This is just a note to thank Jack Bowling for responding to my incendiary
post in a calm and collected, as well as kind, way. I got carried away a
bit myself, for which I apologize, but you can tell I have sensitive areas
just as Jack does. Obviously both of us are guilty of trying to influence
all of you who are reading these posts, but I guess that's normal human
behavior.

The reason for my sensitivity is easy to explain. I'm not doing laboratory
research on live animals, but I am the director of a natural history
museum, and the pressure to stop using animals in research is paralleled by
a pressure to prevent scientific collecting (=killing) by museums. I
consider this sentiment entirely acceptable when it is personal but
extremely harmful when personal attitudes are used to influence policies
that control the activities of others. And, of course, this is exactly what
is happening; many museums have bowed to the pressure, with cessation of
collection-based research activities. And this is extending not just to
birds and mammals but all the way down to insects. There is some pressure
now (from other nature lovers) on dragonfly researchers not to collect
dragonflies, and the first laws have been passed to legislate this
pressure.

I too value the life of animals and would literally never hurt a fly unless
I felt it was justified. But I know that death follows life invariably,
that all animals will die, and that, for better or worse, people have a
great deal of influence over whether individual animals live or die. What
concerns me the most is that so many people seem to single out research
and/or education as insufficient reasons to justify the death of animals,
when we kill so many more of them in so many other ways and for so many
other reasons. We've discussed free-roaming cats, picture windows, oil
spills, and habitat destruction in this forum, but I don't recall anyone
saying much about Kentucky Fried Chicken or Thanksgiving. Just think if
every bird lover in America stopped eating birds! And how about the keeping
of pet birds? Is it really better for a budgie to be in a cage than in the
Australian outback? (by now I've probably offended all the people on
tweeters I didn't offend with the first message)

Why pick on scientific research and museums? I think it's because it's
easy. Scientists and museum personnel are easy scapegoats because we are
few in number, with no lobbying strength. What's more, we are actually
responsive to the concerns of society--unlike developers and pussycats. The
unfairness of this, like any unfairness, really does make me miserable.
Perhaps I do "protest too much," but my protest is just as heartfelt as
Jack's concern for that nutcracker.

Finally, I don't in any way hold science above reproach. I'm critical of
science and scientists where warranted, and I'm pleased that Jack revised
his criticism to a more specific level. All I'm trying to claim is that
science is no more evil than any other human endeavor.

Sorry to take up so much space on something so far removed from bird
finding. I should also add that I'm very grateful for the offline support
for my previous post.

Dennis

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 253-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 253-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/museum.html