Controversy Surrounding Scientist's Killing of Rare Bird for Research Purposes

[Buckleymanor]

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/10/10/...are-bird-kills-it-male-moustached-kingfisher/
Is this real or have I been kidnapped by an evil time lord and taken back to the 18th century.
What earthly purpose or benefit does removing a rare specimen from it's natural habitat and then killing it is beyond belief.

 

[russ_watters]

What earthly purpose or benefit does removing a rare specimen from it's natural habitat and then killing it is beyond belief.

Just a guess, but I'd say it is difficult to dissect a bird while it is alive and in its natural habitat.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Just a guess, but I'd say it is difficult to dissect a bird while it is alive and in its natural habitat.

It's not cleaver or funny and it does not answer my question as to the benefit of killing the bird if this article is true.
The damage such people do towards the general good work done by scientists, and the bad publicity this type of thing generates causes irreparable hostility towards the scientific community, smug remarks such as yours does not generally help and gives the impression of support to this kind of behaviour.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm not sure why a scientist needs to kill a creature in the name of science, when one would monitor it remotely. He could have tagged it and monitored its location to where it nests and feeds. Ostensibly it would find a mate, and I'm not sure why one can't wait until the creature is deceased from natural causes.

http://www.lotek.com/avian-nanotags.htm

 

[russ_watters]

It's not cleaver or funny and it does not answer my question as to the benefit of killing the bird if this article is true.

Maybe it was squirming too much while he was trying to stuff it?

Look, that was less than half sarcastic: how do you think stuffed birds get into museums? How do you think scientists study the insides of them? Killing things for the advancement of science is a normal thing. Only the scientist could give his specific reason, but there are a number of potential reasons.

The damage such people do towards the general good work done by scientists, and the bad publicity this type of thing generates causes irreparable hostility towards the scientific community, smug remarks such as yours does not generally help and gives the impression of support to this kind of behaviour.

Frankly, I think you are being naive. Again: how do you think stuffed birds/animals get studied or into museums?

 

[mheslep]

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/10/10/...are-bird-kills-it-male-moustached-kingfisher/
Is this real or have I been kidnapped by an evil time lord and taken back to the 18th century.
What earthly purpose or benefit does removing a rare specimen from it's natural habitat and then killing it is beyond belief.

The article clearly relays the scientist saying the bird is actually not rare. That's apparently the meaning when he says the bird is

...rare ... not ...not rare or in imminent danger of extinction...

So there's the alternate narrative by the article's author, the alternate narrative by you, and the actual statement by the scientist. So who is it that actually ignores evidence and skips back into the mysticism of the 18th century?

 

[mheslep]

Next time any PF'rs go in for that biopsy, be sure to decline and ask instead to be monitored remotely.

 

[DaveC426913]

... gives the impression of support to this kind of behaviour.

: coughs, stands up :

Uh, for the record, I support this kind of behavior.

The damage such people do towards the general good work done by scientists, and the bad publicity this type of thing generates causes irreparable hostility towards the scientific community,

Science was built upon the general good work of scientists taking things apart to find what makes them tick. A lot of the general public have distanced themselves from this fact, thinking that science is done - I don't know - in virtual reality simulations.

 

[Buckleymanor]

The article clearly relays the scientist saying the bird is actually not rare. That's apparently the meaning when he says the bird is
So there's the alternate narrative by the article's author, the alternate narrative by you, and the actual statement by the scientist. So who is it that actually ignores evidence and skips back into the mysticism of the 18th century?

For crying out loud the bird has never been photographed before so in my book that makes it kind of rare as for skipping back to the 18th century why not I mean there is no ability today to get all the information about the birds physical make up using alternative methods such as scans etc.
Instead just kill the bird like in the good old 18 century to make sure it has not got three livers.

 

[Enigman]

It's an interesting topic.
There has been some concern over specimen collection in endangered species.

Avoiding (Re)extinction
Field biologists have traditionally collected voucher specimens to confirm a species' existence. This practice continues to this day but can magnify the extinction risk for small and often isolated populations. The availability of adequate alternative methods of documentation, including high-resolution photography, audio recording, and nonlethal sampling, provide an opportunity to revisit and reconsider field collection practices and policies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/260.full

But then again there have been rebuttals.

