Two years ago I was lucky enough to spend 3 months birding around
Ecuador. We had a great time and had decided to leave the cherry
on top (so to speak) for last - an Oilbird site near Quito... the
highest known location for these birds...
We arrived at the site in the morning and after clambering down a
80 foot cliff into a gorge we dicovered to our dismay that there were
no birds to be seen, only a few empty nests...
We then climbed out of the gorge and went to speak to some of the
locals who knew about the birds and perhaps could tell us what had
happenned to them.
The story that they told was not a happy tale, indeed it was rather
sad, expecially for us. Apparently some guys from a U.S. museum had
come along a few weeks before to collect a few specimens... they shot
most of them and then the locals seeing this was a great idea decided
to clean up the 2 or 3 remaining ones for the pot. Wonderful stuff!
So - to the museum collectors - thank you for cleaning out the
nesting site, great work guys - I hear there is one kinda rare Macaw
left in Brazil - don't you want that for your collection too?
Yours
Tim Boucher
===================================
From: Tim Boucher <TBOUCHER at SYSTEMS.UWC.AC.ZA>
Just before I get accused of being an ignoramus about the Oilbird
specimen collecting let me point out a few things that need
explaining about the sight before I get shot down in flames.
That specific Oilbird sight in Ecuador was the highest known one in
the world, they very rarely nest in the inter-montane plateaus of the
Andes. There were not many birds there to start with (by counting
the old nests and the size of the sight a person could deduce
this). The numbers were already dropping due to the deforistation
taking place in and around the area. As you might know from reports
elsewhere - many birds are found dead or near to death from
exhaustion from just trying to find fruiting trees.
Why, I ask myself, did the collectors have to choose this site?
Ample sights exist in Venezuela - where there are caves with hundreds
of birds in. Was it ease of access? - apart from the climb down into
the gourge the sight was within easy access by car from Quito.
I am not against collecting as such, much valuable work can only be
done via the use of specimens. It just seems sad that this sight was
wiped out when another could have been used which would have had less
of an impact.
You could argue that maybe the locals had just shot them all and had
made up this story to cover their greed/need. Suffice to say that once
we started asking around what had happened to the Oilbirds one of the
locals climbed down the gorge again with us in disbelief that the
"big Owls" were all gone. They also named a very reputable institution
in the States as the museum where the collectors had come from. I
hardly think they would have gone to all this trouble to cover up the
shooting of a few birds for the pot - as the last couple where.
Your
Tim Boucher
=====================================
From: Bill Principe <principe at NETCOM.COM>
Tim -
You have answered your own question. An excellent reason to collect
birds from such a site would be BECAUSE it is an unusual site. Perhaps
there is some physiological difference with these birds. Perhaps they
represent a different race. Perhaps their genetic information is needed
for comparison.
But I must add that I find it difficult to believe that collectors
wiped out this site. To begin with, that particular gorge is quite
deep, and there are many sites that are inaccessible to humans. If
collectors "wiped out" the population from one cave, birds in other
caves could fill the gap.
And do you really that that the locals waited until the collectors
showed up, before they began to eat the birds? If locals do indeed
eat Oilbirds, they have been doing so for millenia. They would not
need collectors to show them how to do it.
There are, of course, unethical collectors who do thoughtless and
destructive things. But they are damn rare. The pressure from their
peers and from outside sources makes this behavior unusual in this day.
Furthermore, wiping out a population would invalidate one of the reasons
for collecting in the first place; to study a unique population. If a
thoughtless collector wiped out his study population, there would be
nothing left to study.
I join you in condemning unethical and stupid collectors.
But birders own a great deal to collectors. The fine and detailed field
guides we all value would be impossible if birds were not collected.
Virtually all we know about birds is due to collectors, and people who
use their collections.
These arguments have been stated before by people much more eloquent
than I. I won't start a flame war here. Just suffice it to say that
the Oilbirds are probably doing fine, and I would bet a ticket to Ecuador
that they are back in that particular cave even now, as we write about it.
--
............... ..... ... ... . .. . . . . .
...... Bill Principe . . . . . . . . . .
...... principe at netcom.com . . . . . . .
...... Pasadena, California
================================
From: Doug Scofield <doog at AMBER.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
In "Parrot Without a Name" Don Stap's unquestioned documentation of
incredible amounts of collecting pissed me off *so much*, especially
his easy dismissal of its ethics. I understand and fully accept the
scientific need for study skins. But:
It can be unreasonable. John O'Neil's group discovered a new species
of parrotlet. They knew nothing about its distribution or population
size. They shot i think fourteen of them from the one flock they saw.
This same expedition had not obtained proper permits to export
specimens from Peru. They still shot over a thousand birds. They were
allowed to leave with four. The rest stayed in Peru, and LSU probably
wanted more birds.
It's competitive. Witness the scene between Ted Parker (moment of
silence) and the Museum official who wanted more skins. Parker has
become one of my personal heroes for refusing to continue with that,
and focusing on the *living* bird.
It may lead to species extinction. The egg collector "broker" who
gathered thirty-odd Bachman's Warbler nests is well-known. But did you
know 200+ Ivory-billed Woodpecker specimens collected in Florida alone
are in US museums? (Robertson and Woolfenden, "Florida Bird Species,
an Annotated List".)
Better communication, cataloging, maintanence and sharing of existing
collections is needed so we don't study some birds to death. Sorry
for my emotion here, but i can't be staid about it.
doog
--
doug scofield doog at ssd.csd.harris.com
harris computer systems ft lauderdale, florida
"our little blue world baby upside down"
=======================
From: MONICA E GREGORY <meg5 at PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
In message Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:22:38 -0500,
Doug Scofield <doog at AMBER.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM> writes:
> In "Parrot Without a Name" Don Stap's unquestioned documentation of
> incredible amounts of collecting pissed me off *so much*, especially
> his easy dismissal of its ethics. I understand and fully accept the
> scientific need for study skins. But:
(Rest deleted).
