dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (07/29/89)
I realize that it is against net etiquette to complain about inappropriate postings. So, on the assumption that some people start reading and posting to groups without reading their original charters, I'll just point out that rec.birds was established for discussion of bird-watching and related issues. It seems to me that rec.pets is the place to discuss captive birds. That said (and I'm sure the budgie people will object, and some will say their caged birds are not "pets"), where have the birders, bird-watchers, amateur ornithologists, feeder watchers, etc., been lately? Out birding perhaps. Anyway, if there is so little traffic in what this group was supposed to do, perhaps the cockatoo postings are better than nothing. I'll try to post a few things over the next few days. David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
geek@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) (07/31/89)
In article <8863@cs.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: >Anyway, if there is so little traffic in what this group was supposed to do, >perhaps the cockatoo postings are better than nothing. I'll try to post a few >things over the next few days. > Well, one of my favorite topics is range expansion (range decline is all too common!). Like the mockingbird, which now winters over here (Boston), yet back in Mark Twain's day was referred to as the "catbird of the south". Over the last 5 years I've been watching Turkey Vultures move (back?) into eastern Mass. I almost always see them on the hilltops of the Blue Hills (just south of the city and a few miles from my house), say half a dozen soaring together yesterday. Less than 10 years ago they simply were not here. I also saw one on Mt. Monadnock (southern NH) last weekend; I do not know their history in that area. There's something especially fun about finding birds just at the limits of their ranges. On the other hand, the indigo bunting population seems to be declining, at least in the Blue Hills. Some of the spots where I used to reliably find nesting pairs don't have any this year. chris
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/01/89)
>I realize that it is against net etiquette to complain about inappropriate >postings. So, on the assumption that some people start reading and posting >to groups without reading their original charters, I'll just point out that >rec.birds was established for discussion of bird-watching and related >issues. It seems to me that rec.pets is the place to discuss captive birds. And we've had this flamewar about every five months since the group was created, too. I, personally, would like to avoid it this time -- and talk about birds instead of talking about whether we should talk about birds. >That said (and I'm sure the budgie people will object, and some will say their >caged birds are not "pets"), where have the birders, bird-watchers, amateur >ornithologists, feeder watchers, etc., been lately? Out birding perhaps. If so, they should talk about it. There's enough bandwidth in here for everybody, you know... Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]
mm@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler) (08/02/89)
In article <8863@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > I realize that it is against net etiquette to complain about inappropriate > postings. So, on the assumption that some people start reading and posting > to groups without reading their original charters, I'll just point out that > rec.birds was established for discussion of bird-watching and related > issues. It seems to me that rec.pets is the place to discuss captive birds. Ok David. But you must admit that rec.birds is a pretty general title/topic. Can rec.pets.birds be created (or will this cause every type of aniumal to have a rec.pets.animal).
mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (08/04/89)
In article <390@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, geek@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) writes: > > Well, one of my favorite topics is range expansion (range decline is all > too common!). Like the mockingbird, which now winters over here (Boston), > yet back in Mark Twain's day was referred to as the "catbird of the south". > Another bird that seems to be going through a range expansion is the Anna's Hummingbird. They've spread all the way up the west coast to Canada and east across the southwest to, at least, Arizona (and probably points beyond). I remember sitting at the hummingbird feeders in Ramsey Canyon in southeastern Arizona last year. The most common hummer there was the Anna's; in a place where, not too many years ago, they were rare. Some months ago I read a story in one of the birding periodicals that theorized that the range expansion of the Anna's Hummingbird was the cause of the myth that one must take down their feeder to force hummers to migrate. According to the story, a severe drought hit southern California to where, at the time (I don't remember how long ago this was supposed to be) the Anna's Hummingbird was limited. The search for water up the coast of California was supposed to represent the first major expansion of this species' range. Being non-migratory, these birds took up permanent residence in their new homes. People in these areas, who were used to feeding breeding and migrating hummingbirds, started noticing these hummers hanging around their feeders all winter long. Not knowing the habits of these non-migratory birds, but being well-intentioned, they decided that the presence of their feeders was causing these birds to stay in the area rather than migrate. Thus began the idea that feeders must be removed to force hummers to migrate; an idea that quickly spread across the country. I can't attest to the truthfulness of this story (it was offered only as a theory; there being no direct sequence of events that this myth can be traced to), but here it is for your interest. Mike