To me, the question seems to be whether field methods for research and education are justified if they cause stress and mortality in a few individuals.
For Steve Irwin, I believe the answer is yes, because he produced results, got people thinking about herps, and raised money for conservation. I've taught many students who knew a lot about herps because of the crocodile hunter (and I never saw one of them try to wrestle a snake.) Many research projects are harder to justify (some of mine included), because the data from the projects were not published or utilized to further management, conservation, or science. With that, I think I'll dust off that old field notebook (you know the one) and try to get those data published! Cheers, Curtis Curtis Bjurlin Wildlife Biologist Madison, WI > I just wanted to make a note regarding the opinion below that was posted > today: > > "I think catching bats and birds in nets, removing chicks from nest, > opening snakes and putting tracking devices inside their bodies, cutting > notches or holes in the carpace of turtles and many other common research > methods cause as much if not more truama than anything Steve Irwin did." > > Aside from the Steve Irwin discussion, those wildlife research field > methods mentioned above (handling, marking, radio-tagging, among many > others) undoubtedly induce stress for the subject organism. HOWEVER, I > argue that these techniques are completely warranted by having produced > invaluable data, discovery, direction, and progress in wildlife > ecology, management, and conservation for over a century now. > > In this case, the sampling and potential distress (or even lowered > survival > rates) of the few provides for the management and conservation of the > many. > > Matt Giovanni > Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant > Department of Agronomy and Horticulture > 357 Keim Hall > School of Natural Resources > 228 Hardin Hall > University of Nebraska > Lincoln, NE 68583-0915 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
