It's rare, so let's dissect it for science.....

[WebSlave]

http://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/mustached-kingfisher-scandal-042342/

 

[Occidentalis]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I would have done the exact same thing. Even if the animal was rare - which it wasn't. Here's a good article on why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luiz-a-rocha/scientific-collections-th_b_8286010.html

 

[snowgyre]

I agree with Alex. As a curator of a small vertebrate collection, wildlife biologist, and professor of wildlife biology, there are times when collection is necessary. Obviously it will be controversial, but there is still a great deal to be learned from collecting type-specimens, which is outlined by the scientist who did the collecting in the article Alex posted.

Thank you for posting that article, Alex. I was going to post it myself but you beat me to the punch.

 

[WebSlave]

Sure........ Drive rare species even closer to extinction by pickling any specimens that can still be found. Yeah, that makes sense to me........

 

[Occidentalis]

Sure........ Drive rare species even closer to extinction by pickling any specimens that can still be found. Yeah, that makes sense to me........

Please read the article...

 

[snowgyre]

Agreed. The article clearly states that although this bird was relatively unknown to western science, it was actually locally common. The locals even hunted it occasionally for food.

 

[Occidentalis]

Agreed. The article clearly states that although this bird was relatively unknown to western science, it was actually locally common. The locals even hunted it occasionally for food.

It also clearly explains why even if it was super rare, why scientific collecting is beneficial and not influential on the population.

 

[WebSlave]

Please read the article...

I did. The fact that the article was written by "Associate Curator and Follett Chair of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences" doesn't lend any credibility to this argument, in my opinion. It is self serving, to say the least.

That article is so filled with self serving CRAP that I felt the overwhelming desire to don hip boots. Seriously.... The claim is that killing the specimens found of rare species HELPS them. SERIOUSLY? Without even knowing the remaining numbers, KILLING them when found just HAS to help?

So the ONLY male mustached kingfisher EVER FOUND was captured and then euthanized. That makes rational sense to anyone? I mean, REALLY?

 

[snowgyre]

Then here is an article written by the man who actually collected the bird, and his justification for doing so: https://www.audubon.org/news/why-i-collected-moustached-kingfisher

 

[Occidentalis]

I did. The fact that the article was written by "Associate Curator and Follett Chair of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences" doesn't lend any credibility to this argument, in my opinion. It is self serving, to say the least.

That article is so filled with self serving CRAP that I felt the overwhelming desire to don hip boots. Seriously.... The claim is that killing the specimens found of rare species HELPS them. SERIOUSLY? Without even knowing the remaining numbers, KILLING them when found just HAS to help?

So the ONLY male mustached kingfisher EVER FOUND was captured and then euthanized. That makes rational sense to anyone? I mean, REALLY?

If you can point out which "self serving crap" is not a factual argument, I'd be very very surprised. I'd implore you to maybe trust the people who do this for a living, if you can't understand why collections are important after reading the article. Maybe read each of the hundred plus links that Luiz uses to back up his article? I dunno what to tell you.

 

[WebSlave]

If you can point out which "self serving crap" is not a factual argument, I'd be very very surprised. I'd implore you to maybe trust the people who do this for a living, if you can't understand why collections are important after reading the article. Maybe read each of the hundred plus links that Luiz uses to back up his article? I dunno what to tell you.

Actually the entire article, in my opinion, is nothing more than self serving crap. Seriously, a species of bat was thought to be extinct so some scientist FINDS one and kills it. How did he KNOW that it wasn't the last remaining specimen of that sex? How did he KNOW that he did not, with that action, just doom the species to extinction? Well, he DIDN'T! And quite likely he was more excited with getting his name in the history books than having any concern about the species itself. That seems reasonable for a "scientist" to you?

And then this kingfisher is "rediscovered", which I presume means it also was thought to be extinct, and that one, possibly one of the LAST, was killed as well.

Wasn't there a case of California Academy of Sciences "scientists" in 1906 wiping out an island population of tortoises in the Galapagos chain and then commented that they were "probably rare"? I am sorry, but in my opinion, no one sane can think that sort of activity is perfectly OK "in the name of science".

And no, I'm not going to read 100 links to articles written likely by scientists trying to justify such self serving crap to them selves and their peers. Purposely and knowingly killing a rare, endangered, thought to be extinct, or otherwise perhaps teetering on the edge of extinction species is just flat out insane in my opinion. Regardless of the ivory tower reasons proposed by the very same people doing, and condoning their peers doing, this sort of insanity. I believe they need to take a step back and figure out where their "science" took a wrong turn in logic and reason concerning the BIG picture. ANY individual removed from a small, isolated, and likely struggling for survival species can not in any way, shape or form be declared as NOT being harmful to that species. To claim otherwise, in my opinion, is just not a a sane position to take in this sort of discussion. And this is not so much to claim that perhaps the individual scientists have become insane as much as to posit that perhaps the "science" itself has lost track of it's humanity for the sake of tenure, reputation, and status.

