Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!hppad!geleynse
From: geleynse@hppad.HP.COM (Martin Geleynse)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <2120002@hppad.HP.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 90 14:13:13 GMT
References: <1918@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Organization: HP Panacom Automation Div Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 31


>                               but I don't recall a single flame war
> being started by a pet owner complaining about the presence of articles
> not about pet birds - they are all started by birders' (or whatever we
> are calling ourselves these days) remarks.
>
I also do not recall a single war started by a pet owner, and this does not 
surprise me in the least. I have been a birder for almost 20 years, and
generally find birders to be the least TOLERANT, most SELF-RIGHTEOUS people
I know (as a group -  there are always individual exceptions).
 
> Personally I intend to vote against any change from the status quo as
> far as this group is concerned.  I don't keep pet birds, and am
> undecided as to how I feel about keeping them in general, but I'm not
> going to object to anyone else doing so, unless harm is caused either to
> the bird being kept, or to its species.  I certainly have no problem
> filtering the articles in this group, and see no reason to create new
> groups.  The net is cluttered enough.

I would also vote AGAINST the change. This notes group is not crowded,
it is easy to separate the two categories, and it is good for narrow-minded
birders to be reminded that there is more than one way (their way) to enjoy
birds.

I don't keep caged birds, but if I did, I would tell those "offended" birders
that the legal possession of pet birds is harmless to man and birds, and 
therefore, none of their @$#%$ business!

Why don't we just grow up and go back to reading about BIRDS.

Martin