Unless this is supposed to be a purely sarcastic reply to Lewis, defending the collecting of birds by attacking birders who do not collect is weak indeed and a disservice to the many ornithologists that are studying bird populations worldwide.
All of the qualities you mention - building the knowledge of the local avifauna, exploring terrain away from roads, producing long-term data, etc - are all quite possible without depleting the avifauna due to collecting.
Whether it is actually critical or not, collecting clearly aids the taxonomy, but I don't accept that conservation needs it ...good research will reveal the importance of an area, whether collecting occurs or not.
Further, as they carefully avoid mentioning the collection in their press release (whilst publicising the photographing), the guys responsible for the collection of the kingfisher also obviously see there is a negative.
You grasped my sarcasm then? Whew, I was worried! Far from attacking non-collecting birders, I guide them on tours! However, they often are not exactly the people who are best placed to criticize collectors because their experiences are, as I suggested, limited to what is already *known* rather than exploring unknown regions... something that is typical of collection-based expeditions. I'm sorry that you disagree (but I wonder how much first hand experience goes into the statement), but the reality of the situation is *most* such exploratory work is done with collecting as the goal, and much of it does, indeed have conservation application, aside from the obvious taxonomic one. I have seen too many people send their comments to the BirdLife forums on species status changes suggesting that because the famous roadside locality of a species is being mowed down by new colonists, that species' worldwide status should be elevated to a higher level of endangerment, when absolutely *no* efforts were made to explore more of that species' range and habitat! Go ahead and check Eye-ringed Thistletail, Pale-billed Antpitta, Lulu's Tody-Tyrant, or Long-whiskered Owlet, I'll wait...
The 'depletion of the avifauna' is a red herring I see you and others use a lot in your anti-collecting rhetoric, Mr. Stratford, and I challenge you to demonstrate that this is real. For the record, many famous birding localities in Peru (e.g., Unchog, Abra Patricia, Paty Trail, Abra Malaga, Sinsicap, Tumbes NP, Quebrada Upaquihua, Tarapoto tunnel, Allpahuayo-Mishana reserve, for starters) are, in fact, former collecting localities (LSU or otherwise), yet *all* are presently world-class birding sites that have not reported permanent depletion of their bird populations. Birds reproduce, as you may or may not know, and thus the local losses have been negligible to nothing. However, because of the attention received due to the collections made at these sites, conservation efforts are possible, and many birders have followed and enjoyed the birds.
Sure, the AMNH folks didn't make a big deal out of the collecting of the kingfisher, because it's obvious that many readers, out of ignorance, would act upon their knee-jerk reactions and overreact to it (exactly the way we've seen here on BirdForum, as it turns out). What is wrong with that? Shy of writing an entire second article defending scientific collecting, it seems that is the convenient (to use Alan's term) course to take to capture the excitement of the find and express it to readers. We are a lazy lot, you know...
