Bob, Steve, Jess, Ed,
Bob, welcome to my hell!!!! I have thought about these things so so much while scouring the NYC parks to bond with the bit of nature on offer. My reactions to people I encounter in these situations are pretty much unfair and judgmental!! I don't understand people who study birds yet don't also take note of the tree or other perching/habitat environment. But I have 'issues' in general with "birders" mostly based on the lack of interest they have in the birds themselves. Many are just list keepers, collectors, like you were saying. I understand but I don't like it. On my Colorado night migration workshop in September I was the only one excited about the whole ecological experience as opposed to just the birds. Weird. I can't believe people don't teach their kids general respect for nature. Kids kick trees and try to kick birds - and I completely understand them for doing it - but I don't understand their parents for not stopping them. When I say something I talk directly to the kid and say things in the nicest possible way, hopefully with humor. And in that way, maybe a tiny bit of awareness will sink in. I know birds and trees are not human, but I could never treat them as unfeeling beings - even the tree in its way, is sentient. I hate the Fordham students jogging through NYBG and I would hate anyone jogging in the Arnold Arboretum. Exceptions are people running with their big dogs who need a good run. But honestly, why not just take a a strenuous hike? I bet they drove to the Arboretum anyway, As for them appreciating their surroundings by going to the Arboretum to jog, I think they sure do appreciate the environment for themselves but don't give a "care" about anybody elses' experience. There are more than enough municipal parks for jogging. I think it's offensive. When people jog through the NYBG forest, I think it's really unnecessary and a little insulting to people that have paid to enjoy the experience. Especially since the Bronx River Park is just across the blvd. Fair or unfair, there you have it. It's the obliviousness of people that absolutely torments me. Makes for some damn long unhappy days in NYC, but I do my best.... Jenny -----Original Message----- From: Jess Riddle <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, Nov 28, 2009 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [ENTS] Observing nature... Steve, Interesting question. I don't know enough relevant information to make come up with a good answer, but I'm not going to let that keep me from speculating. Eyeballs help make an entity cute. Humans have many body parts in common with other vertebrates, so its natural to anthropomorphize animals. Anthropomorphizing could lead to an emotional connection. Plants are more difficult to identify with, and hence less commonly cared about. For motile animals, natural selection favors individuals that that pay attention to movement in their environment. Hence, moving birds naturally become the focus of human attention, while no analogous process exists to draw our attention to an individual tree. I enjoy finding things: fossils, rare plants, and of course big trees. I don't know how universally people enjoy searching (although Waldo suggests I'm not alone), but birds seem like a convenient goal for those who like searching. Birds exhibit patterns of behaviour allowing the development of search strategies, and the birds present at a given site changes daily. Once found, the behaviour can become the focus of attention, which is not possible with plants (with a few notable exceptions like carnivorous plants). Bob, All those people frustrating you could have chosen to walk at a track, in a mall, or on a treadmill. However, they made the conscious decision to go to the arboretum. That decision suggests to me that on some level they do appreciate their surroundings. Jess On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote: > ENTS- > > Today my oldest son and I returned to the Cuyahoga Valley to investigate > some sites for potential reports. We didn't spend much time measuring, > rather just hiked to explore unfamiliar areas(did measure a white ash to > 132', and a sycamore to 13' 10'' cbh and 113'). The neatest thing we > observed was a snowy owl, perched in a tree in an area of larger trees. It's > very unusual for one to be in Ohio, but my trusty Peterson's guide says it > can happen---which brings me to the primary question of this post: Why are > more people, generally, interested in birding than observing and measuring > trees? I think we all can attest that on a trail we would more likely > encounter a birder with a $800-$1200 Zeiss binocular around the neck than a > tree measurer with a $200 Nikon rangefinder and $100 inclinometer. I'm in no > way anti-birding, but knowing the woods seems so much more basic--the types > of trees determine the species of birds and mammals present. The > avian-centric position seems to be expressed in the promotional literature > of park systems also, where rare or unusual species of birds present are > stressed, without mention of the forest community that attracted them. And > Jenny, this in no way is meant to disparage your rescue efforts in NYC. > > Steve > > -- > Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org > Send email to [email protected] > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en > To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
