[obol] Migrating Bird Program & Birds Thought of as Commercial Species

[Cindy Ashy]

Hi Everyone,

This is partially in response to Mike Patterson's recent post (see quote below)
and partially in response to the citizen science thread that was running a week
or so ago...I wrote a post then but it turned into a book so I didn't post
it...I may post a link to it later on when I have time to clean it up (2nd week
in Oct)...for now, I'll just post some unedited excerpts because I'd like to
start getting some feedback from obolers:

Does a species have to be harvested to be considered a commercial species?...

Let's count birdwatchers, not just birds. Birds don't spend money in parks and
tourist towns...birdwatchers do. We need much better data on birdwatchers. We
have research money pouring in to work on salmon and other "commercial" species
in Oregon. I argue/propose that birds are also "commercial" species from the
perspective of the amount of money they bring into many Oregon communities and
into parks....so are whales...so could be sea otters if re-introduced. I would
personally like to hammer this message home to local government, state
government, those in charge of giving out research money, those in charge of
managing public lands, and to those who can help acquire land for
conservation/restoration out right or through conservation easements..... (I'll
spare you guys my rant on this)...Birds being watched aren't sold by the pound
like salmon. Birdwatchers are mixed in with others buying park passes and
there's no separate tally for birdwatchers at local restaurants and lodging
facilities. I believe the general topic of tracking the number of birders, i.e.
the revenue they generate, has been talked about before on this board but I
don't see much being done about it. 

...it boils down to how do we put a commercial value on a wild species that is
not harvested.....easy to put a value on salmon and trees.... 

...a living species is even more valuable because it can continue to give value
over its entire lifetime.....

If we want to census birds and study bird migration in a serious way, we need
serious research dollars....even programs that include citizen scientist
volunteers would be better designed and produce more useful data if we had paid
coordinators. If we want to give land managers added incentive to conserve bird
habitat, we need to show the "commercial value of birds" and we do this by
counting birdwatchers. If we want local and state government to take seriously
activities like birdwatching, I believe we need data to show in no uncertain
terms that birds are commercially important species. Maybe we need a
birdwatching license plate like the salmon plate.....(I have ideas on how to
generate new sources of funding....make a bigger pie rather than cutting the
current funding pie into thinner slices)....

Counting birdwatchers, just as counting birds, could be considered a form of
citizen science....birdwatcher data would certainly complement and may be just
as important as bird data in many land management decisions....

Here's one way to combine the two and give a boon to ecotourism:

Consider the successful "Whale Watching Spoken Here" program. I have recently
been going through the data from this program and it's pretty amazing what they
are compiling on both whales and whale watching participants. Why can't we
start a similar program(s) for migrating birds? Why can't we push for a
"Birdwatching Center" like the Whale watching center in Depoe Bay...maybe
eventually more than one....and some of you know my desire to see birdwatching
parks around the state. In additional to the more difficult to identify
shorebirds, we could also start programs on easily recognized species like
pelicans, eagles, and caspian terns....

I wrote a bunch more on the idea above but I'd rather get some feedback from
you guys.

Cindy Ashy


quote from Mike's post:

What we are missing in Oregon are sites like Willapa Bay and
Humbolt Bay where there are 1000's all gathered together in
an impressive array that attract's birders who, because they've
heard about the impressive array come to be impressed.

Unfortunately, birders are disinclined to spread themselves
evenly along the coast.  This comes from generally having only
the weekends to go birding.  Most birders go where there is
an interface between efficient access and word-of-mouth buzz
on potential to see stuff.  

This is not a criticism of birders.  It makes perfect sense.
But it needs to be factored into any assumption we make about
distribution of shorebirds or any birds. How much of what we
think we know represents the way things really are? and how
much represents the Patagonia effect?

Most of the Columbia Estuary goes unbirded
Most of Tillamook Bay goes unbirded
Most of Siletz Bay goes unbirded
Every square inch of Coos Bay is covered because of all the
	Rodenkirks....

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com