Date: 1/5/26 11:39 am From: Ken Hare via groups.io <kmhare46...> Subject: [ALbirds] Christmas Bird Count help
To all:
I’m trying to fill in birds we missed on the Montgomery Christmas Bird Count Day with Count Week birds. Does anyone know of a good place to find Screech Owls within the count circle area?
Date: 1/3/26 10:12 am From: <rmcdgd...> via groups.io <rmcdgd...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Wheeler Dam CBC report
We had a nice little flock of 19 Hooded Mergansers on Rex Lake Road in Leeds the last couple of days, on a small private lake right across from the intersection with Bailey Road. Slightly more females than males, with a single Ring-necked Duck accompanying them. A bonus was a Belted Kingfisher flying back and forth across the lake.
Robin McDonaldLeeds, AL
On Friday, January 2, 2026 at 08:39:12 PM CST, Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> wrote:
Unofficial results for the Wheeler Dam CBC has 113 species recorded by 13 people in 8 parties. Best birds were Alabama's first CBC record Neotropic Cormorant (continuing at Wheeler Dam), and Wheeler Dam CBC first records for Iceland (Thayer's) Gull, White-eyed Vireo and Black-and-White Warbler. Second count records included White-winged Scoter and Greater Yellowlegs. Four Northern Bobwhites were also a nice find. Missed this year were Wood Duck, American Black Duck (a usual miss), American Wigeon, Green-winged Teal, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, Wilson's Snipe, American Woodcock, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Pine Siskin, Purple Finch and Vesper Sparrow. Weather was cloudy early with light drizzle after noon and steady rain after 3:00.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
Date: 1/2/26 6:39 pm From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: [ALbirds] Wheeler Dam CBC report
Unofficial results for the Wheeler Dam CBC has 113 species recorded by 13 people in 8 parties. Best birds were Alabama's first CBC record Neotropic Cormorant (continuing at Wheeler Dam), and Wheeler Dam CBC first records for Iceland (Thayer's) Gull, White-eyed Vireo and Black-and-White Warbler. Second count records included White-winged Scoter and Greater Yellowlegs. Four Northern Bobwhites were also a nice find. Missed this year were Wood Duck, American Black Duck (a usual miss), American Wigeon, Green-winged Teal, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, Wilson's Snipe, American Woodcock, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Pine Siskin, Purple Finch and Vesper Sparrow. Weather was cloudy early with light drizzle after noon and steady rain after 3:00.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
Snow bunting is still at Gulf State Park Beach this afternoon. It was a few hundred yards east of the hotel feeding along the dune edge. It then eventually flew west over the hotel. It looked like it either landed on the top of the hotel or it went down to the parking lot side.
Snow bunting is still at Gulf State Park Beach this afternoon. It was a few hundred yards east of the hotel feeding along the dune edge. It then eventually flew west over the hotel. It looked like it either landed on the top of the hotel or it went down to the parking lot side.
Date: 1/1/26 6:10 am From: Duncan, Scot via groups.io <scotduncan99...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
Listservs for distributing near-real time information about birds are dead,
but they do have a valuable purpose. This isn’t just a phenomenon in
Alabama, but across the world. They have gone the way of phone trees and
RBA recordings. The advent of instant messaging has replaced them. Try
posting on a email listserv a back of camera shot to show others you
actually had a rare bird!
Donald has set up a Signal group and I posted the Pacific Loon I saw at
Guntersville yesterday, with a photo. Thank you, Donald! As I type this
others are exchanging messages.
There will need to be some guidelines established for the use of Signal so
that we are not being bombarded with texts and pictures about common
species or sightings, and we keep chatter focused on posting about rare
bird details and photos. I don’t want to know about how many cardinals are
at someone’s feeder, for example. Otherwise with hundreds of birders, our
phones will be blowing up with text notifications constantly. That would
be my advice or people will stop using the group chat. Other birding
groups in other states have done this successfully, we can borrow their
guidelines – no need to reinvent the wheel.
What instant messaging apps are NOT GOOD FOR are conversations about birds
and birding that require text-heavy messages and lots of conversational
back and forth, much like what has been going on with ALbirds over the past
36 hours or so. I argue we still need ALbirds to rally the troops on
conservation issues, have discussions about birding culture, etc.
Conversations on instant messaging like this one about the LEOW and
gatekeeping would cause people to drop out of the group chat in droves.
As difficult as this email discussion has been to witness and participate
in, some good may be emerging from it. Grace is right, gatekeeping is a
phenomenon that is very real in some birding communities. Whether and to
what degree that happened intentionally or unintentionally with the LEOW is
not known to me as I was not involved. Let's move on and build a better
birding community, learning from the past.
Happy new year everyone. My first bird of the year was a robin. As always
here in Bham!
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 11:25 PM Shirley Farrell via groups.io <shirfarr=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> We will do an article for the AOS newsletter, *The Yellowhammer*, and
> post on social media to promote the use of this listserve.
> I can promote at AOS meetings and provide a QR code to sign up. While I
> may be preaching to the choir, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded and share
> with other birders.
> I know this doesn’t reach everyone but we need to start somewhere.
>
> Shirley Farrell
> Tyler, AL
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2025, at 8:26 PM, Beth D via groups.io <bthdbsk=
> <yahoo.com...> wrote:
>
> They’re
>
>
>
> My dogs are Milly & Bailey & Bella
>
> On Dec 31, 2025, at 20:09, Melinda W via groups.io <Modoodle1989=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
> I consider myself tech savvy but listserves have always been difficult to
> negotiate for me. I’m not even sure if I’m replying to the group now?
> Apparently similar apps are used all over the country as ways to connect. I
> think it’s fair to give it a try and see if it’s more user friendly and
> then people might use it more. If not, it appears to be very easy to leave
> the group and delete the app.
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2025, at 7:59 PM, Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl=
> <aol.com...> wrote:
>
> That just means folks will have another media option that they don't post
> findings on. If they don’t post on the listserve, why would they post on a
> different app.
>
> I do not want anyone to think I disrespected anyone. I just wonder why no
> one posts bird sightings on the listserve anymore. Folks just put their
> lists in eBird and their done.
>
> Damien Simbeck
> Killen AL
>
> Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 5:35 PM, Donald Dehm via groups.io
> <donalddehm...> wrote:
> If/when you have the app and you want to join the group select the link
> here:
>
>
> https://signal.group/#CjQKIOpmuDz2GLdbYu8ghH6xOMm56hhzEecjkNNQI4wTnxFqEhAoxqofkKKH76d_4awlY6K_ >
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 17:30 Donald Dehm via groups.io <donalddehm=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
> The “Signal” App allows up to 1000 members in a group.
>
> I have created a group called “Alabama Birding Group”.
>
> You can download the App in your phone platform store. You can also use it
> on your desktop.
>
> No hate keeping, no disrespect towards others, always put the bird’s well
> being first.
>
> Donald
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 16:41 Grace via groups.io <larwood=
> <aol.com...> wrote:
>
> The gate keeping isn’t eBird.
>
> It’s the fact that when I arrived to see the owl - there were a lot of
> people that already knew about it.
>
> The info could have been shared safely on an app with instructions rather
> than just the same people who always seem to know …
>
> I’m done. Remove me from the list.
>
> Grace
>
> On Dec 31, 2025, at 4:37 PM, Mason Currier via groups.io <masonacurrier=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
>
> That being said, ebird’s never gonna change the status of the Birmingham
> sightings. If someone reports a Long-eared anywhere in the US on ebird,
> that report will always be sensitive.
