Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Valuing Shorebirds: Bureaucracy, Natural History, and Expertise in North American Conservation

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article follows shorebirds—migratory animals that have gone from game to nongame animals over the course of the past century in North America—as a way to track modern field biology, bureaucratic institutions, and the valuation of wildlife. Doing so allows me to make interrelated arguments about the history of wildlife management and science. The first is to note the endurance of observation-based natural history methods in field biology over the long twentieth century and the importance of these methods for the persistent contribution of amateurs. The second major line of argument advances the historical significance of scientific, government bureaucracies as sites of natural knowledge production. Historians of biology and ecology have tended to stress scientists with institutional homes in universities, museums, and at land-grant field stations—particularly as various forms of field biology became professionalized over the twentieth century. In contrast, migratory animals like shorebirds, whether under the auspices of the US Biological Survey or the contemporary Fish and Wildlife Service, were primarily studied and conserved by biologists in bureaucratic agencies. Mid- to low-level bureaucrats, along with avocational birders, have mainly been responsible for developing what we know about shorebird migration, behavior, and life history. And third, shorebirds foreground the importance of bureaucratic context for the valuation of nature, from their economic value to agriculture in the early twentieth century to their value as rare, endangered species in the twentyfirst.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The “flyway” concept itself, developed by the Biological Survey in the 1920s and 1930s, was explicitly framed as an understanding of migratory bird movements that would aid in their conservation. See Wilson (2010, pp. 72–75) and Lincoln (1935).

  2. This transition is not only well documented (see the scholars cited previously), but it is also readily apparent in the abundant contemporaneous technical literature of the time. Compare, for example, economic ornithology manuals from the dawn (Palmer 1899) and peak (Weed and Dearborn 1916) of the discipline to later work questioning the efficacy of birds as insect control (Strickland 1928).

  3. More recently, Strasser (2019, pp. 11–21) has pointed out that field biologists’ celebration of the natural history tradition and resentment of the ways in which laboratory experimentalism came to overshadow it are as old as this transition in biology itself. It is an odd testament to the longevity and durability of natural history that its practitioners have feared its demise for a century and a half.

  4. Several scholars consider the original Office of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy the Ur-wildlife agency, tracing it from its roots to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Dunlap 1988, p. 35; Czech and Krausman 2001, p. 16).

  5. Prior to this Act, wildlife was considered the province of state government (Dunlap 1988). As Barrow (1998, chap. 5) notes, relatively ineffectual state-level bird protection measures had been advocated piecemeal by chapters of the Audubon Society and the AOU in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.

  6. State of New Jersey 1904, p. 380.

  7. For concurrent and intertwining national efforts in Canada, see Foster (1998). Philip Pauly tied the final version of the Lacey Act directly to the influence of the USDA, saying “the law was a striking example of the ability of scientific bureaucrats to reshape congressional initiatives” (2000, p. 80). The USDA, and the Biological Survey in particular, were every bit as involved in passing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For more details on the passage of these key migratory bird laws, see Bean (1983, p. 74); Dunlap (1988, p. 38); Evenden (1995); Vileisis (1997, pp. 154–56); Dorsey (1998); Barrow (2009, pp. 141–42); and Wilson (2010).

  8. The relatively new land grant colleges were not only important sources of personnel for USDA agencies, but also part of a network of “harmonious relations” maintained by these scientific bureaus like the Biological Survey (Dupree 1957, p. 159).

  9. For a concise and thorough history of early, interwar banding, see Benson (2017) and Barrow (1998, pp. 169–71).

  10. Evenden (1995), in particular, tied the decline of economic ornithology not only to the passing of the Biological Survey and the rise of synthetic pesticides, but also to internal disputes in a science “riven by debate over its fundamental methods” (p. 177). For the influence and fate of economic ornithology in the British context, see Holmes (2017).

  11. On Bent and the Life History series, see Barrow (1998, pp. 174–75).

  12. Historian Mark Barrow’s work on the history of ornithology and bird conservation remains the most influential text in the field. For details on the rise and eventual successes of organizations like the Audubon Society and the AOU, see Barrow (1998, chaps. 5 and 6). The more narrow focus on shorebirds here predisposes my analysis to more regional and local amateur networks and organizations.

