All five current members of the Camden Select Board have crafted and voted to endorse one of the most restrictive bird and wildlife feeding ordinances that has ever been adopted by any democratic nation, state or municipality. To make matters worse, Select Board members have chosen not to put their proposed ordinance on the June 14 'paper ballot' and instead are attempting to pass it into law by having it decided upon via a 'raised hand vote' at the annual Camden Town Meeting.

It is extremely important that all Camden citizens understand that they must attend the Town Meeting, which will be held on June 15 at 7 p.m. in the Camden Opera House, if they wish to vote to defeat this radical ordinance.

Bird feeding is an activity that brings great joy to many people and generates substantial year-around income for local merchants such as Rankin's, EBS, Hannaford and Tractor Supply, to name just a few.

And, most important, it is quite beneficial for the birds.

If you read the proposed "Prohibition of Feeding of Wild Animals' Camden Police Ordinance in its entirety, you will find that it is littered with inaccurate and biased statements, which strongly suggest that feeding wildlife causes unnatural animal behavior and poses a severe threat to human health. Odd, considering that the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society, the two preeminent national bird research and bird welfare organizations, actively encourage people to feed birds. In fact, both organizations include feeding as part of their citizen science initiatives which generate important information concerning population size and geographic distribution of all avian species.

Clearly, the Select Board is unaware of the current science being produced by these organizations which shows that providing healthy food for birds does not make them tame, does not make them aggressive and does not make them unhealthy. In fact, new studies show that even among birds that visit feeding stations, only about 20 percent of their daily caloric intake comes from human provided food. In addition, providing food for birds has not proven to alter natural migration patterns.

A good example is the Ruby-Throated Hummingbird. It was once thought that nectar feeders had to removed prior to the end of summer because it was assumed that hummingbirds would not migrate if they had a plentiful nectar supply. But the exact opposite is true. Their incredibly strong natural instinct to migrate is not affected by food availability and nectar feeders are of great benefit because they allow hummingbirds to more easily increase their body mass prior to their long arduous journey.

So, if this proposed ordinance will hurt birds and the local economy, why exactly is the Select Board so determined to enact it?

The answer is simple. A few very determined Laite Beach area residents have claimed that they are being greatly inconvenienced by those who feed birds. And while I do agree that one particular house has been affected during the winter (for a variety of reasons) by 'roof roosting' Herring Gulls, most of the concerns presented to the Select Board were quite petty, and in no way justify the establishment of a wildlife feeding 'prohibition' ordinance.

As I write this column, I look out my window. I see a hummingbird perched comfortably on one of my nectar feeders. I see a female Robin eating dried worms that I scattered on the ground beneath her nest. Now two Catbirds fly down and join her. I see a Phoebe gulping down a few of the many spiders that spin webs under the eaves of my home. I see crows munching sunflower seed in my tray feeder and foraging for worms in my natural landscape, Mourning Doves eating millet on the ground and small flocks of squealing Goldfinches flitting around my tube feeders and water misters.

Throughout the day, my mature trees will be visited by Hairy, Downy, and Red-Bellied Woodpeckers, Flickers and even Pileated Woodpeckers. White-Breasted and Red-Breasted Nuthatches, Song Sparrows, Chipping Sparrows, White Throated Sparrows, House Finches, Chickadees, Titmice, Starlings, Cardinals, Blue Jays, Brown Creepers, Carolina Wrens and Coopers Hawks will all likely visit during the day, as well as many other species.

And yes, a Herring Gull couple will likely land on my roof at some point during the day, and possibly a Mallard couple will stop by for a snack. And yes, the Crows will likely make a fuss when a Coopers Hawk swoops in, or when an Osprey or Bald Eagle flies over. The combination of the songs and calls of the birds in my tall trees and dense shrubs reminds me of many of the beautiful natural areas that I have visited all over the world. But, sadly, if this horrible ordinance passes, this will all have to end.

Because if anyone were to see a seagull in my yard, or a duck, or too many crows for their liking, or too many anything for their liking, they can simply complain and I will be fined $25. The next day they can complain again, and I will be fined $100. And if anyone, including a child, gives seed to the ducks that dabble at Harbor Park, they will be stopped and fined $100 by the Camden Police Department. Is this really the kind of town that we want to live in? Are people who feed birds criminals? I, for one, say NO!

Several years ago I took a trip to Berlin and one day I was walking through a park in what had once been the East German portion of the city. I noticed a number of older men feeding a large flock of birds and I walked over to them and started a conversation. They told me that the old Communist regime would not allow people to feed birds in the city because it didn't want any birds sitting on or defecating on the statues of Lenin, Stalin and Honecker.

Then one man's lined face cracked into a broad youthful smile and in broken English he said, "now we feed birds, and those bastards are gone."

Gian-Angelo Gallace lives in Camden and is a candidate for the Camden Select Board.