General Discussion

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts) Sun Oct 11, 2015, 11:05 PM Oct 2015

Controversy after scientist finds rare bird -- and kills it

When scientists start to fight, I try to take a ringside seat.

I know they won't throw punches. Instead, they will brandish higher-grade weapons such as intellectual and moral superiority.

And so it is in the case of Chris Filardi. He's the director of Pacific Programs at the American Museum of Natural History.

Last month, he was in the Solomon Islands with other researchers. They first heard, then espied the rare male moustached kingfisher.

Then, as the Dodo reports, the beautiful orange and blue bird was "collected as a specimen for additional study." This turns out to have been a slight euphemism for "killed for additional study."

Filardi wasn't universally popular for this decision. He took to Audubon to write: "Why I Killed A Rare Kingfisher So That I Could Study It And Become More Famous." Wait, no. His article was headlined: "Why I Collected a Moustached Kingfisher." (The comments section to this article is well worth a read.)

http://www.cnet.com/news/controversy-after-scientist-finds-rare-bird-and-kills-it/

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Controversy after scientist finds rare bird -- and kills it (Original Post) Jesus Malverde Oct 2015 OP

Makes me want to punch him in the nuts because, he has two... Xipe Totec Oct 2015 #1

That is just disgusting. BillZBubb Oct 2015 #2

I wonder if this a bird that pairs for life, or do they mate and breed independently? NBachers Oct 2015 #3

He had to kill it Orrex Oct 2015 #4

I don't think there was any illusion about saving the species Jesus Malverde Oct 2015 #5

Well, it's not like it was going to kill itself Orrex Oct 2015 #6

Reminds me of that horrible movie by Willem Defoe, The Hunter. Baitball Blogger Oct 2015 #7

Xipe Totec

(43,890 posts)

1. Makes me want to punch him in the nuts because, he has two...

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 11:22 PM

Oct 2015

And one of them is likely to survive.

Besides, he's not an endangered species so even if we rendered him sterile with the punch, there's many other humans around so what's the big whoop?

And it will be interesting to collect information on how humans react to Filardi being punched in the nuts.

I think this research has scientific merit.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)

2. That is just disgusting.

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 11:35 PM

Oct 2015

I hope the scientific community treats him the way he deserves to be treated. Sadly, Audubon gave him a forum.

NBachers

(17,126 posts)

3. I wonder if this a bird that pairs for life, or do they mate and breed independently?

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:23 AM

Oct 2015

Orrex

(63,216 posts)

4. He had to kill it

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 07:40 AM

Oct 2015

In order to save it.

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)

5. I don't think there was any illusion about saving the species

Reply to Orrex (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 08:21 AM

Oct 2015

He had to kill it to "study" it. It's a mindset. Like colonialism.

Orrex

(63,216 posts)

6. Well, it's not like it was going to kill itself

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 08:37 AM

Oct 2015

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)

The poor researcher had no other choice, obviously!

Baitball Blogger

(46,747 posts)

7. Reminds me of that horrible movie by Willem Defoe, The Hunter.

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 11:37 AM

Oct 2015

SPOILER

He kills the last surviving Tasmanian Tiger! A corporation wanted it because they believed the Tiger had a special venom that they wanted to patent. So they hired him to go in and collect its DNA and then kill the animal to prevent anyone else from doing it.

So, he kills it, does not collect DNA, but instead destroys all evidence of the animal by burning it.

Here's a thought, why didn't he, instead, connect with an animal rights organization to capture the animal to prove that this venom theory was crazy stupid? And then, collect the DNA for cloning purposes to propagate the species? Now, THAT would have been a better ending.

Reply to this discussion