>> On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Stuart MacKay wrote:
>> > You don't need potter traps - a mist net and 20 seconds is more
>> > than enough. However catching it for purely recreational purposes is
>> > certainly bad for the bird, bad for banding and who really cares
>> > what sex it is anyway ???????
>
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Michael R. Smith wrote:
>> I would think that after all this debate regarding its sex, and no clear
>> answers, it actually makes a lot of sense to catch it. Why? Because if
>> the collective tweeters can't figure it out, that probably means there's
>> not enough info regarding visual sexing of this particular species in the
>> field
>
>On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Sherrie Hockett wrote:
>
>You can't possibly be serious. You would actually consider capturing
>this bird just for your own amusement and edification? I don't
>understand what purpose is served in a definitive ID. I like birding
>because it's a game. But I don't play the game so that I win at all
>costs.

Even though Stuart already replied, I feel the need to carry it a bit further.

Sherrie, if you read what Stuart said, he made it clear he didn't think
catching it for "amusement" was worthwhile, and I don't think Michael was
writing about "amusement" either. If we look at your word "edification,"
I'm not sure what you mean by it. If you mean edified by personal gain,
you are of course correct. But I can't believe anyone would want to
capture that longspur just so they could be shown to be correct in their
assessment of its sex. If you mean edified by an advance in knowledge, and
you are against this, I hope your comments are not supported by a majority
of tweeters. I suspect many would disagree with your statement about the
definitive ID.

Why is *your* edification ("I like birding because it's a game") more
important than the edification of those of us who are truly interested in
learning something more about this bird and from this bird? I guess the
use of the word "game" in a posting decrying someone else's attitudes
really pressed my button. I think what we are seeing here (again) is the
ongoing tension between birding and ornithology, and I'm sorry for this. I
think there are many people who would be surprised at being accused of
"anti-science" or "anti-knowledge" sentiments, and from your academic
address, I would have thought you would be one. Yet I think if we were to
adhere to your wishes, we would stop a lot of important research that is
being carried out on birds. Please correct me if I've misconstrued.

Sorry I'm a bit late with this; a couple days of flu separated me from my
e-mail. I'm putting this on tweeters because it deserves more than a
personal response.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416