Crowned-Slaty Flycatcher First for US killed by birders - WTF!

[Bobolink44]

How is this barbaric practice of collecting specimens still allowed to continue without question from the rest of the birding community? Has modern science not progressed enough that we still have to murder animals in order to document them?

http://birding.typepad.com/peeps/2009/04/crowned-slatyflycatcher-louisiana.html

:hmpf:

The "ornithologists" show their disdain for the rarity chasers and the disturbance they cause but at least the birders aren't literally killing the birds.

PS. I guess AOU condones it - what's BOU's stance on this?
http://www.aou.org/committees/collections/index.php3

[Brian S]

For those that don't want to go to the AOU link here is part of their guidelines on collecting:-

'The AOU regards responsible collecting of birds as an essential research method for studying the biology, ecology, systematics, and genetics of wild birds. As in laboratory research, methods of collecting used by field workers follow humane guidelines. Specimen collection plays an essential role in documenting the biodiversity of poorly known regions.'

There is nothing about collecting for identification. Collecting the flycatcher (as a vagrant) surely did not add to any research into the 'biology, ecology, systematics, and genetics' of the species; it can't have played an 'essential role in documenting the biodiversity' of Louisiana. It is hard to see a reason for its demise, but I suspect someone will try to justify it.....

Brian S

[Colin Key]

I had no idea that this went on in NA, let alone that it appears to be condoned by "learned" societies.

It is the equivalent (or worse) to the practice of trapping and ringing rare birds, something which gathers no scientific data whatsoever, and which I have previously voiced my opinions on here in another thread. No doubt some curator (I could think of a better word) is feeling self-satisfied to have this rarity in a drawer in his museum.

It seems at the moment that I read or experience something everyday which irritates, annoys and upsets me - today it is this article. Yesterday it was discovering four visiting British birders, including a well-known "face", trampling through the reedbeds at Ria de Alvor to photograph Flamingos and, in doing so, have caused a pair of Purple Swamp Hens to abort their nest (no sign of the birds and the two eggs were cold this morning), as well as probably doing likewise to two pairs of nesting Water Rail. I photographed them in the act and when they came out of the reedbed I took portrait shots of each of them before venting my anger (even my wife was surprised at my language, and she is quite used to it!!). At least I spoiled their day by telling them that I was going to make them famous by posting the images on BF.

The day before I watched helplessly as a Portuguese **** on the other side of the river spent 30 seconds beating a small puppy to death with a length of hose-pipe just because it was "yapping".

I really do HATE a large proportion of the 'human' race.

Rant over.

Colin :cry::realmad::hmpf:

[forktail]

Seems totally over the top to collect a vagrant of an already well-known species. They must be a bit dense not to foresee the ire they would raise.

The disturbance of the birds you mention also sounds unacceptable. Hard to get something positive out of it as it's alreay happened. At least you let them know.

Sorry to hear about the other event. Hope something happens to restore your faith in human nature.

F.

[Alex Lees]

I had no idea that this went on in NA, let alone that it appears to be condoned by "learned" societies.

It is the equivalent (or worse) to the practice of trapping and ringing rare birds, something which gathers no scientific data whatsoever, and which I have previously voiced my opinions on here in another thread. No doubt some curator (I could think of a better word) is feeling self-satisfied to have this rarity in a drawer in his museum.


I just responded to this on WP birds:

Dear Ben

I'd agree that collecting vagrants seems like a rather unethical data-collection method now that non-lethal methods of providing a permanent documented record are available. I still firmly side with Remsen and co. e.g. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1995BCI.PDF that there is a need for scientific collecting but this should only be used when non-lethal means do not serve the purpose. Moreover, I think Nigel Collar wrote the sagest words on the subject...

