I'm not sure how wader study activities are a factor in the merger between BA
and BOCA. Surely that's an animal welfare issue and a digression? Birding
pelagics use copious amounts of shark liver and are contributing to
over-fishing of top predators and, at the same time, modifying the behaviour of
seabirds at sea (an equally manifest animal welfare issue and something I
personally have strong views on). However, despite the fact that BOCA and BA
run pelagics, I would never consider this to be an over-riding factor in any
decision to support / not support a merger. It just doesn't make sense. There
are much more significant conservation issues at stake.
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:48:06 +1030
> CC: ; ;
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] 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 - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)