Dear Auduboners;

Here are my notes (in 4 parts) taken at the Board Meeting in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, March 6th to March 9th. Six of the eight Latin American chapters sent representatives and gave some of the most impressive presentations I have ever seen.

=======================

Thursday, March 6th.

Latin American Meetings.

Ted Eubanks, David Dominick, Ben Olewine, myself and Sandra Skrei from the Texas Audubon office had an all-day meeting with the Latin American chapters, as well as several NGOs that have been working with the San Miguel chapter, and representatives from the USFS and USFWS. I will summarize here a combination of this day's notes and the formal presentations made at the Board Forum on Saturday.

Audubon of El Salvador (Oscar Cristales). El Salvador is the most degraded country in Central America - only 2% of natural habitat remains. The chapter's primary focus is education; it runs 14 education centers. There is only one chapter biologist and one volunteer for both the eastern and western zones. There is very little money but the people and children work very hard. A chapter dream is to develop eco-tourism. A current project is to buy land on Monte Christo Island ( Oscar called it the High Island of El Salvador); each square meter would cost 80 cents. The community at large is very interested but needs financial support. Basic needs: money and people (a universal Audubon need). Most important problems: no environmental laws; the capture and sale of live birds.

Audubon of Nicaragua (Santiago Lopez). This chapter is only three months old and has ten members - their primary need is more members. They have begun to work with children and schools. What they really need is training in lobbying, fundraising, organizational skills, and so on. Their main asset is the Audubon name, and Nicaragua does have some bird protection laws.

Panama Audubon Society (Norita Scott Pezet: audubon@pananet.com). This chapter is nearly 30 years old and is one of the two primary conservation groups in Panama. They have evolved in the last several years from a U.S. citizen birding club into a majority-Panamanian citizen conservation and birding organization. There are 940 species of birds in Panama and 25% of land is still forested. The national parks and protected areas do not, by and large, have fences or guards - their protection is only on paper. The protected areas were so far from population centers that nobody cared, but now population pressure is putting them at risk. In addition, birding is not a cultural feature of Panama, something they hope to change.

There are about 300 members. They publish a 12-14 page newsletter in Spanish and English. Their main asset is the Audubon name and they have registered it to prevent its misuse. Needs: training, especially of Panamanian natives as birders and/or ornithologists. Projects: they have an IBA program in full swing, with area protection the biggest issue. An education campaign managed to turn the tide against the public sale of caged birds. Their Christmas Count has the highest total species count (somewhere over 300). Opportunities - the turnover of the Canal Zone to Panama is the biggest exchange of assets from country to country in history, with the exception of Hong Kong. It presents both tremendous opportunity and equally tremendous risk; the government has *no* plans. Audubon could make all the difference between condo and golf club development or preservation of a very rich ecosystem.

Audubon of Venezuela (Stelio Carrasquel). This chapter is also about 30 years old. They have about 600 family memberships (1800 people) and 11 corporate members. There are 15 paid staff members. They have an office (described as incredibly small and crowded) and a Nature Shop. One of their members is the foremost bird guide in Venezuela and they are licensed as tour guides.

To Ted Eubanks' great joy, Venezuela Audubon runs a conservation *business*. Their income is 42% from eco-tourism, 24% from the Nature Shop, 18% grants and donations, and 16% from memberships. I regret to say that I was so impressed by their slide presentation that I failed to take notes; as I recall there was a full plate of conservation projects from a mining cleanup campaign to Amazonian forest habitat to children's education. They would like to open an "Audubon Center" that would also serve as a new office. Training is also on their needs list.

Belize Audubon (Carlos Santos). There have been many stages in Belize Audubon's 27 years, from white and elite and birders to a mission statement that is, "The promotion of sustainable use and preservation of natural resources to maintain the balance between people and the environment." "Balance" is the key. Problems: waste management, deforestation (even with 70% of cover left and 37% of it under protection), marine and coastal degradation from over-fishing and mangrove destruction, water quality, and land degradation due to immigration pressure. But, the biggest problem is poverty and the effect that has on habitat conservation (this was a theme of most presentations). Programs: protected areas management (7 national parks), environmental education, advocacy (the major program for the next 5 years; they are trying to become proactive instead of reactive).

Carlos was most eloquent on social equity. Making all people part of the solution to the balancing of development is absolutely essential. He also asked for a partnership with National Audubon, not a patrimony (another repeated theme during the meeting). It is important to remember that we can both help each other.

Sociedad Audubon de Mexico, formerly Audubon of San Miguel (Judy Arnold Hernandez). S.A.M. has also changed in the last few years from a birding club to a leading environmental advocate (birding too, of course). They have affiliated with several other conservation groups (more later) in central Mexico.

Issues: family planning (the state of Guanajuato is one of the poorest and most populous in Mexico); surface water pollution (intestinal disease is the leading cause of death, especially in children under 5); protection of the water table which has been dropping 6 feet a year for more than a dozen years; protection of the 200,000 acre Santa Rosa forest; an enormous project to reforest the Rio Laja in cooperation with federal, state and local government, social service groups, environmental groups, and the US Forest Service; membership in Partners in Flight, a bird survey of Santa Rosa, and the San Miguel Christmas Count, all to prevent a Silent Spring in central Mexico.

Other NGOs affiliated with S.A.M. also spoke at the Board Forum. "CASA" (Centro para los Adolescentes de San Miguel de Allende; director Nadine Goodman) is a family planning, environmental education, day care, health care - the list goes on and on - organization. "Aztlan" (an Aztec word meaning "the place of the white herons", director Heidi Bauer) is an Ecological Rescue Center and nature reserve emphasizing renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, recycling, reforestation - again the list goes on and on. The "Grupo Sierra Gorda" (director, Patti Pedroza) has managed to plant over 3 million (!) trees on its way to being declared an International Biosphere Reserve. Through education they have virtually molded a culture of conservation from children to adults, teaching them how a balanced ecosystem benefits all. Patti showed us an impressive video that describes how birds and humans need each other in a healthy environment. Again, Patti emphasized how important it is to make people part of the solution. Finally, she sang for us and brought the house down. Try to imagine Joan Baez and Ethel Merman rolled into one person and you'll be close. Patti is, however, unique.

"Pro Natura" (Larry Maynard: verpronatura@laneta.apc.org) gave a short presentation. Their site in Veracruz sees a raptor migration of over 4 million (sic) birds in the fall. They have had to develop new ways of counting birds in order to cope. They would like a sister Audubon chapter, eco-tourism development, publicity, training exchanges, and training of bilingual Mexican birding tour leaders.

Andres Sada, the father of conservation in Mexico, was the final speaker. He declared he was very glad to see Audubon moving into Latin America. He recommended that we have a physical presence, someone who knows what is going on locally. He views training to be just as important as financial support. In his opinion, Audubon doesn't have to start from scratch, but needs to build on what already exists in Latin America. He spoke approvingly of the strategic plan - to be a success one must be focused.

End of Part 1 of 4

=================

Friday, March 7th

=================

Finance Committee (James Cunningham)

=================

To summarize a 12-page report, Jim anticipates a net operating surplus of $40,000 by the end of the year. In other words, no major surprises (on balance) in the 1996/97 budget year.

Development (John Flicker)

===========

When we adopted the Strategic Plan we were looking at a $2 million deficit. *But*, last year we were able to put that amount into endowment. Paul Tudor Jones made a $3.75 million commitment to the wetlands campaign. Last year the Packard Foundation committed to $4 million, the largest grant to date. It is an organization-building grant, and the largest they have made to an environmental organization.

Mrs. G. D. Shehan, donated her property on the eastern shore of Maryland. It has 8 miles of frontage and has been appraised at about $8 million. We will use it as an Audubon center for education. She has also expressed interest in funding its operations!

Strategic Plan focus: from 20 programs we are down to eleven board-approved campaigns. Beginning with the new Bird Conservation program we are turning all programs in the direction of Birds (significant pause), other wildlife and habitat

Decentralization: State programs continue to come on-line. The 11th state director has just been appointed - Cindy Dunn of Pennsylvania. Our goal is 40 programs in the first five years.

Science: BirdSource will be the center of the Science division. Input from CBCs, BBS, FeederWatch, etc., will feed this database and generate useful data for the WatchList and IBA programs. 500 beta testers are now validating the input side of BirdSource.

**Rough Cost Estimates** (typically for next 5 years):

BirdSource: $1MM/yr for 3 yrs; $10MM endowment

AA, Mag, and Production: unknown.

Audubon Centers: Corkscrew ($5.2MM); Aullwood ($3.4MM); Greenwich, Maine and Vermont (unknown).

New Audubon centers : 10 at $2MM each = $20MM.

Public Policy: Everglades $2MM/yr; Wetlands $2MM/yr; Refuges $1.5MM/yr; Others unknown. All for the next 5 years.

State Programs: 40 @ $1MM each.

Beyond our Borders programs (3) all unknown.

How will this be funded? Local campaigns for state offices, centers, etc. Overlaying the top of this are National Leadership Grants, like Packard, to help fund the local fundraising campaigns.

National infrastructure should not grow - growth should be at the state level where donations stay local. We want the best job to be state office director and to get nothing in between the President and the state offices. We need training for the state directors and staff using a program like the Audubon Academy (traveling instructors are exchanged between states).

We are looking at $100MM campaign, but Jack Dempsey encouraged us to set our sights even higher, higher than we might be comfortable with. Ruth Russell asked that the chapters be included in the planning process for this development campaign.

Regional Directors Meeting

==========================

Ted Eubanks reported on Latin American meeting. 6/8 attending, excepting Guatemala and Honduras.

Ruth Russell raised the direct deposit SNAFU: apparently our NY bank sent all the deposits into a system that generated a $10 charge to each chapter, contrary to their promise. Jim Cunningham reported that the NY bank will reimburse all chapters that ask. The next month's deposits will be withheld until April in order to make sure the no-charge system is working, and then March and April dues shares will be sent. He was confident the bugs would be worked out and said this technique for direct deposits would save us many thousands of dollars in expenses. Jim also reported that about 30 chapters have not responded to 3 notices that unless they supply a bank account number to him there will be no dues share sent to them!

Walt Pomeroy is building a database of chapter officers (ed. note: I'm not sure this is intended to be the final resting place for those names; we do have a structural problem with the demise of the regional offices).

Eubanks and Cunningham said that it is fundamental to get chapters on line; our information exchange is in the pre-strategic plan dark ages. Eubanks: this is basic foundation building. Bernie Yokel: reiterated need to keep chapters involved but not imposed-upon

Charles Bragg opined that we need a killer-app to attract people to EC and break the chicken and egg problem. Engle: people don't read their email until 80-90 messages build up. Eubanks: maybe we should revisit chapter certification and recommend an Information board position.

Russell: introduced the idea of science "white papers". In brief: many chapters need a science foundation to argue local issues, such as crane hunting, cats as pets, raptor electrocution, and so on. She proposed that NAS create short, informational "white papers" on selected topics. These would not be original science necessarily, but bibliographies, web addresses and other references to background material. They should be reviewed by Science staff since they would have a tacit NAS seal of approval.

Comments: all members could be solicited for input - there are a lot of knowledgeable people out there; it is an excellent tie-in to the Citizen Science campaign, both at the collection and distribution ends; the term "Citizen Science Library" was suggested; this library would be useful to a lot more people than Auduboners; the local Rio Laja project would be a prime beneficiary of such an information pool; Frank Gill, although enthusiastic, suggested we come up with just a couple of topics to start with and see how the details work out.

Glenn Olson reported that in the Alaska/Hawaii region there would be two people in the election for the regional board position - Reggie David and the president of Juno Audubon. In the other two regions electing this year, Joyce Wolf and Ted Eubanks were so far unopposed.

Thursday Dinner

===============

Our guest speaker was Julia Carabias, Minister of the Environment, a combination of EPA, USFWS, USFS and so on in the Mexican cabinet. She pointed out that Mexico is one of the highest ranking countries in the world for biodiversity. It ranks number 1 in reptiles with over 1700 species. It ranks in the top ten for amphibians and flowers. When you consider that with its astonishing bird life it ranks only 11th in diversity in the world, those other categories are really something special.

Her speech was most unlike what we hear in the U.S. from our high officials. It was completely straightforward and environmentally positive. Her emphasis was on preserving resources by making them more valuable to the people who live in and around them. Typically, resource extraction pays local people very low wages, and after the resource is gone, pays nothing at all. Using a forest for eco-tourism, for example, is a higher-paying and renewable resource.

She was very receptive to partnership efforts with Audubon, and she gave us much hope for the success of projects like Partners in Flight.

===================

Saturday, March 8th

===================

Board Forum

Francis Pandolfi gave us a review of surveys describing the attitude of people towards Conservation in the 90s.

Americans are optimistic; they believe a balance can be reached, but they favor balancing towards the environment; green voters are becoming more numerous.

On the other hand, more people believe that costs should be considered in the Endangered Species Act; more people feel laws and regulations have gone far enough (but the trend is leveling off); increased taxes are not an option, although gas taxes for clean air are; loss of property should be compensated.

Key priorities: clean water and health, but the desire to protect wetlands, a prime cleaner of water, remains at the bottom of the list.

Outdoor recreation: quality recreational opportunities are high on the list; those who are active outdoors are happier and more satisfied.

How kids feel (1994): half are very concerned, placing the environment third behind AIDS and kidnapping; disadvantaged kids put AIDS, homelessness, the economy and discrimination ahead of the environment; human health is key; rainforest and ozone depletion are key issues; 2/3 are interested in joining a club that engages in outdoor activities; hiking and being close to nature outranked all environmental activities.

Concerns about the environment dropped from 25% to 16% because concerns are being addressed by government, business and individual action [ed. note: remember this is a survey about *attitudes*]. Personal responsibility is becoming more important, therefore there is less support for business regulations but more support for public sacrifice.

Conclusion: dominant strain of environmentalism in the US is conservation, not preservation. Important point for us as Auduboners is that the public is interested; the public is less likely to be affected by hysteria and hype from either side; common sense is appealing; public is ready to support and be responsible; outdoor recreation and the environment go hand in hand.

Following Francis came the Latin American presentations, already described in Part 1.

Education/Communications Committee

==================================

Comments on the Bird Conservation Campaign: our roots are in bird conservation; we have recommitted ourselves to birds and the environment. Our goal is to stabilize bird populations in the Americas; this goal is the guide for all our programs, including those covered by this committee.