It is also interesting to note that harm to small, isolated populations due
to collecting pressure is not limited solely to vertebrates. The entire New
Jersey population of the Mitchell's Satyr, a butterfly limited to certain
fens and similar alkaline bog habitats, was eliminated by the unrelenting
pressure of certain unscrupulous collectors who returned to the site year
after year and collected every adult satyr they could find. Of course,
eventually there were no more adult female satyrs left to lay eggs and the
New Jersey population of Neonympha mitchelli was thus eliminated.
Yes, collecting does have a place in the scientific world, but this episode
seems to me to very illustrative of the harm that unscrupulous collecting
can have. The Mitchell's satyr, as Jeff Glassberg states in his book
"Butterflies Through Binoculars," was "literally hunted to extinction. It
lives on in a few sites in Michigan and ? and is listed as endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, due, in
part to similar pressures throughout its remaining range.
Alan C. Gregory
Conyngham, Pa.
*************************
* Monica E. Gregory, Ph.D.
* Psychology "Hope is the thing with feathers
* Penn State Hazleton that perches in the soul"
* Hazleton PA 18201 -Dickinson
* Internet: meg5 at psu.edu
* Tel:(717)450-3188
=========================
From: Bill Principe <principe at NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
In-Reply-To: <199412151831.KAA11922 at netcom16.netcom.com> from "Doug Scofield"
at Dec 15, 94 12:22:38 pm
> In "Parrot Without a Name" Don Stap's unquestioned documentation of
> incredible amounts of collecting pissed me off *so much*, especially
> his easy dismissal of its ethics. I understand and fully accept the
> scientific need for study skins. But:
>
> It can be unreasonable. John O'Neil's group discovered a new species
> of parrotlet. They knew nothing about its distribution or population
> size. They shot i think fourteen of them from the one flock they saw.
> This same expedition had not obtained proper permits to export
> specimens from Peru. They still shot over a thousand birds. They were
> allowed to leave with four. The rest stayed in Peru, and LSU probably
> wanted more birds.
> --
> doug scofield doog at ssd.csd.harris.com
I suppose this proves that truth lies in the ears of the listener. I
read Don Stap's book, one of my favorite, as supporting the LSU team's
collecting, and as deriding the greed of the Peruvian scientists who
demanded that specimens be left in Peru. The way you say "LSU probably
wanted more birds," you make it sound like they planned to give them to
their spouses for jewelry. I'm sure they DID want more birds, and for very
sound reasons.
But one thing is clear; if collecting 14 specimens harmed the population
of parrotlets, then they were certainly doomed to extinction anyway. At
least this way, bird watchers like you and me will have a chance to see the
parrotlets and know what they are. And we all know how important THAT is.
This is just another phase of the "dying siskin" thread. You read about
14 parrotlets being killed, and you are irate at the thoughtless, stupid
scientists. You can't see the thousands of parrotlets that die, probably
daily, from snakes, hawks, Indians, hunger, and dozens of other causes, but
these deaths are "out of sight and out of mind." Only the collectors (for
this, read "straw men") are guilty.
Van Remsen, who is featured prominently is the book, wrote an excellent
article about collecting a few years ago, I believe in _American Birds_.
If you read it, it makes the case clearly, cogently, and finally, that
collecting has an INFINITESSIMAL effect on MOST bird populations,
including parrotlets, Oilbirds, and siskins. The real villains are habitat
destruction, environmental degradation, (and even feral house cats, another
thread from this forum). But we will NEVER LEARN ABOUT THESE THINGS and
NEVER FIX THEM unless we give our wholehearted support to the dedicated
scientists who study them, many of whom are collectors. And John P. O'Neill
is right at the top of that list, as are Ted Parker, Van Remsen, and many
subscribers to this forum.
--
............... ..... ... ... . .. . . . . .
...... Bill Principe . . . . . . . . . . .
...... principe at netcom.com . . . . . . .
...... Pasadena, California . . . .
=========================
From: MONICA E GREGORY <meg5 at PSU.EDU>
Subject: Follow-up re: Collecting
The following item was transmitted by The Associated Press on its a.m. cycle
for Friday, 16 Dec. I thought it would be of interest to some who follow
legal issues regarding wildlife. Text: Dateline San Jose, Calif. - Two men
have pleaded guilty in the nation's first federal case against butterfly
poachers.
The men face up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines for conspiring
to violate U.S. wildlife laws by netting 2,200 rare butterflies on federal
land, U.S. Attorney Michael Yamaguchi said Thursday.
"We're not talking about kids with their butterfly nets," he said. "They
were selling and trading these species, many of which are on the verge of
extinction."
Collectors pay hundreds of dollars for rare butterflies, some protected by
the Endangered Species Act and others by international convention.
The two men admitted taking butterflies from federal preserves in 10 states,
Mexico and Germany. Among the U.S. sites were the Grand Canyon, Point Reyes
National Seashore and Yosemite National Park.
The prosecution breaks new ground in the United States, said Lee Altschuler
of the U.S. attorney's office.
"It's a first for butterflies, and it's the first to allege a broad
poaching scheme across federal lands set aside for conservation purposes,"
Altschuler said.
During a decade of plotting to net the butterflies, the defendants wrote
letters to one another signed "Yours in crime" and "Yours in poaching,"
according to the U.S. attorney's office.
Richard J. Skalski, 39, a pest exterminator from Redwood City, Calif., and
Marc L. Grinnell, 40, a Santa Rosa businessman, are to be sentenced next
year. They entered pleas separately over the past week.
End of text.
Alan C. Gregory
Conyngham, Pa.
*************************
* Monica E. Gregory, Ph.D.