  13. This phenomenon bears a family resemblance to Chandra Mukerji's “elite reserve labor force” of oceanographers maintained in various ways by the federal government at this time (1989, esp. chap. 1). For marginal and little-funded scientific avocations like bird censuses and banding, I would argue that a tappable labor force still exists, although it constitutes a more subtle and less “elite” reserve.

  14. On the importance of the ESA, and on endangered species protection throughout North America, see Yaffee (1982); Sale (1993); Barrow (2009); and Alagona (2013).

  15. Dale Goble (2006) marks this shift from “game management” to “wildlife management” in a series of legislative acts during the 1960s that culminated in the 1973 ESA. This is important, not only on its face value, but also because it marks shifting threats to wildlife. As dangers to animals began to stem from habitat loss as opposed to hunting, courtroom battles over endangered species became proxy struggles over scarce resources. For an analysis along these lines, see Corn et al. (2007).

  16. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2003, p. 1).

  17. This “discovery” by Harrington and his Manomet colleague Linda Leddy, with the help of their local Reed's Beach, NJ informant, is related in Harrington (1996, p. 179) and Sargent (2002, pp. 73–76). See also Cramer (2015).

  18. For a synthesis of much of this early work and shorebird conservation issues, see the volumes co-edited by Joanna Burger, a behavioral ecologist at Rutgers University who has herself been involved in shorebird research in the Delaware Bay since the 1980s (Burger and Olla 1984a, b).

  19. Stomach content analysis has subsided, but not vanished. More interventionist, laboratory-based studies still utilize stomach content analysis for the purposes of understanding and modeling the physiology of long-distance migration. Shorebird feeding habits are also implicit in the use of lab-based stable isotope analysis to establish summer and winter grounds for migratory shorebirds. See, for example, Atkinson et al. (2005).

  20. Jamie Lorimer (2008, pp. 392–398), in his account of the UK corncrake census, makes a similar point about the natural history tradition and its ongoing role as non-reductive motivation for field scientists to do their work as “curious and emotional beings” with an “ethos of engagement” with the birds they study.

  21. Historian Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent (2009, p. 363) has gone further to suggest that computer-driven data collection involving citizen science, like the Delaware Bay shorebird projects, reflects a new “epistemic culture” in modern science.

  22. Historian Samuel Hays (1981) suggested that state-level bureaucracies are the best place to understand the twentieth-century environmental movement, as they represent a middle ground between grass-roots environmental concerns and national-level politics. In agreement with these suggestions, I argue that mid-level bureaucracies are excellent places to look in order to understand both modern environmental politics and environmental science.

  23. Roger Turner (2010), in his history of meteorology, conceptualizes a similar type of technoscientific activity as “infrastructural science.”

  24. Perhaps the most formative study of the dynamics of science in federal institutions is A. Hunter Dupree's prewar analysis (1957). The Biological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service have certainly not been the only scientific bureaucracies, and historians of science and environmental historians since Dupree have examined science within and across government agencies (and, I would argue, should do so to a greater extent). Perhaps the best comparison to these wildlife agencies, however, is the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This agency was created just prior to the Biological Survey, in 1879, like the Fish and Wildlife Service is presently located in the Department of the Interior, and, after a reorganization in the 1990s, is a scientific bureaucracy that has actively carried out environmental research in geology (Davidson 2017; Markovski and Moon 2011; Powell 2015), hydrology (Carroll 2012; Lave et al. 2010), and pollution (Jackson 2004), among other areas. See also Wellock’s (2010) exceptional work on the importance of scientists in the US Forest Service for both biology and environmental policy.

References

  • Alagona, Peter S. 2013. After the Grizzly: Endangered Species and the Politics of Place in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 1961. Heritage. Cassinia 45: 13–14. https://www.dvoc.org/CassiniaOnLine/Cassinia45/C45_13_14.pdf.

