Deadspin logo piece - Responses

I published a fun piece on Deadspin.com this week about fixing the birds pro sports logos. I worked with Ashley Anderson of Hidden Stash Art on the artwork, and she did a fantastic job.

There's been a pretty good reception for the piece so far (as a longtime Deadspin reader I know it's a tough crowd), but there have been a few recurring comments on the article and social that I want to address here.

1. The Falcons logo making an F

There's a long and delightful tradition of sports logos sneakily incorporating letters into the design. The all-time best example was the logo for the Milwaukee Brewers, which used an "m" and a "b" to make a baseball glove. I am all for secret letters. Except when they don't make any sense. 

Part of the problem I have with the Falcons logo is that there's that weird leg sticking out in front. It's unnatural and unnecessary. A bunch of people said it was there because it turns the logo into an F. Here's the best illustration of that effect I could find on the internet, from SB Nation:

Uh I guess? I guess that's an F? It's sort of a long stick with two things moving off to the right in a general F pattern? So, OK, the body makes an F, but please grant me that it is a terrible F. 

But here's the thing: You don't need to make an F when you are showing a falcon. It's a picture of a Falcon. This isn't a children's book. If you want to incorporate a letter, incorporate an A, for Atlanta! If there was a team called the Oklahoma Zebras, you wouldn't have a picture of a zebra with a hidden Z...it's already a zebra! You know what it is! This whole thing sucks, please fix it.

2. The Falcon logo has its foot out because they have their feet out when pouncing on prey

A bunch of people said that it was normal for a falcon to have its foot out because that's how they attack prey. Yeah, sure, falcons use their feet to attack prey...but not with their wings down! Falcons sweep their wings back to extend their feet when they attack. The bird in the logo is sweeping its wings down. Completely unnatural.

3. The Arizona Cardinals Should Be The Arizona Pyrrhuloxias Instead

Hell yes, hell yes they should. I don't care that no one would be able to pronounce it.

4. I Should Have Included the Toronto Raptors Because Dinosaurs Are Birds

Congrats to the 2018-19 NBA World Champs! I hope Kawhi stays! Anyway, yeah birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs aren't birds. Thanks.

Okay that's about all thanks for reading stay in school don't do drugs vote! support your local library and give to environmental causes bye. 

Splits and Lumps in the ABA Podcast

The American Birding Association released their annual AOS Classification Committee roundup podcast this week, my favorite annual episode. As always, host Nate Swick talks with Stonehill College professor Dr. Nick Block about this years' proposals to the Committee, and which ones might or might not pass.

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE HERE

It's great fun to hear about how our checklists might change based on the latest science, and this one was another great episode. I enjoyed the early discussion about possible White-winged Scoter splits and an unlikely Harlan's Hawk split, as well as the other scientific discussion.

However, when the conversation got to the part about possible changes to some common names, I had some qualms. QUALM ALERT. 

Not being a scientist, I have no opinion on the scientific lumps and splits stuff. Being a regular birder, though, I do have some strong opinions on common names. In the episode, Swick and Block discussed two possible name changes before the Classification Committee -- regarding McCown's Longspur and Blue-throated Hummingbird -- and I had some problems with each. 

First, I am on record as being a strong supporter of changing the name of the McCown's Longspur, which is being proposed because it turns out that John P. McCown was a general in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Oops. I love honorific names, but also strongly support changing them if we think the honored person is no longer worthy. We have the power, let's use it!

I was surprised, then, to hear Nate hesitate on this rename, citing the ol' slippery slope argument by saying, "where do you stop once you start going down this path?" I just hate slippery slope arguments, which have been used to justify not doing all kinds of good things worth doing, because they're so often posed as a rhetorical question without an answer. Instead, slipper slope questions always have an answer, and for the question of "where do we stop once we start going down the path" of renaming birds named after unworthy people, there are two pretty clear answers. The first answer, the one that applies to all slippery slope questions, is: "We stop wherever we decide too." No decision obligates us to any other decision, and with debate and thought smart people put limits on things all the time. It's not a big deal. The second answer, the more specific one for this renaming question, is: "We stop somewhere on the other side of honoring a guy who took up arms against his countrymen so that he could keep other human beings as slaves." I hope the Committee passes this rename, and I look forward to additional reconsiderations of avian honorees.

