Hi Peter,
I'm not sure what Stephen Debus means exactly; it comes across as slightly
nonsensical, but perhaps I've completely missed his point.
I thought only scientists could write papers, whereas twitchers are not in
a position to publish papers unless they possess scientific qualifications?
So how are twitchers stopping scientists from doing their work?
Are twitchers relied upon for scientific data, and are they regarded as
credible sources? If so, surely bird counting is a valuable contribution?
*In its editorial Stephen Debus laments the declining submission
of papers. He blames it on twitching: "I think a large part of the problem
lies with the recent development of the 'twitching' malaise, and its
obsession with 'ticks' and rarities, to the detriment of meaningful bird
study."
Quite inappropriate statements in my view, or if anything, unnecessary.*
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
