reaction from vegetarians on the list. Another once promoted an
unsuccessful campaign for birders to buy the whole town of Fields when it was up for sale.
There have always been a few voices who objected to these more wide-ranging topics, but -- at least since 1998 -- it would be hard to argue that discussions were strictly confined to just birds in Oregon.
--
Joel Geier Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
