• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (1 Viewer)

Richard,
I want to ask one question about your mention of the House Wren collection and comparing it to the original collection: how big a percentage of the likely population was collected in each case? I think you have to define the relevant HW population very narrowly before you can say it is getting up there, as if the entire collection came from one valley or some such [and that valley had an isolated population]. Otherwise the numbers collected are much more insignificant compared to our current understanding of HW populations than the collection of that one woodpecker.
Niels, your point is of course valid. If the Guadalcanal team's assessment of the kingfisher's abundance was wrong to the extent that collection of even a single specimen would threaten the viability of the population, then there's indeed a case to answer. But many of those who've expressed outrage have done so simply on the basis that any collecting is unnecessary and wrong, full stop, and yet don't seem unduly concerned about numerous other studies.

(I agree with Thomas that certain studies arguably involve excessive collecting, and perhaps the House Wren study is an example...)

Another aspect that should be taken into account when comparing the two is that whilst the House Wren study fulfills scientific curiosity about an aspect of the physiology of the species, the goal of the Guadalcanal expedition is to secure the conservation of a threatened ecosystem - surely a worthy cause (irrespective of opinions on the methods employed).
 
Last edited:
I have written this before, but for completeness: I started out being emotionally against all collecting of live birds because I felt it unnecessary. I have slowly turned around to a point of view where most collection is OK. I would, however, like to have better population estimates done before going ahead with collection.

We have in the past discussed a couple of cases in Birdforum where I do not think a proper assessment was completed before live collection was done. In those cases, lots of photos and blood samples would have to suffice to my mind.

Niels
 
To avoid the hijacking website, you need to type this into google:

"The Ornithologist the Internet Called a Murderer - The New York Times"

A sad story about extreme trolling and the more extreme elements of the animal liberation lobby. Some strong views here in birdforum, but clearly in other forums there are some people who take things way too far...
 
It's not a surprise that the American Museum team have downplayed / dismissed the sightings of others, since "not seen since the 1950s" gives the story more traction.

"Trophy specimen of charismatic bird species collected in undisturbed habitat where it has always been" is not such a great headline.

cheers, alan

https://twitter.com/pablo_dulce/status/1064964195215704064

AMNH still keen on hoovering up what's left:

19 #BOU18TC 'Scientific collecting is frequently criticized, but from my perspective as a provider of biodiversity data to the scientific community, our extant collections are often deficient. There is an urgent need to continue accruing and preserving specimens while we still can'

[My bold]

cheers, alan
 
Your alarmist and misleading language notwithstanding ("hoovering up what's left"), it is worth reading the entire twitter thread by Paul Sweet which you've linked to, as it makes an excellent case for the importance of continued collecting.

From slide 4: "New techniques and analytical methods, coupled with ever more powerful computer processing, have increased the value of extant collections in ways that the original collectors could never have imagined". This will be just as true 30, 40, and 50 years from now with specimens collected today.
 
Your alarmist and misleading language notwithstanding ("hoovering up what's left"), it is worth reading the entire twitter thread by Paul Sweet which you've linked to, as it makes an excellent case for the importance of continued collecting.

From slide 4: "New techniques and analytical methods, coupled with ever more powerful computer processing, have increased the value of extant collections in ways that the original collectors could never have imagined". This will be just as true 30, 40, and 50 years from now with specimens collected today.

Don't see this making an argument for continued collecting, your quote just says we are better able to now analyze the collections already existing. I can't see how this is translated into 'so we need to collect more'.
 
Last edited:
OK, let's break this down.

Explain to me 'while we still can'.

There are two possibilities but I'll let you identify them..

cheers, alan

You're really good at making false equilvalences aren't you?

"While we still can": I didn't write the slide so I'm not really in a position to explain it, but I'm guessing he either means "while we still have permits to collect" or "while there are still birds around", which I guess is the two possibilities you were referring to, right?

The false equivalence comes in when you use language ("hoovering up what's left") that implies that scientific collecting contributes to the loss of bird populations worldwide, which it quite clearly doesn't. I shouldn't talk as I am a keen world birder (mostly South America), but surely the carbon emissions alone from birders traveling around the globe have a far, far greater impact that museum collecting...
 
Don't see this making an argument for continued collecting, your quote just says we are better able to now analyze the collections already existing. I can't see how this is translated into 'so we need to collect more'.

It's an argument that highlights the value of scientific collections, even in ways that cannot be foreseen in the present. The logical extension of this - assuming that the impact of scientific collecting on bird population is essentially nil, which I believe is the case - is that continued collecting is desirable.
 
"While we still can": I didn't write the slide so I'm not really in a position to explain it, but I'm guessing he either means "while we still have permits to collect" or "while there are still birds around", which I guess is the two possibilities you were referring to, right?

Correct. We can work on that.

BTW I think you need to review the definition of false equivalence.. and stop the whataboutery on Carbon.

cheers, alan
 
It's an argument that highlights the value of scientific collections, even in ways that cannot be foreseen in the present. The logical extension of this - assuming that the impact of scientific collecting on bird population is essentially nil, which I believe is the case - is that continued collecting is desirable.

I will disagree with you on this.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top