Victoria Shaw's Report: Birds for a Purpose is being tested in four schools in the Bronx; it brings birds and wildlife to a community to see the power of B&W to transform the world around them. This will be a model to take all over the country. It works with key target audiences; it is a real grassroots project; it gives larger numbers of people the tools to participate in our citizen science activities.

Wild Wings heading North is launched; it tracks migrating Snow Geese through satellite telemetry; provides stage two for the Heading South participants; it will have an interactive page on our Web site.

We are consulting on a demonstration garden at Epcot center (Disney World Florida) - Gardening for Wildlife; it is a garden unique to the area; bird feeders (tie-in with FeederWatch); it also ties into the Backyard Birds program; there will be 40,000 visitors a day to the flower festival at Epcot.

Publication of a 2-vol master birding guide is coming in Spring 1999; this will be a different kind of guide; Sibley is a major (THE major?) consultant; it will feature pictures and diagrams of activity/ethology as well as plumage descriptions; the first volume is mostly pictures, second is mostly text and maps. Donal O'Brien commented that a great field guide is our best advertisement - this is good news.

End of Part 2 of 4

==================

AUDUBON MAGAZINE: PROGRESS REVIEW AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE.

In June, 1996, the Board set out a statement of principals concerning Audubon Magazine. The text following, bounded by triple carets (<<<) is that statement:

<<< AUDUBON MAGAZINE

=====Role of the Magazine=====

AUDUBON magazine is the most visible element of the National Audubon Society.

· It must support the mission and vision of Audubon and plays a critical role in fulfilling the strategic plan.

· Its role should be to help change people's behavior to preserve birds, wildlife and habitat and help build a culture of conservation and an environmental ethic.

How should it fulfill this role in support of the mission and vision?

· It should reach a broad audience.

· Should find ways to educate and inform people on issues to inspire them to want to take action and change behavior.

· Should view issues through the lens of birds, other wildlife and their habitat and their relationship to people.

· It should communicate about Audubon's activities and successes.

=====Content of the Magazine=====

· Magazine content is to be viewed as part of an overall communications strategy, taking into account the role of other communication vehicles in reaching audiences and in delivering advocacy and education messages.

· Overall parameters for magazine content will be birds, wildlife and habitat issues and will reflect: a science based perspective; an emphasis on Western Hemisphere/North America (vs. global); a positive, solution-oriented approach.

· Editorial goal will be to produce a magazine of the highest quality, with economic and member interests carefully considered.

· Editorial content should be aligned and consistent with the National Audubon Society's overall goals and point of view.

=====Role of the Editor=====

· The editor will be responsible for all editorial decisions of the Magazine and for carrying out the mission of the Magazine as determined by the Board of Directors.

· A collaborative and collegial working relationship between the Editor and the rest of the organization is critical to the ongoing success of the Magazine in reaching its goal of educating and informing its audience and in changing people's behavior.

· Final editorial decisions, should there be any editorial dispute which cannot be resolved, are with the President, as he is responsible for the overall operations of the organization and has the broadest view of the best interests of the organization.

=====Editorial Direction=====

· Editorial content should be aligned and consistent with the organization's overall goals and point of view.>>>

Vicki Shaw began by saying that we need an Audubon-wide survey of all communications vehicles, starting today with the magazine. The survey will take a year. We need to build research components into our programs to measure their effectiveness.

A nuts-and-bolts progress report [ed. note: I'm sorry but I can't remember who gave it] showed first-time renewals rising from 33.85% in 1993 to 34.84% in 1997; second-time renewals from 50.02% to 59.54%; 3rd time and later renewals from 73.24% to 77.21%. These numbers range from median (1st year) to industry high (2nd year) compared with other membership organizations. The number of people who read each issue is now 3.99, compared to Natural History (3.21), Sierra (2.58), Smithsonian (3.81) and National Geographic (4.59). Advertising pages are +(plus) 13% from 1995 to 1996, compared to Natural History (-21%), Sierra (-20%), Smithsonian (-9%), and Nat'l Geo (+7%).

Jim Fishman (Publisher) commented that the average issue of Audubon is read by 150,000 more people this year than last year.

PRESENTATION BY MIKE ROBBINS (EDITOR):

The challenge to an editor is balancing. This becomes more challenging as circulation increases. Reaching a broad audience is the point. There must be variety of subjects, writers, tone of voice, level, issues, demographics. Education and informing is *very* important (one of Mr. Robbins occupations has been in teaching) We must be science based and factual, with lots of reporting. MR's interest is to show connections among things, and longer term trends.

Re: the lens of birds, wildlife and habitat. We have not done the best possible job here; birds have been lacking. The "insert" has been communicating Audubon activities and successes; he would prefer a tear out but there are costs

MR wants to develop a reader service page that will help readers follow up with bibliography on an interesting articles. Subtle design changes are in the works; the magazine is "heavy" and needs to lighten up; some fairly minor changes will help. He hopes to add to the editorial staff a respected ornithologist with journalistic credentials. This person's job would be to identify the most important issues for articles.

