Ed/Jen/Bob- In a show of neutrality, I should say that I just downloaded both 'Trees' and 'Birds' from Audubon Guide Series. Don
Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:57 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: > Jess, > > People like searching, as you say Waldo, word searches etc., I think > people really like to collect things. Many are not really > interested in birds as part of ecology except in how it might enable > them to collect more. Birds for many are an item on a list to be > checked off. I collect lots of things and I think it is a common > preoccupation, so it is not surprising that people collect birds. > For others this collection is the beginning or a doorway into > understanding and exploring nature more fully. Many kids collect > leaves from trees simply as part of a school assignment, but I am > willing to bet that many of you collected leaves as a child simply > because you wanted to collect them. You were interested in the > trees and this has led to your eventual participation in groups like > ENTS. Many people had an interest when younger and have lost it as > they grew older. If we want to see new generations of people > involved with nature, we need to find some way to encourage them to > retain their initial interest in nature as they grow into > adulthood. Maybe we should be producing checklists of tree species > and and shrub species for people to collect as Audubon and others > produce bird lists for people to check off. > > Ed > > Check out my new Blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ (and > click on some of the ads) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jess Riddle > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, November 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] -- 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]
