Sorry about the lack of that handy BF quote-maker
; I used << >> instead since I composed this offline.
FROM TIM YESTERDAY:
<<the precautionary principle point was made - the bird was trapped as it is reasonable to assume it is not on the verge of extinction. As i mentioned, a bird in polylepis forest probably wouldn't be killed.>>
You have no more evidence to support your assumption that the bird is not on the verge of extinction any more than I have to assume that it could be. This is the point -- no one knows because no one has studied it.
Just so I am understanding the "provenance" of this discovery: Two tour guides have found a bird previously undescribed, saw it three times in four years, and the last time it was sighted, it was trapped and killed to determine what it was. No scientific studies were undertaken, were they? Were grants applied for but rejected? These are real questions, not challenging. I'm just trying to understand how the decision was made that it was okay to kill an obviously rarely sighted bird in the absence of any knowledge about that bird.
<<the 'need to know' lets us discover about the bird in order to conserve the species - i know this seems like a paradox but we are only talking one individual here.>>
As others have already pointed out, this is a reprehensible attitude. "Only talking one individual here." Neither you nor Walker nor Lane can say that this is a negligible number *in the absence of data* to support that assumption!
<<impossible to study in the short time they've been viewed>>
No excuse for killing it. Make the time to study it. Get the proper permits, spend the proper time trying to find and record this bird, its movements, its breeding success, etc.
<<impossible to photograph to any useful degreee - only seen three times>>
Ditto above.
<<scientists don't name birds after themselves much these days>>
As my post said, I was being cynical. Whether they do or don't "these days" doesn't matter. It has been done, and I'm sure it'll be done again in the future. Doesn't matter.
<<the people involved are good people. If they weren't interested and actually doing something we wouldn't even know about the species and any problems it may face.>>
I'm sure Walker et al *are* good people, I certainly haven't made any judgements about them one way or the other, only about the methodology and scientific justification for the taking of this bird.
<< The people involved aren't exactly scientists either - just extremely well informed and knowledgeable amateurs>>
And this just underscores my questions and concerns about the lack of scientific investigation that occurred over the past four years before these amateurs -- however informed and knowledgeable -- killed a rare bird in the interests of "science."
<<'it was so rare' was a justification for not attempting to trap it - very difficult to do in that environment to a bird no one has seen - might not be seen again for a long, long time.>>
Maybe the tour guides didn't have time to wait for it to come around again after only seeing it 3 times in 4 years, but a proper scientific study of this bird very likely would have provided the time and resources necessary to gain that knowledge. Again I ask: Were grants applied for to do this?
<<what could you be doing worse? That wasn't said. It was 'worse things going on' to get annoyed about.>>
Did you miss the wink at the end of my response?
FROM TODAY:
<<I thought i had made the point ad nauseum that the species will not prove to be on the verge of extinction - plenty of habitat, no similar species in danger etc etc...>>
Sorry this is making you ill, Tim, but just because you repeat yourself doesn't mean you have any more scientific grounds for making this statement today than you did yesterday.
<<if it were in polylepis at high altitude etc etc etc......I am not aware of any specimens taken in at least the last 50 years that have had an impact on a species survival. If anyone can find any........>>
The point is, *no one knows* whether the taking of this bird will have a significant impact on this species. Too late now, isn't it, to be arguing this particular point. The bird is dead.
<<I can't work out why people are getting so worked up about this - seems very reactionary to me? When you have looked at the arguments from all sides people seem come to the conclusion given by Steve above. I'm not aware of any prominent people in the field who oppose this.>>
Jeez, Tim, ask a few specific questions about the scientific methodology employed by two tour guides who killed an admittedly rarely sighted bird without benefit of field study, and you call *that* "reactionary"?! If none of these "prominent people in the field" you refer to raised similar questions, then I would say that the entire area of ethics in bird collection needs to be re-addressed. As I pointed out yesterday, even Van Remsen et al's paper doesn't offer guidelines regarding the dilemma of whether collection is justified if the status of a population is *unknown*. It only "proscribes" actions that could destabilize or otherwise threaten the status quo of a species that is *known.* There's a huge difference.
Again from yesterday: Has there been anything published about this "discovery"? If not, when *will* it be available?
TODAY FOR STEVE:
I don't disagree with the points you so eloquently made except to say that as there has been no field research conducted to determine whether in fact this bird *is* a rare species per se -- because the exact opposite may be true; that it may be abundant and just isn't regularly sighted by tour operators or others who haven't made a systematic search for it -- using this as a political tool to aid conservation activities, whether in developing countries or in our own back yard, is just as dishonest as using it to justify scientific "collection." We don't *know.*
Hopefully, Tim has answers about whether there have been any studies undertaken in the past four years before the decision to trap and kill this bird was made.