'The killing of birds for scientific reference causes debate and dispute whose intensity is in inverse proportion to its relevance as a conservation issue, with similar degrees of heat being generated only by such momentous things as the standardization of vernacular bird names. Doubtless this is because these are seemingly simple, black-and-white issues over which many people feel they have sufficient personal clarity and power to achieve a resolution. Really important matters – global warming, intransigent debt arrangements for developing nations, exponential human population growth, obliteration of habitats for short-term human gain, scandalous abuses of biocide in agriculture, saturation-level corruption and incompetence in state conservation agencies, all of which are poised to degrade the ornithological environment beyond recognition – belong to another dimension altogether in which most of us are simply sleepwalking towards doomsday. It is important, then, to get the collecting issue into reasonable perspective as soon as humanly possible.'
-----

I don't want to restart the ringing debate, again, but... as I stated earlier the more 'vagrants' we ring the more we understand of their ecological importance (e.g. in founding new populations/species). IMO this makes collecting such individuals - and removing them from the genepool very unwise.

Alex

[Alex Lees]

See 'Two Views on Collecting Vagrants'

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1993Birding.pdf

[Colin Key]

Have been following this on Yahoo WP Birds Alex, thanks.

I agree that Nigel Collar has written some wise words.

Still think that the AOU have "shot themselves in the foot" over this one.

Colin

[Brian S]

Alex

'Really important matters – global warming, intransigent debt arrangements for developing nations, exponential human population growth, obliteration of habitats for short-term human gain, scandalous abuses of biocide in agriculture, saturation-level corruption and incompetence in state conservation agencies, all of which are poised to degrade the ornithological environment beyond recognition – belong to another dimension altogether in which most of us are simply sleepwalking towards doomsday. It is important, then, to get the collecting issue into reasonable perspective as soon as humanly possible.'

Nigel Collar's words are of course wise and obviously true, and I can understand the scientific arguments behind the collection of birds as laid out by the AOU (and following their own rules) - indeed, I use the collection at Tring regularly. However, the fundamental difference in this instance may well be that the targeting of one extra-limital individual by scientists has (IMHO) no scientific value whatsoever. If they want to do isotope/DNA work on the feathers, then take a feather. Louisiana State University has a world renowned collection of S American birds and do a lot of work on identification, etc., and I don't necessarily want to criticise them, but they have to be careful. The AOU also needs to be careful to enforce its own rules, and to be seen to be enforcing them.

Brian S

[AndyB]

Thanks for the links above, some interesting reading.

I understand the scientific arguments, however, I fear that Louisiana State University's obsession with adding to its collection goes too far and their policy doesn't reflect Remsen's letter in Birding (Alex's link above) that a tiny percentage of only common species are being collected.

Collecting 2 of the 3 known Jocotoco Antpittas in Peru and 3 Recurve-billed Bushbirds (out of possibly only 20 birds) shortly after the species' rediscovery in Colombia seems heavy-handed. Or the 2 Long-whiskered Owlets collected shortly after discovery by LSU in the 70s. The list goes on. LSU conducts ground-breaking research in the americas, just unfortunate that these potentially very rare species are collected before it's truly known just how rare they are.

ABC highlighted LSU's practices in a newsletter last year:

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/birdcalls_pdf/bc07june.pdf
and LSU defends its position here and demaned a retraction which I think ABC did do:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/ABCletter.html

[Alex Lees]

Thanks for the links above, some interesting reading.

I understand the scientific arguments, however, I fear that Louisiana State University's obsession with adding to its collection goes too far and their policy doesn't reflect Remsen's letter in Birding (Alex's link above) that a tiny percentage of only common species are being collected.

Collecting 2 of the 3 known Jocotoco Antpittas in Peru and 3 Recurve-billed Bushbirds (out of possibly only 20 birds) shortly after the species' rediscovery in Colombia seems heavy-handed. Or the 2 Long-whiskered Owlets collected shortly after discovery by LSU in the 70s. The list goes on. LSU conducts ground-breaking research in the americas, just unfortunate that these potentially very rare species are collected before it's truly known just how rare they are.