  • Aronova, Elena, Karen S. Baker, and Naomi Oreskes. 2010. Big Science and Big Data in Biology: From the International Geophysical Year through the International Biological Program to the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, 1957-Present. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 40 (2): 183–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Philip W., Allan J. Baker, Richard M. Bevan, Nigel A. Clark, Kimberly B. Cole, Patricia M. Gonzalez, Jason Newton, Lawrence J. Niles, and Robert A. Robinson. 2005. Unraveling the Migration and Moult Strategies of a Long-Distance Migrant Using Stable Isotopes: Red Knot Calidris Canutus Movements in the Americas. Ibis 147 (4): 738–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow Jr., Mark V. 1998. A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology after Audubon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow Jr., Mark V. 2002. Science, Sentiment, and the Specter of Extinction: Reconsidering Birds of Prey During America's Interwar Years. Environmental History 7 (1): 69–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow Jr., Mark V. 2009. Nature's Ghosts: Confronting Extinction from the Age of Jefferson to the Age of Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, Michael J. 1983. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, rev ed. New York: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beehler, Bruce. 2010. The Forgotten Science: A Role for Natural History in the Twenty-first Century? Journal of Field Ornithology 81 (1): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2009. A Historical Perspective on Science and its “Others.” Isis 100 (2): 359–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, Etienne S. 2017. A Centrifuge of Calculation: Managing Data and Enthusiasm in Early Twentieth-Century Bird Banding. Osiris 32: 286–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bent, Arthur Cleveland. 1927. Life Histories of North American Shorebirds, Order Limicolae (Part 1). (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Bulletin 142.) Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.03629236.142.i

  • Bent, Arthur Cleveland. 1929. Life Histories of North American Shorebirds, Order Limicolae (Part 2). (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Bulletin 146.) Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.03629236.146.i

  • Bonney, R. 1996. Citizen Science: A Lab Tradition. Living Bird 15: 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, Joanna, and Bori L. Olla (eds.). 1984a. Shorebirds: Breeding Behavior and Populations. Behavior of Marine Animals, vol. 5. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, Joanna, and Bori L. Olla (eds.). 1984b. Shorebirds: Migration and Foraging Behavior. Behavior of Marine Animals, vol. 6. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, J.Alexander. 2003. A Passion for Wildlife: The History of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Patrick. 2012. Water and Technoscientific State Formation in California. Social Studies of Science 42 (4): 489–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Kathleen E., Lawrence J. Niles, and Joanna Burger. 1993. Abundance and Distribution of Migrant Shorebirds in Delaware Bay. The Condor 95 (3): 694–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, David C. 2010. Big Ecology: The Emergence of Ecosystem Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Wells W. 1910. Distribution and Migration of North American Shorebirds.Bureau of Biological Survey Bulletin No. 35 (October 6), US Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.54050

  • Corn, M. Lynne, Eugene H. Buck, and Kristina Alexander. 2007. The Endangered Species Act: A Primer. Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress. 7-5700. RL3165. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL31654.pdf

  • COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Red Knot Calidriscanutus in Canada. Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  • Cramer, Deborah. 2015. The Narrow Edge: A Tiny Bird, an Ancient Crab & an Epic Journey. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, Eileen. 1999. Images of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czech, Brian, and Paul R. Krausman. 2001. The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation Biology, and Public Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Jane P. 2017. Patrons of Paleontology: How Government Support Shaped a Science. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bont, Raf. 2015. Stations in the Field: A History of Place-Based Animal Research, 1870–1930. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, Kurkpatrick. 1998. The Dawn of Conservation Diplomacy: US-Canadian Wildlife Protection Treaties in the Progressive Era. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, Thomas R. 1988. Saving America's Wildlife. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Peter, David Sibley, Clay Sutton, and Wade Wander. 1982. Aerial Surveys in Delaware Bay: Confirming an Enormous Spring Staging Area for Shorebirds. Wader Studies Group Bulletin 35: 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Peter (ed.). 1989. New Jersey at the Crossroads of Migration. Bernardsville, NJ: New Jersey Audubon Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupree, A.Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 1940. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenden, Matthew D. 1995. The Laborers of Nature: Economic Ornithology and the Role of Birds as Agents of Biological Pest Control in North American Agriculture, ca. 1880–1930. Forest & Conservation History39(4): 172–183.

  • Foster, Janet. 1998. Working for Wildlife: The Beginning of Preservation in Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, Peter, and Bruce Hevly (eds.). 1992. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goble, Dale. 2006. Evolution of At-Risk Species Protection. In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Vol. 2: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, eds. Dale Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 15–17. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Groskin, Horace. 1946. Bird-Banding. Cassinia No. 36 (Issued 1947): 25–31.