My second qualm was about the discussion of the proposed renaming of Blue-throated Hummingbird to Blue-throated Mountaingem (Mountain-gem?). I'm no expert on Central American hummingbirds (one day I hope!), but do know a single species of the Lampornis genus from Arizona: the Blue-throated Hummingbird. Apparently, all the other species in this genus are called Mountangems, not Hummingbird, and this proposal would extend that name to the Blue-throat. Sounds cool, and Mountaingem is a hell of a word. I support it.

I furrowed my brows a bit about how Nate and Dr. Block discussed the proposal, though. There was some eye-rolling in the beginning of the episode about how the Classification Committee lacks consistency in making decisions, but I thought the support of this change was inconsistent with what the two were discussing earlier. In their talk about honorifics, Dr. Block said he preferred descriptive names (well, except for ones that are poorly descriptive, like Ring-necked Duck)...but isn't getting rid of "Hummingbird" in this species' name a step away from description and towards obfuscation? Everyone knows what a hummingbird is, but what the heck is a mountaingem? Dr. Block said that he favored the name change in part because it "reduces confusion" -- meaning that all the species in Lampornis would now share the Mountaingem name -- and I suppose that's true, but only for those birders who are familiar with the entire genus. I'd say for the rest of us, for the majority of American birders, the change would instead cause confusion!

It's a matter of perspective. To ornithologists like Dr. Block, changing the name to Mountaingem would align them with their related species elsewhere on the continent. But to American non-ornithologists, those hordes of regular birders who, like me, have enough to remember with just my Sibley, the name change would be something new and different. The Classification Committee, I suspect, will take the ornithologist view. A cursory check tells me that every member of the Committee except Jon Dunn has a Ph.D. (and he probably deserves one). These are not regular birders. But the decision to change the common name of a species is not based in science. Unlike all the other lump/split decisions made by this Committee, for which I am grateful they are the top scientists in the field, common names live with us, the commoners. Do we get a say in how common names are chosen? I hope Jon Dunn carries our water, and at least reminds the Committee of the other perspectives involved. 

Birds of North America -- DEBATE!

We filmed more than just the one episode when Jason and Jeffrey Ward were in town. Director Rob Meyer also made Jason and I face off for a debate on birding's hottest topics!

What do we do about cats?

What insults can we hurl at the Mandarin Duck?

What should we do about rare owl sightings?

THESE ANSWERS AND MORE BELOW!

Birds of North America -- Christmas Bird Count

I'm honored and thrilled to be included in a new episode of Jason Ward's Birds of North America web series on Topic.com! Jason, his brother Jeffrey, artist and icon Rosemary Mosco, and A Birder's Guide to Everything director Rob Meyer came up to Maine this past December to do some filming with me and Maine Audubon. 

This episode captures our day in Maine Audubon's Scarborough Marsh Sanctuary for the Christmas Bird Count. We all had a really great time walking Eastern Trail, skating on the thick ice, and narrowly avoiding a guy with a shotgun. The episode came out so wonderfully, I'm pleased to share it with you.

I think I'll be in another upcoming episode, so stay tuned. Watch all the other episodes here. 

Maine Voices Live -- June 4

For anyone in the southern Maine area who wants to come watch me and my Maine Audubon pal Doug Hitchcox talk about birding and birds and Maine and youth and travel and controversy and vagrants and whatever else we can come up with, please join us in Portland on June 4 for Maine Voices Live.

Thanks in large part to the interest of reporter Deirdre Fleming, the Portland Press Herald provides a ton of great content about birds in Maine. She's written about the state bird story I mucked up, covered the Great Black Hawk and lots of other vagrants (I'm trying to get them to stop using the "birders flock" headline cliche), and other cool bird stories that don't typically make major newspapers.

And now she's going to interview Doug and me about all this stuff, and more, on stage in front of a live audience. Buy your tickets and come join us!

