I agree with Linda and darrell. I somehow must have missed where those
posters were being given flack, because it seemed the story just stoppd
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:02 PM linda phelan thompson <
lindaphelanlmt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm amazed to learn you got flack for that. I can remember reading those.
I enjoy that kind of storytelling. It wasn't that long ago someone gave
Harry Fuller a hard time for his longer storytelling. I enjoy those myself.
And afterall, if it's not your cup of tea, you don't have to read it.
Linda
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM <jmeredit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 tobe 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
--
*Linda Lee*