* Psychology "Hope is the thing with feathers
* Penn State Hazleton that perches in the soul"
* Hazleton PA 18201 -Dickinson
* Internet: meg5 at psu.edu
* Tel:(717)450-3188
======================
From: "Fred G. Thurber" <fgt at CADRE.COM>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
>It may lead to species extinction. The egg collector "broker" who
>gathered thirty-odd Bachman's Warbler nests is well-known. But did you
>know 200+ Ivory-billed Woodpecker specimens collected in Florida alone
>are in US museums? (Robertson and Woolfenden, "Florida Bird Species,
The last great auks were collected for museums.
I have also heard that most of the vagrants seen on Attu
are collected. Is this true?
The Bachman's warbler egg broker is not well-known; who was
he?
======================
From: Gail Mackiernan <GAIL at UMDD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:09:26 EST from <fgt at CADRE.COM>
In general, collecting should not be a threat, but for isolated or declining
populations, it can be serious. The Maryland Darter, a small fish confined
to two or three small streams in Maryland, is presumed extinct. The last
significant population was collected out of existence in the late '70s.
When I and some others at the Chesapeake Biological Lab went to the site
the next year, no fish could be found. The collector, well, let's say a
large east coast museum which should have known better.
I also object to too much routine collecting which is not associated with
any scientific objective. And, finally, sorry, but I also found the collecting
of every bird which impinged into the mist nets in "The Parrot Without
A Name" to be offensive. That is not to disparage the importance of collections
nor the scientists who do this, but I felt it was a bit too much.
I should add, though, that the rate of collecting has certainly dropped and
if you were, for example, to go into the Smithsonian to use the study skins,
you will find most were collected in the late 1800's or early 20th century.
Gail Mackiernan, Gail at UMDD.UMD.EDU
==========================
From: Doug Scofield <doog at AMBER.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
) Van Remsen, who is featured prominently is the book, wrote an excellent
) article about collecting a few years ago, I believe in _American Birds_.
) If you read it, it makes the case clearly, cogently, and finally, that
) collecting has an INFINITESSIMAL effect on MOST bird populations,
) including parrotlets, Oilbirds, and siskins. The real villains are habitat
) destruction, environmental degradation, (and even feral house cats, another
) thread from this forum).
Bill, lest you believe i'm getting carried away beyond reason with
the emotion of a Pretty Little Bird dying, there is a firm and
unquestionable scientific need for collecting. No argument nor
disagreement. I haven't read Van Remsen's article, but i will
tonite.
Neotropical birds will continue to come under pressure from many
areas. I think that even if Skutch's studies that showed just how
hard it is for many Neotropical birds to reproduce themselves are
extremes, it should be enough to give pause to reflect, particularly
on scale. Collecting *will unquestionably* affect the future
history of a particular troupe of birds, in "fell swoop" ways that
are unlikely to have natural adaptive analogues. That should carry
ethical weight, as do all the other pressures you list.
I feel emotion about a friend's death even though they're just one
of millions of humans that died on that day. It doesn't serve
science or scientists to reduce nature we barely understand to
statistical significance.
doog
--
doug scofield doog at ssd.csd.harris.com
harris computer systems ft lauderdale, florida
"our little blue world baby upside down"
=========================
From: Joe Morlan <jmorlan at SLIP.NET>
Subject: Re: Collecting?
In-Reply-To: <199412161836.KAA23926 at slip-1.slip.net>
On Fri, 16 Dec 1994, Doug Scofield wrote:
> ) Van Remsen, who is featured prominently is the book, wrote an excellent
> ) article about collecting a few years ago, I believe in _American Birds_.
> ) If you read it, it makes the case clearly, cogently, and finally, that
> ) collecting has an INFINITESSIMAL effect on MOST bird populations,
> ) including parrotlets, Oilbirds, and siskins. The real villains are habitat
> ) destruction, environmental degradation, (and even feral house cats, another
> ) thread from this forum).
>
> Bill, lest you believe i'm getting carried away beyond reason with
> the emotion of a Pretty Little Bird dying, there is a firm and
> unquestionable scientific need for collecting. No argument nor
> disagreement. I haven't read Van Remsen's article, but i will
> tonite.
I'll be curious to see what you think about Remsen's article.
Personally, I think he totally mischaracterized the motivations of those
who object to certain types of scientific collecting. He concluded that
they were all "animal rights" advocates. I disagree with his
assessment. In fact, I know very few birders who are advocates for
animal rights.
Joe Morlan
Albany, CA
=======================
From: David Muth <JELA_Resource_Management at NPS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Collecting
This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader
may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as
text. To process the rest, you will have to use a Mime
compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details.
Birdchatters:
I forwarded the recent thread on collecting to Van Remsen,
Curator of Birds at the LSU Museum of Natural Science, since
he, his students, and the museum had been the subject
of negative comments.
Here follows, I hope, I hope, his response, which he asked
me to forward.
To D. Scofield et al.: I am not only the"museum official" in your message,
but Ted Parker was also my best friend. To put it mildly, Ted would have been
extremely disappointed in your message, although it's not your fault that Stap
twisted the facts.
To defend scientific collecting thoroughly would take many pages -- actually,
60+ pages -- I have submitted a paper to Ted Parker's memorial issue in the
journal "Bird Conservation International" that discusses all objections to
collecting, documents the value of modern specimens, particularly with respect
to CONSERVATION, and debunks myths such as the naive assertion that all data
that can be obtained from specimens can also be obtained from live birds.
Anyone who wants a reprint of the eventual article is welcome to send me a
card requesting it.
To defend scientific collecting to animal rightists is of course a waste of
time -- like discussing abortion rightss with Operation Rescue people -- but
I maintain the faith, backed by experience, that the majority of birders are
smart, willing to listen to reasonable arguments, and have enough basic field
experience to be aware of the realities of nature. (An exception might be the
Brits, the majority of whom seem to be hard-wired emotionalists who would rathe
r complaint about collected vagrants than do something about REAL bird
population problems in their own "backyard," such as the roughly 1 billion
(that's right, no typo, 1 billion) Palearctic migrants killed by people in the
Mediterranean each year.