Specimen collection: An essential tool
COLLECTING BIOLOGICAL specimens for scientific studies came under scrutiny when B. A. Minteer et al . [ “Avoiding (re)extinction,” Perspectives, 18 April, p. 260] suggested that this practice plays a significant role in species extinctions. Based on a small number of examples (rare birds, frogs, and a few plants), the authors concluded that collection of voucher specimens is potentially harmful to many species, and that alternatives— photographs, audio recordings and nonlethal tissue sampling for DNA analysis—are sufficient to document biological diversity. The isolated examples that Minteer et al . cited to demonstrate the negative impact of scientific collecting have been carefully analyzed, and none of these extinction events can be attributed to that cause ( 1 – 3 ).
http://biology.unm.edu/Witt/pub_files/Science-2014-Rocha-814-5.pdf

Note: the above has about a hundred authors.

And then there are the arguments FOR specimen collection.

Value and impacts of collecting vertebrate voucher specimens, with guidelines for
ethical collection (Memoirs of Museum Victoria 72: 141–151 (2014) Published December 2014)

Museum collections of preserved faunal specimens are immensely valuable resources for understanding the natural world, and such understanding has a crucial role to play during the current biodiversity extinction crisis. Collections of specimens, and the benefits accrued by collections, are not static; new and fresh specimens, or specimens from uncollected localities or of differing demographics, are always needed. Despite this, resistance to collecting specimens is mounting, as is an erroneous belief that modern techniques (such as molecular analyses) and technologies (such as digital cameras and tracking devices) negate the need to collect specimens. Contemporary technology sometimes facilitates a reduction in the number of voucher specimens that need to be collected, but it does not eliminate the need to collect. Concerns about animal rights have and will continue to play a crucial and desirable role in rectifying unnecessarily poor treatment of fauna, but we believe that judicious collection of specimens is at times a higher priority than preserving the life of every possible individual. We argue that museum collections provide essential verifiable evidence of species’ occurrence over time and space, and thus permit rigorous taxonomic, biological and ecological investigations. The value of specimen data for these studies today and for the decades and centuries that follow, justifies the judicious collecting of specimens. Using local examples, we demonstrate the benefits provided by specimens, the need for continued collecting in Victoria, and a framework with which to guide the decision-making process for the collection of vertebrate specimens
http://www.stem-art.com/Library/Biobanking/Value and impacts of collecting vertebrate voucher specimens, with guidelines for ethical collection.pdf

 

[Buckleymanor]

: coughs, stands up :

Uh, for the record, I support this kind of behavior.Science was built upon the general good work of scientists taking things apart to find what makes them tick. A lot of the general public have distanced themselves from this fact, thinking that science is done - I don't know - in virtual reality simulations.

I agree but the taking apart thing has been done far too often you seem to give naïve impression that every new found species needs to be torn apart to work out what makes it tick .

 

[Buckleymanor]

It's an interesting topic.
There has been some concern over specimen collection in endangered species.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/260.full

But then again there have been rebuttals.

Note: the above has about a hundred authors.

And then there are the arguments FOR specimen collection.

I especially like the justification the authors give for collecting an endangered specimen .

"If the kill ofa single individual increases the extinction

risk of a species, then it is well below

viable population size and already among

the “walking dead.”

Just a case of justifying anything if you can convince yourself comes to mind.

 

[DiracPool]

I agree but the taking apart thing has been done far too often you seem to give naïve impression that every new found species needs to be torn apart to work out what makes it tick .

Buckleymanor, at the end of the day it's a judgement call by the researcher. I don't think for a minute that this person is taking a cavalier attitude when they decide what should be done with this creature to better the advancement of science. After all, these are the people in the field with the credentials doing the work and you are a Monday morning quarterback? Am I right?

 

[Buckleymanor]

Buckleymanor, at the end of the day it's a judgement call by the researcher. I don't think for a minute that this person is taking a cavalier attitude when they decide what should be done with this creature to better the advancement of science. After all, these are the people in the field with the credentials doing the work and you are a Monday morning quarterback? Am I right?

So they are in the field and this must therefore make them have better judgement and on the whole better people than you or I .Get out of here you research groupie they are only people and therefore make stupid mistakes like the rest of us.

PS. Where I come from we have wingers, inside outside fore wards and the occasional hooker but no quarterbacks.

 

[DaveC426913]

I especially like the justification the authors give for collecting an endangered specimen .
"If the kill of a single individual increases the extinction risk of a species, then it is well below viable population size and already among the “walking dead.”

Just a case of justifying anything if you can convince yourself comes to mind.

Your argument suffers from being circular. It is only a valid argument if your stance that studying a species is a bad thing, and therefore needs to be justified at all.
It's not a bad thing, therefore doesn't need any justification.

