What's new

I'm Curious Any Bird Watchers

The reason I asked that, is you are using the resources, state parks, etc just as a hunter would. And a hunting license is the most useful conservation tool that you can buy. It pays to restore parks, etc, pays the game wardens, and everything else. And typically, unfortunately, birders do more damage to an area than a responsible hunter does. And it's sad that a birder goes into nature, uses the resources and never pays anything for it. Where as a hunter goes into nature, uses the resources the same, but pays for it.

Don't think you're correct. Hunters actually take resources...wild animals. Game wardens - a large part of their job is to essentially monitor hunters and poachers (I'm not saying poachers are same as hunters...they're not) and protect wildlife from over harvesting .

Birders just observe...wildlife photographers just take photographs.

I can't for the life of me see how birders do more damage or any damage to an area ?
 
Usually more harm to the land, making trails and this and that and it causes fragmentation.

I've gone down trails up here in Canada and northern USA for years....but I walk and usually so do birders. Not much if any impact on trails.

Impact on trails comes from riding ATV;s, off road motorcycles and...yes bicycles on trail. Bicycles can rip up a trail when they go after a heavy rain.

Not sure what you mean by 'this and that' ?
 
Usually more harm to the land, making trails and this and that and it causes fragmentation.

And hunters don't? The last time I checked, they had to walk around to get to where they need to be.

I've already mentioned how I personally contribute to the upkeep of the great outdoors that hunters and birders and hikers and whoever share. I'm just a little puzzled because I'm kind of seeing you as picturing birders as a major group of moochers who never pony up the cash for everything they're "taking." As I type this, I'm birding right now. There are two feeder assemblies just outside my window. The traffic is amazing, I'm purchasing feed that helps the birds during the lean times of winter, and the feeder purchases helps that part of the economy.

I don't think myself, or any other birder needs to feel ashamed or guilty about anything.

On a final note, it sure would take a lot of black-capped chickadees to make a decent stew for 2 people:wink2:.

Don
 
I'm not hunter and I do not buy a hunting license. The point that birders do more damage to the environment is false. The other point of not contributing to the parks and other resources is also false.

Birders are the most protective of the environment that I have been around. We leave a small footprint on the environment. We do not blaze trails where there is not any. Birders volunteer to up keep trails.

The World Series of Birding raises millions for conservation and parks. Birders support of the National Audubon and Nature Conservancy which purchase land for protection.

To label Birders as environmental destroyers and not contributing to the parks etc is erroneous. Birders contribute more to the local economy ie restaurants, hotels etc. then hunters every will. Birders are welcomed everywhere because we are responsible ciziten scientist. Texas and Florida welcome birders and have made their respective states bird friendly for birders because they know what birders contribute locally.

Before you bash birders in general gather your facts first and have an understanding of what Birders contribute and take care of.
 
Birders are the most protective of the environment that I have been around. We leave a small footprint on the environment. We do not blaze trails where there is not any. Birders volunteer to up keep trails.

The World Series of Birding raises millions for conservation and parks. Birders support of the National Audubon and Nature Conservancy which purchase land for protection.

To label Birders as environmental destroyers and not contributing to the parks etc is erroneous. Birders contribute more to the local economy ie restaurants, hotels etc. then hunters every will. Birders are welcomed everywhere because we are responsible ciziten scientist.

I concur.
 
I'm not hunter and I do not buy a hunting license. The point that birders do more damage to the environment is false. The other point of not contributing to the parks and other resources is also false.

Birders are the most protective of the environment that I have been around. We leave a small footprint on the environment. We do not blaze trails where there is not any. Birders volunteer to up keep trails.

The World Series of Birding raises millions for conservation and parks. Birders support of the National Audubon and Nature Conservancy which purchase land for protection.

To label Birders as environmental destroyers and not contributing to the parks etc is erroneous. Birders contribute more to the local economy ie restaurants, hotels etc. then hunters every will. Birders are welcomed everywhere because we are responsible ciziten scientist. Texas and Florida welcome birders and have made their respective states bird friendly for birders because they know what birders contribute locally.

Before you bash birders in general gather your facts first and have an understanding of what Birders contribute and take care of.

I know for a fact you are wrong that birders do more locally for a community than hunters. And that's the problem, there doesn't need to be trails in the wild. That is fragmentation. And yes birders take. You can't say you are not a non-consumptive user. You are out there using the resources as anyone else, and your taking is viewing the bird.

But for the sake, let's talk about a state wildlife management area. A birder does more if they buy a hunting license and a duck stamp. Duck stamp conserves wetlands, and the hunting license preserves the wildlife management area. I'm not knocking on birders at all, I like to take pics myself, but don't fool yourself thinking you are not taking if you aren't doing it in your back yard. Also, hunters are the best wildlife conservatives in the world, and that can easily be proven.