>
> No one is gate keeping. It’s just how the website we all have chosen to
> use for birding works.
>
> Mason C
>
>
>
>
Date: 12/31/25 5:59 pm From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
That just means folks will have another media option that they don't post findings on. If they don’t post on the listserve, why would they post on a different app.
I do not want anyone to think I disrespected anyone. I just wonder why no one posts bird sightings on the listserve anymore. Folks just put their lists in eBird and their done.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 17:30 Donald Dehm via groups.io <donalddehm...> wrote:
The “Signal” App allows up to 1000 members in a group.
I have created a group called “Alabama Birding Group”.
You can download the App in your phone platform store. You can also use it on your desktop.
No hate keeping, no disrespect towards others, always put the bird’s well being first.
Donald
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 16:41 Grace via groups.io <larwood...> wrote:
The gate keeping isn’t eBird.
It’s the fact that when I arrived to see the owl - there were a lot of people that already knew about it.
The info could have been shared safely on an app with instructions rather than just the same people who always seem to know …
I’m done. Remove me from the list.
Grace
On Dec 31, 2025, at 4:37 PM, Mason Currier via groups.io <masonacurrier...> wrote:
That being said, ebird’s never gonna change the status of the Birmingham sightings. If someone reports a Long-eared anywhere in the US on ebird, that report will always be sensitive. No one is gate keeping. It’s just how the website we all have chosen to use for birding works.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 17:30 Donald Dehm via groups.io <donalddehm=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> The “Signal” App allows up to 1000 members in a group.
>
> I have created a group called “Alabama Birding Group”.
>
> You can download the App in your phone platform store. You can also use it
> on your desktop.
>
> No hate keeping, no disrespect towards others, always put the bird’s well
> being first.
>
> Donald
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 16:41 Grace via groups.io <larwood=
> <aol.com...> wrote:
>
>> The gate keeping isn’t eBird.
>>
>> It’s the fact that when I arrived to see the owl - there were a lot of
>> people that already knew about it.
>>
>> The info could have been shared safely on an app with instructions rather
>> than just the same people who always seem to know …
>>
>> I’m done. Remove me from the list.
>>
>> Grace
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2025, at 4:37 PM, Mason Currier via groups.io <masonacurrier=
>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That being said, ebird’s never gonna change the status of the Birmingham
>> sightings. If someone reports a Long-eared anywhere in the US on ebird,
>> that report will always be sensitive.
>>
>> No one is gate keeping. It’s just how the website we all have chosen to
>> use for birding works.
>>
>> Mason C
>>
>>
>
>
Date: 12/31/25 3:30 pm From: Donald Dehm via groups.io <donalddehm...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
The “Signal” App allows up to 1000 members in a group.
I have created a group called “Alabama Birding Group”.
You can download the App in your phone platform store. You can also use it
on your desktop.
No hate keeping, no disrespect towards others, always put the bird’s well
being first.
Donald
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 16:41 Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
wrote:
> The gate keeping isn’t eBird.
>
> It’s the fact that when I arrived to see the owl - there were a lot of
> people that already knew about it.
>
> The info could have been shared safely on an app with instructions rather
> than just the same people who always seem to know …
>
> I’m done. Remove me from the list.
>
> Grace
>
> On Dec 31, 2025, at 4:37 PM, Mason Currier via groups.io <masonacurrier=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
>
> That being said, ebird’s never gonna change the status of the Birmingham
> sightings. If someone reports a Long-eared anywhere in the US on ebird,
> that report will always be sensitive.
>
> No one is gate keeping. It’s just how the website we all have chosen to
> use for birding works.
>
> Mason C
>
>
>
>
That being said, ebird’s never gonna change the status of the Birmingham sightings. If someone reports a Long-eared anywhere in the US on ebird, that report will always be sensitive.
No one is gate keeping. It’s just how the website we all have chosen to use for birding works.
Date: 12/31/25 2:11 pm From: Lawrence Gardella via groups.io <lfgardella...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
I agree with everything that Mason said. As much as I would have loved to
see the owl, I have no problem with the site being kept hidden for some
period of time.
In this instance, it is quite clear that the Long-eared Owl is gone. It is
exceedingly unlikely that one will ever show up again at Railroad Park.
There is no need for this record to still be hidden as sensitive.
Larry Gardella
Daphne
On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 3:59 PM Mason Currier via groups.io <masonacurrier=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> For everyone’s info-here’s info and guidance from ebird for species
> they’ve labeled “sensitive” like Long-eared Owls.
>
> “How should eBirders report sensitive species? Report the observation in
> eBird where the record will be protected from exploitation and still help
> inform research and conservation for the species.
> However, we ask eBirders observing any of the species on our Sensitive
> Species List to use discretion in sharing sightings via other public
> platforms (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp, webpages, listservs, etc.). Revealing
> site-level records exposes the birds to risk from professional bird
> trappers, hunters, and/or pressure by birdwatchers and photographers and
> could cause significant harm to the conservation of these species. We
> recommend that you enjoy your good fortune privately and keep the specific
> location secret from others outside of eBird to help protect the species.”
>
>
> This is just how ebird works, and it’s basic birder etiquette. Most times
> people find species like this, no one finds out. And even if you do report
> it (as said by others) no one else can see any checklists or locations
> related to it. It’s for the good of these species. That’s also why the
> facebook post was taken down. Not to gatekeep, but by the page's moderators
> so that it wouldn’t be overcrowded and scared away. Unfortunately this just
> happened anyway.
>
> These species aren’t the case in general. If people are so concerned about
> getting ASAP news about rare birds, you can also just set up getting hourly
> rare bird alerts or needs alerts on ebird.
>
> Happy New Year Everyone,
> Mason Currier
>
>
>
For everyone’s info-here’s info and guidance from ebird for species they’ve labeled “sensitive” like Long-eared Owls.
“How should eBirders report sensitive species? Report the observation in eBird where the record will be protected from exploitation and still help inform research and conservation for the species.
However, we ask eBirders observing any of the species on our Sensitive Species List to use discretion in sharing sightings via other public platforms (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp, webpages, listservs, etc.). Revealing site-level records exposes the birds to risk from professional bird trappers, hunters, and/or pressure by birdwatchers and photographers and could cause significant harm to the conservation of these species. We recommend that you enjoy your good fortune privately and keep the specific location secret from others outside of eBird to help protect the species.”
This is just how ebird works, and it’s basic birder etiquette. Most times people find species like this, no one finds out. And even if you do report it (as said by others) no one else can see any checklists or locations related to it. It’s for the good of these species. That’s also why the facebook post was taken down. Not to gatekeep, but by the page's moderators so that it wouldn’t be overcrowded and scared away. Unfortunately this just happened anyway.
These species aren’t the case in general. If people are so concerned about getting ASAP news about rare birds, you can also just set up getting hourly rare bird alerts or needs alerts on ebird.
Date: 12/31/25 11:25 am From: coot54p via groups.io <cooterp14...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] No censorship of sightings on ALbirds
This kerfuffle might be an impetuous for Alabama Audubon, AOS , Alabama Birding Trails, and whatever other birding notification entities that exist to have a general discussion about the appropriate manner in which to deal with rare bird sightings. Policies are bureaucratic, yet in theory they promote good behavior by individuals, help individuals from jumping to false conclusions and ideally look out for the well being of the birds, none of those being bad objectives.