All I want to do hear is to counter some of D. Scofield's points:
1. Killing 14 parrotlets ... Does anyone out there really think that the LSU
group just happened by chance to park under the only flock of these birds out
there among the millions of square kilometers in western Amazonia?? In fact,
the parrotlet has now been found at other localities in SE Peru as well as in
northern Bolivia, and probably has an extensive range.
2. Dead vs living birds. We study both. Anyone who takes the time to read
our scientific papers will discover immediately that LSU field teams, as well
as those from other museums, routinely gather data on every aspect of bird
biology, especially voice, foraging behavior, and habitat preferences. Ted
Parker championed the integration of specimen data and behavioral data. The
14 parrotlets will provide data on diet, age-sex differences in plumage, timing
of breeding and molt, soft part colors, body weights, endoparasites, and
anatomy, and the tissues saved will allow determination of taxonomic
relationships. If collectors did not recognize the vital nature of such data,
they wouldn't put up with the headaches that collecting brings on (from
permit bureaucracy to harassement) -- and those birders who know collectors
can tell you that we museum people LOVE our birds just as much as anyone and
are in the front-lines of many conservation actions.
3. Scofield makes it sounds as if we were trying to collect specimens illegally
. The permits had been promised over and over, just not delivered. John made
an error in judgement in proceeding on a verbal "OK" (as did Nat Wheelwright
in his infamous struggle with USFWS). Our museum and others are paralyzed by
fear of making mistakes with permits -- we do it by the book.
4. "It's competitive" I'm not sure of the relevance of this. Charity
organizations and conservation groups are highly competitive for donor $$.
Does this make their endeavors bad?? Competition can be beneficial if kept
friendly. Don't bird-listers compete? Museums in some sense compete, but all
of us museum scientists know that the more material obtained, the more we ALL
benefit as a community, and bird biology (and therefore conservation) benefits.
5. "Parker has become one of my personal heroes for refusing to contine"
collecting birds. Ted would both laugh and gag at this. Ted continued to
collect birds until his death. Just a few weeks before he died. he collected
1 and possibly 2 new species of tapaculos in Ecuador. When Stap wrote that
Ted didn't prepare specimens anymore, he was mostly correct. But Stap did not
make it clear that Ted continued to collect many birds -- he just got others to
prepare them for him. Should this change your "hero" status for Ted? I hope
not. Ted was becoming perhaps the most influential conservationist in the W.
Hemisphere. He concentrated on real bird problems, and more than almost anyone
, saw the value of collecting to bird biology and conservation. He died in-the
-line of duty, knowing that those aerial missions in little planes were
dangerous. He should be a hero to all of us working for true bird conservation
. He was very distressed by the distracting influence of anti-collectors
because they were sending the WRONG message, namely thatwe must be concerned
about individual birds rather than populations and habitats. Again, it's Stap
who can be blamed here in part -- he lost an opportunity to put all this in
perspective.
6. Stap failed to communicate the tone of my teasing Ted over not collecting
"enough" birds. It was banter, nothing more. I would have been the first
person to recognize that Ted's value in camp was not in preparing specimens --
I would have wanted him to spend his evenings writing field notes. By day,
however, it would have been difficult to STOP Ted from collecting. His ideal
way of working was to do it in pairs: 1 with shotgun and 1 with recorder.
7. "unreasonable collecting". Scofield is clearly shocked by the figure of
a thousand specimens. PLEASE EVERYONE -- LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT BIRD NUMBERS
AND POPULATIONS. Hundreds of millions of birds are killed each year by humans
through their house cats, radio towers, plate glass windows (at least 100 milli
on per year is conservative latest estimate from D. Klem), vehicles, pesticides
, etc. etc. etc. If there are 5 billion passerine birds in the USA, then
roughly 2.5 billion/yr die from natural causes. The best recent article on all
this is by Kevin Winker et al. (LOON 63: 238-246). Terborgh et al.'s best
estimate on the bird density in tropical forests on SE Peru is 1900/sq. km.
A square kilometer is roughly 0.4 square miles. Thus if someone collects 1000
specimens, that is the equivalent of the total population of 0.2 sq. miles.
That amount of tropical forest has been destroyed during the time that I've
been writing this message.
7? (lost count): Collecting exterminates birds. ..... I make no excuses for
the 200 Ivory-billeds and 30 Bachman's nests. I'd give anything to be able to
revive these specimens! But to condemn the commerical collectors of a by-gone
era is like calling those stupid who believed in a Flat Earth 500 years ago.
Whether their actions caused or accelerated the extinction of these birds is
controversial. It's so easy to blame them because of the emotions aroused by
the image of 200 Ivory-billed corpses. But if we calm down a little, and think
it through, evidence for their impact isn't that strong. If the 200 IBW's
were collected over a 50 year span, then that's 4 per year, which doesn't sound
nearly so bad. I don't have access to the book that Robertson & Woolfenden
referenced for the 200 IBW's -- I'd like to check the body count for Louisiana.
My impression (only an impression) is that the ## from LA was much much lower
. I know of only a handful. Louisiana, the bird's last stronghold, probably
had just as big a population as FL, yet they went extinct here, too, under
presumably much less collecting pressure. My understanding is that Native
Americans used their bills as decorations, and so populations were hunted long
before the arrival of evil collectors. As for the Bachman's nests, let's say
that there were only 1000 individuals in existence at any one time (pretty
absurdly conservative for a bird with a breeding range several orders of
magnitude larger than that of Kirtland's W), making 500 nests per year. If all
30 nests were collected in 1 year, then the reproductive effort (assuming no
renesting) for that year was docked by 30/500 = 6%. Any species that can't
take that much additive mortality is on its way out anyway.