  • Hall, Henry Marion. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. New York: Devin-Adair Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, Brian. 1996. The Flight of the Red Knot. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, Samuel P. 1981. The Structure of Environmental Politics since World War II. Journal of Social History 14 (4): 719–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. 2017. The Sparrow Question: Social and Scientific Accord in Britain, 1850–1900. Journal of the History of Biology 50: 645–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Richard E. 2004. Recognizing Emerging Environmental Problems: The Case of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. Technology and Culture 45 (1): 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehl, Joseph R., Jr. 1968. Review of The Shorebirds of North America, by Gardener D. Stout, ed., text by Peter Matthiessen, paintings by Robert Verity Clem, and species accounts by Ralph S. Palmer. The Auk 85(3): 515–520.

  • Joyce, Christopher. 1986. Food for Flight in Delaware Bay. New Scientist (October 9): 34–36.

  • Kastner, Joseph. 1986. A World of Watchers. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, Aya H., and Abby Kinchy. 2016. Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2: 331–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, Sharon E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert. 2008. Plants and Pigeonholes: Classification as a Practice in American Ecology. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 38 (1): 77–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert. 2011. Paul Errington, Aldo Leopold, and Wildlife Ecology: Residential Science. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 41 (2): 216–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronenberg, Jakub. 2014. What Can the Current Debate on Ecosystem Services Learn from the Past? Lessons from Economic Ornithology. Geoforum 55: 164–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Rebecca, Martin Doyle, and Morgan Robertson. 2010. Privatizing Stream Restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science 40 (5): 677–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawyer, George A. 1918. Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. Yearbook Separate. US Department of Agriculture, No. 785. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Lincoln, Frederick C. 1935. The Waterfowl Flyways of North America. US Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 342 (January). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Lorimer, Jamie. 2008. Counting Corncrakes: The Affective Science of the UK Corncrake Census. Social Studies of Science 38 (3): 377–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovski, Petar, and Suzanne Moon. 2011. Everette Lee DeGolyer and Geology Students Mapping in the Arbuckle Mountains, Oklahoma, 1905. Technology and Culture 52 (1): 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAtee, W. L. 1911. Our Vanishing Shorebirds. Bureau of Biological Survey Circular No. 79 (April 8), US Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • McAtee, W. L. 1912. Why We Should Protect Our Shore Birds. Country Life In America 22 (11): 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAtee, W. L. 1913. Index to Papers Relating to the Food of Birds by Members of the Biological Survey in Publications of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1885–1911. Bureau of Biological Survey Bulletin No. 43 (January 9), US Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Moore, Robert T. 1911. Club Notes. Cassinia 15: 67–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, R.I.G., and R.K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic Shorebirds on the Coast of South America. Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukerji, Chandra. 1989. A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J.P. 1986. Sex and Gluttony on Delaware Bay. Natural History 95 (5): 68–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J.P., R.I.G. Morrison, Paolo Z. Antas, Brian A. Harrington, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Michel Sallaberry, Stanley E. Senner, and Arturo Tarak. 1987a. Conservation Strategy for Migratory Species. American Scientist 75 (1): 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J.P., P.D. McLain, R.J.G. Morrison, P.Z. Antas, P. Canevari, B.A. Harrington, T.E. Lovejoy, V. Pulido, M. Sallaberry, and S.E. Senner. 1987b. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Wader Study Group Bulletin 49. Suppl. / IWRB Special Publ. 7: 122–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, Roderick Frazier. 2010. Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium. Environmental History 15 (3): 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, Reed F. 1996. The Naturalists are Dying Off. Conservation Biology 10 (1): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, Lynn K. 1998. Civic and Economic Zoology in Nineteenth-Century Germany: The "Living Communities" of Karl Mobius. Isis 89 (4): 605–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, Lynn K. 2009. Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. S. 1899. A Review of Economic Ornithology in the United States. Yearbook of Department of Agriculture, 259–292. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/education/educational-activities/EconomicOrnithologyReport1899.pdf.

  • Palmer, T. S. 1917. Memoriam: Wells Woodbridge Cooke. Auk 39 (123–125): 132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, Philip J. 2000. Biologists and the Promise of American Life: From Meriwether Lewis to Alfred Kinsey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickstone, John V. 2000. Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, James Lawrence. 2015. Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, Charles B. 1903. The Game Laws in Brief, United States and Canada. Game Laws in Brief and Woodcraft Magazine (July 1).

  • Robins, Nelson. 1916. Fastest Bird that Flies: Shooting Days on Bone Island Outside the Virginia Capes Before the Federal Law Locked the Door. Outing (May): 160–165.

