Sherrie Hockett wrote:

"But in my opinion, science asks questions which benefit people, animals
and habitat."

We are entirely in agreement. But each question doesn't have to benefit
all 3 of those recipients. Science originated because of the intense
intellectual curiosity of _Homo sapiens_. I happen to think that that
curiosity is still a very important component of science, even though I
realize it has been very much coopted by the concept that it should be
applied to problems of the world. Pure science still looms large in my
view of what is *great* about people, along with art, music, and hot fudge
sundaes. Applied science will certainly benefit "people, animals and
habitat," but pure science benefits people too--and of course elements of
it are there to be of unexpected benefit at some future time. You know all
this, I know; I have a habit of trying to put in my own words that which is
common knowledge.

If the bird could be captured and could be sexed in the hand (of course in
the least perilous way possible), it would go a long way to educating a
whole bunch of people who are curious about this bird in the here and now.
Our group is obviously not going to launch into a study of CCLOs in their
normal range, or borrow large series of museum specimens (you usually have
to do this, you can't find everything you need in one collection), or
anything like that, so what is a burning issue right now will die a natural
death, I suspect.

But if this particular bird were to be sexable (and some people think it
would be in the hand), then it would satisfy the intellectual curiosity of
a bunch of people. I personally (and I suspect many of the others who are
curious) are interested in learning about sexing birds of *this species*,
not in just knowing about this particular bird. But I gathered that you
were writing that disturbing an animal isn't worth satisfying intellectual
curiosity, which I look at as the basis for both science and
research--others in entirely applied research might not. Surely this is a
matter of opinion, rather than natural law, so we're left with the question
of whose opinion should be followed. In this case, I wouldn't at all be
surprised that a majority would vote to "leave the poor little bugger
alone," and this is of course what we're doing. The funny thing is that
the constant disturbance (harassment?) of it by numbers of birders
trampling through its habitat and flushing it day after day hasn't even
been figured into the equation vis-a-vis catching it in a net,
photographing and banding it.

Minority view or not, I'll always argue strongly that there are many ways
to view birds--the "game" of birding isn't the only one. But the game of
birding really has the possibility to affect the science of ornithology in
a negative way, because there are so many birders with the "hands-off"
attitude toward nature, while the science of ornithology has contributed
nothing but benefits to birding. And the point that some of us have tried
to make is that, carried to its extreme, the animal-rights movement will
surely shut down many kinds of biological research, including just such
simple things as trying to understand the plumage variations of
Chestnut-collared Longspurs. Montlake Fill longspur attitudes writ large
do indeed affect Spotted Owl studies. And I have to respond to this.

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