So, I risk the label of an apologist for the old-time collectors. I'm just
trying to examine the facts as I see them -- I welcome similar examinations
from those not at risk of such a label.
NOWADAYS, however, extermination by collecting is unthinkable and probably
impossible. Any rogue collector who committed illegal acts of collecting
endangered species would be exposed and ostracized. Even if it weren't
illegal, the vast majority of collectors would abhor such an act. Perhaps
the greatest misconception that anti-collectors have about museum people is
that they don't care about anything but dead birds. However, get to know us
and you'll find out otherwise. Most of my colleagues are directly or indirectl
y involved in conservation. What are YOU doing? I've been trying without much
success for 4 years to get funding to do fieldwork in Bolivia that would show
that a properly placed park along the northern border would contain more than
1100 bird species (again, no typo!) -- that's right, about 11% of ALL BIRD
SPECIES in the world in one park. No "conservation" organization has expressed
interest -- only the National Geographic Society has provided funding so far.
I've just completed a draft of a manuscript (coauthored posthumously with Ted)
for BIRD CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL that shows how we calculated the 1100.
So, to D. Scofield and others, we collectors share your concerns over birds,
but bird populations not individuals. We wouldn't collect individuals if we
didn't know that the data generated would be valuable to bird biology. We are
not payed by the specimen, nor do we receive any kind of reward that links
specimen numbers to salary, promotion, or whatever. Ask anyone who knows me,
John O'Neill, or Ted whether we don't love birds just as much as you -- and I
don't blame anyone for asking the obvious question "if you love them, why do
you kill them?" It indeed isn't easy for us to kill birds (I NEVER thought I
could do it). We do it because we see its importance for understanding bird
biology and know that the birds themselves will ultimately benefit.
Van Remsen (najames at lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu)
================================
From: Robert J G Dawson <dawsonrj at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject: Re: Collecting (fwd)
Dear All,
I cannot help but respond to the insult below (both to my countrymen and
women and those of other European countries)
To whit
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:35:09 -0500
>From: David Muth <JELA_Resource_Management at NPS.GOV>
>To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT at ARIZVM1.BITNET>
>Subject: Re: Collecting
> I forwarded the recent thread on collecting to Van Remsen,
> Curator of Birds at the LSU Museum of Natural Science, since
> he, his students, and the museum had been the subject
> of negative comments.
>(An exception might be the
>Brits, the majority of whom seem to be hard-wired emotionalists who
>would rather complaint about collected vagrants than do something
>about REAL bird
>population problems in their own "backyard," such as the roughly 1 billion
>(that's right, no typo, 1 billion) Palearctic migrants killed by people
>in the Mediterranean each year.
GET A GRIP SUNSHINE AND GROW UP. Considerable attention has been focused
on the plight of these migrants. However, we Brits are in no position to
FORCE other European countries to do what we or others may believe to be
the correct thing. There are, I believe a number of motions being
circulated within the European Parliament, brought by the RSPB and
Birdlife International for a start, and there exist a number of local
pressure groups in France, Malta and other countries. These groups get our
support. They are physically threatened and occasionally attacked by the
"macho" hunters.
To protect these birds will take an enormous amount of discussion across
national and cultural boundaries.
For these people to stop hunting the migrants would be akin to asking an
American to stop drinking coffee (which is also pretty revolting).
It is part of their culture.
We do not condone the hunting as sport, though several species of
passerine are still regarded as delicacies by the hunters.
Consider whether you could ban the hunting
of wildfowl in North America, or rather, what the response would be if
China said to the U.S.A - "O.K. no more hunting ducks, all right with you
chaps?"
then you would realise what a big steaming pile you put your foot in.
Hunting lobbies are powerful things, in case you hadn't noticed, and I
suspect that
Nationalist sentiments are far stronger in Europe than in North America.
If this is an inappropriate posting to BirdChat I'm sure someone will let
me know.
Until then, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone, I'm off to
acquaint myself with a small flock of Smew and some decent beer...
Robert Dawson, Dept of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
============================
From: Robert J G Dawson <dawsonrj at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject: Re: Gulls Again (four paras)
Some good work on the ecology
and behaviour of Herring Gull is being done in Russia. If ever there was
a good project where controlled collecting was justified and a cooperative
effort with the former Soviet Union could be established, then the
Herring Gull could be our flagship for the 21st Century of birding!
As for DNA work, well, I flirted with one gene sequence but it did
not have the resolution to tell fuscus from argentatus (though they can
distinguish other species pairs), so not a lot of
good for comparing michahellis with argenteus! There are, obviously,
other bits of DNA that can be looked at, but the sample sizes would
probably be very large, time consuming, and require a skin per sample as
it were. And the analysis could be a headache.
Robert Dawson, Dept of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
=============================
<PALSSJX at VAX1.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Collecting
In regard to Van Remsen's response - - I heartily agree with
him.
********************************************************************************
John Schladweiler
New Ulm MN
PALSSJX at Mankato.msus.edu
=============================
From: Bill Principe <71521.1406 at COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: collecting
Chatters;
A couple of us mentioned Van Remsen's note on collecting in _Birding_
magazine, but I don't believe the full citation has appeared on BirdChat.
It is in the April 1993 issue on pp. 129-132, under Point-Counterpoint.
The "Point" that Van is "Countering" is another note which appears just
before his, on p. 129. It is from a British birder who chides Americans
for the collection of two vagrants. Van's note is partially in answer
to this one.
BUT, this explains why Van chided the Brits in the long message which
David Muth forwarded to BirdChat yesterday.
To the Brit who took offense to Van's long message, please understand
that he was not picking on you. We are all well aware that the half
billion birds killed by southern Europeans and north Africans are outside
of British jurisdiction. But all of us, Brits and Yanks and others, should
take the lead in stopping this slaughter, which is TRULY senseless, and we
should stop ragging on the dedicated scientists who collect a few birds.