With the quality of photographic and video equipment these days, much less DNA sampling, there is just no justification to claim that rare specimens MUST be euthanized for some sort of "collection" of dead animals. If any animal must be killed in order to have a positive ID of it, well, then perhaps the methods of identifying such species needs to be reconsidered as perhaps being overly hair splitting in design. Is it REALLY worth the possibility of driving a species to extinction just to be able to IDENTIFY one of the last remaining members of it? If so, then to what sane purpose? Just to have someone's name on a label on a jar holding that last remaining specimen that was ever found? Yeah, that certainly sound like justification to me.....

Seriously, give me a break........

 

[HerpEnthusiast3]

A poor justification for a misguided cause. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. As a species we see the overwhelming evidence that are misplaced efforts run us 2 steps forward and then steps back. We strive for progress and an understanding at the expense of the animals in question. Look at conservation data of numerous animals. Chinese alligator, ploughshare tortoises, cheetahs and american crocodiles. I'm just spit balling here but I'm sure you all can agree the list is overwhelming. Habitat loss is at an all time high all around the world and we are still studying individual species around the world for conservation. That's called damage control, and a little to late at that. That's like trying to stick your fingers in the cracks of a dam that's falling apart and expecting not to drown. I read the articles in this thread hoping to read something that was shaped as a solution to an ever increasing problem.

 

[HerpEnthusiast3]

2 steps forward 10 steps back*

Little disappointing. =/

 

[Lucille]

It also clearly explains why even if it was super rare, why scientific collecting is beneficial and not influential on the population.

I disagree with the concept, if the critter is that rare. If I found a rare specimen male, I'd want to see if someone else had a female.
Once it has progeny and dies of old age, dissect it then.

 

[Occidentalis]

There's not really much I can do to change a mind if peer reviewed literature documenting long term and short term population trends and the minimal effects of scientific collecting is off the table because it is "self serving". I feel exactly like I'm trying to convince someone that holistic medicine doesn't work, but can't use the medical studies which show it, because they are done by "self serving" scientists.

We shouldn't forget, either, that collections methods are reviewed a number of times for ethical concerns - the collector must make a case for why he or she is collecting. This is reviewed internally, as well as by the government of the county and local fish and wildlife equivalent.

Lucille, if the animal is really so rare as there are only a few left, it has been shown that the genetic bottleneck associated with this event limits the gene pool so much that these animals have no standing variation on which selection will act differently - meaning they all get wiped out as soon as environmental pressure is applied. Without variation a species is doomed.

The article I linked provides many examples of how scientific collection and having vouchers serves to track population changes and inform conservation. If you take the time to read some of them with an open mind, I'm sure that at least some benefits become apparent. Here's one that was not linked, but is easily digestible and shows the importance of time series collecting: http://www.nature.com/news/salamander-shrinkage-linked-to-climate-change-1.14936

 

[WebSlave]

Well, let's throw a hypothetical situation on the table and wearing your scientist hat, see how you respond.

Suppose you are on an official collection field operation and you come across a specimen that everyone thought was extinct, or at least never OFFICIALLY seen for decades. It wasn't even discussed as being a possibility of finding on that trip because of the unlikely nature of finding this species EVER. So,what do you do with it? Right then, right there.

Then here is an article written by the man who actually collected the bird, and his justification for doing so: https://www.audubon.org/news/why-i-collected-moustached-kingfisher

Yep, read that one too. I think that it should be filed in the drawer labeled "Damage Control".

And isn't the Audubon Society named after John James Audubon? You know, the guy who found that shooting birds out of trees was a whole lot easier for him to paint images of them than trying to do so from afar while they are ALIVE?

Audubon developed his own methods for drawing birds. First, he killed them using fine shot. He then used wires to prop them into a natural position, unlike the common method of many ornithologists, who prepared and stuffed the specimens into a rigid pose.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Audubon

I guess that pretty much set the pace for what scientists do today, I suppose... Killing wildlife of all types is just fine as long as it is in the name of science. is it not?

 

[Occidentalis]

If your permit covers collection of that species, you collect it. Usually the permits for an expedition will be all species other than a or b. If it doesn't, you either get on the phone to get the necessary permit, or you do what you can and release it, even though it's heart breaking to lose the data.