DISCUSSION:

John FITZPATRICK: are you worried that more birding content will affect circulation adversely? ROBBINS: yes, any sudden shifts must be done cautiously. We are currently well within the safe margins [for moderate changes].

Donal O'BRIEN: Les Line's magazine and yours was a big shift and caused (?) a circulation problem. ROBBINS: this was done under orders, but changes were more cosmetic than substantive.

FITZPATRICK: do you have any target dates for the changes you have described? ROBBINS: yes.....by end of 1997.

Hardy ESHBAUGH: I have found a roller coaster of reactions to the magazine among members. How do we use this bird person on the staff? Do we approach the top bird writers in the country? ROBBINS: he will make sure we cover the critical stories as well as we can.

Oakes AMES: I'm glad we will do more customer research. What does the lens of birds mean? Articles that inform the beginning birder? ROBBINS: there are 3 kinds of pieces we can do: tough issues like pesticide; profile of a critter (e.g. the wolverine article); a gallery piece celebrating the beauty of a thing [animal, phenomenon].

O'BRIEN: It is easy to identify who the writers are, not hard at all. Susan Drennan who knows these people - have you asked her? ROBBINS: there is no problem finding the writers. I'm looking for a person who can identify the essential stories.

Charles BRAGG: [ed. note: since I was talking I wasn't making notes. I'll try to be even-handed.] I find your presentation answers many of my questions already. However, I have heard reassurances before and do not detect significant movement. The balance of articles is still low on birds and most bird articles deal with dead or damaged birds. I know many activists who won't read the magazine because it's depressing. You did not mention articles on recreational birding. Birdwatching is the fastest growing outdoor activity in the USA. Also, it seems that there is nobody in senior staff who has a real "feeling" for the Audubon cause. Case in point, the Red Fox article: any Auduboner in the West and any ornithologist could have told you that introduced red foxes are predators of endangered species such as the California Least Tern, etc. How could you leave this out and publish a warm-and-fuzzy? ROBBINS: [reluctant to make Audubon into a birding magazine; reiterates desire for bird person on staff; feels some "birding" articles are out of place and/or there is no more room in the magazine.]. BRAGG: but this person is to be a story-finder, not a fact-checker or a reader or writer; I'm not asking Audubon to become Birdwatcher's Digest. It sounds to me as if you would rather publish an article about mussel poaching than about recreational birding. ROBBINS: Yes.

Jim CUNNINGHAM: we have to listen to our research, not our gut. We're on a roll with the magazine.

Ted EUBANKS: [ed. note: devil's advocate POV]. There are two roles of the magazine - fundraiser and reflection of the members. Which is it going to be? FISHMAN: about 50K of our members are core; should we be catering to the 450K that are not the core?

Lynn DOLNICK: I'm fairly neutral on the editorial issue; I'm hearing that people want recreational birding issues but Jim Fishman says it's not for our 450K members; do we have research on the debate? FISHMAN - no research, it's expensive. Also, would we want to follow the research?

ESHBAUGH: you have given us the data already. Hard core magazines for birding are all [excepting Wild Bird] under 50K circulation. We are interested in using birds to get the message across, not in starting a birding magazine. We only need a subtle shift.

FITZPATRICK: don't want a birding magazine. It should reflect us.

Reid HUGHES: I've always liked the magazine. I've seen this type of issue develop to where the management's authority is usurped by the board when it mini-manages the magazine. The board *has* set a policy in writing; the editor and publisher are responsible to the president. It's good to have heard all these comments but the facts are that we have a healthy magazine and we have the proofs (procedures?) in place. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Francis PANDOLFI: I see a lot that has changed over time - renewals, ad rates, etc. The mag is *not* supposed to be a revenue cow. I'm not a birder but I'm learning. The mission is to preserve biodiversity by changing behavior and I support that. Does the magazine do that? The magazine must be financially sound or it will ruin our mission; it must have influence as wide as possible; it must have editorial and graphic material that convince people to change their behavior. The latest issue looked pretty balanced but there could clearly have been more bird material. Birds should be the inspirational tool for the magazine but we should not become a birding magazine. We need a plan: undertake research. We should know what readers think and are interested in. Are we changing people's behavior? We must do an inventory of our communications tools and see that the editor and staff think about stimulating action in the articles.

O'BRIEN: much improvement has been done; Jim Fishman has done a fantastic job; Mike Robbins *did* respond to the request as demonstrated by Inside Audubon. A little historical perspective - from 1988 to 1992 many changes were made by Peter Berle to focus on core issues and not birds; he also used the presidency to deliver policy from DC and NY. We now have another sea change and Mike, who was hired by one president, is trying to work under another. John Flicker tries to work through the grass roots, not from the bully pulpit. Mike has made progress but has fallen dramatically short of the board's request and that of the Strategic Plan. It doesn't take a lot of research to see that members want more birds, rather than monkeys in a hot tub; this is a minimal change we are asking for.

