-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Fenwick's Antpitta (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
- Status
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
Richard, with all due respect I have read more than one forum member comments not strictly talking about the systematics/taxonomy part of this issue here in this thread.. I was adding more info about what is been published recently on this issue.
And yes, I do have a natural strong dislike for this organization, but actually I do not think that is enough to get my original posts on this forum edited and lines deleted without even sending me a message... just noticed it reading here... anyways..
Last edited:
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
Mysticete, if you follow carefully this thread and all the relevant links provided through it the part about "illegal collecting" should not be an issue anymore as Niels points out... actually, it just reflects the clear double standards of proaves: they were claiming that Diego Caranton description of Grallaria urraoensis was based on illegally collected specimens, but: 1. they were supposedly at the beginning eager and open to conciliate with him and publish a paper together using those same specimens they considered illegal ("the result justify any means"), and 2. their feathers type specimen for Grallaria fenwickorum were collected under the very same permits!
Diego.
Mysticete
Well-known member
From what I have seen, censorship mostly occurs on this forum to avoid the potential for things to get heated. I agree with Richard that some of the stuff you had posted on Proaves doesn't have a place here since it seems mostly to exist to smear an organization.
Illegal reporting of specimens is bad and a breach of ethics. Every story I heard has said the specimens were not reported to Proaves.
Illegal reporting of specimens is bad and a breach of ethics. Every story I heard has said the specimens were not reported to Proaves.
And potential legal issues, which was the case here, as the quotes have since been retracted by the journalist, who admitted that there was likely some translation problems. The Telegraph altered their article as a result.
Given that the original quotes misrepresented certain individuals and an orgnisation, we don't particularly want them published here... as we are then legally responsible.
I'm sorry if anyone feels aggrieved by the removal of the quotes, and that the poster was not informed about the removal of the quotes, but we only went as far a removing the quotes from our site (and the screengrabs of the text), not links to other sites that may still have them showing.
Hopefully the thread can now continue on the initial theme.
regards,
Andy
BF Admin
Birding Peru
Well-known member
Thanks to Reuven_M for posting my blogpost to the Forum.
http://birdingblogs.com/2011/Gunnar/is-the-credibility-of-proaves-and-abc-damaged
A few notes to the comments it has created:
Mysteceti: The talks with ProAves new director and two ABC people (of whom one was deeply involved in the issue and the other was not) were only for 20 min-30 minutes as I was in charge of a group and could not take too much time for this. As mentioned in my blogpost, very little new came up: Caranton was under contract, and lies and exaggerations are spread on the RNOA network (as ProAves feels in any case...But I imagine the tone has been rather harsh!)...
However, I think The Condor letter changes a lot in the perception of ProAves among all Colombian ornithologists, the vast majority of Neotropical ornithologists as well as an increasing number of birders.
This is what Sebastian Herzog, Armonia, BirdLife Bolivia had to say:
"the Condor letter is like an epitaph to the scientific and ethical reputation of ProAves.... RIP"
So yes, the post is angled (in contrast to my first post on birdingblogs) and openly informs - that ProAves is guilty. We would like to know what you are going to do about it?
Why guilty? Because they could have abstained from publishing in the first place. And if Caranton has committed a crime or broken a contract he could be held responsible and even legal actions could have been made.
It did not give ProAves the right to scoop Caranton in the way it was made. That is the essence.
If we can all agree on that, well in that case ProAves and in extension ABC (Not ABA Mysteceti) is in deep shit - and they will have to do something about it. It is up to them! They need to budge!
I think part of the underlying problem between the Colombian ornithologists and ProAves stems from both lack of recognition and envy.
I have had several Colombian Ornithologist friends mentioning that ProAves:
Maybe I should repeat: Lack of recognition....and ENVY.
ProAves is totally dependent on funding. It is in their interest to do press-releases and strive for any credit possible in outgoing communications.
The Colombian ornithologists feels they don't get credit when they should.
As mentioned in the blogpost, the new director of ProAves, Lina Daza, has a great opportunity to put things right. Self-critique and respect seems to be to crucial virtues that need be employed.
I agree that editing of text should be notified to the author. One of the links that Diego sent does not work (seems to have been taken down). Fortunately, it could be found with Google cache!
Maybe it is hard for us non-Colombians to understand why this article is a slap in the face of Colombians in general. But think about it. FARC appears as one of the good guys.... WRONG!
On the other hand, the fact that the text has been changed on the Telegraph - an taken down on iFrog (probably by ProAves initiative) shows that ProAves does not approve of the assumptions made in the article.
http://birdingblogs.com/2011/Gunnar/is-the-credibility-of-proaves-and-abc-damaged
A few notes to the comments it has created:
Mysteceti: The talks with ProAves new director and two ABC people (of whom one was deeply involved in the issue and the other was not) were only for 20 min-30 minutes as I was in charge of a group and could not take too much time for this. As mentioned in my blogpost, very little new came up: Caranton was under contract, and lies and exaggerations are spread on the RNOA network (as ProAves feels in any case...But I imagine the tone has been rather harsh!)...
However, I think The Condor letter changes a lot in the perception of ProAves among all Colombian ornithologists, the vast majority of Neotropical ornithologists as well as an increasing number of birders.
This is what Sebastian Herzog, Armonia, BirdLife Bolivia had to say:
"the Condor letter is like an epitaph to the scientific and ethical reputation of ProAves.... RIP"
So yes, the post is angled (in contrast to my first post on birdingblogs) and openly informs - that ProAves is guilty. We would like to know what you are going to do about it?
Why guilty? Because they could have abstained from publishing in the first place. And if Caranton has committed a crime or broken a contract he could be held responsible and even legal actions could have been made.
It did not give ProAves the right to scoop Caranton in the way it was made. That is the essence.
If we can all agree on that, well in that case ProAves and in extension ABC (Not ABA Mysteceti) is in deep shit - and they will have to do something about it. It is up to them! They need to budge!
I think part of the underlying problem between the Colombian ornithologists and ProAves stems from both lack of recognition and envy.
I have had several Colombian Ornithologist friends mentioning that ProAves:
- take ideas and data without giving credit
- exaggerate data to make their reserves sound more important than they are
- only supporting their own reserves
- Controls funding from major donors Colombian to conservation projects - and thus only fund their own projects
- Only interested in MONEY
Maybe I should repeat: Lack of recognition....and ENVY.
ProAves is totally dependent on funding. It is in their interest to do press-releases and strive for any credit possible in outgoing communications.
The Colombian ornithologists feels they don't get credit when they should.
As mentioned in the blogpost, the new director of ProAves, Lina Daza, has a great opportunity to put things right. Self-critique and respect seems to be to crucial virtues that need be employed.
I agree that editing of text should be notified to the author. One of the links that Diego sent does not work (seems to have been taken down). Fortunately, it could be found with Google cache!
Maybe it is hard for us non-Colombians to understand why this article is a slap in the face of Colombians in general. But think about it. FARC appears as one of the good guys.... WRONG!
On the other hand, the fact that the text has been changed on the Telegraph - an taken down on iFrog (probably by ProAves initiative) shows that ProAves does not approve of the assumptions made in the article.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Diego, Gunnar,
Over the years I've had posts arbitrarily deleted by the BirdForum moderators without any explanation. It's extremely annoying and frustrating, but I guess they'd argue that they don't have time to provide feedback on a case-by-case basis. We have to take it or leave it...
Last edited:
AveryBartels
Well-known member
Perhaps more importantly, they were not reported to CORPURABA, the local authorities, thus the $10,000 fine for Caranton/Proaves.
AveryBartels
Well-known member
Illegal collecting or lack of reporting what you collect....whats the difference???
It seems to me that CORPURABA are very lenient in requiring only that the specimens be reported apropriately after the fact rather than requiring the possesion of a collecting permit prior to the collecting activities.
Either way, the law is clearly in place to stop ILLEGAL COLLECTING, for obvious reasons.
Whatever you want to call it, it is still a massive issue and I agree with mysteces that it seems to have been a relatively minor point in these discussions.
Avery,
Unless you have seen the paperwork in the case and are able to prove in a court of law that the case involves illegal collecting, then it is best to use and support the judgment of the local authorities, and call it illegal lack of reporting.
Illegal lack of reporting is obviously in itself an important issue, as you yourself say in the previous post: it resulted in a fine of $10000.
Niels
Unless you have seen the paperwork in the case and are able to prove in a court of law that the case involves illegal collecting, then it is best to use and support the judgment of the local authorities, and call it illegal lack of reporting.
Illegal lack of reporting is obviously in itself an important issue, as you yourself say in the previous post: it resulted in a fine of $10000.
Niels
- Status