As Van so eloquently points out, the effect of this scientific collection
is truly negligible; the permit process is byzantine in its complexity; and
scientists such as Van Remsen and Ted Parker, who truly love birds, are often
vilified by birders who simply cannot see the billions of birds that die
annually but are horrified when a vagrant which they have come to know is
killed.
BTW, this is partially due to our (human's) inability to understand
numbers bigger than about five! We think we understand what a hundred or a
thousand or a trillion means, but we simply cannot. Please get this. We
CANNOT, but we think we can. Van says a 2.5 billion birds die annually
in North America. This means that every man, woman, and child (including
Hillary Clinton, Billy Idol, your infant niece, all the infirm people in
hospitals, EVERYONE) in the U.S. would have to kill about a bird a month for
the rest of their lives to match the natural death rate. Now, think about
your neighborhood, and maybe this will bring the numbers down to manageable
size. And think about this the next time you read about a single collector
killing a single bird miles and days away from you. Do you really feel quite
as indignant?
I also notice that many of the stories about collecting concern amateur
or commercial collectors. The guys who wiped out the butterfly populations
were probably doing it for the pretty displays in plastic cases that I see
on the walls of birders' homes. The vast majority of scientific collectors
know bird populations better than we birders do, and would not collect
specimens where it would endanger populations. This is especially true
because ornithologists have been prosecuted in recent years, and the penalties
are often harsher than rapists and gang-bangers get. And you can blame some
of THAT on the likes of the emotional responses I read here on BirdChat,
since our public officials often react to public opinion.
Bill Principe
principe at netcom.com
Pasadena, California
============================
From: Joe Morlan <jmorlan at SLIP.NET>
Subject: Re: collecting
In-Reply-To: <199412171705.JAA18240 at slip-1.slip.net>
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Bill Principe wrote:
> Chatters;
>
> A couple of us mentioned Van Remsen's note on collecting in _Birding_
> magazine, but I don't believe the full citation has appeared on BirdChat.
> It is in the April 1993 issue on pp. 129-132, under Point-Counterpoint.
The interested reader would to well to consider both sides of this
issue. A well reasoned balanced rebuttal to Remsen by Peter Pyle can be
found in the "Letter to the Editor" section of the December 1993 issue of
_Birding_ on pp. 374-375; and another view by J. Cantelo appears on pg.
375.
For a particularly elegant treatment on the scientific and moral aspects
of collecting vagrants, I highly recommend "Extralimitals--is it a
question of the right bird or the bird's rights?" by John C. Kricher
_Bird Observer_ 17(1):18-20, 1989. Kricher's scientific and academic
credentials are unimpeachable and he comes down on this issue on quite
the opposite side from Van Remsen.
So it is not a simple question which has a simple answer and people of
good will and scientific qualifications may find they are obliged to
agree to disagree.
Joe Morlan
Albany, CA
===========================
From: Ronald Orenstein <ornstn at HOOKUP.NET>
Subject: Re: Collecting
Many thanks to the poster of Dr. Remsen's response on scientific collecting
(and, Dr. Remsen, to whom I am copying this, I would greatly appreciate a
copy of your paper when it is done AND information about the park inn
Bolivia, of which I had not heard). As one who has been, at various times,
involved in museum work and (to a limited degree) collecting, and whose MSc
and PhD theses involved anatomical studies of birds, but who now works for
an animal protection organization, perhaps I can draw a line down the middle
here.
First of all, I would agree (though my organization would probably not)
that scientific collecting is extremely valuable, not only for the
advancement of scientific knowledge but for education and conservation
purposes. Just to give a single example, the painted pictures we love to
see in bird guides could not possibly be done (in most cases) to the degree
of accuracy we have come to demand without reference to museum specimens.
Secondly, we must be careful to draw a line between commercial collectors
(including the types in old days that wiped out the last great auks and sold
them to museums for a profit) and true working scientists, as well as
between the old-style and new-style ornithologist.
That said, I think it is possible (or should be) to suggest that there
should be guidelines for collecting, and that it is possible to object to
certain collecting activities without being labelled an "animal rights
advocate". I suspect that most ornithologists already act within the bounds
of whatever such guidelines would be likely to be (for all I know they exist
already; I am no longer up on this).
For example (and this should go without saying, but it hasn't always been
so) collectors should scrupulously observe laws and regulations, no matter
how piddling some of them may seem. This is because such people should set
an example for others. For the same reason, especially in the poorer areas
of the world, collecting might encourage local poaching (after all, if a
scientist can shoot a bird for a museum, why can't a local hunter do the
same for food?). This is largely a question of sensitivity.
For the same reason I do not think it is necessary to collect accidentals
whose only value is to verify position on state or provincial bird lists. I
admit that such birds are unlikely, in many cases, to survive, but I think
this is a case where people's sensitivities should be considered as the
scientific gain is likely to be negligible.
As for Dr Remsen's comment about lack of support for the park in Bolivia: I
think Dr Remsen should be aware that many potentially-interested groups
either have not heard of the issue (I certainly had not) or have (and this
is surely the case) limited and overstrained budgets and resources already.
I remind him that Bolivia was the site of one of the first debt-for-nature
swaps in order to protect rainforest, so it is not as though no one has
addressed conservation issues in that country. Our organization, for
example, once funded a study on flamingo mortality in Bolivia. I would
invite him to use the net to tell us, not only what is proposed, but what
can be done; I would certainly love to see such a park established (though I
had better say right away that I have no control whatever over our
organization's finances). Surely a park that can promise such huge lists
ought to be a mecca for birding ecotourists (especially considering that
Peru does not seem to be safe to visit any more). OK - what do you want
conservationists, and birders, to do? What will be effective?