BRAGG: we cannot assume, let alone prove, that the improvement in finances and renewals is due to the content of the magazine. We have just ended the 104th Congress, to name just one other variable. Remember that when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior our membership shot through the roof.

Jack Dempsey: the magazine *has* changed a lot; the decision was to move gradually and has been a good decision; we should continue this process.

UPCOMING PROGRAMS:

Katie Carpenter: what sells is charismatic megafauna - advertisers don't want birds but we have tried; more birds = more money spent. In April we will have our Arctic Bear Adventure ("Bear" inserted by TBS which really made us scramble for bear footage); TBS 4/13 (4MM people) plus syndication; this is our Beringia program, really. We will translate it into Russian and distribute; we are investigating Channel One for town meetings between Russian and Alaskan children

A Panama video demo tape was shown; Barro Colorado Island is the focus; will be done in 1998; an excellent demo.

In production are 13 episodes of "Winging It - Birding across America" (no copyright problems on the name).

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS:

John Bianchi told us that our intranet - wiring to state offices, NY DC and sanctuaries - is under construction. The new LIST software has been installed and our lists are being transferred in-house. He gave us a demo of the new web page which appears *much* improved [ed. note: I had to leave early for the next committee meeting].

End of Part 3 of 4

==================

Science Committee:

=================

Goals (reasons for them): we must sharpen our focus; must coordinate with the other divisions; goals will define the budget for 1998.

Priorities: information, the best information that affects bird populations and their needs; BirdSource; WatchList; to set program direction throughout the organization in Policy and Ed/Com. There are so many things to do that we must have priorities. Money has driven our priorities until now (i.e. we created campaigns for which funding was *already* available), and now we will try to set priorities and *then* fund them. Otherwise we risk incoherence and loss of focus.

Bird Conservation Program: we have an internal draft that is not for public consumption. The goal is to start defining our niche - where to put the birds. It was briefly discussed in Ed/Com and for 20 minutes in Policy.

Origins go back to the Strategic Plan for our mission. Birds [comma, significant pause], OTHER wildlife, and their habitats. Birds first. This plan should ultimately be compatible with PIF. The program will start with BirdSource which will define our problems in birds. WatchList and IBAs are the beneficiaries of BirdSource, as well as education efforts.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

We must show the importance of local chapters in the draft.

NAS science must contribute to the chapter's ability to mount campaigns.

The proposed Citizen Science Library: we should develop a couple of test topics to try it out; it's already begun - the WatchList helps chapters pick birds to help, for example; use our Web page; NAS' job might be to peer review data supplied by chapters; should the white papers be in English *and* Spanish?

Riparian restoration at Rio Laja is using good science and they are looking for more, how will we supply it to them? Expertise is in two forms - individuals and libraries; the difficulty is access to the information; there are copyright problems too.

What is the relationship among threatened, endangered, state and federal lists, and the WatchList? GILL: our program includes them all; the difference is regulatory (them) and non-regulatory (us). FITZPATRICK: there are not that many federally T&E birds. Robert SOCOLOW: why not list the T&E with the WatchList? FITZPATRICK: many of the state lists are biologically meaningless.

Are FeederWatch and Backyard Birds outside the conservation program? FITZPATRICK: No, they are part of the input to BirdSource, and under the aegis of Education, although the borders are fuzzy. GILL: the value of the WatchList is that it gives us measurable goals - i.e., get them *off* the list. FITZPATRICK: PIF is doing what we want to do here - they are us. Terry RICE (ABC?): agrees with Fitzpatrick. We've been waiting for Audubon to come in. The database in Colorado that ranks birds and areas should get us beyond the proliferation of lists and stay with one source. There is a committee that resolves priority conflicts. OLEWINE: how does that database compare with ours? GILL: we're working together - it's their WatchList. SOCOLOW: what is PIF? Carol Beardmore (USFWS): a voluntary coalition of any agencies that have anything to do with natural resources, all 50 state DFGs, NGOs like us, private industry and individuals. Anybody can become a partner. Started in 1990 by USFWS. OLEWINE: PIF is all non-game land birds; that doesn't limit us? GILL: PIF is on the verge of going with *all* birds.

BIRDSOURCE: [ed. note: one would hope that the descriptive docs are on our web page. Very simply, the Cornell Ornithological Lab and NAS are in partnership to develop an "ultimate" database about birds and their habitat. Programs like FeederWatch will feed in data, and the output will support programs like IBAs.] The goals for 1997 - FeederWatch fully on line for individuals and classrooms, with a point and click interface. CBCs will also be handled through BirdSource. All 1700 compilers of CBCs will be able to upload data directly. Both FeederWatch and CBC interfaces will offer query functions. 500 guinea pigs are already testing and we are very close to a Grand Opening. ESHBAUGH: have you set a cutoff for the number of participants? FITZPATRICK: no, the more the better. We are also approaching IBM for corporate sponsorship.

