• 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)

lewis20126 said:
I fully support the complete eradication of rats from South Georgia and Henderson and Mice from Gough, by killing them if needs be. If I was a vegetarian, I guess I would be a hypocrite? :smoke:
Click to expand...
Alan, I don't understand the point you're making. Hopefuly most ethically-minded people (including vegetarians) accept that we have a responsibility to eradicate human-introduced alien species to save otherwise threatened native species (wherever realistically practicable), and is a more compelling reason to kill animals than for food (or for scientific collecting). But as evident from previous BF threads, there are some who reject even that justification...
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Alan, I don't understand the point you're making. Hopefuly most ethically-minded people (including vegetarians) accept that we have a responsibility to eradicate human-introduced alien species to save otherwise threatened native species (wherever realistically practicable), and is a more compelling reason to kill animals than for food (or for scientific collecting). But as evident from previous BF threads, there are some who reject even that justification...
Click to expand...

So, there are some value judgements involved when it comes to killing stuff? Killing stuff isn't always bad then?

cheers, a
 
lewis20126 said:
So, there are some value judgements involved when it comes to killing stuff? Killing stuff isn't always bad then?
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's a spectrum going from compellingly defensible (eg, eradication of an alien species to protect threatened native species), through arguably defensible (eg, scientific collecting of a species), to very dubiously defensible (eg, because a species tastes good). You choose your own cut-off point...

PS. And surprised to learn that you're a Daily Mail reader. ;)
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Indeed. It's a spectrum going from compellingly defensible (eg, eradication of alien species to protect threatened native species), through arguably defensible (eg, scientific collecting of a species), to very dubiously defensible (eg, because a species tastes good). You choose your cut-off point accordingly...
Click to expand...

OK, quite like your spectrum but mine is a bit different, so:

compellingly defensible (eg, eradication of alien species to protect threatened native species), through arguably defensible (eg, collecting for critical need, of a common species or short type series of a new species, where demonstrably no impact on population), to indefensible (collection of additional specimens of an already described rare species where impact on population is uncertain).

But what about the chickens? [See Nutcracker's post]

cheers, alan
 
Richard Klim said:
Indeed. It's a spectrum going from compellingly defensible (eg, eradication of an alien species to protect threatened native species), through arguably defensible (eg, scientific collecting of a species), to very dubiously defensible (eg, because a species tastes good). You choose your own cut-off point...
Click to expand...

And indeed choose your own order - an interesting insight - as is this which provoked one of the Nigel Collar responses:-

'British conservationists are aware of, and their work benefits from, my and other overlooked research (published in journals such as Conservation Biology), but they are disinclined to cite it because we are evil museum scientists who occasionally collect birds. A "holier than thou" attitude pervades many bird books written in Britain these days. (Pigeons and Doves was produced at Pica Press in Britain; it is sold in the colonies by Yale University Press.)'

All the best
 
lewis20126 said:
OK, quite like your spectrum but mine is a bit different, so:

compellingly defensible (eg, eradication of alien species to protect threatened native species), through arguably defensible (eg, collecting for critical need, of a common species or short type series of a new species, where demonstrably no impact on population), to indefensible (collection of additional specimens of an already described rare species where impact on population is uncertain).
Click to expand...
OK, but for the sake of completeness, we should know where killing for the pleasure of eating fits in wrt the three examples on your spectrum. Do you consider it to be more, less or equally defensible compared with each of your three examples?
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
OK, but for the sake of completeness, it's important to know where killing for the pleasure of eating fits in wrt the three examples on your spectrum. In particular, do you consider it to be more, less or equally defensible compared with each of your three examples?
Click to expand...

If your concern is in respect of the natural world and the preservation of it and natural biodiversity and not the issue of killing per se, I think that it can sit well outside that spectrum (save in respect of the arguments that such means of meat production are highly inefficient and as a result, they should be avoided for those reasons).

All the best
 
Paul Chapman said:
If your concern is in respect of the natural world and the preservation of it and natural biodiversity and not the issue of killing per se, I think that it can sit well outside that spectrum (save in respect of the arguments that such means of meat production are highly inefficient and as a result, they should be avoided for those reasons).
Click to expand...
But most birders who condemn the scientific collecting of birds do indeed seem to be primarily concerned with the issue of killing per se, and not the preservation of the natural world and biodiversity.

And earlier I deliberately also included the example of marine fish - natural/wild vertebrates harvested globally on an industrial scale - and no doubt regularly enjoyed by numerous birders (not you, Paul) who at the same time condemn the scientific collecting of vertebrates.
 
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
If your concern is in respect of the natural world and the preservation of it and natural biodiversity and not the issue of killing per se, I think that it can sit well outside that spectrum (save in respect of the arguments that such means of meat production are highly inefficient and as a result, they should be avoided for those reasons).

All the best
Click to expand...

exactly. :t:

cheers, a
 
Richard Klim said:
But most birders who condemn the scientific collecting of birds do indeed seem to be primarily concerned with the issue of killing per se, and not the preservation of the natural world and biodiversity.
.
Click to expand...

Your evidence for this sweeping statement would be from where, Richard? It might in the surface appear that way because the killing seems not to be motivated solely (or even mainly) by altruism for global preservation, and still seems in most cases unnecessary! Most certainly in this case.

I still say you aren't going to save the horse by insulting the driver...

Ho hum....
 
Paul Chapman said:
And indeed choose your own order - an interesting insight - as is this which provoked one of the Nigel Collar responses:-

'British conservationists are aware of, and their work benefits from, my and other overlooked research (published in journals such as Conservation Biology), but they are disinclined to cite it because we are evil museum scientists who occasionally collect birds. A "holier than thou" attitude pervades many bird books written in Britain these days. (Pigeons and Doves was produced at Pica Press in Britain; it is sold in the colonies by Yale University Press.)'

All the best
Click to expand...

Not sure Nigel polishes his own armour with his use of 'the colonies'.....

I think the last person I heard say that was Alf Garnet.....sorry, that will be lost on Americans, I think?

Andy
 
MTem said:
Your evidence for this sweeping statement would be from where, Richard? ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps my statement was poorly worded, and you've misunderstood my intention. I was simply noting that most birders seem to believe that the killing of a bird for scientific collecting is unnecessary/wrong, whether or not it has an adverse impact on the preservation of the species concerned.

It certainly wasn't meant to be an insult to anybody!
 
Richard Klim said:
Perhaps my statement was poorly worded, and you've misunderstood my intention. I was simply noting that most birders seem to believe that the killing of a bird for scientific collecting is unnecessary/wrong, whether or not it has an adverse impact on the preservation of the species concerned.

It certainly wasn't meant to be an insult to anybody!
Click to expand...

No insult taken Richard. As I have said I have been much informed and educated, as well as horrified and exasperated, by this thread.

I think the point here is no one has yet to me established ANY link between the killing of this bird and the preservation of its species, and hence I am one of those birders who remain to be convinced the killing served ANY purpose other than aggrandisement of the Museum concerned in the eyes of academics.

However the risk of 'turning off' a welcome (and increasingly large) number of non-academics who pour millions if not billions of $$££ into global preservation (and indirectly pay these collectors) seems very high in our 'connected world'. For that reason alone this killing (and those of similar vein) are misguided at best. They risk far greater damage to global conservation than they could possibly bring in benefit. Read those comments on the Daily Mail web page link a few posts above.

As has been said trying to justify it by reference to hunting and meat-eating is pedantic at best and just reinforces my comment that you are out of touch with the mood of the times.
 
Last edited:
l_raty said:
This was not written by Collar 2003, but by Steadman 2001. Nigel was reacting to Steadman's comment (which was quite clearly ironic in tone; Steadman works at the Florida MNH).
Click to expand...

Ironic or not, clearly misinformed like the comments about amateurs etc. I find the playing the man not the ball by some of those engaged in continuing collection and the continual responses aimed at arguments not actually being made pretty bizarre. Those things actually detract from the more considered articles and papers that have been linked.

I've been birdwatching and even twitching with quite a few scientists when they were mere amateurs. 3:)

All the best
 
Last edited:
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.

Similar threads

jmorlan
King Penguin subspecies
Replies
5
Views
1K
l_raty
l_raty
Tanny
Dr Manjeet Singh's Malasian patch revised
Replies
5
Views
18K
christineredgate
christineredgate
Rich Bonser
Israel December 2005
Replies
2
Views
17K
Bubbs
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top