Biologist takes first ever picture with ultra rare bird, then kills it ‘for science’

a reply to: raedar

I'm trying to bring much needed perspective. He didn't kill it just cause, he killed it to study... much more noble than consumption.

You want to ignore my points and continue to bleed your heart out go ahead, but I think this is over the top and highly illogical.

From the OP link:

“The total land area of Guadalcanal is roughly 5300 square kilometers. If, conservatively, 15 percent of this area represents suitable habitat, and if we assume densities we encountered are on the high end, this gives a population estimate of over 4000 individuals, a robust number for a large island bird. Significantly, habitat in the documented elevation range of the Moustached Kingfisher (800 m to at least 1500 m) remains largely as it has been for centuries. Though sightings and information about the bird are rare in the ornithological community, the bird itself is not. Elders of the local land-owning tribe (now living at lower elevations) relate stories of eating Mbarikuku, the local name for the bird; our local partners knew it as unremarkably common. With a remote range so difficult to access, there has been a perception of rarity because so few outside people or scientists have seen or otherwise recorded the bird. As I wrote from the field, this is a bird that is poorly known and elusive to western science—not rare or in imminent danger of extinction. ”

***

So do we shame the locals for eating them as well? Our cow eating is superior to their bird eating, and we should all be up in arms that their culture is so primitive, right?

Standard practice in biology should be seen as being "a monster"... sure, that makes sense.

Just cause, of course.

Wasn't there already a post about this last week?

a reply to: infolurker

He'd fit right in with the Japanese whaling fleets.

well...That's kind of how science works right? We didn't get museums full of stuffed animals and anatomies by merely watching them...

All 512 animals Teddy Roosevelt and his son killed on safari

Many of the animals Roosevelt collected were donated to scientists or used as taxidermy specimens for the Smithsonian

I learned about scientists killing for exhibits while helping to restore an old museum.

There's an old documentary about taking baby chimps away from their mothers to see what would happen. The narrator says something like, "Their cries strike pity in our hearts; but they are animals, so we may use them."

Homo sapiens barely care about other species' right to life. We hominids don't have a lot of intraspecific respect either. It would be interesting to read an extraterrestrial report on us. But, I'm sure you know the story.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
well...That's kind of how science works right? We didn't get museums full of stuffed animals and anatomies by merely watching them...

I'm pretty sure we don't need to be killing rare Animals for Scientific reasons these days!

Ok if there was some disease which was spreading from bird to bird or to other Animals and Humans and this bird hadn't been infected/affected, then fair enough but there isn't..

this is retarded, maybe someone will clone the little guy.

I wonder what he learned from killing it?

- It has an avian skeletal structure?

- It has an avian central nervous system and corresponding organs & appendages?

It therefore matches the behavior, witnessed before death, of other avian species and therefore must just be another, RARE BIRD species?

TD:IL

If it looks like a bird, talks like a bird and flys like a bird... I should probably kill it to make sure its a bird....you know, for science and stuff...

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I'm not shaming anyone (including the locals of that community). You are putting alot of words in my mouth which is as naive as comparing things that are not the same.

From how I'm understanding your post(s) you are shaming people that eat cow and trying to relate it to the bird. It is apples and oranges since the cow is not a rarity.

This man finds a rare bird, snaps a cute picture of it, then kills it "for science". It's 2015 and there are MANY options to pursue if he wants to study this bird. Period.

a reply to: raedar

Wow! If that's what you're getting from my posts then you must be really dense.

I've tried to show just how irrational it is to think this guy did anything wrong.

If you can't make the connections, well that's not my deal. It seems some people are getting it. Good for them.

a reply to: infolurker

I wouldn't have killed it. But knowing my experience with cameras, I probably would have left the lens cap on when trying to take a picture.

I don't think the world will end because some scientist kills a bird. But I'd enjoy hearing rumors of a bird and catch occasional glimpses instead of seeing a dead one stuffed and behind a glass wall.

a reply to: infolurker

wow. what a beautiful bird... no pun intended

Wouldn't a scientist learn more about the bird through careful observation and empirical study?

What a very sad story.

The bird feeds on fish and will soon be extinct anyway when all the fish are dead from the poisonous oceans. The ocean is dying and theres not much to do about it it's already to a point of no return it's gone global.

I'm not saying that i advocate killing of the bird. I'm just saying all life on earth is dying. Natural life that is.

Darwin killed a TON of birds and animals for science don't see many people bitching at him.

Humans kill other humans, kill birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, insects. All humans do is kill.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
If this Scientist just so 'happened' to get captured and dissected by one of the legendary Moo-Moo's of the Solomon Islands', how many would miss him?

I sure wouldn't.

It's true what they say about Karma you know...

It's strange how many of you hold the life of a bird to such high regard, but hold human life to such low regard.

As to killing the bird, man assumes the role of god quite often.

Obviously, a complicated form of behavior.

a reply to: awareness10

There is no way to know that it is the only one alive, and if it was then it makes little difference what he did with it.

The article makes it sound like there are others, but they are so elusive that there cannot be many and no one has ever caught a male.

For the record, I think he handled this poorly and should not have dissected the bird. A tracking band would have been a better solution.

Typical science , if you can't explain the outside , dissect and look at the inside.
These kind of scientist are so rare ,that you have to look on the inside what's causing them to do this ...

This was in the comments on that link...

Chris Filardi is the "Director, Pacific Programs" with a public Email address of [mod edit] and company phone of [mod edit]. So anybody wishing to reach out and personally tell him what you think of his actions you can and should do so.

I'm not a biologist, but couldn't he have instead just sedated the bird and get it in an MRI, blood sample, and stool?