Date: 12/31/25 5:16 am From: Geoffrey Hill via groups.io <hillgee...> Subject: [ALbirds] No censorship of sightings on ALbirds
Hi Everyone,
Im the administrator of the ALbirds site. I got this job because we lost our old Yahoo site while I was AOS president and something had to be done. Apparently, once you take on a job like this, it is a job for life.
There is no censorship of sightings on ALbirds. If anyone had posted the coordinates of the owl, the message would have gone out. No one did, so there was not notification. I wish I had known about it.
ALbirds is set up so that the first time you post to the group, I must approve the post. This keeps us from being spammed or abused in other ways by outside elements. It also means that if you have never posted then there can be a delay in the release of your message. I only get a few requests to authorize posts per year now (most users are already approved), so I almost never go in to check for pending messages. The notices that I have pending messages have a tendency to go to my junk box, so some posts have been delayed by a week or more. If you are an active birder in the state and have never posted, I encourage you to post somethingjust write activation note. Ill approve it, and the next time you post it will go straight to the group.
The one rule that Ive imposed is that you must identify yourself. No anonymous posts. And dont assume we know who you are by your email <Ilovebirds...> or by the contextfollowing up on what Andrew and I reported last week"
Your devoted listserv administrator. Geoff Hill, Auburn
Date: 12/31/25 5:02 am From: Lawrence Gardella via groups.io <lfgardella...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
Apol9gy and clarification. I accidentally emailed the whole group,
forgetting default works that way, or I would have included my name.
Andrew Lydeard was one person who saw the bird. He did not harass it. I
do not know who approached too close but presume someone did. Not Andrew.
Larry Gardella
Daphne
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 7:37 PM Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park,
> B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in
> Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>
> Bob Reed
> COL US Army, Retired
>
> 334-283-5886 Home
> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>
>
Date: 12/31/25 3:29 am From: Lawrence Gardella via groups.io <lfgardella...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
It was a one-day wonder that people chose to keep quiet to try to protect
the owl from being harassed. That did not work. Andrew Lydeard posted
about it.
eBird treats Long-eared Owl records hidden to protect the Owls. So, it
won't show up there.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 7:37 PM Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park,
> B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in
> Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>
> Bob Reed
> COL US Army, Retired
>
> 334-283-5886 Home
> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>
>
Date: 12/30/25 7:24 pm From: Jim Holmes via groups.io <jfholmes...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
In California, we have a bunch of messaging apps that are used to spread bird information. I am aware of at least 10 in California. They are primarily WhatsApp, Telegram, and GroupMe.
These apps provide real time information and not dependent on when the eBird report is ultimately submitted by the observer (sometimes I might submit am eBird report days after I birded) or when someone decides to check their email.
Personally of the three, I prefer WhatsApp.
I am aware of one group using an app for rare birds in a local area of Alabama.
Thanks,
Jim
James F. Holmes, MD, MPH
Professor and Bo Tomas Brofeldt Endowed Chair
Department of Emergency Medicine
UC Davis School of Medicine
Office (916) 734-1533
________________________________
From: <ALbirds...> <ALbirds...> on behalf of Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2025 6:17 PM
To: <ALbirds...> <ALbirds...>
Cc: <ALbirds...> <ALbirds...>
Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
I’d prefer a WhatsApp or Telegram group to an email listserv.
I’d be happy to set it up, etc.
Has this been tried for Alabama in the past? I’m a member of several for other states.
I only saw the owl post on FB for a split second before it was removed.
If I hadn’t seen the FB post - I would never have known. It feels very much like information is being gatekept.
Grace
On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> wrote:
So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!
That really sucks.
My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
Bob Reed
COL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home
334-207-0985 Mobile
**CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE** This e-mail communication and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is confidential and privileged under state and federal privacy laws. If you received this e-mail in error, be aware that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy/delete all copies of this message.
I should have also clarified another piece of misinformation being
propagated: Alabama Audubon does not post information about individual bird
sightings. Our posts are about Alabama Audubon events, educational
information about birds and birding, and conservation issues relevant to
Alabama and the surrounding region.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:47 PM Duncan, Scot via groups.io <scotduncan99=
<gmail.com...> wrote:
> This is Scot Duncan, I’m the Executive Director of Alabama Audubon. I am
> also disappointed that I didn't get to see the LEOW at Railroad Park last
> week. However, I want to assure everyone that Alabama Audubon does not
> control postings on eBird. We contribute to eBird frequently, both as an
> organization and the staff as individual birders, but we do not control
> what is shared on eBird. Those filters are set by the staff of eBird,
> probably with input from the eBird reviewers, but not us. Below is a link
> to an article on the eBird website about the filter for sensitive species
> and why eBird does it. The large crowd that showed up to see the LEOW at
> Railroad Park and the close quarters that were necessary to see the bird,
> are exactly why the eBird staff do not allow postings of some species to be
> public.
> https://support.ebird.org/en/support/solutions/articles/48000803210-sensitive-species-in-ebird >
> I want to also address the misinformation posted that Alabama Audubon
> controls what is posted on ALbirds. We are only in control of our own
> accounts on FaceBook and Instagram.
>
> Scot
> R. Scot Duncan, Ph.D.
> Conservation biologist, author, advocate, and birder.
> https://www.rsduncan.com/ > Author of *Southern Wonder <https://www.rsduncan.com/swonder>* and *Southern
> Rivers <https://www.rsduncan.com/srivers>* > Executive Director, Alabama Audubon <https://alaudubon.org/> > For Alabama Audubon matters, please use <Scot...>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:26 PM Grace via groups.io <larwood=
> <aol.com...> wrote:
>
>> I’m in a lot of listservs too. Very few report anything about birds. Very
>> little activity.
>>
>> There are security risks in everything.
>>
>> I want instant information about birds.
>>
>> Grace
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:23 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have learned of serious security issues with WhatsApp. I removed it
>> from my phone.
>> I think ALBirds is fine. The issue, as I see it, is one group
>> policing where they have no mandate to do so. I assume they would try the
>> same tactic with any other platform as well.
>>
>> Bob Reed
>> COL US Army, Retired
>>
>> 334-283-5886 Home
>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 20:18 Grace via groups.io <larwood=
>> <aol.com...> wrote:
>>
>>> I’d prefer a WhatsApp or Telegram group to an email listserv.
>>>
>>> I’d be happy to set it up, etc.
>>>
>>> Has this been tried for Alabama in the past? I’m a member of several
>>> for other states.
>>>
>>> I only saw the owl post on FB for a split second before it was removed.
>>>
>>> If I hadn’t seen the FB post - I would never have known. It feels very
>>> much like information is being gatekept.
>>>
>>> Grace
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook
>>> but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!
>>> That really sucks.
>>>
>>> Bob Reed
>>> COL US Army, Retired
>>>
>>> 334-283-5886 Home
>>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood=
>>> <aol.com...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due
>>>> to it being sensitive.
