patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (11/29/87)
In article <18737@bbn.COM>, cosell@cosell.bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > > Here's one **enthusiastic** vote in favor of broadening the group. > I'd _love_ for there to be a wildlife group. Considering the volume > on rec.birds, I don't think changing the name to something like > "rec.wildlife" is all that unreasonable (but to do that we'ed probably > have to get the net.powers involved, do an "official" vote, junk like > that). Are any of the rest of you real wildlife-people reading this > group 'cause it is as close as usenet gets? > > /Bernie\ > Bernie Cosell, Max Hauser, Sharon Badian and others (like me) who are interested in wildlife/ecology/animal rights, etc. *thank you* most sincerely for your consideration re: rec.wildlife; perhaps we should leave rec.birds to the bird enthusiasts - the flames I've been getting in email just aren't worth ruffling any feathers [no pun intended]. Eric Woodsworth runs a mailing list: wildnet, wildreq and perhaps those subscribers would also be in favor of creating a new newsgroup rather than renaming/expanding rec.birds. Since I was not on the *net* when rec.birds was created, I apologize to the chap who sent email to me saying that I should work for a new newsgroup, i.e., rec.wildlife rather than applying my efforts to expand the discussion in rec.birds with posting information about ecology and domestic birds. For those of you who would like to subscribe to the wildnet mailing list, send your subscription requests to: ...alberta!sask!wildnet-request or wildreq@sask.bitnet I'd really like the dataline number for Earth Island BBS if someone can email it to me along with any other wildlife/ecology/ animal rights systems you might be familiar with. Isn't it rather ironic to think that ecological issues do not belong in rec.birds? Aren't birds affected by ecological destruction, deforestation, acid rain? I'll volunteer to collect VOTES for a WILDLIFE.ECOLOGY newsgroup so you can send your email to me - do *not* post to the net; any of you who have posted YES votes to the net please resend them to me in email. We can discuss what to call the newsgroup once I've collected the required 100 votes to do so. P.S. To the person who wanted to subscribe to rec.horses, there's a new newsgroup for you: rec.equestrian. ;-) -- Patt Haring {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public UNIX {bellcore,harpo,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!patth New York, NY USA UUCP: patth@dasys1.UUCP 1-212-879-9031 -- Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring (212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/701 or 107/222
winkg@vice.TEK.COM (Wink Gross) (12/01/87)
In article <6745@sunybcs.UUCP>, dmark@sunybcs.uucp (David Mark) writes: > In article <154@bacchus.DEC.COM> larrabee@decwrl.UUCP (Tracy Larrabee) writes: > It seems to [m]e > that there would be relatively little overlap among 'bird fanciers' who > keep birds in captivity, and 'birders (a.k.a. bird-watchers)' who are > concerned with the non-consumptive use of birds in the wild. Thus it > seems to be that they do not belong in the same group. If neither > can generate sufficient traffic to justify a newsgroup of its own, then > we will all have to live with the combination. > > Am I wrong about the lack of cross-over interest? Well, in my case, you are. Look, I'm interested in birds. [period] I like them for their beauty, their interesting behavior, the fact that they migrate and hence show up in the wrong places sometimes, their sounds, and their conspicuousness (ever try vole watching?). Most of the same is true for my pet parrot (he doesn't migrate but my wife's plate of spaghetti in the middle of dinner certainly counts as a "wrong place"). what could be clearer than "net.birds"? watching birds, keeping birds, hunting birds (gasp!), racing birds, excavating [fossil] birds. (ok, ok, i drew the line at "eating" birds). class Aves. [period] Wink Gross Tektronix Integrated Circuits Beaverton, OR
gp@picuxa.UUCP (12/01/87)
In article <2744@zeus.TEK.COM>, bryanh@amadeus.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand;1893;92-789;LP=A;60TC) writes: > or post articles about breeding/caring for domestic (but not pet) birds. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the heck is the difference? Personally, I favor the though that this newsgroup is for *wild* birds (maybe rec.birders). It doesn't get enough traffic though. So maybe rec.wildlife is the answer. Those that wish to discuss breeding domestic (read pet) birds should probably take it to rec.pet. Flame resistant feathers on :-)
simpson@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Patricia Simpson) (12/03/87)
In article <18737@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com.UUCP (Bernie Cosell) writes: >Are any of the rest of you real wildlife-people reading this >group 'cause it is as close as usenet gets? > Yep - that describes me too. It's always surprised me that there wasn't a rec.wildlife on the net. In my opinion, the recent bulletin-board postings have been a welcome enhancement to this newsgroup. - Pat simpson@princeton.UUCP
bryanh@amadeus.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) (12/03/87)
In article <395@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: > >> or post articles about breeding/caring for domestic (but not pet) birds. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >What the heck is the difference? I think of a pet bird as a bird that isn't afraid when humans are near to it, and a pet bird is usually trained to talk or get on a person's hand (shoulder, etc.). A domestic (a better term would be captive) bird is a bird that is, for all practical purposes, wild but is kept in a cage. Generally captive birds don't talk and will bite a person's hand when the person tries to pick them up, and they are usually afraid to have humans anywhere near them. The term 'domestic' was a poor word choice on my part, because a 'domestic bird' would be something like a chicken or turkey (however, chicken and turkey (living--not food) articles also don't have a place to roost--pardon the pun). > Personally, I favor the though that this >newsgroup is for *wild* birds (maybe rec.birders). It doesn't get enough >traffic though. So maybe rec.wildlife is the answer. I'm not the person who misnamed the newsgroup--I just put it in my newsgroup list. If the basis for this newsgroup was birdwatching, then it should have been named rec.birdwtchrs (or rec.birders as you suggested). You are correct about the amount of traffic put out by birdwatchers--it is so minimal that they could not stand alone in a separate newsgroup. I am (as I've stated before) very much in favor of a new newsgroup called rec.wildlife or rec.nature, and I would put both rec.birds and the new newsgroup in my newgroup list (any volunteers out there to take votes for a new newsgroup??). > Those that wish to >discuss breeding domestic (read pet) birds should probably take it to rec.pet. Perhaps pet bird articles should be posted to rec.pets (although many of these articles are asking for advice--and what better place to get advice about birds than this newgroup), but CAPTIVE bird articles have no place there (and would probably be flamed). Also, I'm not going to waste my time digging through the dog, cat, and goldfish articles to find the one or two articles a day about birds (NOTE: I do like all three of the aforementioned pets--I just don't like to read about them). >Flame resistant feathers on :-) No, no flames--just a little discussion. Bryan Hilterbrand +------------------------------------------------+ bryanh@dadla.TEK.COM | Were you REALLY expecting a cute message here? | Tektronix Logic Analyzers +------------------------------------------------+