
A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades - rpledge
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/10/17/why-a-scientist-killed-a-bird-that-hadnt-been-seen-in-50-years.html
======
Theodores
Because of Cecil, the Lion I know that my feelings regarding this story are
shared by others - 'collecting' this male specimen of the species was the
wrong thing to do. He 'collected' it because it was perfectly healthy,
therefore there would be others.

In the UK 'egg collectors' that collect rare birds eggs get given short
shrift, actual birds in far off places aren't afford Cecil the Lion levels of
outrage yet the sentiment is the same, at least for me.

~~~
skimpycompiler
I, on the other hand, am baffled by the outrage in any case. I do not
understand why some animals have greater value than others. Be it rarity or
not, from an evolutionary perspective there's no ranking. One cannot say that
a worm is worth less than a human.

So, this value ownership that has been put on the animal species is entirely
subjective and irrational, and points out a little bit of hypocrisy in all of
us.

~~~
waqf
Do you understand why some paintings have greater value than others?

~~~
anon4
The same reason diamonds are expensive?

------
rcurry
I think this whole thing is kind of ironic, e.g. consider John James Audubon:

"He shot and killed every bird he painted. Audubon was a noted hunter and
taxidermist, and much of the money he made during his lifetime was from
selling animal skins, a practice that in part helped to fund the printing of
"Birds of America." But don't assume that he took pleasure from killing the
birds he painted: "The moment a bird was dead," he said, "no matter how
beautiful it had been in life, the pleasure of possession became blunted for
me."

Kill one bird, get targeted by the internet rage mob - kill a few thousand and
you get a Google Doodle.

~~~
dang
> _Kill one bird, get targeted by the internet rage mob - kill a few thousand
> and you get a Google Doodle._

That's much too glib. Audobon lived two centuries ago.

~~~
rcurry
And yet, no difference today - nothing wrong with killing an inconsequential
specimen for the sake of science. The front plate glass window on my house
kills more birds than that researcher, every week. Thump. Thump. Thump. I
don't have angry mobs calling for my head over it. I go out, pick them off the
porch, and throw them in the trash. And no, I don't take time to sketch them.

~~~
swombat
> The front plate glass window on my house kills more birds than that
> researcher, every week. Thump. Thump. Thump.

Wtf? What kind of terrible bird-trap of a house do you have? I've never had a
bird die by flying against one of my windows, ever, in my whole life.

~~~
rcurry
We have berry trees in our front yard, so every year when they ripen up we get
hordes of finches and other little birds swooping the buffet. In the fall, we
get about one dead bird every other day until the trees have been stripped
clean.

------
skue
Here's a link to the referenced Audubon story, along with a picture of the
bird and the odd editor's note (at the bottom).

[http://www.audubon.org/news/moustached-kingfisher-
photograph...](http://www.audubon.org/news/moustached-kingfisher-photographed-
first-time)

------
jccalhoun
The article's headline states, "Why a scientist killed a bird that hadn’t been
seen in 50 years" and waits until well into the article to mention, "Filardi
stressed that, among Guadalcanal locals, the bird is known to be 'unremarkably
common.'"

In this way, this article, which is trying to explain why the bird was killed,
seems to recreate the problems that led to people being mad in the first
place: giving the impression that this is a rare bird that no one had seen in
50 years and burying the fact that this isn't true. The majority of this
article makes it seem like this was a bird that no one had seen in years when
that simply isn't the case. It is just that no scientist had seen it in years.
Big difference.

~~~
dang
We switched to the subtitle, which doesn't have this problem.

Edit: ok you guys, it isn't sporting to _only_ complain about titles—that's
shooting birds in a barrel. Let's hear a better one!

~~~
ScottBurson
However, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two
decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be
searched.

It should, of course, read "A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been
searching _for_ for two decades". (I see the problem is in the original.)
Alternatively, one could say "... seeking for two decades".

<pedantic grammar-nerd grin>

~~~
dang
Happy to increment the _for_ s, but that doesn't solve your ambiguity
objection. It merely turns "searching" back into the intransitive verb it
should be.

~~~
ScottBurson
Thanks — but I don't get your comment. How is it still ambiguous?

~~~
dang
Argh I misread you the first time. Sorry! Good one.