>>>>
>>>> Grace
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>>>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad
>>>> Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl
>>>> in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>>>>
>>>> Bob Reed
>>>> COL US Army, Retired
>>>>
>>>> 334-283-5886 Home
>>>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
This is Scot Duncan, I’m the Executive Director of Alabama Audubon. I am
also disappointed that I didn't get to see the LEOW at Railroad Park last
week. However, I want to assure everyone that Alabama Audubon does not
control postings on eBird. We contribute to eBird frequently, both as an
organization and the staff as individual birders, but we do not control
what is shared on eBird. Those filters are set by the staff of eBird,
probably with input from the eBird reviewers, but not us. Below is a link
to an article on the eBird website about the filter for sensitive species
and why eBird does it. The large crowd that showed up to see the LEOW at
Railroad Park and the close quarters that were necessary to see the bird,
are exactly why the eBird staff do not allow postings of some species to be
public.
https://support.ebird.org/en/support/solutions/articles/48000803210-sensitive-species-in-ebird
I want to also address the misinformation posted that Alabama Audubon
controls what is posted on ALbirds. We are only in control of our own
accounts on FaceBook and Instagram.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:26 PM Grace via groups.io <larwood=
<aol.com...> wrote:
> I’m in a lot of listservs too. Very few report anything about birds. Very
> little activity.
>
> There are security risks in everything.
>
> I want instant information about birds.
>
> Grace
>
> On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:23 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
>
> I have learned of serious security issues with WhatsApp. I removed it from
> my phone.
> I think ALBirds is fine. The issue, as I see it, is one group policing
> where they have no mandate to do so. I assume they would try the same
> tactic with any other platform as well.
>
> Bob Reed
> COL US Army, Retired
>
> 334-283-5886 Home
> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 20:18 Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
> wrote:
>
>> I’d prefer a WhatsApp or Telegram group to an email listserv.
>>
>> I’d be happy to set it up, etc.
>>
>> Has this been tried for Alabama in the past? I’m a member of several for
>> other states.
>>
>> I only saw the owl post on FB for a split second before it was removed.
>>
>> If I hadn’t seen the FB post - I would never have known. It feels very
>> much like information is being gatekept.
>>
>> Grace
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook
>> but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!
>> That really sucks.
>>
>> Bob Reed
>> COL US Army, Retired
>>
>> 334-283-5886 Home
>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood=
>> <aol.com...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due
>>> to it being sensitive.
>>>
>>> Grace
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad
>>> Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl
>>> in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>>>
>>> Bob Reed
>>> COL US Army, Retired
>>>
>>> 334-283-5886 Home
>>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>>
>>>
>
>
Date: 12/30/25 6:30 pm From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
And it shouldn't based on eBird rules. If we want others to know about good birds, we cannot expect notifications from eBird. Cornell controls the parameters of those notifications. eBird IS their project and they SHOULD set the rules for it.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:24 PM, Grace via groups.io<larwood...> wrote: Do you see the owl in my eBird report for that day?
| |
|
| eBird Checklist - 21 Dec 2025 - Railroad Park - 5 speciesebird.org |
|
On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:21 PM, Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> wrote:
I don’t know if it HAS BEEN suppressed on Alabama Audubon or ALbirds. It may have never been reported on those media because everyone assumes eBird sends notifications and all birders get eBird notifications. How many great state birds have been seen in recent years that have never been reported on these media. A don't follow Alabama Audubon, but I still haven't seen an ALbirds report for the Caracara seen recently near Foley or many other rarities I have seen on eBird (yes, I do get those reports, but I am a STRONG proponent for ALbirds messages). Not every birder in Alabama (or other states) participates in eBird.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io<bobreed1987...> wrote: So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!That really sucks.
Bob ReedCOL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home334-207-0985 Mobile
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood...> wrote:
Hi,
I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due to it being sensitive.
Grace
On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> wrote:
My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
Bob ReedCOL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home334-207-0985 Mobile
Date: 12/30/25 6:23 pm From: Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
I have learned of serious security issues with WhatsApp. I removed it from
my phone.
I think ALBirds is fine. The issue, as I see it, is one group policing
where they have no mandate to do so. I assume they would try the same
tactic with any other platform as well.
Bob Reed
COL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home
334-207-0985 Mobile
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 20:18 Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
wrote:
> I’d prefer a WhatsApp or Telegram group to an email listserv.
>
> I’d be happy to set it up, etc.
>
> Has this been tried for Alabama in the past? I’m a member of several for
> other states.
>
> I only saw the owl post on FB for a split second before it was removed.
>
> If I hadn’t seen the FB post - I would never have known. It feels very
> much like information is being gatekept.
>
> Grace
>
> On Dec 30, 2025, at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
>
> So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook
> but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!
> That really sucks.
>
> Bob Reed
> COL US Army, Retired
>
> 334-283-5886 Home
> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due to
>> it being sensitive.
>>
>> Grace
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
>> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park,
>> B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in
>> Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>>
>> Bob Reed
>> COL US Army, Retired
>>
>> 334-283-5886 Home
>> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>>
>>
>
Date: 12/30/25 6:21 pm From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
I don’t know if it HAS BEEN suppressed on Alabama Audubon or ALbirds. It may have never been reported on those media because everyone assumes eBird sends notifications and all birders get eBird notifications. How many great state birds have been seen in recent years that have never been reported on these media. A don't follow Alabama Audubon, but I still haven't seen an ALbirds report for the Caracara seen recently near Foley or many other rarities I have seen on eBird (yes, I do get those reports, but I am a STRONG proponent for ALbirds messages). Not every birder in Alabama (or other states) participates in eBird.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 8:08 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io<bobreed1987...> wrote: So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!That really sucks.
Bob ReedCOL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home334-207-0985 Mobile
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood...> wrote:
Hi,
I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due to it being sensitive.
Grace
On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> wrote:
My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
Bob ReedCOL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home334-207-0985 Mobile
Date: 12/30/25 6:08 pm From: Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
So Alabama Audubon is controlling ALBirds now! The report is on Facebook
but suppressed by Alabama Audubon on eBird and ALBirds!
That really sucks.
Bob Reed
COL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home
334-207-0985 Mobile
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 19:50 Grace via groups.io <larwood...>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due to
> it being sensitive.
>
> Grace
>
> On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987=
> <gmail.com...> wrote:
>
>
> My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park,
> B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in
> Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
>
> Bob Reed
> COL US Army, Retired
>
> 334-283-5886 Home
> 334-207-0985 Mobile
>
>
>
Date: 12/30/25 6:06 pm From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
And that is why we should all share good birds on this listserve and not dependupon eBird to be our method of communication. eBird, because of its design, is not the way good birds can be shared with others. Yes, birds like Le Owl should be protected from harassment by birders (sad that I should have to consider the thought that birders would harass such a nice bird, but I do know the type). Birders should, however, tell other birders about such a find and birders should try to view the bird without disturbance.
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 7:50 PM, Grace via groups.io<larwood...> wrote: Hi,
I saw the owl last week at the park. My eBird report is suppressed due to it being sensitive.
Grace
On Dec 30, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> wrote:
My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
Bob ReedCOL US Army, Retired
334-283-5886 Home334-207-0985 Mobile
Date: 12/30/25 5:37 pm From: Bob Reed via groups.io <bobreed1987...> Subject: [ALbirds] Long-eared Owl
My daughter sent a Facebook page about a Long-eared Owl in Railroad Park, B'ham. I see nothing on eBird. Does anyone know anything about an owl in Railroad Park? Is it an old report?
