But if you don't flush it you miss an opportunity to improve your ability
to correctly identify yellowlegs in the future, and thus contribute to
the rate of erroneous or ambiguous reports. Thus flushing the bird
contributes indirectly to science through the education of the observer.
Since birds are flushed numerous times each day by passing raptors,
random sounds, etc., a slight increase in the flush-rate will have a
scarcely measureably effect on the birds chances of survival.

Gene Hunn.

On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Christopher Hill wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>