Date: 9/29/19 12:24 pm From: Fred Kaluza <fkaluza...> Subject: Re: [enviro-semich] Re: [birders] Decline of the North American avifauna - "3 billion birds" paper
Bruce has seemingly become extremely mellow lately. Has anyone checked if there’s a bad odor coming from his house? I don’t think I’ve seen anything from him in like a couple years now. This degree of literary freedom is definitely not like him.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 3:19 PM -0400, <juliet.berger...> wrote:
Let’s shut this down too. The last thingwe want to do is become internet trolls. This is not the forum or we’ll lose our members and purpose. Forwarded to Bruce Bowman. Juliet Berger.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2019, at 2:36 PM, JOHN PARKER <parkerj15...> wrote:
Please never apologize for disagreeing, especially when you lay out your case as if it's not understood without a wink and a nudge.
On September 28, 2019 at 2:29 PM Jackie P <jpilette78...> wrote:
Thanks Roger and I’m sorry John have to disagree with you -
There are lots of people that work for “green interests” and non-profits that do so for a paycheck, and while most are not “well paid” in the Conservation fields, I’d argue that those that work for those non-profits and “green interests” including those in our govt (MDNR, MDEQ, MDA, USDA) are paid, and while they may get a furlough once in a while due to ineffective politicians that can’t hardly ever seem to pass a budget on time, some are rather handsomely paid. Who works for free? Who can afford to work for nothing, unless you’re already independently wealthy?
Non-profits are so named, not because they necessarily are “good,” but because at the end of the year they are supposed to carry a “zero” balance forward for the next year - its just that they are supposed to spend everything they get. That is exactly the definition of a non-profit. Plenty of folks that work for and run non-profits do so and are paid pretty darned well.
Here’s a good example of the hypocrisy that I mentioned earlier - a lady up here in northern MI runs a fairly well-known “watershed group” that is often telling people how dunes and shorelines are fragile places that should be protected. Yet she bought some beautiful and expensive shoreline property on lake MI and fought for easing building restrictions and getting variances so she could build her dream home, on the beach. So no, just because someone works for or runs an enviro org doesn’t make them instantly virtuous or any better morally than anyone else.
I wish everyone could have better, and tougher conversations, and really listen to others. I wish folks would stop acting like they were completely virtuous and without fault, themselves, simply because they vote for one party or another, and believe their party is morally and intellectually superior than the other. Maybe someday.
Thanks and have a good day!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2019, at 1:52 PM, JOHN PARKER <
But they are morally, and intellectually, superior, Roger. They tell each other that all the time.
No one who promotes "green" interests does so for profit. No one who lobbies for those causes in D.C. lives any differently from you and me. No one who works for a conservation group -- ABA included -- does that for a paycheck. Non-profits are so named because everyone there gets paid the least amount they need to live on, so the bulk of the budget can go to constructive works. And, anyway, if any of that isn't true, those people deserve everything they get and more, because they have the "courage" to tell other people how to live.
No one who works in the manufacture, promotion, or sale of renewable energy sources does so for anything other than altruistic reasons. Unless that renewable is nuclear.
Have a nice day, y'all. Life is calling and I've gotta get to it.
On September 28, 2019 at 1:30 PM Roger Kuhlman <
There is a heck of a lot of truth here in Jackie's post. Virtue-signaling and posturing about the Environment in order to gain political power for elite special interests who think they are morally superior to the average American amounts to almost nothing ecologically.
From: Jackie P <jpilette78...>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:07 AM
To: John Lowry (kingbird) <john...>
Cc: Rebecca Gale-Gonzalez <rebecca.gale...>; Larry Nooden <ldnum...>; Birders UM <birders...>; Enviro-semich <enviro-semich...>; Roger Kuhlman <rkuhlman...>
Subject: Re: [enviro-semich] Re: [birders] Decline of the North American avifauna - "3 billion birds" paper
It’s not “my party.” Honestly, I think your best shot is if Democrats weren’t as venomous and hostile and petty and childish towards people that didn’t self-identify as Dems, that would go a long way towards getting legislation and policy that’s better for birds. What I think is even more important is overuse of pesticides and all of your complacence with it. You all live down there in the big city, where every lawn is perfectly manicured, where you can go to any hardware store or big box store and purchase almost any kind of pesticide, and where True Green or whatever applicator comes out every other week, where your municipal properties are sprayed for everything, where your power lines and waterbodies are sprayed for everything’s try going after your local governments to control knotweed or you all or going to be in big trouble (feel free to google that and look up MISIN). Maybe if the MDNR wasn’t spending millions on Bs CISMAS to pretend that they are doing any good and making any progress to reduce invasive species (it’s not and the program is a big joke with literally zero results as far as invasives go - not any PR out there saying any actual accomplishments except spending money and employing new college grads with zero experience and little knowledge). You want to talk about bird friendly legislation? Just a few ideas - Try working on all them! Start local. Then take on the world. Doesn’t look too good when you’re telling everyone how bad they are when you do nothing except watch some birds and pretend like that is doing anything.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2019, at 12:41 PM, John Lowry (kingbird) <
You seem like you’ve got a practical approach. What are the political agenda items we can get full throated support related to bird conservation? Where can your party lead us there?