Date: 12/23/25 1:26 pm From: Geoffrey Hill via groups.io <hillgee...> Subject: [ALbirds] Report on the Eufaula CBC
Hello Alabama birders,
For the 2025 Eufaula CBC, Eric Soehren and I covered the Alabama side of the count circle. We met at 530am and drove into the Kennedy Unit, stopping to play Eastern Screech-Owl and Barred Owl calls along the way. We couldnt get either species to answer our playbacks but we did hear a Great Horned Owl in the distance. We did much better with rails, getting Sora, Virginia Rail, King Rail, and Common Gallinule to call before daybreak. As dawn broke, we were disappointed to see no ducks in the impoundments formed by the dykes of the Kennedy Unit. With some effort we located two Hooded Mergansersthats it. There was one flock of scaup out in Lake Eufaula and a few Canvasbacks flew past, but the lack of ducks in the marshes created by the Kennedy Unit dykes was a harbinger of the near total lack of ducks on the refugeKennedy Unit, Houston and Uplands Units, or anywhere else. Eufaula NWR was established in the 1964 largely to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and in its heyday in the 1980s it hosted tens of thousands of ducks and geese and hundreds of Sandhill Cranes. It is now virtually duckless. Eric and I did not record a Canada Goose until we traveled outside the refuge and found a small flock on a private pond that we are granted permission to visitthe duck situation at Eufaula is that bad. It is a duck refuge with no ducks.
Waterfowl aside, we had a nice day tallying songbirds and marsh birds. Fifteen minutes after sunrise, as we were sorting through songbirds, I played a Barred Owl tape, and a Barred Owl flew in and sat 30 feet from us. It stayed for the next 30 minutes as we looked at songbirds. For the first time in the history of the Eufaula count, we had a Glossy Ibis. We also had White Ibis and White Pelican. We found some of the scarce songbirds we always look for: Black-and-white Warbler, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, and Gray Catbird. Overall, though, the cool breezy weather seemed to dampened bird activity. Some typically easy-to-find species were harder than usual. We didnt record a Downy Woodpecker until after noon, and by that time we were actively looking for them.
All-in-all it was a fun day out but with lower numbers of total birds and fewer species than weve recorded on recent Eufuala Counts.
Happy Holidays to everyone. Geoff Hill, Auburn
Date: 12/13/25 7:40 am From: Damien J. Simbeck via groups.io <tnbarredowl...> Subject: [ALbirds] Witnessing a biological/meteorological event
I made a quick trip to Wheeler Dam this morning to see what is present before our arctic blast. Each year an interesting natural phenomenon occurs and today was one of those days. When I arrived at the dam it looked like a ghost town. I actually counted cormorants-96. Gulls were also absent (5 Bonaparte's, 16 Ring-billed and 4 Herring).
Each year when cold weather moves in, water temperatures drop. When they fall below 42F, threadfin shad have difficulty acclimating and 50-75% of the population dies (a female lays 1-2 million eggs each spring, so there are LOTS of shad in our reservoirsthis time of year). Gulls, Cormorants and Pelicans have feasts. Since this occurs in the reservoirs, these birds leave their fishing spots at the dam to enjoy the smorgasbord.
Before I left the dam, numerous Cormorants returned. My final count ended at 458, still far below the 4000-5000 that have been present. Also returning was the Neotropic Cormorant, not present when I first arrived.
Damien SimbeckKillen AL
Damien Simbeck
Killen AL
Sent from my (non-Apple) phone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!!
Date: 12/11/25 5:27 am From: Doris Gertler via groups.io <dee.gertler...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
The links make it so easy to submit a comment and take a stand. Thank you
for drawing attention to this urgent matter!
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 11:37 AM Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson=
<bellsouth.net...> wrote:
> AL Birders:
>
>
>
> The holiday season began with what may be the darkest week in history for
> U.S. environmental protection with significant pertinence to bird
> populations. Within a few days span, major changes were officially proposed
> to massively expand offshore oil and gas leasing, limit the Endangered
> Species Act, and weaken the Clean Water Act. I’m asking that everyone
> consider submitting brief opinions to the appropriate agencies during the
> limited window for comment. Even though in reality the changes may be
> implemented regardless of public opinion and scientific knowledge, it is
> useful in the inevitable legal (and possible later legislative) actions to
> know public sentiment.
>
>
>
> After each section I offer a link that allows an easy method to register
> an official comment on that topic with the appropriate agency. These are
> through the Earthjustice site, so be aware that group pulls no punches in
> its opinions. (A little of the factual verbiage below is borrowed from that
> site or those of other conservation groups.) I’m suggesting this route not
> to incite a political debate, but due to the simplicity of posting your
> opinions with the agencies through this portal – I used it myself for each
> and it was very simple. You can also try to search for the official portals
> of the agencies and find a way to comment directly. I changed the text of
> my submission, replacing much of the suggested verbiage to make a few
> simple statements. Whatever route you take please exercise your rights to
> express opinions to the agencies on these important matters.
>
>
>
>
>
> *ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:*
>
>
>
> The ESA (1973) has been one of the most important and effective tools we
> have had to pull endangered and threatened species from the brink. This
> landmark law has so far helped to preserve 99% of listed species, an
> amazing rate considering how low some of these populations had slipped. It
> was designed to use scientific data to assess species for listing, make
> plans for recovery, and implement these until the populations were no
> longer in significant danger.
>
>
>
> The multifaceted new proposals would for the first time introduce
> “economic considerations” into the assessments. Since economic factors are
> often the driving force behind the population decreases in the first place,
> allowing these to weigh heavily on the decision could allow the science to
> be ignored for the sake of profit. Projected loss of revenue of a project
> could sway a decision not to protect a species. This violates the spirit of
> the act and the letter of the law.
>
>
>
> The proposals would also include depriving newly listed threatened animal
> and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing,
> trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” Species now proposed for
> listing could be left unprotected even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service finalizes the listings.
>
>
>
> An additional portion of the new proposals would narrow the definition of
> “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat.
> Historic habitat is often vital for recovery of imperiled species.
>
>
>
> It would also loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it
> easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that
> put a protected species in harm's way. Another change would be to alter the
> criteria for designating critical habitat to make it easier to exclude
> areas from protections by giving more weight to industry claims of economic
> impact.
>
>
>
> Link to make comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
>
>
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/the-law-that-saves-species-needs-saving?ms=email&sourceid=1048457&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_ESA_FWS&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton2&contactdata=DdCtKfWiDAe8QGsJX2n%2f3ADa+EHElV5Mx2%2fhdBLqvainHOEzVrBEIpyF9%2fjd8jfvo7Zt3uLYFMST%2fDxhjT8%2fhtuewCT6uOqZie696c81S+iVKtvHQHQSHS4WetLqgGtsh5sgdZqZEpwyVYqEWuMF+vq3BHhIgGO%2fmOAYUQjbg0Ueh04kKFrPgoXg1Wq22B9V84NhdxHlHWdCcIXnf%2fQiaUACXYN286pvaJv5hApLBtI%3d&emci=42dcfd5e-abcf-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=d9dee2b4-1ed1-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
>
>
>
> *CLEAN WATER ACT*
>
>
>
> The Clean Water Act (1972) has been a bulwark for protecting American
> health as well as aquatic ecologies for over five decades. There has been
> some fluctuation over the years as to what constitutes waters covered under
> the act; these are officially considered the “waters of the United States”
> (WOTUS). In 2023 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that
> definition. The proposal by the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army
> (and included Corps of Engineers) would not only incorporate that
> definition but restrict it further.
>
>
>
> What’s at stake is federal protection for an enormous number of small
> wetlands throughout the country (estimated at about 80% of our wetlands).
