This has been fascinating so far. I haven't managed to digest yesterdays
discourse but he's are some more thoughts:

What is the situation in other areas of interest, for example, entomology
where the average "dedication level" is likely to be much higher and the
"noise of fashion" is much lower ? Is there a greater degree of cooperation or
a blurring of roles between professionals and amateurs. Perhaps this is due
to the small numbers of people involved.

David Wright referred to competition for research grants that makes research
such a competitive place and so a lot of (mundane) distribution work etc is
not undertaken. I suppose this is where I am really coming from in determining
a role for amatuers - trying to fill in the gaps that professionals are
unable to fill. However everybodies spectrum of comments has opened up whole
new angles on the subject.

Having no experienced the culture over here a bit more, I realise that the
reaction of professionals to amateurs aspirations in the US is not
superciliousness (not a great choice of words but it's the closest I could
come up with) but rather curiosity, simply because it is very, very, very
unusual. I spoke to Parks Department people yesterday to get permission to
band on the beaches at Ocean Shores. I had a real hard time explaining that I
was not affiliated to a professional organisation or a university. They
certainly had never come across this situation before and I was referred to
the head office for them to figure the request out. Anybody else considering
research - go speak to the local college/university and arrange some common
areas of interest so you can become an associate researcher - it will make
life much easier.

There is also the sobering realisation, coupled with my experience at
Montlake Fill, that birding is not necessarily about finding more about
birds, conservation, etc, etc. Something I already knew though I'm kind of
bummed about it. I suppose it's no real surprise given the large number of
people involved and therefore the spectrum of interest is going to be quite
wide.

FIRE HAZARD AHEAD - NO SMOKING, NO NAKED LIGHTS !!!!!!!!

The next paragraph is 'evocative' rather than 'provocative' - if you don't
know the difference stop here :-)

Maybe we could start another thread on the subject "Why birding is not
necessarily good for birds ?" or "What are birders going to do when there are
no species left to list ?". Before everybody jumps down my throat, consider
the point that the overwhelming sources of funding to bird conservation
organisations in the UK comes from people who like birds but are not birders.
I expect the same situation occurs here. All the money spent on telescopes,
binoculars, field guides, clothing, cars, gasoline, fast food, roads.....

END OF FIRE HAZARD

Apart from Don Baccus, no non-scientist has contributed to this thread. (I
apologise to anybody's mail message I may have missed.) Perhaps this is
indicative of no real need and that I'm making a lot of noise about nothing -
wouldn't be the first time ;-)

Well that's all for now.

Stuart
--
Stuart MacKay, Ravenna Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105