Susan DRENNAN: we have contracted to get all CBC data from 1989 to last year in shape to go into BirdSource. 1960-89 is already in computer readable form. We will begin BirdSource with 1960-96 data!!! We will get all of it in eventually. We have completely revised the CBC schedule - into BirdSource and published by July 1st, 1997 for 1996 data. ESHBAUGH: five years from now what will we be feeding BirdSource? GILL: 3,000 migration sites, point count sites, see the list in the proposal. We have not bitten off more than we can chew. We want to extend BirdSource to Veracruz and the Pro Natura hawkwatching site. Banding is not yet part of the picture - one question is, how do we use banding data? Also, the banding program is going on line on its own. Q: what about colonial waterbird counts? ANSWER: an old Registry may be revived. This data is particularly useful in oil spills.

"Field Notes": our proposed partnership with ABA - negotiations continue; hope to resolve by June. CBCs are *not* included; NAS will retain all CBCs.

STRUCTURE OF SCIENCE: Science is increasing in importance in Audubon. Only a few people in administration are devoted to Science. Q: how do we manage science as the state offices hire bird people, etc? ANSWER: not resolved; relates to budget, among other things. ESHBAUGH: Science became a soft money enterprise that responded to funding, but did not make logical sense under the Strategic Plan. AMES: what about quality control? SOCOLOW: 3 years ago the scientists did not feel part of Audubon Science, (soft money). GILL: we must have a clear statement of values and principals for Audubon; we should form "issue teams" that bind individuals together across other organizational elements. We also need some new elements, such as environmental economists. DOMINICK: we need to deal with poverty as well. OLEWINE: hiring criteria? SOCOLOW: Frank Gill should have veto power over scientific hiring. ESHBAUGH: it's too early to decide that. FITZPATRICK: might use TNC as a model. OLEWINE: this structural issue applies to all programs.

Sunday, March 9

Board Meeting

===============

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: reports election of Cindy Dunn as state director of Pennsylvania Audubon from a field of over 130. We are losing a perfect 10 from the board. A replacement director will be nominated by the mid-Atlantic region.

The Chair also recognized 20 years of service by Glenn Olson, SVP for Field Operations.

SCIENCE COMMITTEE: see previous notes. ESHBAUGH: proposes an in-depth board session on PIF. COMMENT: we have to find a way to measure the success of our projects, especially when going to foundations for support. EUBANKS: what about the review process? In the past we have seen some inaccurate papers coming out of NAS from all divisions. ESHBAUGH: we'll never be able to go to 100%. FITZPATRICK: we struggle with that at Cornell in a much smaller organization. It's as much an attitude as it is a process. You should always be aware that what you are doing should be checked with those who know more.

POLICY COMMITTEE: Bernie YOKEL - Population & Habitat Campaign. There is a connection between P&H and NAS is an appropriate messenger; our campaign adheres to the commitment at the Cairo conference. HUGHES: having anguished over this issue, this is a good beginning. Let's get some specifics here. Activists will need marching orders. ESHBAUGH: why only selected states for this campaign? YOKEL: because the experience there will guide us in making the network. Pat WAAK: those states were picked as prime targets to build a model. BRAGG: although this program has many excellent qualities, it is missing a big point - the resource consumption of 1st-world countries. It is not even-handed. RESPONSE: details of the program certainly can include consumption issues; they are not specifically addressed in the campaign outline. BRAGG: will the chair ask for abstentions when the vote is taken? O'BRIEN: yes. Donald CARR: our growth issues as described are not relevant to Latin American and we should be careful. ESHBAUGH: is Utah one of the states involved? WAAK: no. The matrix involves more than the factor of population growth alone. RUSSELL: move to adopt. EUBANKS: what is the relationship between the fact sheet and the resolution? Dan BEARD: if the document needs revisiting then we should do it, but it's not needed for the passage of the resolution. EUBANKS: then the two are independent? BEARD: yes. YOKEL: it's a really important first step. It is general but if we wait for more specifics then we will wait forever. O'BRIEN: we have been trying to adopt something for at least 4 years. OLEWINE: is the next step to put a plan together in more detail? FLICKER: we will report back to you regularly. YOKEL: maximum of a year for the report, but could be less. ESHBAUGH: we're dreaming if we're thinking about using these models in Latin America. Helen ENGLE: at Asilomar for 25 years we have set high priorities - population has come up to the top 3; there is urgency; we will have to deal with problems but let's deal with them now. HUGHES: diversity is both strength and weakness; a plus is the union of growth and habitat management but this plan better not be the last step. PANDOLFI: can the resolution include the intent to report back to the board with specifics? BEARD: we're prepared to come back at any point to discuss specifics and targets. O'BRIEN: take action now on the resolution and then request John and staff to make periodic reports to us. HUGHES: is the fact sheet our specifics? ANSWER: No. HUGHES: then what is it for? BEARD: it's a fact sheet for legislators to show that the recent funding vote was *not* related to abortion.