> This includes temporary (“ephemeral”) wetlands which are very common but,
> of course, have a significant relationship with larger downstream waterways
> as well as groundwater. A recent study in the journal *Science*
> (Brinkerhoff et al. 2024) showed that ephemeral streams were the source of
> 55% of the water in regional river systems (a significant drinking water
> source). Pollution and development of these smaller wetlands and waterways
> will not only affect local ecology but ultimately alter downstream waters.
>
>
>
> Link to make comments to the Environmental Protection Agency:
>
>
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/brief/2025/trumps-epa-just-tried-to-gut-the-protections-that-keep-our-drinking-water-clean?ms=email&sourceid=1048523&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2512_Cultiv_WOTUSBrief&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9nIS7s%2fuY2fAyvAq+Gjbax9EZy2NVz0rpGfqdCgrJ9Xv2zd+NZbIa7kWdC9rqCLSTt2qO4pEGYbk+qSttbGpVRDTX3lnfjjQ+VpUDyZKBBmM65r+6O40ojEFnyvyliqk5wvZYGxdF9mogyAC87e541iFcZUz7cD7JkqTnCzHVvmg4zLVLxT3fe9ahAP+C%2fFb1mryu3yXAEhv4TKetH+CtDu40ISPm95kiFCwpMhkHOQ%3d&emci=b710a77d-1dd2-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=7b680d2a-72d4-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
>
>
>
> *EXPANSION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING*
>
>
>
> The third leg of this cluster of proposals involves opening nearly 1.3
> billion (yes, with a “b”) acres of U.S. public waters to new oil and gas
> drilling. This involves the offshore areas of California, Alaska, and the
> eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite adamant objections by many state and local
> governments. While drilling off Alaska and California are relatively
> unlikely in the near future even with this change, it is more likely to
> result in new oil drilling in the Gulf. Anyone who has been in this area
> for a while will have no problem recalling the horrors of Deepwater Horizon
> and its effects on the people and environment of the northern Gulf.
>
>
>
> Supposedly these new leases are because of an “energy emergency,” despite
> the fact that the U.S. is already producing not only more oil than ever,
> but more than any nation in history. While we still import some crude oil,
> we have a significant net export surplus of petroleum. There is no
> emergency basis for these leases, but the risk from drilling in these areas
> is substantial.
>
>
>
> Link to make comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
>
>
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/stop-trumps-plan-to-expand-oil-drilling-in-our-oceans?ms=email&sourceid=1048390&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_OffshorePlan_DOI&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9M5bS9XnD1In1RPTZSb+7Z5tqStb2fDBm5ij6z1zmpB5QRHt2dnnlcFYzuosAPaxQSmRpAVPo5Ri183SV4iLgyIH13MTk8yoSgM+oGFsZo%2fHR1XI5CSlnbe7EJ4gk6HgGR%2fZOTKk9u97IcOt5aTKyK+CxRtIlE1HXV9nc+jJFAUOOFjmOwxiSyOJstfS71YHdcVNHof1IARZQzRLQYeJSsId7uN+0ipi+CFgKSl4B8U%3d&emci=198797bc-a4d0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=4892f168-add0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for your help with these major threats to birds and their
> environment. Please share this with whomever you feel may be interested, as
> the clock is ticking on the public comment period. We need as many comments
> registered as possible on these issues.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg D. Jackson
>
> Birmingham, AL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: 12/10/25 6:37 pm From: Lew Scharpf via groups.io <lewscharpf...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 4:58 PM Grace via groups.io <larwood=
<aol.com...> wrote:
> Thank you so this information. It’s a horrifying time for wildlife and
> the environment.
>
> Grace Simms
>
> On Dec 10, 2025, at 11:36 AM, Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson=
> <bellsouth.net...> wrote:
>
> AL Birders:
>
> The holiday season began with what may be the darkest week in history for
> U.S. environmental protection with significant pertinence to bird
> populations. Within a few days span, major changes were officially proposed
> to massively expand offshore oil and gas leasing, limit the Endangered
> Species Act, and weaken the Clean Water Act. I’m asking that everyone
> consider submitting brief opinions to the appropriate agencies during the
> limited window for comment. Even though in reality the changes may be
> implemented regardless of public opinion and scientific knowledge, it is
> useful in the inevitable legal (and possible later legislative) actions to
> know public sentiment.
>
> After each section I offer a link that allows an easy method to register
> an official comment on that topic with the appropriate agency. These are
> through the Earthjustice site, so be aware that group pulls no punches in
> its opinions. (A little of the factual verbiage below is borrowed from that
> site or those of other conservation groups.) I’m suggesting this route not
> to incite a political debate, but due to the simplicity of posting your
> opinions with the agencies through this portal – I used it myself for each
> and it was very simple. You can also try to search for the official portals
> of the agencies and find a way to comment directly. I changed the text of
> my submission, replacing much of the suggested verbiage to make a few
> simple statements. Whatever route you take please exercise your rights to
> express opinions to the agencies on these important matters.
>
>
> *ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:*
>
> The ESA (1973) has been one of the most important and effective tools we
> have had to pull endangered and threatened species from the brink. This
> landmark law has so far helped to preserve 99% of listed species, an
> amazing rate considering how low some of these populations had slipped. It
> was designed to use scientific data to assess species for listing, make
> plans for recovery, and implement these until the populations were no
> longer in significant danger.
>
> The multifaceted new proposals would for the first time introduce
> “economic considerations” into the assessments. Since economic factors are
> often the driving force behind the population decreases in the first place,
> allowing these to weigh heavily on the decision could allow the science to
> be ignored for the sake of profit. Projected loss of revenue of a project
> could sway a decision not to protect a species. This violates the spirit of
> the act and the letter of the law.
>
> The proposals would also include depriving newly listed threatened animal
> and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing,
> trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” Species now proposed for
> listing could be left unprotected even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service finalizes the listings.
>
> An additional portion of the new proposals would narrow the definition of
> “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat.
> Historic habitat is often vital for recovery of imperiled species.
>
> It would also loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it
> easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that
> put a protected species in harm's way. Another change would be to alter the
> criteria for designating critical habitat to make it easier to exclude
> areas from protections by giving more weight to industry claims of economic
> impact.
>
> Link to make comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/the-law-that-saves-species-needs-saving?ms=email&sourceid=1048457&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_ESA_FWS&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton2&contactdata=DdCtKfWiDAe8QGsJX2n%2f3ADa+EHElV5Mx2%2fhdBLqvainHOEzVrBEIpyF9%2fjd8jfvo7Zt3uLYFMST%2fDxhjT8%2fhtuewCT6uOqZie696c81S+iVKtvHQHQSHS4WetLqgGtsh5sgdZqZEpwyVYqEWuMF+vq3BHhIgGO%2fmOAYUQjbg0Ueh04kKFrPgoXg1Wq22B9V84NhdxHlHWdCcIXnf%2fQiaUACXYN286pvaJv5hApLBtI%3d&emci=42dcfd5e-abcf-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=d9dee2b4-1ed1-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> *CLEAN WATER ACT*
>
> The Clean Water Act (1972) has been a bulwark for protecting American
> health as well as aquatic ecologies for over five decades. There has been
> some fluctuation over the years as to what constitutes waters covered under
> the act; these are officially considered the “waters of the United States”
> (WOTUS). In 2023 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that
> definition. The proposal by the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army
> (and included Corps of Engineers) would not only incorporate that
> definition but restrict it further.