--
Ronald I. Orenstein Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
International Wildlife Coalition Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court Messages: (416) 368-4661
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2 Internet: ornstn at hookup.net
Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940 Compuserve ID: 72037,2513
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5
=============================
From: David Muth <JELA_Resource_Management at NPS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Collecting
For those unable to read Dr. Remsen's response to the
collecting thread because of the posting technique I used, I
apologize. I will be happy to try a different technique if
anyone missed it.
A few points on collecting:
A lot of threads within this thread have been intertwined--
1) Butterfly collecting(!) is a commercial activity--there
is a vast market for dead butterflies, and thousands of
people willing to pay premium prices for rare species (just
as there are thousands of people willing to pay premium
prices for the opportunity to tick off rare birds). There
is absolutely no equivalence between the activities of
commercial butterfly collecters and scientists collecting
birds. Demand creates a market for the unscrupulous and
the criminal collecter, a demand that doesn't exist
(anymore) for bird specimens.
2) Nineteenth century commercial collecting of birds and
other organisms is another very different activity, somewhat
analagous to today's butterfly collecting, though the market
for skins was minuscule compared to today's market for
butterflies. It may be that collectors, working for museums
in the past, killed off the last specimens of endangered
species, i.e. the Great Auk. Reprehensible, certainly, but
the Great Auk is extinct today because it was slaughtered in
its millions for profit, just as the Passenger Pigeon and
the Eskimo Curlew were, not because a few hundred skins went
to museums.
As for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (and probably Bachman's
Warbler), these birds are gone because every stick of native
forest from the Atlantic to the staked plain, and from the
Ohio valley to the Gulf of Mexico, was cut down, so that
nothing, except a few postage stamps of inaccessible swamp
acreage, remained. Its the HABITAT, stupid (to paraphrase a
thread from the '92 election). Those forests were cut down
to fuel the building of the infrastructure that made
possible the population explosion of which we are a part.
Our ancestors did not have the moral energy to save the last
pitiful remnants of that forest when it became clear that it
was on the verge of extinction in the first decades of this
century--the Singer Tract in the Tensas basin of n.e.
Louisiana, the last stand of the Ivory-billed, (and the home
of red wolves, panthers, and black bears), was cut down to
make gun stocks for the war against Hitler and Hirohito.
There is a lesson there for this generation...
3) Collecting vagrants is a tiny part of the scientific
collection process. Arguments mustered against doing so may
or may not have some validity, but they have little bearing
on the larger question. I suggest, though, that birders
upset about the collection of vagrants should examine their
consciences, and resolve firmly to amend their behavior, if
they find that they have strayed beyond the rightious
path--burning fuel, trespassing, trampling habitat,
harrassing birds to see that all-important field mark. Once
you are without sin, feel free to heft that stone and look
for a target.
4) It was especially ironic to see Ted Parker invoked as a
patron saint in a diatribe against scientific collecting in
general and LSUMNS in particular. I hardly knew where to
begin, so I asked Van Remsen if he wanted to respond,
knowing the deep personal and professional ties he had to
Parker, and the amount of thought and introspection he has
devoted to the question of collecting. I will add this: on
the few occasions on which I was priviledged to discuss
these matters with Ted, it was my impression that he felt
enormous frustration with much of the science being done in
the neotropics. Too much was being published on the ecology
of a given avifauna, when he knew that the researchers
didn't even know what birds lived in their study areas--he
knew from long experience in remote LSUMNS camps that you
couldn't know anything about what occurred in a given
ecosystem until it had been thoroughly collected. His
evolving mastery of neotropical birds was in great measure
due to the months he had spent collecting birds in those
camps--and he was the first to tell you how little he felt
he knew. Yet he could visit other researchers long-term
study sites, and in a matter of hours identify 20-30 species
that they didn't even know were there.
To put the question of collecting in the neotropics in
perspective, imagine that someone were to try to do research
on the birds of a forest anywhere in the U.S., who did not
have the benefit of the last 150 years of scientific
collecting--didn't have, say, a field guide to tell him what
species, or age, or sex, he/she was looking at. That is
precisely the situation in the neotropics. (I might add
that we are long way even in the world's temperate zones
from having sufficient specimen-based knowledge--our
ignorance of common birds is profound.)
I doubt that anything said here is going to convert anyone
with a deep emotional antipathy to killing birds to
believing that collecting is not only justified but a moral
imperative. But I would hope that the reasonable among us
would devote our limited moral energy to the essential
task--saving what is left of the world's native habitats.
If you want to honor the memory and the sacrifice of Ted
Parker, spare scientific collectors your wrath, and save it
for the despoilers, here and abroad.
david muth
new orleans
david_muth at nps.gov
===================================
From: "R. D. Purrington" <rdp at ROSEBUD.PHY.TULANE.EDU>
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
There are, to be sure, two sides to the collecting question, and reasonable
people will continue to disagree. One does not have to be pursuaded, for
example, that scientific collecting is biologically insignificant, which it
generally is, because the same thing could be said of human beings. Surely
on person,
more or less, cannot make a difference. At the same time, one needs to
remember that ornithology is a science, with its own standards of factual
verification and its own professional norms. Notwithstanding the fact that
much bird study, especially that of behavior, can be carried out without the
taking of specimens, the fact remins that much of the information that is
passionately debated on BIRDCHAT comes from the study of museum skins or
from blood and tissue samples. Anyone who uses a fieldguide, and certainly
anyone who consults museum specimens in order to settle subtle ID questions
should have second thoughts before attacking the professionals who made this
evidence available.
Many of us accept hunting as a valid use of the natural world, or perhaps even
hunt, ourselves. Or, at least, few of us are vegetarians. And not many give
thought to the collecting done by mammalogists and other field biologists.
In the end, it seems to me that what we can do is insist that collecting be
carried out responsibly and with scientific justification. Naturally
the professional will interpret this more broadly than some of us, but it is
neither appropriate nor in our interest to second guess the ornithologist every
time he pulls a trigger.
