No such thing as "A Sacred Cow"

My post title comes from within an industrial context, and is no way meant to be an insult to any religious group who hold these creatures in such high esteem! The phrase is used to encourage individuals to challenge established work practice and methods - only by doing so will things improve? Within my own experiences at Fujifilm Speciality Ink Systems and Unilever, previously, the culture of "continuous improvement" is nurtured in order to assist the business to remain competitive in today's marketplace.
Standing still isn't an option - Kodak did that and are now consigned to the scrap heap as a result! I've always been a firm believer in the "do nothing - nothing changes! Do something, and things will change but, not always as you had foreseen?"
It becomes complicated when I use this industrial thinking in my approach to my outdoor activities - if I'm not catching fish, doing nothing won't improve the situation. So I find myself constantly thinking about silly little tweaks, or even more dramatically, new venues or species, in order to put a bend in the rod. It doesn't always work, but I feel I am doing something proactive which will aid my cause. My recent run of success with carp being a great illustration of what I mean - I'd gone tench fishing, but things didn't work out quite as I had planned, but in a very positive way (on this occasion!).
I suppose it is my own acceptance of the concept of continuous improvement that keeps me asking questions of myself and my beliefs. My opinions are not set in stone but, instead, are easily adapted to incorporate new experiences or information that I encounter. Out in "blogland", well the bit with which I am familiar, there are many contributors whose ideas and experiences have caused me to question what I had previously never considered. My questions, I imagine, are sometimes seen as criticism, by those on the receiving end, and I have gotten into plenty of grief because of the manner in which my questions are posed. I'm still here - no-one's died because of anything I've asked and, in reality, it's of no great consequence quite what I think or say!
My open dislike for entomological requirements which entail the killing of specimens is simply my opinion, nothing more. To my way of thinking (the only one that matters to me - I have to live with it!) there has to be a better way. In 2015 bird identification and our willing use of available technology has transformed the understanding of, and the way we go about, a hugely complex subject and revealed massive new areas of discovery. Sonograms, DNA analysis, moult patterns, feather tracts - it goes on and on and with this comes learning. The camera technology has assisted this advancement hugely, we no longer require museum specimens to be taken. So why are the guys, who are so obviously committed to the study of our insect communities still stuck in some form of Victorian time capsule? Their study techniques entrenched in an era which didn't have access to electron microscopes, DNA data banks and digital imagery. Wake up guys - it's the 21st Century - there's an awful lot of technology out there to help you - so bloody embrace it and stop clinging to the same methodology that was practiced when Britannia ruled the waves and Neanderthal game-keepers, employed and instructed by powerful landowners, were persecuting our native raptors in order to provide sport for well-shod punters, who flaunted their wealth and status with complete disregard for the wishes of the masses. What date is it ? Is it destined that some things will never change?