>Both Don and Jon have commented on the topic of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and how amateurs undermine the status of the professional. I wholeheartedly agree.

>The motivation for discussing the amateurs in research thread was twofold:

> 1) Address the need for some birders to do more than just list species.

They could also be more willing to work for conservation (not a tweets
slam, but I could mention a few well-known regional birders who claim
not to see the need for increased conservation effort).

As well as (not instead of) helping with field work.

> 2) Question the attitude that unless research is carried out by paid
> professionals then the results are not as rigorous of scientifically valid
> as could be produced by a career scientist.

Hmmm...I think I was trying to originally point out that our heritage,
here, consists of a long history of a willingness to PAY FOR such research
(not shared by the UK). Even today in the US, motivated amateurs can
get at least a stipend (the volunteers mentioned by Jon are very often
given stipends and housing, for instance a Goshutes friend who worked
on a tracking project on the Mt. Hood NF got housing + $75/week, but
had to use her own vehicle in the field).

This isn't an argument against doing stuff for free, but rather an
observation that there's been a history of not depending upon
amateurs to lead research.

I hope this has not led to a situation where amateurs are automatically
dismissed.

> So I think we are talking at cross-purposes though it has opened an interesting
> angle on the debate.

Yes, cross-purposes, we don't seem to be connecting.

> I was talking to a researcher who was working on shorebirds. When I mentioned that my project on sanderling was likely to be very long term - 10 years or more
> the reply was 'where are you going to get the grant from ?'

Perhaps you COULD get a grant for your sanderling research.
Perhaps the researcher was partially wondering why you hadn't tried!

Bud Anderson has managed to make a profession of raptor research.

> I was told by several people that getting a banding permit was well nigh
> impossible - however after cutting through all the fog it wasn't that hard
> after all.

Well, I think the fact that you had a UK one helped to some degree. I
know with raptors, at least, fellow volunteers have found it easy to
get a sub-permit but difficult to get a master's permit. The one
Goshutes volunteer who, to my knowledge, has a master's raptor banding
permit is also from the UK, where he had a banding permit.

Hmmm...citizen's unite, we're being discriminated against!

> Maybe I'm really a frustrated zoologist who wasn't prepared to take the hit
> in living standard that being a professional in the UK would have resulted in.

Gee, you (for a time, at least) took the hit that being a computer professional
in the UK entailed :) :)

Welcome aboard, Stuart!

> Most professional ornithologists I know sometimes only work 3 months of the year - in my opinion a digraceful situation which is exploited by many big name
> conservation organisations.

Right. Thus my arguing that we have a tradition here of paying for such
work, unlike the UK (see, you agree with me after all!). Though, as
Jon pointed out, an unfortunate and (I think) unforseen side-effect
of efforts to increase volunteerism for government here has been to
reduce seasonal jobs for young professional biologists.

> Still to wind up - there is a potential waste of talent. Given the limitations
> that most professionals experience it would certainly improve things to get
> more pairs of hands and eyes out into the field.

God, yes! Nothing I've said has been meant to argue otherwise, only
to shed some light on why there's such a difference between the two
countries. (one could recast the question: why do professional field
workers only find 3 months/year employment in the UK? My answer would
be the same: a long history of science being the realm of the amateur
with sufficient free time (funds!) to do it without pay).

I'm not arguing that one situation is better/worse than the other, just
stating history.

Clearly, we don't spend enough on field biology in this country (though
we spend a lot more, I bet, than the UK, on a pro-capita basis!). Let's
grab power and double, triple or quadruple today's figure. Is that enough
research? Nope (IMO). No matter how much we spend, leveraging it with
amateur help seems sensible, unless we succeed in swapping the budget
for conservation science with, say, DOD's (heh! we'd all be flush!).

In this sense, we aren't speaking at cross-purpose.


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