  • Russell, Edmund. 2001. War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1993. The Green Revolution: The American Environmental Movement, 1962–1992. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, Glen C., ed. 1977. Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in North America.Washington, DC: International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of the Interior.

  • Sargent, William. 2002. Crab Wars: A Tale of Horseshoe Crabs, Bioterrorism, and Human Health. Hanover, NJ: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • State of New Jersey. 1904. Acts of the One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Legislature of the State of New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: MacCrellish & Quigley, State Printers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Bruno J. 2010a. Collecting, Comparing, and Computing Sequences: The Making of Margaret O. Dayhoff's Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, 1954–1965. Journal of the History of Biology. 43: 623–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Bruno J. 2010b. Laboratories, Museums, and the Comparative Perspective: Alan A. Boyden's Quest for Objectivity in Serological Taxonomy, 1924–1962. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 40 (2): 149–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Bruno J. 2011. The Experimenter’s Museum: GenBank, Natural History, and the Moral Economies of Biomedicine. Isis 102 (1): 60–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Bruno J. 2019. Collecting Experiments: Making Big Data Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Bruno J., Jerome Baudry, Dana Mahr, Gabriala Sanchez, and Elise Tancoigne. 2019. ”Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science & Technology Studies 32 (2): 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, J. Fletcher. 1935. The Shorebirds of Sea Isle Beach. Cassinia (29): 1–17. https://www.dvoc.org/CassiniaOnLine/Cassinia29/C29_1_17.pdf.

  • Strickland, E.H. 1928. Can Birds Hold Injurious Insects in Check? The Scientific Monthly 26 (1): 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, Joshua J., John G.T. Anderson, Jonathan D. Bakker, Timothy J. Billo, Peter W. Dunwiddie, Martha J. Groom, Stephanie E. Hampton, Steven G. Herman, Douglas J. Levey, Noelle J. Machnicki, Carlos Martínez Del Rio, Mary E. Power, Kirsten Rowell, Anne K. Salomon, Liam Stacey, Stephen C. Trombulak, and Terry A. Wheeler. 2014. Natural History’s Place in Science and Society. BioScience 64 (4): 300–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Roger. 2010. Weathering Heights: The Emergence of Aeronautical Meteorology as an Infrastructural Science. PhD diss., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

  • US Department of Agriculture. 1920. The Migratory Bird Treaty: Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States sustaining the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty and Act of Congress to carry it into effect, Circular 102 (June 10). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered Species Act of 1973, As Amended through the 108th Congress. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • US House Committee on Agriculture. 1912. Protection of Migratory Birds: Hearings on H.R. 36 and H.R. 4428. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1917. Protection of Migratory Birds: Hearings on H.R. 20080, 64th Cong., 2d sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • US House of Representatives. 1920. Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Reserves. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Senate Committee on Forest Reservations and the Protection of Game. 1912. Protection of Migratory Birds: Hearings on S. 2367, S.J.R. 39, H.R. 36, H.R. 4428. Sixty-Second Congress, Second Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Vileisis, Ann. 1997. Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America's Wetlands. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Jeremy. 2011. Introduction: Lay Participation in the History of Scientific Observation. Science in Context 24 (2): 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Jeremy (ed.). 2011. Knowing Global Environments: New Historical Perspectives on the Field Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Jeremy. 2016. Field Life: Science in the American West During the Railroad Era. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weed, Clarence M., and Ned Dearborn. 1916. Birds in Their Relations to Man: A Manual of Economic Ornithology for the United States and Canada, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellock, Thomas R. 2010. The Dickey Bird Scientists Take Charge: Science, Policy, and the Spotted Owl. Environmental History 15 (3): 381–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, Kristoffer. 2013. Tangled Up in Knots: An Emotional Ecology of Field Science. Emotion, Space and Society 6: 100–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, Edward Russell. 1919. Notes on Shore Bird Shooting. Forest and Stream (August) 410–11: 446–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove, David S., and Thomas Eisner. 2000. The Impending Extinction of Natural History. The Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (3): B24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Robert M. 2010. Seeking Refuge: Birds and Landscapes of the Pacific Flyway. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee, Steven. 1982. Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristoffer Whitney.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whitney, K. Valuing Shorebirds: Bureaucracy, Natural History, and Expertise in North American Conservation. J Hist Biol 53, 631–652 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09616-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09616-3

Keywords

Navigation