Researcher kills rare bird to study it, controversy ensues

[Liberal_in_LA]

He's being compared to the dentist who killed Cecil the lion, but is a researcher who killed a bird for study the same as a big game hunter?

It's a question that's sparking debate after a researcher from the American Museum of Natural History killed a moustached kingfisher in Guadalcanal. New York scientist Christopher Filardi spotted the kingfisher last month while observing wildlife with other researchers.

It was no ordinary sight — the kingfisher hasn't been seen in over 50 years and it is believed that 250 to 1,000 adult moustached kingfishers exist in the world.

In order to further study the rare bird, Filardi "collected" it — in layman's terms, he killed it. As you may have guessed, some people are not happy about this.

"It is a tired and nonsensical, self-serving claim that you must kill some animals in the name of research so as to study them enough to save them," PETA Senior Director Colleen O'Brien told the New York Daily News.

But that's exactly what Filardi is claiming in a defense of his actions posted on the Audubon Society website. Because so few of these types of kingfishers have been captured (he cites one example in 1927 and one in 1953), scientists haven't had an opportunity to study the bird on a deeper level.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Researcher-kills-rare-bird-to-study-it-6568571.php

[2naSalit]

1. He should have observed it

throughout its natural life cycle and "collected" its remains when it passed in its own environment... what if it had a mate and young? Cruel, heartless move on his part. I guess I can be counted as one of those people who are not happy about what he did.

[geek tragedy]

2. people flipping out about this would hate John James Audubon. nt