Reader poll: Killing and collecting in the name of science
"Until recently few people even knew the Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher existed. A forest kingfisher endemic to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, it has been described as a 'ghost bird' - a species known to exist but that has rarely been seen. The population size is unknown, though thought not to number more than 1000 mature individuals.
The IUCN lists it as Endangered, and adds that the "male plumage remains undescribed". That was true until late September this year when a survey team from the American Museum of Natural History, led by Chris Filardi, director of Pacific Programs, heard a male's distinctive call, tracked the bird down, photographed it - and then killed it.
The news has gone around the world and the decision to collect the bird for additional study has been polarising.
Filardi has defended the action saying that, "Although sightings and information about the bird are rare in the ornithological community, the bird itself is not. [...] 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."
On the other hand Marc Bekoff, Professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, has written a scathing essay condemning the "lame attempt to sanitize the totally unnecessary killing of this remarkable sentient being" adding that "researchers who are prone to discover and kill would also benefit from thinking about the basic principles of compassionate conservation, namely, First do no harm and individual lives matter."
Were poachers responsible for the capture and killing of this rare and virtually unknown bird we would be rightly outraged. Had a group of birders gone into the forests of Guadalcanal looking for this bird, found it, ticked it, then killed it we would - again - be outraged. Is it really any different when a scientist does it? We live in a digital and technological age: photographs and recordings, genetic samples, and biometrics could all have been taken on site, the bird released, and the information on the internet within days. The discoverer of the Bugun Liocichla, Ramana Athreya, trapped two individuals of what was then an unknown species in 2006 but decided not take a specimen saying afterwards that, "We thought the bird was just too rare for one to be killed. With today’s modern technology, we could gather all the information we needed to confirm it as a new species. We took feathers and photographs, and recorded the bird’s song.” The decision was applauded by Dr Nigel Collar of BirdLife International who commented: "This species appears to be very rare indeed, and from what we know at present the taking of even one individual could jeopardise the Bugun Liocichla’s future survival prospects.” Shouldn't the 'precautionary principle' have been followed on Guadalcanal as well?
While the Critically Endangered liocichla does appear to be extremely rare, locals describe the Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher as 'common' (or at least familiar to them). While its range is limited many island populations are naturally small yet are self-sustaining. And if course it wasn't criminals or twitchers who collected this bird, but licenced scientists who were simply following established precedent when they retained it. The history of ornithology has been built on collecting birds and science (and birders, don't forget) still benefits hugely from being able to study specimens in museum collections. We might view the team's actions as dispassionate, but are we being overly sentimental, allowing ourselves to 'wallow in indignation' (as has been suggested) when none of us can possibly know what extra information may be uncovered by a thorough study of this one individual? And does it really matter if this one bird dies anyway? If taking this specimen somehow causes the forests on the island to be protected, then it will have secured the future of the species and become a noble - if controversial - sacrifice.
Ignoring arguments that far worse is being done to wildlife around the world every day, and that climate change and habitat loss will probably be ultimately responsible for the extinction of the Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher anyway, we'd like to know whether readers think that killing this one bird in the name of science can indeed be justified, or whether all the knowledge that we might possibly need could have been collected from the living bird before it was released?"
Please Read Chris Filardi’s rationale in full before voting, it is available on the Audubon website here. The poll will run for seven days and close on 19 Oct with results published on our website and social media accounts soon after.
