RE: Combining BA - BOCA - Sine qua mors lenta

To: "'Ian May'" <>, "'Simon Mustoe'" <>
Subject: RE: Combining BA - BOCA - Sine qua mors lenta
From: "Graham Buchan" <>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:36:59 +1100
Sadly we already see why I now support neither BOCA nor BA - the focus seems
to be inwards and not outwards at the birds. Politics evolves spontaneously
in all organisations but so often gets in the way of the outcomes supposedly
sought under the original charters. With effectively very few younger
members both are inevitably going to disappear (or at best have little
influence on Government) if they do not both amalgamate and re-focus on the
birds and recruitment. For the birds' sake I hope they do.
Graham Buchan

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Ian May
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2010 7:18 PM
To: Simon Mustoe
Cc: ; ; 
Subject: Combining BA - BOCA About Bloody Time!

Its interesting how people can have such a different view on the same 
subject.   I disagree with the amalgamation proposal.  Traditionally the 
two organizations follow different policies offering separate 
attractions to their members .  Does this mean now that BOCA supports 
cannon netting and wader leg flagging with all the hideous impacts 
caused to birds by this practice?   Although once upon a time I was 
involved with field collecting and banding projects, I observed the 
evils of it and now, I would prefer to support an organization that 
pursues passive study methods.   In the past BOCA stood apart from the 
other organization by always insisting on welfare of birds first and 
pursuing an agenda based on passive field study which earned my respect.   

Another major issue is the different financial commitments of each 
organization.   Effective conservation land management is very expensive 
and BA appears to have over committed itself in land acquisition 
projects.   While strategic land acquisition for nature conservation is 
a worthy practice, will BOCA members now have to pickup costs of running 
over stretched BA reserves?  

I think amalgamation with BA is a bad move, will do nothing for the 
conservation of birds but will leave a great space for a new 
organization to fill the niche.  


Ian May
St Helens Tasmania

Simon Mustoe wrote:

>I just want to say how utterly delighted I am to receive a letter proposing
the possible integration of BA and BOCA in future. At a time when we should
be focused entirely on conservation, it is unthinkable that our peak bird
conservation groups should remain divided. 
>I don't care how it is done...we need a national peak conservation group
representing birds and the Australian landscape. How fitting that this
effort should begin during the 2010 year of biodiversity. 
>Good on you everyone at BA and BOCA involved in this. I completely endorse
what you are trying to do and hope that your respective committee's can find
the same common ground in the meeting rooms, as our bird life and
Australia's birders do in the bush. 

>Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
>send the message:
>(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - 
>Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)


To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU