terryw wrote:
Will,
If you read the last part of John Clarkson's comments you will see exactly what I meant. For any so called birder to describe any birds as "dross" is something I find incredible. If he had said "plus the usual stuff" or "lots of common birds" then no problem. He had plenty of opportunity to rephrase if he thought he was being misunderstood but, instead, chose to defend his view and, when that received criticsm, to pretend it was all a wind up !
What I find more disturbing than Steve's comment is the fact that you seem to agree with him. The future of birding and, indeed, birds themselves, is in the hands of younger birders like you and if there are birds that you regard as "dross" and of no interest or pleasure simply because they are common then the future is darker than any of us feared ! I'm not having a go at you but I truly hope that's not what you mean.
Terry,
As I said. Each to there own.
I personally have been birding since I was at least four years of age (I'm now 21) and I'm sorry if the likes of Black-headed Gulls and Starlings don't do anything for me, but unless I see some interesting behavior from one, that I haven't seen before then I have very little more than a passing interest in them. I don't spend hours watching them, as I doubt anyone does after a couple of years birding.
Dross is a term often used by experienced birders about common things. But why does this mean the future is any darker? It doesn't mean we aren't going to do what we can to help preserve these species.
For example, I would prefer to see money being spent on trying to save our declining populations of common birds such as House Sparrows and Starlings than the current mass of reintroduction programs that are going on for birds that perhaps don't actually need our help and are recovering quite well on their own (Ospreys and Corncrakes spring to mind).
As I said before, everyone gets different degrees of pleasure out of birding and everyone birds to different degrees.
cheers
Will