So, why did they provide an explanation? Because someone naively thought that sampling a species will endanger that species. They're addressing that ignorance.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Your argument suffers from being circular. It is only a valid argument if your stance that studying a species is a bad thing, and therefore needs to be justified at all.
It's not a bad thing, therefore doesn't need any justification.

So, why did they provide an explanation? Because someone naively thought that sampling a species will endanger that species. They're addressing that ignorance.

Sorry but you are wrong it's not naïve to think that sampling a species can endanger a species.
Take the last male and female of any species without any backup and then kill one of them for any reason.
The argument that they are addressing is that they expect people to accept that they are among the "walking dead" so what does it matter if we kill them.
No the only naïve people are the ones that use such a stupid argument and the ones that accept it to do such a nasty thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry but you are wrong it's not naïve to think that sampling a species can endanger a species.
Take the last male and female of any species without any backup and then kill one of them for any reason.

That is simply not how it works. You don't know the facts here. It may seem as black & white as 1 male / 1 female, but it is not.

A species with only single mating pair remaining is already genetically extinct. That's what "walking dead" means. That species will never recover and become a viable population again.

In some cases, having "merely" millions of a population isn't enough. Many species, such as schooling fish and passenger pigeons will only mate if the population size is above a certain number, eg. a school/flock of millions of their kind. If that number drops below the threshold, the species will stop mating and never recover. They are doomed for extinction even when there are millions remaining.The overall point here is that this is not merely a case of one scientist murdering a single animal and poof he's a pyscho-path. You are too distant from the scientific process, in particular biology, to appreciate what it entails.

 

[OmCheeto]

Interesting. As a layman, I find this an appalling practice.
It reminds me of the scene from Star Trek:

"...what is this, the dark ages"?​

Probably because I saw the other day that an entire DNA sequenced can be purchased for around $1000. [ref Oct 1, 2015 MIT]
Seems odd to chop open a bird, which, as a layman, would simply tell you that the insides look like the insides of most every other bird.

But the "perp" posted a response:

Why I Collected a Moustached Kingfisher [Audobon]
The field biologist who has spent 20 years working in the Solomon Islands explains the reasoning behind his decision.
Oct 7, 2015
...
I have spent time in remote, and not so remote, forests of the Solomon Islands across nearly 20 years. I have watched whole populations of birds decline and disappear in the wake of poorly managed logging operations and, more recently mining. On this trip, the real discovery was not finding an individual Moustached Kingfisher, but discovering that the world this species inhabits is still thriving in a rich and timeless way.

Our first full day in the field, we detected the Moustached Kingfisher by its unmistakable call.
...

He does seem like a reasonable fellow.
Two things though strike me as incongruous in the above quote:

1. He spent 20 years there
and then
2. He only first detected the bird on his first day out​

But as a layman, I think I shall ask my cousin in law for his opinion, as he is a field biologist, and follows tortoises around the Arizona desert for months at a time.
I don't recognize any of the respondees in this thread as being "Field Biologists".

 

[DaveC426913]

Not sure what you're saying here.

I would not recommend a layperson - as you call him - chopping open an animal to see what's inside.

Is this an argument as to why biologists shouldn't?

 

[Buckleymanor]

That is simply not how it works. You don't know the facts here. It may seem as black & white as 1 male / 1 female, but it is not.

A species with only single mating pair remaining is already genetically extinct. That's what "walking dead" means. That species will never recover and become a viable population again.

In some cases, having "merely" millions of a population isn't enough. Many species, such as schooling fish and passenger pigeons will only mate if the population size is above a certain number, eg. a school/flock of millions of their kind. If that number drops below the threshold, the species will stop mating and never recover. They are doomed for extinction even when there are millions remaining.The overall point here is that this is not merely a case of one scientist murdering a single animal and poof he's a pyscho-path. You are too distant from the scientific process, in particular biology, to appreciate what it entails.

This seems like another false argument or leave it to the experts speech.
I take you are not familiar with your own ancestry or don't believe in Eve and that a whole species can develop from a single person.
From your own argument there seems to be tipping points at which a species will not recover.
Wonder what it is for the Moustached Kingfisher and who can determine that amount.
Well you might well have an alternative approach but you or I don't have a crystal ball that can look into the past and determine without doubt that your description mine or anyone's is correct.
Therefore until you can it remains too important for any scientist or other to kill another rare animal without there being at least some reasonable explanation.

 

[OmCheeto]

Not sure what you're saying here.

I would not recommend a layperson - as you call him - chopping open an animal to see what's inside.

Is this an argument as to why biologists shouldn't?