ABC highlighted LSU's practices in a newsletter last year:

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/birdcalls_pdf/bc07june.pdf
and LSU defends its position here and demaned a retraction which I think ABC did do:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/ABCletter.html

Hi

I agree with Brian and sympathise with Andy's view, however those stats of 2/3 Jocotocos and 3/20 Recurve-billed are a little misleading. Remsen does not really push the point hard enough that the rarity of these species is almost certainly a misnomer. I have heard recordings of apparent Jocotocos from Bolivia and the bushbird will probably prove to be quite widespread within its altitudinal requirements. The only reason it went missing was because of the political strife in the region that prevented access. Rondonia Bushbird was until recently only known from the type locality, but, now we know its voice has started popping up all over the interfluvium. Collecting a (very) small number of specimens of such species whose habitat is not threatened (and whose population can be assumed to be stable) will not have a population level impact. The case would be completely different if it were some island endem whose habitat had been trashed; or a rare seabird which we know nothing about....

For more on the bushbird and other lost and found neotropical megas see:
http://www.neomorphus.com/work/JPDF/lostandfound.pdf

and the antpitta:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v104n03/p0389-p0399.pdf

cheers

Alex

[Nigel Bird]

I collected the bird. I knew it wouldn't be popular, but I considered it important. I could go on at great length about why I feel that's so, but clearly this issue is deeply emotional and philosophical, and in such instances, we're as likely to change our minds as we are to breathe underwater.

I am on the LSU permit, but the focus of anger in this thread against LSU is unfounded. The bird was collected in Louisiana, and LSUMNS was simply the recipient of the specimen. They learned of the collection like everyone else, after the fact.

If I had it to do over, I would. I believe in what I did, just as strongly as many of you believe against it. My intentions and reasons were honest and clear. Some of you will find fault with that; you have that right.


Paul Conover
Lafayette, LA

[Brian S]

Paul

Thanks for stepping up to the plate, it takes courage to do so (on a forum and you will no doubt get some strong replies) but I admire you for not hiding and for voicing your own views. I suspect we all have our ideas on this and will beg to differ on some of those.

Brian S

[Colin Key]

Paul

Thanks for stepping up to plate, it takes courage to so (on a forum and you will no doubt get some strong replies) but I admire you for not hiding and for voicing your own views. I suspect we all have our ideas on this and will beg to differ on some of those.

Brian S

I will second Brian's comments, even though I vehemently disagree with the action.

I dare say that Paul could give a long discourse supporting the action, but (speaking as a scientist myself) I would not get into that argument in depth.

My comment, plain and simple, is more philosophical in that it was not his bird to "collect", it belongs (or belonged) to everyone.

Colin

[GoneBirding]

I will second Brian's comments, even though I vehemently disagree with the action.

I dare say that Paul could give a long discourse supporting the action, but (speaking as a scientist myself) I would not get into that argument in depth.

My comment, plain and simple, is more philosophical in that it was not his bird to "collect", it belongs (or belonged) to everyone.

Colin

I agree its a brave step to come forward even though as with the others I totally disagree with this practice and don't see the need in this modern day and age, whatever scientific reasoning is used.
But I would argue with your last statement Colin and say that that the bird did (or does) not belong to anyone, its a living thing! Therefore it only belongs to itself!
We do however have a responsibility towards other living things, being conscious, reasoning beings, and as such should act in a way that respects this!

Cheers

Steph' :lovegulls:

[alan lewis]

I think there is an argument that a multi-observed. well-photographed, well-documented record is actually a more robust record for posterity than a museum skin, collected by a single museum worker (or very small team of museum workers). After all - the only verifiable account in respect of the location comes from those individuals.

There are a number of historic collecting / specimen frauds in the UK which have taken decades to unpick - Meinerzhagen, Heslop-Harrison etc. The identifications were (mostly) accurate but the locations were fraudulent. History has a habit of repeating itself and I wonder if there is chance that some rogue individuals are still engaged in this type of specimen fraud. A new species for the US, collected shortly after its "arrival" by the "finders" would be an easy, high profile record and an easy publication. Obviously I am not suggesting that could be the case with the Crowned Slaty Flycatcher!

cheers, alan