Do all I ask, I'd buy a hunting license if you are a serious birder. You won't see a difference probably, but it will make one.
 
I know for a fact you are wrong that birders do more locally for a community than hunters. And that's the problem, there doesn't need to be trails in the wild. That is fragmentation. And yes birders take. You can't say you are not a non-consumptive user. You are out there using the resources as anyone else, and your taking is viewing the bird.

But for the sake, let's talk about a state wildlife management area. A birder does more if they buy a hunting license and a duck stamp. Duck stamp conserves wetlands, and the hunting license preserves the wildlife management area. I'm not knocking on birders at all, I like to take pics myself, but don't fool yourself thinking you are not taking if you aren't doing it in your back yard. Also, hunters are the best wildlife conservatives in the world, and that can easily be proven.

Do all I ask, I'd buy a hunting license if you are a serious birder. You won't see a difference probably, but it will make one.

Well, since three posts where I've pointed out how I contribute to the cause have been ignored, and since you seem to be lumping all birders into the ungrateful mooch category that you've constructed, I'll thank you for the advice to buy a hunting license, but allow me the privilege to do it my own way.

We'll leave the hunting license fees to contribute to what they directly affect. As a former limited term employee for the Wisconsin DNR, a lot of my work involved replacing signs blown to smithereens by responsible hunters, the best wildlife conservatives (sic) in the world. The warden stories I used to hear in the office truly indicate where license fees should be concentrated (bag limits, anybody?). There's a reason hunting is a licensed activity; non-responsible hunters, something you haven't mentioned, play a big part in this debate, and sadly, they're a big portion of the hunting population.

Don
 
I'm not lumping all the birders into one category. And I would not call those people hunters. And you bring up a good point, there are sour apples in every basket, that's why we have game wardens. And I see where you said you contribute, and if you do it on public land, birding that is, than the most resourceful thing you can do is buy that hunting license.
 
I know for a fact you are wrong that birders do more locally for a community than hunters. And that's the problem, there doesn't need to be trails in the wild. That is fragmentation. And yes birders take. You can't say you are not a non-consumptive user. You are out there using the resources as anyone else, and your taking is viewing the bird.

But for the sake, let's talk about a state wildlife management area. A birder does more if they buy a hunting license and a duck stamp. Duck stamp conserves wetlands, and the hunting license preserves the wildlife management area. I'm not knocking on birders at all, I like to take pics myself, but don't fool yourself thinking you are not taking if you aren't doing it in your back yard. Also, hunters are the best wildlife conservatives in the world, and that can easily be proven.

Do all I ask, I'd buy a hunting license if you are a serious birder. You won't see a difference probably, but it will make one.

The original posting was asking if there were any birders (bird watchers ), you hijacked my post by inserting your opinion and belief that hunters are great stewards. I personally disagree with as you disagree with me.

Over the course of 20+ years of birdwatching I have seen first hand the damage some hunters do to the environment. There are also some irresponsible birders out there also.

Birdwatching is the #1 outdoor hobby in America.

You contribute the way you feel is right for yourself, do not force others to follow you. I personally have contributed more to protecting the environment over the last 20 years than I would have buying hunting licenses.

You enjoy the outdoors the way you like and I will enjoy the way I like. Birders are not environmental mooches as you suggest. Birders pay far more their share then hunters ever will.
 
You enjoy the outdoors the way you like and I will enjoy the way I like. Birders are not environmental mooches as you suggest. Birders pay far more their share then hunters ever will.

I don't where you get your facts, but most birders are environmental mooches if using public resources. And you are so far off on your last statement that it's not even funny. There are some bad hunters that give good hunters a bad name, probably more so than any other business.unfortunately. But, hunters are many and they raise a lot of money, and that money goes to conservation.

Do I'm not saying you should hunt, idc if you do or not, but a hunting license does a lot for conservation. Without hunters, there is no conservation. Just good for thought was all I was trying to achieve.

Btw, my favorite birds to take pictures of are raptors and woodpeckers. We get a lot of falcons here being a migration route to south America.
 

Toothpick

Needs milk and a bidet!
I'm not a birder but I do enjoy seeing the not so often seen birds.

I shot this pic while sitting on my porch outside of Nashville. Never seen so many bluejays in my life! I was only able to capture one on film.

$550518_3133847470900_656134870_n.jpg
 
Not really a dedicated bird watcher, but I do like to observe wild birds from time to time. One of my favorites I have seen only a couple of times here in central Florida is the tufted titmouse; kind of looks like a small blue jay. When I lived in Michigan, I observed the Kirtland Warbler which only lives in a small section of central Michigan and no where else in the world, making it kind of rare I suppose.
cottontop
 

ouch

Stjynnkii membörd dummpsjterd
Ed Norton: By Jove!—a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker!
Ralph Kramden: What makes you think they’re going to believe you?
Ed Norton: Bird seen: Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Place seen: Albuquerque, New Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom