Richard Klim
-------------------------
del Hoyo et al 2015 (HBW Alive).
BirdLife (Species factsheet).
Chris Filardi, AMNH, 23 Sep 2015: Field Journal: Finding Ghosts.
[With thanks to Grahame Walbridge for reporting on Surfbirds.]
-
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.
Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
BirdLife (Species factsheet).
Chris Filardi, AMNH, 23 Sep 2015: Field Journal: Finding Ghosts.
[With thanks to Grahame Walbridge for reporting on Surfbirds.]
Grahame Walbridge
Well-known member
My lift to the Bill arrived early and I only had time to post on Surfbirds. On my return I found you had already posted it!
Thanks,
Grahame
Expeditionary work by American museums has helped provide the impetus to protect millions of hectares of imperiled tropical forest habitats. The opening paragraph of the AMNH states how Filardi is working with local people to protect these forests on Guadalcanal. Nobody has worked harder in the Solomon Islands than Chris Filardi to document the biodiversity of this amazing archipelago and to put in place measures to insure the preservation of this diversity.
Andy
DMW
Well-known member
So are you saying that it is impossible to document avian biodiversity and protect forests in the Solomon Islands without killing birds?
I would say that there is little doubt that documenting biodiversity is best done through specimen collection. Of course, protecting forests does not require specimen collection (and one of the results of preservation is often the banning of specimen collection), but you cannot ignore the huge effect that museum expeditions have had on establishing protected areas. Without these expeditions many areas would have seen little impetus to establish protected areas. On Guadalcanal, the presence of Actenoides will give the local governments more incentive to establish a park there. Figuring out where and how to place protected areas is best done when there is sound biological inventories of all biota (not just birds), which gets back to the first point that this is best done through museum collections.
Andy
Andy
DMW
Well-known member
I will respectfully have to disagree with you on the need to continue to take whole-bird specimens in the 21st century. I don't question the historic value of collecting, or the value of continuing to study existing museum specimens, but we are no longer in the Victorian era. We have so many more tools at our disposal now than the shotgun, and a large part of avian taxonomic work - perhaps even the majority - is now focused on vocalisations (which obviously require a living bird) or genetics (which don't require lethal collection).
I also think the argument that collecting birds = conserving forests is at best overplayed, and at worst a myth. I recall the same argument being promulgated to justify collecting in the Philippines a few years ago - as though collecting and describing yet another cryptic species in a long-list of endemics would somehow lead to a change in government policy in a nation largely indifferent to its natural environment.
In any event, isn't it time we moved the argument on from trying to find additional endemic taxa to justify protecting the diminishing fragments of natural forest on the planet? Isn't it pretty much a given that any significant area of forest in Melanesia is important for biodiversity? If you make the argument that Fragment A has Moustached Kingfisher and therefore should be protected, where does it leave Fragment B that doesn't?
Cheers
Duncan
I also think the argument that collecting birds = conserving forests is at best overplayed, and at worst a myth. I recall the same argument being promulgated to justify collecting in the Philippines a few years ago - as though collecting and describing yet another cryptic species in a long-list of endemics would somehow lead to a change in government policy in a nation largely indifferent to its natural environment.
In any event, isn't it time we moved the argument on from trying to find additional endemic taxa to justify protecting the diminishing fragments of natural forest on the planet? Isn't it pretty much a given that any significant area of forest in Melanesia is important for biodiversity? If you make the argument that Fragment A has Moustached Kingfisher and therefore should be protected, where does it leave Fragment B that doesn't?
Cheers
Duncan
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
I totally agree. The advances in our abilities to carry out genetic studies ( in vertebrates, at least ) in a quick and cheap way now does render the "taking of specimens" as scientifically null and void in the 21st century.
Having said that, the rediscovery of one of the world's most beautiful Kingfishers is something to get excited about. Well done to all the team. :clap::clap::clap:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
In a world that accepts the routine slaughter of millions of industrially-reared/processed birds every day, I really can't see any moral problem with low-volume scientific collecting - EXCEPT where it could significantly impact the viabilty of a population.
Ratal
Well-known member
You cannot see why killing a rare bird purely to add to a collection is stupidity and disgusting immoral behaviour? They dont know if it was rearing a brood, they don't know if it was breeding, they don't know if it's critically endangered, so no, it's not like a farm raised chicken where there are millions of them...
Science tells us to save rare specimins, and yet they willingly kill one for a fracking collection....
Ratal
My fellow museum scientists are among the most passionate conservationists I know. Many of us have put in heaps of hard toil in field camps to inventory new areas, and seen our work pay off with the creation of protected areas that will hopefully forever protect the bird populations therein. Knowledge is power in conservation. We collect specimens to gain knowledge about the birds so that there populations can be preserved. Guadalcanal is a large island (200 square miles), and almost all of it of it is undeveloped mountain forests (look at google earth). The expedition that found this kingfisher sampled only a tiny sliver of this extant habitat. If the kingfisher is someday extinct, it will be from oil palm plantations, introduced vermin, or logging. Specimen collection at this scale has a negligible effect.
I know that many of you do not agree with my position, but I feel it is important to have these discussions.
Andy
My fellow museum scientists are among the most passionate conservationists I know. Many of us have put in heaps of hard toil in field camps to inventory new areas, and seen our work pay off with the creation of protected areas that will hopefully forever protect the bird populations therein. Knowledge is power in conservation. We collect specimens to gain knowledge about the birds so that there populations can be preserved. Guadalcanal is a large island (200 square miles), and almost all of it of it is undeveloped mountain forests (look at google earth). The expedition that found this kingfisher sampled only a tiny sliver of this extant habitat. If the kingfisher is someday extinct, it will be from oil palm plantations, introduced vermin, or logging. Specimen collection at this scale has a negligible effect.
I know that many of you do not agree with my position, but I feel it is important to have these discussions.
Andy
Andy K, a good opportunity *to ask a few Qs* of someone who will respond thoughtfully and knowledgeably from the sharp end - thanks.
A few examples of protected areas that you have had a hand in? I ask because Duncan makes a very good point re the Philippines.
Collecting the bird adds to knowledge about it. Can't really agree with that, you gain far more by field study. Everything else a specimen gives you can be gained from photos and small tissue/feather/blood samples unless you're going to study its kidney function of something like that, which we can all agree is totally different to what we're discussing here.
This was a rediscovery I believe. Are there already specimens in a collection somewhere does anyone know?
I think Bugun Liochicla was formally recognised on the basis of photographs and small samples just a few years ago.
And can we all agree at least that shooting a Spoon-billed Sandpiper in Alaska so it can be added to an American museum collection is abhorrent? I think this happened, perhaps someone can confirm.
As birders, we fear that a collecting mentality drives the activity. We all know in our heat of hearts that some ringers are just out for their next ringing tick. Might this be the case here but with collecting?
AndyM
A few examples of protected areas that you have had a hand in? I ask because Duncan makes a very good point re the Philippines.
Collecting the bird adds to knowledge about it. Can't really agree with that, you gain far more by field study. Everything else a specimen gives you can be gained from photos and small tissue/feather/blood samples unless you're going to study its kidney function of something like that, which we can all agree is totally different to what we're discussing here.
This was a rediscovery I believe. Are there already specimens in a collection somewhere does anyone know?
I think Bugun Liochicla was formally recognised on the basis of photographs and small samples just a few years ago.
And can we all agree at least that shooting a Spoon-billed Sandpiper in Alaska so it can be added to an American museum collection is abhorrent? I think this happened, perhaps someone can confirm.
As birders, we fear that a collecting mentality drives the activity. We all know in our heat of hearts that some ringers are just out for their next ringing tick. Might this be the case here but with collecting?
AndyM
Last edited:
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
Ratal, I applauded the rediscovery, nothing else ( as you should have realised, if you'd read the first part of my post).
lewis20126
Well-known member
Nice pictures (and congratulations to Frank in particular) but it's not even a "rediscovery" - everyone knew they were there, since the habitat has not changed since Gibbs saw the birds in the 1990s. The only problem is getting in to the site and I would hazard a guess that the American team went in by helicopter, something not viable for most.
cheers, alan
cheers, alan
Alan, of course, thanks for reminding me, it was Guadalcanal on which Dave Gibbs mounted his amazing 'one man' expedition. He's told me the tale several times and I never tire of hearing it.
I had a couple of days birding on G in 2009 with Chris Gooddie. We were entranced by the forested mountains in the distance - we knew what was up there! We even had a quick chat with a local helicopter pilot in a bar (oil or mining linked perhaps, can't quite remember) but soon gave up on the idea of hiring once he told us the cost...
I had a couple of days birding on G in 2009 with Chris Gooddie. We were entranced by the forested mountains in the distance - we knew what was up there! We even had a quick chat with a local helicopter pilot in a bar (oil or mining linked perhaps, can't quite remember) but soon gave up on the idea of hiring once he told us the cost...
sicklebill
well-known Cretaceous relic
Yes, getting to the Guadalcanal Kingfisher site will be a major death march I fear, I am working with some local guys to see just how feasible it will be, we know it's out there. A recording of it would be great…….I still have ethical problems with collecting specimens though, not a question of conservation but one of ethics.