>
> What’s at stake is federal protection for an enormous number of small
> wetlands throughout the country (estimated at about 80% of our wetlands).
> This includes temporary (“ephemeral”) wetlands which are very common but,
> of course, have a significant relationship with larger downstream waterways
> as well as groundwater. A recent study in the journal *Science* (Brinkerhoff
> et al. 2024) showed that ephemeral streams were the source of 55% of the
> water in regional river systems (a significant drinking water source).
> Pollution and development of these smaller wetlands and waterways will not
> only affect local ecology but ultimately alter downstream waters.
>
> Link to make comments to the Environmental Protection Agency:
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/brief/2025/trumps-epa-just-tried-to-gut-the-protections-that-keep-our-drinking-water-clean?ms=email&sourceid=1048523&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2512_Cultiv_WOTUSBrief&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9nIS7s%2fuY2fAyvAq+Gjbax9EZy2NVz0rpGfqdCgrJ9Xv2zd+NZbIa7kWdC9rqCLSTt2qO4pEGYbk+qSttbGpVRDTX3lnfjjQ+VpUDyZKBBmM65r+6O40ojEFnyvyliqk5wvZYGxdF9mogyAC87e541iFcZUz7cD7JkqTnCzHVvmg4zLVLxT3fe9ahAP+C%2fFb1mryu3yXAEhv4TKetH+CtDu40ISPm95kiFCwpMhkHOQ%3d&emci=b710a77d-1dd2-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=7b680d2a-72d4-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> *EXPANSION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING*
>
> The third leg of this cluster of proposals involves opening nearly 1.3
> billion (yes, with a “b”) acres of U.S. public waters to new oil and gas
> drilling. This involves the offshore areas of California, Alaska, and the
> eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite adamant objections by many state and local
> governments. While drilling off Alaska and California are relatively
> unlikely in the near future even with this change, it is more likely to
> result in new oil drilling in the Gulf. Anyone who has been in this area
> for a while will have no problem recalling the horrors of Deepwater Horizon
> and its effects on the people and environment of the northern Gulf.
>
> Supposedly these new leases are because of an “energy emergency,” despite
> the fact that the U.S. is already producing not only more oil than ever,
> but more than any nation in history. While we still import some crude oil,
> we have a significant net export surplus of petroleum. There is no
> emergency basis for these leases, but the risk from drilling in these areas
> is substantial.
>
> Link to make comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
>
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/stop-trumps-plan-to-expand-oil-drilling-in-our-oceans?ms=email&sourceid=1048390&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_OffshorePlan_DOI&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9M5bS9XnD1In1RPTZSb+7Z5tqStb2fDBm5ij6z1zmpB5QRHt2dnnlcFYzuosAPaxQSmRpAVPo5Ri183SV4iLgyIH13MTk8yoSgM+oGFsZo%2fHR1XI5CSlnbe7EJ4gk6HgGR%2fZOTKk9u97IcOt5aTKyK+CxRtIlE1HXV9nc+jJFAUOOFjmOwxiSyOJstfS71YHdcVNHof1IARZQzRLQYeJSsId7uN+0ipi+CFgKSl4B8U%3d&emci=198797bc-a4d0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=4892f168-add0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> Thank you for your help with these major threats to birds and their
> environment. Please share this with whomever you feel may be interested, as
> the clock is ticking on the public comment period. We need as many comments
> registered as possible on these issues.
>
> Greg
>
>
> Greg D. Jackson
> Birmingham, AL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: 12/10/25 1:58 pm From: Grace via groups.io <larwood...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
Thank you so this information. It’s a horrifying time for wildlife and the environment.
Grace Simms
> On Dec 10, 2025, at 11:36 AM, Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson...> wrote:
>
> AL Birders:
>
> The holiday season began with what may be the darkest week in history for U.S. environmental protection with significant pertinence to bird populations. Within a few days span, major changes were officially proposed to massively expand offshore oil and gas leasing, limit the Endangered Species Act, and weaken the Clean Water Act. I’m asking that everyone consider submitting brief opinions to the appropriate agencies during the limited window for comment. Even though in reality the changes may be implemented regardless of public opinion and scientific knowledge, it is useful in the inevitable legal (and possible later legislative) actions to know public sentiment.
>
> After each section I offer a link that allows an easy method to register an official comment on that topic with the appropriate agency. These are through the Earthjustice site, so be aware that group pulls no punches in its opinions. (A little of the factual verbiage below is borrowed from that site or those of other conservation groups.) I’m suggesting this route not to incite a political debate, but due to the simplicity of posting your opinions with the agencies through this portal – I used it myself for each and it was very simple. You can also try to search for the official portals of the agencies and find a way to comment directly. I changed the text of my submission, replacing much of the suggested verbiage to make a few simple statements. Whatever route you take please exercise your rights to express opinions to the agencies on these important matters.
>
>
> ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
>
> The ESA (1973) has been one of the most important and effective tools we have had to pull endangered and threatened species from the brink. This landmark law has so far helped to preserve 99% of listed species, an amazing rate considering how low some of these populations had slipped. It was designed to use scientific data to assess species for listing, make plans for recovery, and implement these until the populations were no longer in significant danger.
>
> The multifaceted new proposals would for the first time introduce “economic considerations” into the assessments. Since economic factors are often the driving force behind the population decreases in the first place, allowing these to weigh heavily on the decision could allow the science to be ignored for the sake of profit. Projected loss of revenue of a project could sway a decision not to protect a species. This violates the spirit of the act and the letter of the law.
>
> The proposals would also include depriving newly listed threatened animal and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing, trapping, and other forms of prohibited “take.” Species now proposed for listing could be left unprotected even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalizes the listings.
>
> An additional portion of the new proposals would narrow the definition of “critical habitat” to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat. Historic habitat is often vital for recovery of imperiled species.
>
> It would also loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that put a protected species in harm's way. Another change would be to alter the criteria for designating critical habitat to make it easier to exclude areas from protections by giving more weight to industry claims of economic impact.
>
> Link to make comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/the-law-that-saves-species-needs-saving?ms=email&sourceid=1048457&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_ESA_FWS&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton2&contactdata=DdCtKfWiDAe8QGsJX2n%2f3ADa+EHElV5Mx2%2fhdBLqvainHOEzVrBEIpyF9%2fjd8jfvo7Zt3uLYFMST%2fDxhjT8%2fhtuewCT6uOqZie696c81S+iVKtvHQHQSHS4WetLqgGtsh5sgdZqZEpwyVYqEWuMF+vq3BHhIgGO%2fmOAYUQjbg0Ueh04kKFrPgoXg1Wq22B9V84NhdxHlHWdCcIXnf%2fQiaUACXYN286pvaJv5hApLBtI%3d&emci=42dcfd5e-abcf-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=d9dee2b4-1ed1-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> CLEAN WATER ACT
>
> The Clean Water Act (1972) has been a bulwark for protecting American health as well as aquatic ecologies for over five decades. There has been some fluctuation over the years as to what constitutes waters covered under the act; these are officially considered the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). In 2023 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that definition. The proposal by the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army (and included Corps of Engineers) would not only incorporate that definition but restrict it further.