During the 30 years I have birded in Louisiana, there has always been
excellent cooperation between the professionals (Doc Lowery, Bob Newman,
Van Remsen) and the amateurs, to the benefit of both camps. That has resulted,
in part, from our willingness to accept collecting as part of the science, and
to make use of the fruits of that science to hone our skills.
==================================
From: "Peter D. Hunt" <Peter.D.Hunt at DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject: thoughts on ross's gull
One wonders if the late Ross's Gull from Port Weller, Ontario was the same
individual that was in Quebec the previous week. There seems to be some
precedent for seabirds to follow the St. Lawrence upstream to the Great
Lakes.
And with reference to its untimely demise at the hands of a Great Horned Owl.
I would almost be willing to bet that there was something about the Ross's
Gull that made it easier prey than one might expect given the numbers of
other gulls (to quote Gerry Rising: "...owl had picked out this bird from the
dozens of other more common gulls"). Quite possibly its behavior, schedule,
and/or roosting spot was slightly different, and the owl didn't have to pick
it out from anything.
Does this tie into the thread on collecting vagrants? ;-)
Peter Hunt
Hanover, NH
peter.hunt at dartmouth.edu
===============================
From: Doug Scofield <doog at AMBER.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Collecting
Mr. Remsen, i've got no argument over the basic scientific need for
collecting and collections. A recent Birdchat discussion over
possible feeding benefit of binocular vision in Ross' Gull illustrated
this well. Consider us at different positions in the pro-collecting
panorama.
I believe that our interactions with other species as with each other
are infused with ethical requirements. Population-wide effects are
really expressed at the individual level -- one of the encouraging
side-effects i'm finding in the work of the Grants, et al. is the
importance of the individual to population studies. The fertile adult
is the adaptive atom.
So ethically i don't gain much from the practical population-based
justifications for collecting. It's good to know that done properly
it has a slight effect on a population, especially in comparison to
other much more drastic problems. The sticking point for me is that
individual birds are dead.
That said, i would deal with feral cats, feral pigs, poachers and
other inappropriate stressors in the most direct way. And many things
die to keep me alive. Full of contradictions :-)
) It indeed isn't easy for us to kill birds (I NEVER thought I could
) do it)
As a field biologist-in-training, i appreciate this. In addition to
my technical studies, i'm working the ethical questions; i'll face the
issue first-hand i'm sure. I accept your position, but remember that
you did not always accept it as easily, and understand that i and
others are finding our own ways through the answers.
doog
--
doug scofield doog at ssd.csd.harris.com
harris computer systems ft lauderdale, florida
"our little blue world baby upside down"
==========================
From: "James D. Rising" <rising at ZOO.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Scientific Collecting
I concur with all of Remsen's points. And I would like to emphasize that
collecting vagrants is the LEAST important reason to collect--because
there is very little of scientific interest to learn. I do think that
there is at least one interesting question about vagrants, that that is,
`What kinds of birds get lost, and under what circumstances." By collecting
such a lost bird we can generally learn:
(a) Its identity. This can generally be done without
collecting, but not always. Also, with a bird in the hand, SOMETIMES you
can fairly accurately ascertain what population it is from. E.g. a Pine
Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) collected in nw Missouri turned out to be
a bird from the north, not the Rocky Mountains. Not sure that that could
be done with simply good photos.
(b) Its age and sex. This can often be done with a sight
record, but certainly not often. I suspect that most vagrants are young
birds. We could test that hypothesis with specimens.
(c) Its general conditions: how fat is it, what has it eaten,
has it been hurt in some obvious way (I suspect many birds that attempt
to overwinter have). Ken Parkes told me a story about a Maggnificent
Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) that was shot by a farm kid in western
Pennsylvania and brought into the Carnegie Museum. This occurred after a
hurricane. Upon preparation this bird turned out to have a gut full of
Great Lake's fish. So-->pretty probable that the bird got blown into the
Great Lakes, fill up on fish, and was heading home to the Gulf of Mexico.
That's kind of interesting, but something a sight record couldn't have
told us. Note, however, that specimen was not collected by a
scientific collector, and it was not collected legally.
Having said that, I want to emphasize that I personally am not in favor
of collecting extralimital individuals--especially in places where
there are a lot of people interested in seeing them. While I am certain
that most of them never survive (the above Frigatebird might have
been an exception if it weren't for that farm boy), I also don't
think that it is particularly important to science, it's offensive
to many people, and turns many people against responsible
collecting which is necessary for much biological research.
Name: Jim
Rising
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising
BITNET: rising at zoo.utoronto.ca
=========================================
From: "David J. Lauten" <lauten at CALSHP.CALS.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: collecting birds
hello folks,
excuse me, but i have not been around for several days and some of my
following statements might be a bit late...
in regards to collecting on attu island, i did not see a response to
this inquiry - the answer is yes, most of the vagrants, esp. the new
records, are collected on attu AFTER everyone present has seen the bird
alive!
interesting discussion otherwise...
have fun,
david j. lauten
madison,wi.
================================
From: David Powell <vireo at MUNCH.GENE.COM>
Subject: Re: collecting birds
In-Reply-To: "David J. Lauten" <lauten at CALSHP.CALS.WISC.EDU> "Re: collecting
birds" (Dec 20, 12:04am)
Regarding the collecting of vagrants on Attu, when I was there, in
the early 80's this was not done. We had the first NA Red-flanked
Bluetail, and it was not collected. I think that in years when Dan
Gibson goes along, he may well collect certain vagrants. I also
would argue that most of the vagrants are not collected, as some of
the species seen there are seen in large numbers, even though they
are vagrants. Certainly selected first records have been collected,
but unless it has changed considerable from when I was there, no
where near all or even most of the vagrants are collected on Attu.
--
David Powell
Half Moon Bay, CA
vireo at gene.com
================================