Reinstating ESA? Preventing degradation from mining in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Bird friendly renewable energy infrastructure? Land acquisition?
Sent from iPhone
On Sep 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Jackie P <
Nope! What I’m saying is that the assertions made and presented as facts to support Larry’s political opinions are just that - assertions, opinions, and just not supported by any facts or data. I wish factless political opinions were left out of this birder list, but since these folks presented their opinions as facts, I figured I’d chime in with some actual facts. And no, not all republicans are climate change deniers, not all of them want all the people of the world to die, and I’d argue those “rich American White Men” and their corporations that Roger referred to earlier are some of the most philanthropical to environmental and social causes than most people. I could provide some data for you on that if you’d like?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2019, at 12:10 PM, John Lowry (kingbird) <
I want to make sure that I am clear on this, are you saying that the more support President Trump, and congressional Republicans receive, the better off birds and the environment will be? Because that’s what I am hearing here
Sent from iPhone
On Sep 26, 2019, at 10:17 AM, 'Jackie P' via enviro-semich <
Here’s some interesting info for you, to counter Larry’s assertion:
On Sep 26, 2019, at 9:52 AM, 'Jackie P' via enviro-semich <
Sorry Rebecca et. al.,
For Larry to simply say “we have a political party that denies the extensive, long-known science... and a president that not only does not care...” is simply political and just an opinion, not a fact. Sorry guys, but I’ve been around long enough to see the total utter hypocrisy on the left, and I don’t buy into the political and social garbage they spew. I don’t believe them. And they provide no evidence to their assertions. To simply say something doesn’t make it true does it? So stop defending this guy and go do something good in the world. I find it interesting that all these polyester-wearing, Chinese-built phone/computer-using people, who do not live off the grid in some holy fossil fuel place, are going to tell the rest of us, who have worked towards actually changing policy and not just bitching about it, how wrong they are. Go out and do something good people. And if you’re going to go talking about social science and policy you better have your facts straight. I was actually an Envir Policy & Behavior major at UM SNRE. I can talk about it all day long, and show you how wrong you are.
So people, can we Please leave this list to birds? Again, the SE ENVIROMICH list is a great place for all you people that don’t want to hear anyone else’s opinions except what you’ve been indoctrinated to hear.
Have a great day everyone!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Rebecca Gale-Gonzalez <
You can't separate the science and social science and their impact on the environment. Politics, policy and regulation or lack there of and personal interests are making a huge impact on the state of our environment globally. Not just our own country, but around the world. Its not political garbage to share the facts about what's happening. That fact that someone is not open to hearing these views and discussing them opening is a red flag for me. Closed mindedness is a sickness we should never given in to.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Jackie P' via enviro-semich <
Dear Bird friends and list administration,
While not an administrator of this list, I have happily enjoyed the relatively political-free content of the posts, and would recommend to Larry to review the following link for the birder list-serve regarding the political content in postings and results. I appreciate the inclusion of science in birding information, but I would argue that this type of post is political in nature and not scientific and would appreciate it being removed so as to not have to receive ensuing political discussion - the NY Times Opinion Article is slightly related but I wouldn’t know and wouldn’t bother subscribing to The NY Times to get, and the link to Trump/Hurricane Dorian incident has nothing to do with birds, except that there are birds there. Would and do continue to appreciate actual scientific information related to birds.
Please leave your political opinions to yourselves - Larry you have your own personal political opinion list anyways (see SE ENVIROMICH), please leave your political garbage to your own site, and leave this one to birds, like actual birds and not stretching to push your own political agenda. See:
Roger - to respond to your comment about “rich white men” - it’s pretty ignorant to assume that it’s just white men that are rich, so please leave the race-baiting comments to yourselves.
A BIG Fan of this Bird List
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Larry Nooden <
I would like to shift this discussion to underlying causes starting with the idea that once again birds serving as sensitive environmental indicators of problems that impact us directly and indirectly, for example the canaries that warned of toxic gases in coal mine tunnels and Bald Eagles showed the effects of bioaccumulation of endocrine-hormone mimics polluting our environment.