Oh dear, no. I'm the layperson.
Rephrasing for clarity; "But [being that I've already identified myself earlier] as a layman, I think I shall ask my cousin, ... a field biologist..."

ps. It's been 14 minutes now. Still no response. Smart kid. I'm sure he's either asleep, or writing a dissertation.

 

[DaveC426913]

I take you are not familiar with your own ancestry or don't believe in Eve and that a whole species can develop from a single person.

Those are mutually exclusive. Which would you like to assert?

From your own argument there seems to be tipping points at which a species will not recover.

This is factual. I gave some examples.

Therefore until you can it remains too important for any scientist or other to kill another rare animal

Not rare. You cling to debunked arguments. See post #6.

without there being at least some reasonable explanation.

Explanation for what? Science? Do I need to explain the 50 million ways science has enabled and ensured your existence? Suffice it to say you personally don't live in a pre-Dark Ages environment, dying before age 30?

The best way for us to ensure extinction of species on our planet is to learn nothing and do nothing about it.

 

[256bits]

I'm not sure why a scientist needs to kill a creature in the name of science, when one would monitor it remotely. He could have tagged it and monitored its location to where it nests and feeds. Ostensibly it would find a mate, and I'm not sure why one can't wait until the creature is deceased from natural causes.

http://www.lotek.com/avian-nanotags.htm

I'll have to agree with you on that point. Especially with this bird, if it has been so elusive, not much would be known about its habits, its feeding habits, mating rituals.

A lot of useful information has been lost for research by its death, when a lot more could have been obtained by tagging and tracking. The dead specimen will give up none of that. Killing the bird for observation satisfies whom in particular, a very select few or perhaps just one ego.

 

[DaveC426913]

A lot of useful information has been lost for research by its death, when a lot more could have been obtained by tagging and tracking. The dead specimen will give up none of that. Killing the bird for observation satisfies whom in particular, a very select few or perhaps just one ego.

There's behavioral biology, and there's anatomical biology. Both are necessary for knowledge.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Those are mutually exclusive. Which would you like to assert?

I am sure you understand and are just being obtuse.

This is factual. I gave some examples.

Yes you did and they were very use full to debunk the assertions made about the walking dead.

Not rare. You cling to debunked arguments. See post #6.

Not rare ! never photographed and as 256 bits points out not a lot known about it's habits it is hardly a celebrity.

Explanation for what? Science? Do I need to explain the 50 million ways science has enabled and ensured your existence? Suffice it to say you personally don't live in a pre-Dark Ages environment, dying before age 30?

No not an explanation about science you are being dis ingenious again this was a clear question about having a reasoned explanation as to why in this particular case.

The best way for us to ensure extinction of species on our planet is to learn nothing and do nothing about it.

Yes I agree with that it's a pity when you see someone is stuck in a hole and they still insist on digging .
Or in this particular case try to defend the indefensible who has done nothing to explain his actions.

 

[DiracPool]

Yes I agree with that it's a pity when you see someone is stuck in a hole and they still insist on digging .
Or in this particular case try to defend the indefensible who has done nothing to explain his actions.

I think the original article you posted is an example of yellow journalism trying to get your (shorts) all up in a bunch and you shouldn't worry too much about it. Back off man, I'm a scientist. If you want a cause-celebre to advance, rail against the bush-meat cannibals that are eating our endangered great ape species.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the original article you posted is an example of yellow journalism trying to get your (shorts) all up in a bunch and you shouldn't worry too much about it. Back off man, I'm a scientist. If you want a cause-celebre to advance, rail against the bush-meat cannibals that are eating our endangered great ape species.

Hey, wasn't there also that dentist who killed a lion with a name?

 

[Buckleymanor]

I think the original article you posted is an example of yellow journalism trying to get your (shorts) all up in a bunch and you shouldn't worry too much about it. Back off man, I'm a scientist. If you want a cause-celebre to advance, rail against the bush-meat cannibals that are eating our endangered great ape species.

Probably it don't help though that the alleged does not come fore wards and give a reasoned argument for his actions, lack of empathy by being silent shows a certain amount of disregards towards others.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Hey, wasn't there also that dentist who killed a lion with a name?

No he only maimed it.

 

[DiracPool]

Probably it don't help though that the alleged does not come fore wards and give a reasoned argument for his actions, lack of empathy by being silent shows a certain amount of disregards towards others.

I'm a little concerned over your myopic focus and vociferous criticism of this person. My suggestion is that you contact this investigator personally and ask him what his motives are/were. Then you can come back and respond without this blanket hyberbole.