Susan SMITH (Mexico): problem here is bird habitat and fertility rate; trees are being cut down because of it. Ruth PEACOCK (Mexico): CASA is an excellent plan; understands all the local issues; it's a matter of prevention and not abortion; we may even have things to tell the USA. Stelio CARRASQUEL (Venezuela): I became a conservationist after reading the Study of Rome about the limits to growth. Patti PEDROZA (Grupa Sierra Gorda): birth control in rural areas is very hard because of religious rules; I cannot do it or doors will be closed to me; AIDS is a real problem and what can we do about AIDS with natural control? I do not know what to do. Cindy DUNN: educating women may be doing more than Patti knows. Norita Scott PEZET (Panama): we have doubled our population in the last 4 years, unemployment is 40% plus; I agree with NAS position on P&H.

Motion carried with one abstention.

BIRD CONSERVATION: document needs to be internationalized; we are pleased with comprehensive nature of the document; suggest Audubon Center language be revised to accommodate the variety of vehicles to be used. FLICKER: give credit to Frank Gill for the plan.

FIELD OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: RUSSELL: committee saw slides of Kern River Preserve and Shehan property. State offices: flexibility in office building is key; current state offices are helping the orphan states out. Audubon Academy: offices are already reaching out to each other for exchanges; chapters are getting help.

What is a chapter? An in-depth review of this question during the next year. Glenn will make a list of all chapter related documents (many out of date). Will ask the 9 regional directors to discuss this question with chapters. Action plan by September? EUBANKS: the definitions of chapters in USA vs Canada and Latin America will be discussed.

Arizona, Wyoming, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Maryland and Missouri are getting close to completing state office plans. RUSSELL: can we manage this fast development? ANSWER: it's the chapters themselves that are moving so fast and they might get even more speed when more models are available. ESHBAUGH: we should have space in the magazine to list our state offices and presidents. Walter SEDGEWICK: compliments to Glenn and John and staff.

EDUCATION/COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE: see notes. O'BRIEN: after the committee meeting we decided to ask for a report from John Flicker in Tucson on the role of the magazine in terms of the board resolution of 6/96; and a status report.

SHAW: our two videos (Beringia and Barro Colorado Island) will be bilingual and have 20 minute short versions for classes and Audubon centers. PEZET: you have no idea how powerful this video can be *as long as it is in Spanish*. ESHBAUGH: what are the chances we *will* do them bilingually? Katie CARPENTER: funding is always a problem; $100K is the budget for Beringia.

OLEWINE: asked John Bianchi for a detailed report on how we plan to get chapters all involved on the net, next meeting. EUBANKS: hope that EC does not get buried in the committee. OLEWINE: must get chapters involved and there will be a report to the Field Committee. DUNN: we have some board and some members who are really expert; one hopes that they will have an influence.

COMMENTS ON LATIN AMERICA MEETINGS: EUBANKS: we propose to draft, several times, a plan to present to the Board at the next meeting. All drafts will be reviewed by the Latin American chapters. My recommendations, based on our meetings, are: a Latin American Board Member; a Latin American field office, as centrally located as possible; training, particularly for institution building and development; fellowships (Latin American interns at various places throughout NAS); in-country sponsorship; our chapter leaders coming to Latin America and vice versa; partnerships with other organizations affiliated with or congruent with Audubon; BirdLife and PIF relationships. We know now that we have colleagues in Latin America. Is there a sense of the Board to support this direction?

FLICKER: it fits the pattern of what we are doing and makes a great deal of sense. O'BRIEN: does the Audubon Academy fit in here? ANSWER: we could bring members down to run workshops. EUBANKS: we could open a research ranch to Latin American members. AMES: Rio San Marcos trip was very powerful and convinced me that we are on the right track, not to mention the presentations to the board. OLEWINE: we should recognize what the Latin American chapters are already doing that is of benefit to us; there are exciting opportunities for us to capitalize on those accomplishments. PEZET: last August I went to a workshop in Ecuador for environmental leaders; it recognized that most NGOs are headed by non-business types; we need the business training; instructors are professors from all over who are qualified to teach such topics but going to Paraguay is very expensive; the Audubon Academy sounds great. YOKEL: meeting has produced a surge of support and I move that we approve the concept for the programs and bring back the fleshed out proposal in June. Move seconded and passed unanimously. PANDOLFI: we need a formal Spanish communications program in Audubon.

BIRDATHON: goal by 7/1 is $800K.

NOMINATING COMM: nada.

SITES COMMITTEE: 1998 Board meetings - dates tentative: New Mexico 3/19 - 3/22; Philadelphia 6/4 - 6/7; Massachusetts 9/10 - 9/13; Southern California 12/3 - 12/6. 1999 Alaska in June; Corkscrew sometime. We propose that the regional board member and a 2nd board member, along with the state office, Susan Drennan, (maybe more) form an oversight committee for each meeting.

FINAL NOTE: April 27th is Helen and Stan Engle's 50th anniversary. Meeting adjourned.

End of Part 4 of 4

==================