Yes, human populations may be the most important driver of bird decline through primary and secondary effects which are very diverse including habitat loss,
and yesterday's (Tues.) New York Times has a followup article:
Unless solutions are addressed, this discussion is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic rather than trying to plug/contain the leak.
This brings us to root causes/solutions where I would emphasize the failures of our policy makers (politicians) to act in the interest of the Public (the 99% of us). To illustrate this, I will cite 2 examples of environmental policy that effect birds but impact us directly.
1. We have a political party that denies the extensive, long known science* on the impacts of fossil fuel consumption (CO2 release) on our world.
2. We have a president who not only does not care but makes up his own science, and then tries to punish scientists who correct him. The recent Hurricane Dorian forecast incident illustrates this all too clearly:
If uncorrected, this would have created a public safety hazard, but he still spent the next 2 days criticizing the hurricane forecasters rather than minding the weather crisis. To use another Titanic metaphor, this incident is only the "tip of an iceberg" of his leadership actions.
What can be done? I leave this to others
A science summary:
By 1989, the science of global wrming/climate change was quite clear:
Houghton, R. A. and G. M. Woodwell (1989). Global Climatic Change. Scientific American. 260: 36-44.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:52 AM Roger Kuhlman <
I am very sorry to point out the basic ecological truth concerning the present loss of biodiversity and climate change that it ecologically impossible to have 7.7 billion people in the World all consuming at average American consumption levels let alone 10 to 11 billion in 2100. Expect much more species extinctions, biodiversity and natural habitat loss in the future.
I would also point out that I did not say that rich American White Men and Evil Greedy American corporations have no responsibility for North American bird loss only that they are not responsible for a majority or even most of it. Some powerful political interests including many corporations in America want to spin it this way to advance their own political control and economic self-interests of building Big Federal Government-Corporation alliances. These are the people that are happy to see fast population growth continue in America and the American population grow to 500 to 600 million by 2100 through Mass Immigration. I ask you if America is a mess environmentally today, how will having 500 to 600 million people in 2100 make it richer in biodiversity and natural habitats. Clearly It Will Not.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: John Lowry <john...>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 11:04:09 PM
To: Roger Kuhlman <rkuhlman...>
Cc: Don Burlett <baikalteal13...>; Birders UM <birders...>
Subject: Re: [birders] Decline of the North American avifauna - "3 billion birds" paper
I don’t think you wonder about that at all. In fact, I don’t recall a single instance where you’ve even tangentially implicated corporate greed, illegal activity, or environmental attacks for a single bird death.
As for me, I blame these losses on any and all human enterprises. I’m not excusing Rich American White Men nor am I excusing Evil Greedy American Corporations, any more than I’m ignoring the attacks on female reproductive choices by the modern neo-conservative movement, or prior generations’ slaughter of pigeons, auks, dodos, or moas. I blame these losses on large families and small families. I blame these extinctions on human endeavor both careless and thoughtless, as well as purposeful. We should know better now, and yet there is a major American political party dedicated, almost single-mindedly at this point, to removing obstacles for corporations to plunder natural resources and accelerate extinctions. This party is largely serving at the behest of Rich American White Men and Evil Greedy American Corporations.
Rich people have more power than poor people. Corporations have more power than individuals. If we are to slow this current decline of biodiversity it’s going to take major efforts to get rich people and corporations to be better environmental leaders. If they won’t do it of their own accord, then they must be legislated into a corner that prevents them from acting against biodiversity.
On Sep 23, 2019, at 7:53 PM, Roger Kuhlman <
I wonder if the ecological problem of Human Overpopulation through its intrinsic mechanisms of Human Overconsumption of natural resources and severe developmental impacts on the biosphere has caused this rather drastic decline of North American birds over the last 50 years? I rather doubt we can blame these losses on birdlife on a few very powerful Rich American White Men or Evil Greedy American Corporations.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
From: <baikalteal13...> <baikalteal13...>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 9:57 AM
To: <birders...> <birders...>
Subject: [birders] Decline of the North American avifauna - "3 billion birds" paper
This summary of reports about bird loss shows a very wide distribution. It includes some analysis of the original paper. Checkout the list of sources included and the analysis of the work. Hopefully, a few "civilians" will pay attention.
> Original paper:
> Decline of the North American avifauna
> Science 20 September 2019 Vol 365, Issue 6459
> Kenneth V. Rosenberg, Adriaan M. Dokter, Peter J. Blancher, John R.
> Sauer, Adam C. Smith, Paul A. Smith, Jessica C. Stanton, Arvind Panjabi,