Belinda
AFO is aimed more at receiving information based on "amateur" observations
rather than "professional" papers. Let us not forget that much of importance
has been done by amateurs in many fields of science, and since there are a
lot more amateurs out here than professionals it is important that their
observations have a mechanism to be recorded, since they/we see many things
that
professional scientists" may never see.
And yes - bird counting is of course very important and the BA Atlas and
Eremaea and Birdpedia are great sources of data for people.
Dave
2008/5/22 Belinda Cassidy <>:
> 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:
> ===============================
>
===============================
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:
===============================
|
