On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
> David Wright:
> >The next one would *not* be sexable as a result of capture of this bird.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Well, actually we don't know, do we??? Why? [emphasis added ^]

David:
> Er, yes, we do. Because one specimen cannot reveal the degree of overlap
> between winter males and females (which is what we need to find out).

The bander who e-mailed me claimed that the degree of overlap is
known. The person could be wrong, of course - I'm in no position
to judge which of you is right. Let's talk about the overlap
between male Coops and female sharpie in western populations :)

> > So with enough diligence and effort my statement might be true.

> No amount of diligence and effort on *this individual* (the topic of
> your statement) would change that.

Again, I say that only because I don't know which self-proclaimed
expert in this case is right...

> > Regardless, it has little to do with my point, I only offered
> > this as support for the concept that ongoing education of
> > scientists and field techs is important, regardless of whether
> > or not any direct scientific knowledge falls out of the
> > learning effort.

> Actually, it has everything to do with it. You were discussing learning
> how to sex winter c-c longspurs *as a result* of determining the sex of
> *this individual*. Maybe you didn't mean that (?), but that *is* what
> you said...

Well, I guess I should've bracketed my statement with plenty of
"for instances". I will accept responsibility for not writing
clearly.

However I'm not going to debate you over a point you *think* I
was trying to make.

Do you have any problem with the statement I made above, that
training can be of value even if no immediate increase of
scientific knowledge accrues?

After all, this was the justification I was given for being
asked to dissect rats and such in lab...(something I enjoyed
BTW).

> > Yes, but should we so easily give up the moral high ground in
> > the fight to define impropriety?

> It's more a matter of simply not giving the bad guys an easy shot at
> something that would be difficult to defend as "good for science."
> I'd prefer to save defenses of the high ground for cases that warrant
> them.

Of course. Again, I see the confusion of intertwining threads
here. You're speaking of this particular individual stray.

I'm speaking of the broad issue. Of course I want us to preserve
our strength and energy by defending the moral high ground on
important and preferably winnable issues, not to squander our
resources on issues of minor significance and/or little or no
scientific significance! Sheesh!

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>