Birding Game of Thrones

Wanted to make sure you all saw my recent post on birds seen and heard (mostly heard) in Game of Thrones. It was a lot of fun to write, especially because I was able to connect with the show's Supervising Sound Editor, Tim Kimmel.

How ‘Game of Thrones’ Gets Packed With Birds (and Not Just Ravens)

As a cursed soul who spends more time than maybe anyone else thinking and getting upset over birds singing in the background of TV and movies (see Birds at Large), hearing from Kimmel about his process on the show was a revelation. 

A lot more effort and thinking goes into the background birds in Game of Thrones than it may seem. With so few people paying attention to those noises, it was easy for me to think that their inclusion and selection was a real afterthought for the production team. It certainly seems that way for other show and movies. Game of Thrones has always been different -- even though it's set in a fantasy world the birds are pretty good fits for the scenes: night birds singing at night, prairie birds singing in prairie habitat etc. 

Those things don't happen by accident, of course. Kimmel told me that he sits down with the show's producers and thinks about the setting and mood of a scene, and then finds background noise to match or enhance it. He'll do research on what birds should be where. When there isn't a noise that the producers feel fits, Kimmel will sometimes digitally alter sounds to create new bird songs. (That bit was amazing to me, and made be feel better about all the bird songs I couldn't recognize!) 

I enjoyed writing this piece, and have of course enjoyed watching Game of Thrones. It's set to end this weekend, but hopefully Tim Kimmel will move on to grace other productions with his birds!

On Bird Names

A recent proposal to the AOS to change the common name of McCown's Longspur has got people talking once again about some of our worst bird names.

I have specific thoughts, but also want to make an overarching point.

We need to become more comfortable with change. All of us, all kinds of change. Things need to change and we need to allow it. Climate change and a million other forms of human influence are destroying our planet, and in order to save the planet and save ourselves we need to change. Change a lot of big things that'll probably be a huge pain in the ass and really hard. But we need to do it, and we know we need to do it, but change is hard and we don't like it.

The common names of birds are by my rough count 1000000 times less consequential than climate change. They truly do not matter in any real sense. Scientists don't use them. They don't have any bearing on species management or protections. The birds don't know what their names are, so they won't care. Common names are just codes that non-scientist humans say to each other to talk about the same species. They mean nothing.

So we should change them! If we don't like one we should change it! And if we don't like the new name we should change that, too! If there's a bird named after some guy and it turns out that guy was a huge racist jerk, change the name! If there's a name that refers to a woodpecker's red belly or a duck's ringed neck and no one on earth has ever seen the red belly or the ringed neck, change the names! They're made up words that we made up! We can do whatever we want!

We need to embrace change, really embrace it. If we can't figure out how to change the code word for a bird because it's named after an evil racist how are we going to agree on changing the hard stuff? Change the names.

--

There's a parallel discussion going on about honorifics, about the whole practice of naming species after people. I like them and always have, and think we should keep them around. It's fun to honor people, and to add a sense of history to the whole thing, and I think they sound exotic. My least favorite kind of name is the ADJECTIVE-BODYPARTED BIRDTYPE, but I feel like that's what most people want. The new proposed names for the McCown's Longspur include Prairie Longspur (aren't they sorta all on prairies?), Banded Longspur (snoooooze), and Black-crowned Longspur (snoooooooooze). These are names that babies would give, like the families who get a black cat and name it Blackie.

I think some birders like descriptive names because they seem scientific, or at least strive to "make sense." Screw that. If you want to be a scientist use the scientific names. These jerks would change Bobolink to Yellow-capped Blackbird or Whip-poor-will to like Eastern Nightjar or some shit. Honorifics and other non-descriptive names (many/most of which are actually onomatopoeic, which is sort of descriptive but not really because they're interpretive and end up being unique words), aren't always super clear. They've got mystery, or backstory, or are open to interpretation. They're art, in other words, and birding needs some more of that.

If there are honorifics that honor someone inappropriate, change it! (See above.) There are plenty of worthy people out there, as I've written about before. We have the power to make things right.