Gene Hunn wrote:

>
>Pardon my ignorance, but does "nm" stand for "nanometer"? How far is that?
>
>
nanometer??!! never heard of one and couldn't find it in my dictionary (not
a big fancy one -- just a standard) either. If there is such a thing, I'd
guess it must be something really really tiny. :)

nm = nautical miles. Ooops, sorry. That's the standard used at sea which
makes far more sense than statute miles (mi). One minute of latitude = one
nautical mile (nm), only slightly more than one statute mile; one degree of
latitude = 60 nautical miles (nm), etc. However, the metric system using
meters and kilometers is more often recognized and used among the highly
educated scientific elete among whom I am not.
But let's face it -- going metric at sea never made much practical common
sense to me. It's awkward, and you can't run to a navigational chart and
quickly figure out where some thing, or some place at sea is, or how long it
is going to take to get there without wasting time calculating pointless
conversions while Cook's petrels are getting away.
On land (bravo!! Canada!) the metric system is logical and makes perfect
sense. Under normal operating situations, vessel navigation equipment are
programed to calculate distances in nautical miles and there are even pocket
calculators specifically for that purpose as well. Further, a vessel's speed
is calculated in knots, and one knot = one nautical mile per hour. Metric,
meters, kilometers, etc. is just way to complicated unless you have some fine
tuned specific research objective that demands it and everything can be
programed to do that. But does it really matter whether some bird is 125 km
off Westport or ~75 nm (I don't have the conversion at my finger tips)?

Most major scientific journals however expect if not require that all
distances be published in metric form, I think. In lesser ones and those
whose readers are a more mainstream lay audience, one often sees miles (mi)
and nautical miles (nm) used interchangably for sightings of pelagic birds at
sea. I assume that in probably all of those cases, miles (mi) probably was
meant to imply nautical miles (nm) since the individual providing the
information likely obtained that information from a simple navigational
chart. I've been a proponent of change for years, but cast common sense to
the wind; you can't buck the system and a long standing established
tradition.

For provincial birders, we generally place our state, N.A., and international
list boundaries at the 200 nm EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) sometimes called
FCZ (Fisheries Conservation Zone), or in the case of international
boundaries, wherever that line might be. Every country that touches an ocean
has one. That's why the US and Canada engage in fisheries wars from time to
time. ...which brings up another but unrelated comment about the US / Canada
offshore boundary EEZ/FCZ. You know, we here in Washington have really
gotten ripped off, especially me, with that line dipping SW off Cape
Flattery toward Gray's Canyon. We should simply trade off Point Roberts, for
god's sake, just to straighten that line out to run due west from the middle
of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Could a WA / BC birding war may be on soon?
After we settle Bosnia, we can tackle that one ...but I digress.

Most major scientific journals however expect if not require that all
distances be published in metric form, I think. In lesser ones and those
whose readers are a more mainstream lay audience, one often sees miles (mi)
and nautical miles (nm) used interchangably for sightings of pelagic birds at
sea. I assume that in probably all of those cases, miles (mi) probably was
meant to imply nautical miles (nm) since the individual providing the
information likely obtained that information from a simple navigational
chart. I've been a proponent of change for years, but cast common sense to
the wind; you can't buck the system and a long standing established
tradition.

Richard Rowlett <pagodroma at aol.com>
Bellevue, WA, USA