>
> What’s at stake is federal protection for an enormous number of small wetlands throughout the country (estimated at about 80% of our wetlands). This includes temporary (“ephemeral”) wetlands which are very common but, of course, have a significant relationship with larger downstream waterways as well as groundwater. A recent study in the journal Science (Brinkerhoff et al. 2024) showed that ephemeral streams were the source of 55% of the water in regional river systems (a significant drinking water source). Pollution and development of these smaller wetlands and waterways will not only affect local ecology but ultimately alter downstream waters.
>
> Link to make comments to the Environmental Protection Agency:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/brief/2025/trumps-epa-just-tried-to-gut-the-protections-that-keep-our-drinking-water-clean?ms=email&sourceid=1048523&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2512_Cultiv_WOTUSBrief&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9nIS7s%2fuY2fAyvAq+Gjbax9EZy2NVz0rpGfqdCgrJ9Xv2zd+NZbIa7kWdC9rqCLSTt2qO4pEGYbk+qSttbGpVRDTX3lnfjjQ+VpUDyZKBBmM65r+6O40ojEFnyvyliqk5wvZYGxdF9mogyAC87e541iFcZUz7cD7JkqTnCzHVvmg4zLVLxT3fe9ahAP+C%2fFb1mryu3yXAEhv4TKetH+CtDu40ISPm95kiFCwpMhkHOQ%3d&emci=b710a77d-1dd2-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=7b680d2a-72d4-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> EXPANSION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING
>
> The third leg of this cluster of proposals involves opening nearly 1.3 billion (yes, with a “b”) acres of U.S. public waters to new oil and gas drilling. This involves the offshore areas of California, Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite adamant objections by many state and local governments. While drilling off Alaska and California are relatively unlikely in the near future even with this change, it is more likely to result in new oil drilling in the Gulf. Anyone who has been in this area for a while will have no problem recalling the horrors of Deepwater Horizon and its effects on the people and environment of the northern Gulf.
>
> Supposedly these new leases are because of an “energy emergency,” despite the fact that the U.S. is already producing not only more oil than ever, but more than any nation in history. While we still import some crude oil, we have a significant net export surplus of petroleum. There is no emergency basis for these leases, but the risk from drilling in these areas is substantial.
>
> Link to make comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/stop-trumps-plan-to-expand-oil-drilling-in-our-oceans?ms=email&sourceid=1048390&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_OffshorePlan_DOI&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9M5bS9XnD1In1RPTZSb+7Z5tqStb2fDBm5ij6z1zmpB5QRHt2dnnlcFYzuosAPaxQSmRpAVPo5Ri183SV4iLgyIH13MTk8yoSgM+oGFsZo%2fHR1XI5CSlnbe7EJ4gk6HgGR%2fZOTKk9u97IcOt5aTKyK+CxRtIlE1HXV9nc+jJFAUOOFjmOwxiSyOJstfS71YHdcVNHof1IARZQzRLQYeJSsId7uN+0ipi+CFgKSl4B8U%3d&emci=198797bc-a4d0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=4892f168-add0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> Thank you for your help with these major threats to birds and their environment. Please share this with whomever you feel may be interested, as the clock is ticking on the public comment period. We need as many comments registered as possible on these issues.
>
> Greg
>
>
> Greg D. Jackson
> Birmingham, AL
>
>
>
>
Date: 12/10/25 9:37 am From: Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson...> Subject: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
AL Birders:
The holiday season began with what may be the darkest week in history for
U.S. environmental protection with significant pertinence to bird
populations. Within a few days span, major changes were officially proposed
to massively expand offshore oil and gas leasing, limit the Endangered
Species Act, and weaken the Clean Water Act. I'm asking that everyone
consider submitting brief opinions to the appropriate agencies during the
limited window for comment. Even though in reality the changes may be
implemented regardless of public opinion and scientific knowledge, it is
useful in the inevitable legal (and possible later legislative) actions to
know public sentiment.
After each section I offer a link that allows an easy method to register an
official comment on that topic with the appropriate agency. These are
through the Earthjustice site, so be aware that group pulls no punches in
its opinions. (A little of the factual verbiage below is borrowed from that
site or those of other conservation groups.) I'm suggesting this route not
to incite a political debate, but due to the simplicity of posting your
opinions with the agencies through this portal - I used it myself for each
and it was very simple. You can also try to search for the official portals
of the agencies and find a way to comment directly. I changed the text of my
submission, replacing much of the suggested verbiage to make a few simple
statements. Whatever route you take please exercise your rights to express
opinions to the agencies on these important matters.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
The ESA (1973) has been one of the most important and effective tools we
have had to pull endangered and threatened species from the brink. This
landmark law has so far helped to preserve 99% of listed species, an amazing
rate considering how low some of these populations had slipped. It was
designed to use scientific data to assess species for listing, make plans
for recovery, and implement these until the populations were no longer in
significant danger.
The multifaceted new proposals would for the first time introduce "economic
considerations" into the assessments. Since economic factors are often the
driving force behind the population decreases in the first place, allowing
these to weigh heavily on the decision could allow the science to be ignored
for the sake of profit. Projected loss of revenue of a project could sway a
decision not to protect a species. This violates the spirit of the act and
the letter of the law.
The proposals would also include depriving newly listed threatened animal
and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing,
trapping, and other forms of prohibited "take." Species now proposed for
listing could be left unprotected even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service finalizes the listings.
An additional portion of the new proposals would narrow the definition of
"critical habitat" to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat.
Historic habitat is often vital for recovery of imperiled species.
It would also loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it
easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that put
a protected species in harm's way. Another change would be to alter the
criteria for designating critical habitat to make it easier to exclude areas
from protections by giving more weight to industry claims of economic
impact.
Link to make comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
The Clean Water Act (1972) has been a bulwark for protecting American health
as well as aquatic ecologies for over five decades. There has been some
fluctuation over the years as to what constitutes waters covered under the
act; these are officially considered the "waters of the United States"
(WOTUS). In 2023 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that
definition. The proposal by the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army (and
included Corps of Engineers) would not only incorporate that definition but
restrict it further.
What's at stake is federal protection for an enormous number of small
wetlands throughout the country (estimated at about 80% of our wetlands).
This includes temporary ("ephemeral") wetlands which are very common but, of
course, have a significant relationship with larger downstream waterways as
well as groundwater. A recent study in the journal Science (Brinkerhoff et
al. 2024) showed that ephemeral streams were the source of 55% of the water
in regional river systems (a significant drinking water source). Pollution
and development of these smaller wetlands and waterways will not only affect
local ecology but ultimately alter downstream waters.
Link to make comments to the Environmental Protection Agency:
The third leg of this cluster of proposals involves opening nearly 1.3
billion (yes, with a "b") acres of U.S. public waters to new oil and gas
drilling. This involves the offshore areas of California, Alaska, and the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite adamant objections by many state and local
governments. While drilling off Alaska and California are relatively
unlikely in the near future even with this change, it is more likely to
result in new oil drilling in the Gulf. Anyone who has been in this area for
a while will have no problem recalling the horrors of Deepwater Horizon and
its effects on the people and environment of the northern Gulf.
Supposedly these new leases are because of an "energy emergency," despite
the fact that the U.S. is already producing not only more oil than ever, but
more than any nation in history. While we still import some crude oil, we
have a significant net export surplus of petroleum. There is no emergency
basis for these leases, but the risk from drilling in these areas is
substantial.
Link to make comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
Thank you for your help with these major threats to birds and their
environment. Please share this with whomever you feel may be interested, as
the clock is ticking on the public comment period. We need as many comments
registered as possible on these issues.
