Sue, thanks for taking the time to read the report. I realize that SFO is rapidly evolving and that the ideas we responded to were a "vision." History has many examples where unchallenged visions become disastrous reality. My colleagues and I, who worked on the report, believe this to be the case with the SFO concept. I am also well aware of declining society memberships, but again have no reason to see why forming a new, or merging old, societies will fix that problem. The declining membership in professional (and I would add civic) groups worldwide indeed argues that a new society will not remedy this problem. We need to understand and address the root of the problem as to why membership declines. And we should not immediately think that smaller, but more engaged and focused societies might not even be most effective for ornithology. Our current society committees indeed work on this issue of membership decline and I believe progress can be made. A joint committee tackling this pressing issue for all ornithology societies could be very helpful. Instead, I see our leadership distracted from that aim by focusing on making a new society. It is a bit like a child who tires of an outdated toy. Rather than fix the old standard, they cast it aside and get the new shiny one. Our societies have a rich legacy that can also carry us far into the future; lets make sure we fix that before we cast it aside. John
Thinking Critically About "A Vision for the Society for Ornithology"
in Community
Posted
Sue, thanks for taking the time to read the report. I realize that SFO is rapidly evolving and that the ideas we responded to were a "vision." History has many examples where unchallenged visions become disastrous reality. My colleagues and I, who worked on the report, believe this to be the case with the SFO concept. I am also well aware of declining society memberships, but again have no reason to see why forming a new, or merging old, societies will fix that problem. The declining membership in professional (and I would add civic) groups worldwide indeed argues that a new society will not remedy this problem. We need to understand and address the root of the problem as to why membership declines. And we should not immediately think that smaller, but more engaged and focused societies might not even be most effective for ornithology. Our current society committees indeed work on this issue of membership decline and I believe progress can be made. A joint committee tackling this pressing issue for all ornithology societies could be very helpful. Instead, I see our leadership distracted from that aim by focusing on making a new society. It is a bit like a child who tires of an outdated toy. Rather than fix the old standard, they cast it aside and get the new shiny one. Our societies have a rich legacy that can also carry us far into the future; lets make sure we fix that before we cast it aside. John