I received a review copy of "Peregrine Quest", the autobiography of 
peregrine falcon expert Dr. Clayton White of Brigham Young University and am 
enjoying the book while gearing up to write a review in due course.  These 
comments are probably related to something I might note in the review, but 
are preliminary, focused on one small issue, and will be related to my own 
experiences and observations about the state of affairs of the pursuit of 
study of natural history.

It is apparent that Dr. Clay White is a man who ponders things.  He ponders 
nature itself, his own role in nature, his relationships to other people and 
to landscapes, and no doubt his professional posture in all of this.  Thus, 
I don't believe it is an accident that Dr. White repeatedly referred to his 
own career in his autobiography as that of a "professional naturalist".  Dr. 
White is a professor of zoology at BYU and probably could have correctly 
identified himself as a zoologist, a biologist, a raptor biologist, a 
peregrine falcon biologist, an ecologist, or some other similar description. 
  But he chose to call himself a professional naturalist.  I like that!  It 
reeks of an "old school" mentality that is not seen very often any more.  In 
fact, when I looked at the definition of "naturalist" in my home dictionary, 
I saw the connotation of that word with the amateur pursuit of natural 
history science; that is how unusual it is nowadays to think of a naturalist 
as a career professional.    But it was not always that way.  I argue that 
we need a return to the pursuit of natural history studies as a professional 
career choice and in recognition of the naturalist as a scientific endeavor. 
  Steve Herman wrote a great invited paper in a Wildlife Society publication 
just a few years back urging the reunion of natural history with wildlife 
management, and Steve is another example of a person who values the role of 
the naturalist, including as a professional endeavor.

My observation is that many careers in academia that relate to ecology, 
biology or wildlife management focus on the process of science first and 
foremost, with the data being somewhat secondary to the process of analysis 
and implemented into management.  Another old-school naturalist who happens 
to be a raptor biologist as well commented to me recently that a major 
ornithological journal accepted a manuscript of his for publication, but 
admitted to him (the researcher) that the journal editor's view of the value 
was in the statistics used in analysis and not in the data.

Clay White is a fellow who obviously cherished each data point in his study 
of peregrines of the world.  That is the mentality of the naturalist.  
Gathering data is a labor of love for naturalists, and the professional 
naturalist gets the added benefit that it pays the bills.  The analysis is a 
necessary component in the process of "doing science" (as Clay White called 
it).

In some ways, Clay White has been the beneficiary of the fact that a 
worldwide species he so clearly is fascinated by (the peregrine falcon) 
became imperiled, thus opening an avenue for the professional pursuit of 
natural history research on this species.  If he had wanted to study barn 
owls on a world-wide basis, he might have been able to do so within 
academia, but would have had a much more difficult time in obtaining 
funding.    The imperilment of the peregrine falcon, plus the fact that the 
peregrine is a charasmatic species with intense value in the minds of 
afficianados, including falconers and peregrine lovers, meant that funding 
opportunities made this sort of career as a naturalist possible.

Another interesting aspect of this situation as revealed by the passage of 
time is that the baseline records of peregrine falcon abundance in many 
parts of the world are sparce.   The number and activities of professional 
(or amateur) naturalists in the decades prior to the career of Dr. White 
(say, before the 1950's) were inadequate to accurately document the 
abundance and even the distribution of peregrine falcons prior to the advent 
of DDT in many parts of the world.

A real concern of mine (and perhaps others) is that the delisting of 
peregrine falcons after their recovery from DDT effects will once again 
reverse the level of monitoring over the long term.  In California, we can 
estimate the number of peregrine falcon pairs based on the contributions of 
many amateur naturalists and falconers combined with the observations of 
agency personnel conducting research here and there, but the fact is that 
the post-delisting monitoring of peregrine falcons is woefully inadequate to 
document certain aspects of the population ecology.   For instance, the very 
fact that all official, post-delisting monitoring of peregrine falcons in 
California is based on known territories means that population expansion 
cannot be officially detected by the monitoring scheme.

Clay White notes that monitoring of peregrine falcons in Alaska during the 
listing period after recovery was underway revealed a much denser population 
of breeding peregrines in certain areas of Alaska than the experts had 
anticipated.   Censusing by professionals made these findings possible, but 
the lack of funding to pay professionals in general mean that we may lose 
track of the dynamics of peregrine populations once again and will be in a 
position to respond to peregrine falcon needs if an undeniable emergency 
were to occur again (through some mechanism not now predictable with 
accuracy, such as through a newly-emerging avian virus, etc.)

In my own case, I use banding and color banding to study common buteos in my 
area of northern California.  There is no funding whatsoever for this sort 
of research, with the exception of another researcher who was willing to pay 
from his pocket to gather data (by banding) the same species for a PhD - 
level study of natal dispersal.   Another minor funding opportunity came 
from another state when the same raptor species I study were suspected of 
impacting the breeding populations of an imperiled gamebird species, and 
thus I was paid to trap and band some raptors so that the movements of the 
raptors could be tracked through radio-telemetry to determine predation 
impacts on greater prairie chickens.

One of the goals of conservation science should be to keep common birds 
common.  One of the roles of the professional naturalist is to monitor the 
abundance, status and distribution of species, whether currently common, 
rare, imperiled, or unknown.  If for no other reason than this alone, I 
argue that we need more professional naturalists and we need a good system 
for monitoring and recording the state of nature in our landscapes across 
this country and around the world.

I am pleased that Dr. Clayton White chose to describe himself as a 
professional naturalist.  It is clear that his bond with the wild is 
intense, his knowledge of nature is vast, and his passion is directly 
connected to his science.  I have seen other scientists who seem to hop from 
gig to gig (project to project) with the seeming goal to gather just enough 
data to plug into their formulas to come up with some sort of conclusion, 
but often without the passion and especially without the background 
expertise to understand if their assumptions are correct or even to 
determine whether they are asking the right research questions.  Clay White 
is a humble man, he admits making some oversights and even errors, but his 
faith in science is that it can be and should be self-correcting.   That is, 
it can be and should be if it is allowed to be.  A career naturalist working 
on a long-term project or series of projects is a vital component in the 
understanding and appropriate stewardship of our natural resources.   
Formulaic science certainly and absolutely has great value and I am not 
arguing about discarding it.   I am arguing that it seems unwise to discard 
the component of long-term expertise gained as a naturalist who values those 
data and combines that passion with that technical expertise to gain the 
best of both worlds.

Clay White is a career naturalist.  And what an extraordinary career he is 
having!  Hopefully I can share more of his book in due course.


Stan Moore      San Geronimo, CA       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

Reply via email to