Huh? I haven't heard anyone say that here. I think nature is more often the
property of private land owners and businesses. Professional botanists and
zoologists aren't payed enough to buy huge tracts of land :-)
> Isn't nature everybodies property?
Not in the USA! :-)
> Does the fact that people are paid to do the work enhance the
> quality of their work?
> In the past many of these stupid hobbyists have discovered
> interesting things, new species,...., without having had the legitimation
> of being paid for their work.
A few hobbyists have done some remarkably good work... but only after they
became familiar with issues and techniquess of the professionals. Those
who do not interact with professionals and reject guidelines such as the
Code of Botanical Nomenclature have tended not to be helpful. I'm not
saying that these guidelines are perfect or cannot be improved, but rather
that the system cannot be improved until it has been comprehended.
> I think it's simply arrogant to insult all the non-professional
> workers (non-professional meant in the sense of non paid!!!!) by
> telling they are not worth of getting informations available to their
> collegues who get paid for their work.
I become eternally tired of hearing hobbyists label the professionals
as incompetent. If you want to stack up offenses and see who's the
most arrogant, that is not a game I'm interested in.
Michael Chamberland