[Tweeters] Reply the post from Tyler Hicks of Oct 8
retief at deweydrive.com
retief at deweydrive.com
Fri Oct 11 07:53:54 PDT 2013
I frequent the area you are referring to. And one thing that I find
disturbing in many discussions is misinformation. To your point #1,
every time I have been there I see clear signs of where the line is
between hunters/non-hunters, there are signs all over the place. In
fact I have images of SEO's sitting on these signs, which I find
humorous. I also find it off-putting when you add in phrases such as
"non-violent". This seems to imply that either hunters are de-facto
violent, or that somehow all people who bird or photograph are not.
I bring both of these up because it is the people like me, those in
the middle, that will need to support what you are trying to
accomplish. Trying to be controversial is all well and good, but if
in your attempt at "controversy" you alienate the people you need the
support from, I don't think it will do your cause much good.
Normally I would not post this reply publically, but since you started
the discussion here, I think it is appropriate.
I am sure the Admin folk will let me know if this is not appropriate.
Quoting marlin greene <marlin at oneearthimages.com>:
> I want to briefly answer the post from Tyler Hicks of Oct 8.
> The purpose of my website, FriendsofEideRoad.org, is not to advocate
> for multi-use public land management, but to advocate first of all
> for the birds, and secondly for non-violent visitors. I have the
> outlandish idea that it might be appropriate to repurpose the site
> to no-hunting status, dedicating it to the birds, birders and
> photographers. I want to abolish the accepted myth that hunters and
> non-violent visitors are both after the same thing - they are not.
> Hunters kill birds, birders and photographers admire them.
> Eide Road is especially worthy of consideration for these reasons:
> 1. The present situation is dangerous because there are no
> designated areas to separate the activities of hunters and
> 2. This area is relatively small -- shrubs and grass can conceal
> visitors -- hunters from photographers and vis versa; I've seen this
> 3. This is a unique area that attracts shorebirds, short-eared owls,
> northern harriers and even snowy owls in winter.
> 4. Hunting disrupts and disturbs all these birds. They scatter when
> a shotgun goes off.
> Question: Is it unreasonable that the growing number of birders and
> photographers in Washington should have a small piece of public land
> set aside for their use without guns disrupting the birds they come
> to see? It will never happen unless someone initiates the proposal.
> FriendsofEideRoad.org is how we initiate the proposal. It is filled
> with strong language because I am trying to be controversial. If I
> was satisfied with the situation as it now exists there would be no
> need for the website, would there?
> How many people agree with this proposal remains to be seen. I've
> already learned that Audubon is indifferent, hunters are or course
> against it, most photographer don't even bother to answer my emails.
> I have not been able to even find out how to approach WDFW to about
> having the site repurposed -- they don't want another issue to deal
> with it seems. I had to start this conversation and build the
> website because nobody else was willing to do. It at least needs to
> be discussed because it is the right thing to do. How do I know? A
> little bird told me.
> Marlin Greene
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:16:58 -0500
> From: Tyler Hicks <uplandsandpiper at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [Tweeters] WDFW Eide Road meeting coming up
> To: Tweeters ListServ <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <BAY172-W25DB3C00F7900FED207D1BAB1C0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> I think you would have a lot more support if you modified your
> approach. Some of the language on your website clearly shows an
> agenda that doesn't reflect the realities of multi-use public land
> management. For instance you characterize bird hunting as "obscene
> slaughter of pheasants and waterfowl" but hunting is in fact how
> many people connect with nature. The fact they use a gun and you use
> a spotting scope is irrelevant. Our public lands are managed for
> everyone's use. Perhaps you should look for a solution that would
> maintain access for birders and hunters alike. Perhaps a partial
> closure to hunting might be more sellable than an entire closure or
> something else along those lines.
> While I agree that birders can pump money to local economies hunters
> equally do so. Additionally hunters buy licenses and permits from
> the state which directly fund WDFW thus making their voices and
> concerns more likely to be heard and acted upon my the state.
> Additionally, many organizations funded by hunters, such as Ducks
> Unlimited, do great things to restore habitat for waterfowl and
> other species, such as shorebirds, benefit from wetland restoration
> and creation. What I am trying to say here is that hunters are not
> your enemy in this case but they are your ally and likely want to
> maintain access as much as you. Why divide your forces? Just a
> Marlin Greene: One Earth Images
> 105 NW 75th Street
> Seattle, WA 98117
> Ph: 206.784.1641
More information about the Tweeters