max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser) (12/10/87)
A number of the people who wish the existing rec.birds to be used
for birdwatching exclusively are persistently ignoring some of the
fundamental issues in the discussion, so I shall take the liberty
of restating them here.
1. The original choice of the name rec.birds for a group intended
for birdWATCHING and even other non-bird wildlife was an obvious
error. No amount of exasperated citing of the "original intent"
of the group will prevent the obvious gravitation to "rec.birds"
of people interested in broader aspects of BIRDS. This ought to
surprise (and exasperate) no one, since new readers ordinarily
choose groups by group name. Indeed many new readers have never
even heard of a list-of-active-newsgroups with "original intent."
Repeated flaming against postings unrelated to birdwatching but
indeed precisely related to the group name would be better
directed at those who proposed and initiated the misleading
group name rec.birds.
2. Yet the creation of a "birds" newsgroup, as all the flaming
shows, has brought a steady stream of non-birdwatching bird
traffic (at least unless shouted down emotionally, no doubt to
the surprise of those who are posting topics exactly in accord
with the group name). This in turn has established (a) a de-facto
purpose of the group (which, as Chuq pointed out, speaks far
louder than "original intent") and (b) a demonstrated demand for
a group about larger bird issues than birdwatching. Based on
this there would be excellent net precedent, not to change the
group name, but (on the contrary) to change the official charter
of the group to fit its actual traffic: birds in general.
I am NOT proposing this, just pointing out the obvious.
3. We are at a crossroads with this group. Since the birdwatching-
only fans have already argued that there is not enough birdwatching
traffic to sustain an entire group, let us please not have further
suggestions for changing the name alone.
There seem to be two camps. One is interested in birds at large
(including breeding and yes, maybe even pets; regardless of the
nontraditional nature of this it does seem to fill a need).
The other prefers wildlife at large. The obvious solution is to
reorganize into two groups, one for bird breeding, pets,
physiology, etc; the other for wildlife, ecology, migration,
etc. I would be interested in both such groups. This would have
the advantage of serving almost everybody, including those
who are interested in birds of all kinds, a large population
whose existence a few vocal birdwatchers seem hell-bent to deny.
Taking a cue therefore from steve@utzoo, I would respectfully
change his map, in view of all this (the impact of the name
"rec.birds", the demonstrated demand, and the complaints that
birdwatching alone will not fill a group) to the following:
articles on aviculture ---> rec.birds (just like the name says)
articles on birdwatching ---> rec.nature (new), optionally rec.birds too
articles on general ecology ---> rec.nature (new)
Max Hauser / max@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max