I think is has to do with the use of prepositions. "Relocated IN" or "AT"
to me does not imply capture and removal (as was stated in the Kestrel
report), but simply re-finding. "Relocated TO" clearly implies cature and
removal (as in the gnatcather example).

I think its perfetly correct to use the phrase "relocated in or at" to
describe fining a bird that had been lost.
I didn't think twice about it.

Simply my two cents.

Brent Ripley
Kennewick, WA
mailto: brentr at hawlaw.com

----------
> From: Michael Hobbs <Hummer at isomedia.com>
> To: Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: A Question Of Syntax
> Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 8:55 AM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lydia Gaebe <lgaebe at email.msn.com>
>
> > Why not just say, "the Eurasian Kestrel is now in Skagit County...."
or
> > "the Eurasian Kestrel flew to Skagit County".
>
> Well, it wasn't that the Kestrel had moved. It was that the Kestrel had
been
> re-located -- that is, located again. I suppose we could say refound,
but
> that's not a word.
>
> Interestingly, Lydia is the second person this week who has misunderstood
> "relocated" with respect to a rarity. I was telling a King County Parks
> employee about the Gnatcatcher, and told her that the bird had been
"relocated
> on Saturday". She thought I meant someone captured it and took it away!
>
> Does anyone have any better ideas for phrasing the concept of having
located an
> individual bird hours or days after it was last seen that doesn't imply
> transportation?
>
> == Michael Hobbs
> == Kirkland WA
> == hummer at isomedia.com
>
>
>