Stephen asked me to post this response to the recent disussion on BIrding-aus:
The decline of ornithology
I never said that rarities shouldn't be documented. First occurrences of
rarities should be documented properly in the published literature, and AFO
encourages it. What I would question is the value of hordes of other birders
then rushing off to tick the latest blow-in. Surely it's enough that the
species is adequately confirmed for the Australian list (via BARC and a
supporting paper in AFO)? In the current environmental and oil crisis, we
should be much smarter about our carbon footprint and fuel consumption, and
'giving back' to the birds in whatever way we can, so we still have birds to
watch. For people who like ticking and listing (and that's fine if it's
directed to a useful end), there are the various atlas schemes and surveys,
with a good chance of 'ticks' if under-surveyed grids are targeted. One can
also supplement the fund of knowledge on bird behaviour, biology and ecology.
Anyone can publish valuable distributional or behavioural notes or papers on
birds, or conduct more detailed studies, and AFO encourages that too (and yes,
there's editorial help available). The last word has not been said even on
common species (see how many HANZAB accounts, e.g. on social organisation,
social behaviour, food or breeding, say 'poorly known' or 'no detailed
studies'). And we need more specific information, for conservation purposes,
than the general information in Wikipedia or the popular bird books. One
doesn't have to be a scientist or academic, but published observations should
be placed in the context of existing knowledge.
Birding-Aus is not for research, but there's much information that could be
publishable. E.g., the Osprey nest at Ulladulla: a southerly breeding
extension by 100s of km that should be documented properly. Already many
snippets have appeared in 'Field notes' in Boobook (journal of the Raptor
Association). Birding-Ausers might be published authors without knowing it
(check out Boobook since 2004), but even that source is drying up now as
birders seem to be taking less notice of what birds are actually doing. If you
don't take AFO (shame on you! .No, just kidding), check it out. It might be
available online soon, although the Web is an Achilles' heel (like state
electricity grids, municipal water reservoirs, fossil fuels, etc.).
Much good ornithology has been done by unfunded amateurs, through journals such
as AFO. 'Amateur' means 'for the love of it' (i.e. unpaid), but it certainly
need not mean unprofessional. And about that Black Swan wearing a neck band:
if birds weren't banded or marked, we wouldn't have information on their
longevity, movements or social structure (data needed for conservation).
Research projects using marking must have ethical clearance, researchers love
their birds and try to minimise adverse effects, and the disturbance is
temporary. And of course good observational studies can be done without
marking (see AFO).
Stephen Debus
==============================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:
=============================
|