 

[snowgyre]

Comparing modern ornithology to that of John James Audubon is fallacious. It was common in Audubon's day to shoot birds to study them... remember, this was prior to modern-day optics, the shotgun was a pair of binoculars to early naturalists.

Today, collection permits are not easy to get. Studies on vertebrates must pass ethics committees (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees if on a college campus), Federal CITES permits for importation, and any local permits... this is with or without collection.

The collection of one individual did not affect the population of that animal. However, it is valuable to have a type specimen in a museum to officially document that animal (e.g. do a full study of its anatomy, accurate measurements of all features, molt patterns if present, sex, reproductive readiness, age, environmental contaminants present in flesh, the presence of ecto- and endoparasites). This is particularly important because we are currently revising the taxonomy of birds and hope to have the full bird tree taxonomically mapped over the next decade. In order to do this, we need to have genetic material readily at hand.

I understand why the majority of the public may find collection to be an outdated practice, but I assure you it's not. We've actually discovered new species from museum specimens, of particular note is a new species of mouse-possum in South America from specimens collected in the 1950s and contained in the Bell Museum at the University of Minnesota.

And as is the case for many species abroad, just because it's new to western science does not mean it's actually quite locally common, which was the case here.

And it wasn't damage control... it was poor, biased reporting from the start, a bad headline, written by someone who never cared to consult the scientist who was actually working with the birds.

 

[WebSlave]

Comparing modern ornithology to that of John James Audubon is fallacious. It was common in Audubon's day to shoot birds to study them... remember, this was prior to modern-day optics, the shotgun was a pair of binoculars to early naturalists.

So instead of using a shotgun with birdshot, it is MUCH better now to use any other method to kill "samples"? What happened to that kingfisher again?

Today, collection permits are not easy to get. Studies on vertebrates must pass ethics committees (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees if on a college campus), Federal CITES permits for importation, and any local permits... this is with or without collection.

And what sort of people are on those ethics committees, pray tell? I would STRONGLY suspect that they are all (excuse the pun) birds of a feather.

The collection of one individual did not affect the population of that animal.

I SERIOUSLY doubt you or anyone else actually KNOWS that to be a fact.

However, it is valuable to have a type specimen in a museum to officially document that animal (e.g. do a full study of its anatomy, accurate measurements of all features, molt patterns if present, sex, reproductive readiness, age, environmental contaminants present in flesh, the presence of ecto- and endoparasites). This is particularly important because we are currently revising the taxonomy of birds and hope to have the full bird tree taxonomically mapped over the next decade. In order to do this, we need to have genetic material readily at hand.

And that sort of information has precedence over possibly negatively impacting the SURVIVAL of one or more species?

I understand why the majority of the public may find collection to be an outdated practice, but I assure you it's not. We've actually discovered new species from museum specimens, of particular note is a new species of mouse-possum in South America from specimens collected in the 1950s and contained in the Bell Museum at the University of Minnesota.

Would be interesting to determine how many species will be discovered in collections AFTER they have already become extinct in the wild. And certainly no one will come to any sort of conclusion that perhaps keeping those specimens where they were in the wild just might have helped that species to survive.

And as is the case for many species abroad, just because it's new to western science does not mean it's actually quite locally common, which was the case here.

You are referring to that kingfisher? So tell me, how long was that guy, Christopher E. Filardi, working that area, and how many of these birds has he seen in that time, much less captured?

And it wasn't damage control... it was poor, biased reporting from the start, a bad headline, written by someone who never cared to consult the scientist who was actually working with the birds.

I think I can see where the bias actually is in that case, thank you very much. But again, you say "working with the birds", so how many has he actually laid eyes and hands on all the time he has been working with them?

The article the guy wrote for damage control is way short on facts, and very bottom heavy with suppositions and specuiations concerning the population count of that bird species, designed to give ex post facto support for the euthanization.

And yes, I just read his damage control article again. And quite honestly, the arrogance of this guy as a representative of "science" makes me want to puke.

 

[WebSlave]

If your permit covers collection of that species, you collect it. Usually the permits for an expedition will be all species other than a or b. If it doesn't, you either get on the phone to get the necessary permit, or you do what you can and release it, even though it's heart breaking to lose the data.

Gee, that IS rough. But I would imagine it better to be heart breaking to you, than to be heart STOPPING to that unfortunate living creature that fell into your hands.

Just out of curiosity, just how many "specimens" do you think are stored away in these biological repositories across the world? Killed for no other reason other than to merely put them into such a collection.

And how many are ADDED each and every year?