By the
pond An
argument thats for the birds
By ARTHUR JONES
This column is strictly for the
birds. Hummingbirds primarily, but parrots, peregrine falcons and flocks more.
Theres also a touch of cautious optimism (not quite hope).
The column returns to a favorite theme -- that environmental
destruction is a combination of ignorance, arrogance and greed -- and
introduces a new theme.
The fresh theme is Congressional politics (where birds of a
feather are more likely to vote for hunting Cock Robin than saving his
habitat), and the importance of mobilizing environmentally concerned people to
push that politics in a more eco-friendly direction.
First ignorance. In this case, mine, emblematic of whats
been going of for two centuries.
More than 30 years ago, in the mid-1960s, we had a house and an
acre on the Delaware River with 160 feet of river frontage. A decrepit house,
true -- but we were fixing it up. There was a view from the front window over
the river. Running up outside the kitchen window was a vine with bright red
flowers.
Picture this. Late afternoon we could sit and eat while, eight
inches away, on the other side of the window glass, rufous hummingbirds
hovered, flitted and fed.
As birds and humans dined, we could look into each others
eyes. Precious.
So, comes the fall, I cranked up the old mower and mowed the last
time before winter, cutting away grass, old sticks, dying-off plant stems. Yes,
I mowed away the vine. And the next year, no hummingbirds. A year later the
house was sold for we were back in Britain.
When I mowed away the vine, I simply didnt think about what
I was doing.
Not to excuse my stupidity over the hummingbirds feeding
needs, the fact is that three decades ago most of us were actually pretty
ignorant about birds and ecological and environmental issues.
As a schoolboy I knew about birds migratory patterns -- we
all did -- about their nesting requirements in general and physical
despoliations intrusion on it.
But we never put two-and-two together as we raided their nests for
eggs for our collections, or used them for target practice with slingshots. Or
watched the bulldozers crash across fields for new post-World War II
housing.
Then came Carson, and we all started learning together.
Particularly from television programs. The needs of the natural world came into
living room. Our consciousness was being raised. The rise of environmental
organizations buttresses the point.
In the 1960s, the National Audubon Society had less than 100,000
members (now it has almost 600,000). The Nature Conservancy was barely 15 years
old with well under 60,000 members. Today it has a million.
The Wilderness Society and the World Wildlife Fund, both 1935
foundations, today have 200,000 and 1.2 million members respectively.
A caution here, from Ben Beach at the Wilderness Society.
The early 1990s was a high watermark for the environmental
community, he said, Exxon Valdez in Alaska, needles on the beaches
in New Jersey, and the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Then the fervor died
down, which means that membership figures have eased, or stayed flat, he
said.
Yet in this decade, a new matrix of concern was laid across the
world, making the connections among millions of ordinary people everywhere
committed to protecting their local environment.
The people connection at times mimics the birds migratory
patterns. The common starting point for many winged travelers is the Alaskan
Arctic. For tundra swan and sandpiper, for red-throated loons or Black Brant
geese, for plover or peregrine falcon, the Arctic is home.
Environmental groups have focused assiduously on saving pristine
Arctic breeding grounds.
But like northern Americans who winter in Miami (hence
snowbirds), the Arctic flocks soar south, far south, as winter
approaches. So it became environmentally necessary to follow the avian
travelers as they visit truck stops -- such as the Cheyenne Bottoms
in central Kansas where flocks of 100,000 to 300,000 sandpipers stop-in -- or
Guatemalas half-million acre Lacandon National Park, stopover or winter
quarters for 40 percent of North Americas migratory birds.
Also attracting attention are such crucial winter habitats as
Belizes Rio Bravo and Costa Ricas Talamanca Corridor parks and
preserves. The Nature Conservancy notes that Talamanca is no virgin
forest, but a place where cacao, for chocolate, is grown as a cash crop
in the traditional manner with the rainforest canopy protecting it from
direct light. This requirement, including the human environment, is
essential for any programs that seek to endure.
While environmental groups are not averse to publicizing and
cooperating with each other, they do take on special projects.
World Wildlife Fund, with the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, is deeply committed to halting parrot smuggling. Some
people apparently think NAFTA means North American Feathered Traffic Act.
The Nature Conservancy has a Wings of the Americas
program highlighting and seeking remedial action not only to protect the 4,500
bird species breeding in the hemisphere but also the habitat.
The Wilderness Societys societys major campaigns
are framed by efforts to protect Americas Arctic and the Alaska
coastal rainforest, and centered on building a long-term national
constituency to protect another 100 million acres of Alaskan
wilderness.
The National Audubon Society has an action agenda for the 106th
Congress, and many of its 11 items are bird-connected. Does Congress care?
With Audubons Perry Plumart, I reviewed the agenda, and each
items chances.
1. Supporting Better America Bonds, a Clinton proposal that would
use the bonds to leverage $700 million in federal tax credits. Chance of
passage? Forty percent, he said.
2. Designating Alaskas coastal plain -- and Alaskas
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- as wilderness? Zero. But that
doesnt mean theyre about to open it to drilling, added
Plumart.
3. Urging President Clinton to permanently protect the Forest
Services remaining roadless, scenic wildernesses? A
chance.
4. Opposing legislation that restricts family planning and
population assistance by adding riders to appropriations. A possibility
of success.
5. Increasing National Wildlife Refuge System funding through the
Interior Appropriations subcommittees in House and Senate? A reasonable
chance.
6. Reauthorization of a stronger Endangered Species Act? If
youd have asked me two weeks, zero. But apparently it has a marginal
chance. Theres something interesting going on there.
7. Full funding of the presidents Clean Water Action Plan?
Somethings happening, said Plumart, but I dont
know how much.
8. Funding the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program? Something good there.
9. Funding the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland
Reserve Program? I think good action on this.
10. Reinvigorate the Everglades ecosystem restoration proposal?
I think we win.
11. Increase protection for migratory birds by cosponsoring the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement Act? Replied a delighted
Plumart: Bet the ranch.
Well, maybe the birdhouse.
Back here in Virginia, what about the birds on our sloping half
acre?
Yep, its rufous hummingbird territory. But when it comes to
hummers, I learned that too much knowledge is a depressing thing. Now I know
theyre the nastiest, most aggressive of all the hummingbirds and think
nothing of pushing lesser hummingbirds to one side to make sure they eat.
Natures always got a rough edge.
Arthur Jones is NCRs editor at large.
National Catholic Reporter, April 16,
1999
|