BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Valéry Schollaert" data-source="post: 2193699" data-attributes="member: 75148">It is more for what? At best, for our knowledge! But we have far enough knowledge for nature conservation. The additional knowledge is for our pleasure. So collecting for science is not smarter than hunting for trophy: it is for the hunter's pleasure.Look at the World around you. More than 95% of natural land has been tranformed by man to agricultural activities, towns, roads, shopping malls, habours, airports, golf courses, and so on.In the remaining, in places still looking more or less as nature, we hunt, cut trees; animals (incl. birds) are threatened by chemicals and nuclear pollutions. Introduction of exotic species made their life sometimes even more difficult, their habitat less suitable. Everyone interested in a science such ornithology should be aware that the situation is terrible, and every efforts should be made to help, as much as we can, the survival of the remaining natural life.Instead of this, the scientists, to increase their knowledge, are happy to disturb and kill rare species still surviving in those remaining naturel pockets. It is crazy. Conservation and respect must be a priority on knowledge.I would go further: instead of spending millions in researches, even if they can give us the pleasure to discover new species or the diet of a tapaculo, we should use this money to protect remaining nature. And to educate "other" people to respect this remaining nature. In the process, we should show the example: no killing, avoid disturbance, no use of chemicals, and so on.That would be a proper scientific behaviour.As a professional birder since 20+ years, I argued on this subject with scientifics dozens of time. Thanks to this, I understand the problem shouldn't study by birdwatchers but by psychologists. You can argue with a smoker than smoke is bad for his health, for yours, for air pollution, not to speak about wast of energy, plastic (for boxes and transport), paper and so on. This is no reason supporting smoking, but smoking gives pleasure and it is so difficult to change its habits.The same should apply here. It is difficult to change an habit, as wrong as it is. About the pleasure... this is the psychological parts.My bet would be the pleasure to have the right to kill a rare species, a very exclusive trophy that no one else is allow to get...Cheers</blockquote>

Verification