What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Specimen collection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thomasdonegan" data-source="post: 3216805" data-attributes="member: 5190"><p>I think what Dan is saying is that if a recent collecting expedition had not collected specimens of this bird, then you would not have been counting it.</p><p></p><p>There must be a middle ground of valuing animal life and only permitting it to be taken for very good reasons, advocated in a widely criticised couple of Zootaxa papers I did a few years ago. </p><p>- It is difficult to argue like the above contributor that no killing (collecting) should take place, in a world where vegetarians like me are in the gross minority and habitat loss, recreational hunting, animal cruelty sports and the like are widespread. </p><p>- It should also be untenable to take the position of some parts of the museum community that "general" collection without any particularly demonstrated need should be increased and encouraged (Cuervo et al. Ornitologia Colombiana) or that all moral / ethical concerns should be disregarded or fall outside of ornithologists' competence to judge (Vuilleumier, various others). In such cases, this is argued because collecting is such a great thing in itself and good data can (but does not always actually) result from it. </p><p></p><p>Strangely, expressing some middle ground points of view on this topic is seen as very dangerous. I think there is a feeling that once the moral cat is let out of the bag, then it becomes difficult for museums and bird collecting enthusiasts to justify what they do. This is probably because some of what does happen is really questionable and ought to stop. However, I actually think that positively embracing a moral discussion and addressing these issues, which frankly noone has done satisfactorily to date from the museum / collecting community, might educate the general public about the importance of collecting in particular circumstances and lead to broader support for it, when done appropriately; and in turn lead to better behaviour among collectors which people do not challenge, or perhaps do not challenge so much. Presently, the debate is far too polarised by unreasonable persons and arguments on both sides.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thomasdonegan, post: 3216805, member: 5190"] I think what Dan is saying is that if a recent collecting expedition had not collected specimens of this bird, then you would not have been counting it. There must be a middle ground of valuing animal life and only permitting it to be taken for very good reasons, advocated in a widely criticised couple of Zootaxa papers I did a few years ago. - It is difficult to argue like the above contributor that no killing (collecting) should take place, in a world where vegetarians like me are in the gross minority and habitat loss, recreational hunting, animal cruelty sports and the like are widespread. - It should also be untenable to take the position of some parts of the museum community that "general" collection without any particularly demonstrated need should be increased and encouraged (Cuervo et al. Ornitologia Colombiana) or that all moral / ethical concerns should be disregarded or fall outside of ornithologists' competence to judge (Vuilleumier, various others). In such cases, this is argued because collecting is such a great thing in itself and good data can (but does not always actually) result from it. Strangely, expressing some middle ground points of view on this topic is seen as very dangerous. I think there is a feeling that once the moral cat is let out of the bag, then it becomes difficult for museums and bird collecting enthusiasts to justify what they do. This is probably because some of what does happen is really questionable and ought to stop. However, I actually think that positively embracing a moral discussion and addressing these issues, which frankly noone has done satisfactorily to date from the museum / collecting community, might educate the general public about the importance of collecting in particular circumstances and lead to broader support for it, when done appropriately; and in turn lead to better behaviour among collectors which people do not challenge, or perhaps do not challenge so much. Presently, the debate is far too polarised by unreasonable persons and arguments on both sides. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Specimen collection
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top