I know these sites are not a democracy, but is there anyway to gauge the opinion of both active posters as well as those who simply read the posts and decide what we want? If we want no "real world" intrusion such as politics, that needs to be clear and the moderator will just have to not forward posts that broach such topics. It's beginning to look very random which "political" posts get through and which do not. Unfortunately, again in my opinion only, politics is becoming more important to birders and birding. If you're not willing to fight for something, you might just lose it. If we can't discuss political issues facing our pastime here, where else should it be discussed? I'll use an example. In my opinion the recent Chesapeake Bay Bridge "compromise" set a deplorable precedent. I've never birded from any of the affected islands, and now I never intend to do so. Again, in my opinion, politics not security drove the effort to limit access. Thorough security searches and background checks should have been enough. But $50 an hour for a law enforcement officer to follow birders around? That's ridiculous and where the bad precedent comes in. The local economy is helped enough when birders spend cash for the opportunity to bird there. The $50 "tax" is an insult to people who are helping the economy. It's already been defined by both sides of the political spectrum that terrorism wins when it causes us to change our lifestyle. Well, guess what we have been doing? There are lots of political issues out there that affect birds and birding, including perhaps the Endangered Species Act. This forum could help share views on such issues. And, if subscribers don't like a certain message, do what I do. Hit DELETE. I guess, basically, I just feel we need a decision. Agree to see both sides of an issue by accepting ALL posts or set firm restrictions and stop any posts that deviate from reporting bird sightings or birding events. Bryan Stevens, Hampton, TN