An astute friend and I once had this conversation (this was in the wake
of a "birding ethics" panel forum and debate at our local bird club, and
the general navel-contemplation that such abstract discussions encourage):

Friend: Let's say you saw a yellowlegs at [a local birding spot] in
January, and you wanted to verify which species it was by flight call -
would you feel justified in flushing it?

Me: Well, yes. I think flushing the bird would be justifiable for
scientific reasons, if the information was only available that way.

Friend: I see...science. And where were you planning to publish the result?


That made me think!


I think his point is entirely valid. If you don't publish the information
you get, your efforts should not fall under the term "science." There's
nothing reprehensible about wanting to satisfy personal curiosity, but I
think it keeps things in perspective to retain a clear mental picture of
where the line dividing that from science lies.

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu