Collecting birds

["Frank O'Connor" <>]

At 12:26 29/07/2003 +0930, Tony Russell wrote:
> Enquiries revealed that the person concerned
> holds a permit from the Department of the Environment and Heritage in SA
> to actually do this. The SA Museum can no longer afford to maintain a
> bird display and all skins are put away in drawers, inaccessible to the
> public, and this new skin has just joined the
> collection.

They are not inaccessible to the public.  In WA, it is easy to
contact the museum and they will show you through their specimens,
provided you have a reason.  e.g. trying to identify a bird I saw;
comparing a species from different parts of the state; comparing similar
species; etc; etc.  I have done so on many occasions.

> Given the existence of a permit to shoot
> protected species there appears to be no question of prosecution of the
> person concerned but surely questions of morality and conservation need
> to be raised.  I know the museum people like to do skeletal and
> other detailed analysis but surely nowadays a photo or some video footage
> would have sufficed ?  And even if this had proved inconclusive, so
> what? Isn't this better than the bird being killed?  Science can't
> be that important.  Knowledge cannot ever be construed as
> being more important than life.
>  
> I would like to enquire as to whether such permits are still issued for
> this purpose in other states and what acceptable(?) rationale motivates
> such a barbaric activity.  The story here is that rare birds can be
> taken like this for "scientific" purposes.

Birds are still collected in WA, but I understand not very often. 
The last that I heard of was to compare the birds of the Kimberley
Islands with the mainland, and between islands.  This knowledge will
contribute to the conservation status of these islands.

Most new specimens for the museum come from people who find dead birds in
reasonable condition, or birds that die in care.  e.g. seabirds,
road kills, Oriental Honey-Buzzard, etc.  I have taken quite a few
specimens to the museum, and I encourage others to do this, no matter how
common the species.  There has been previous discussions in depth on
this mailing list about what you should do, so lets not revisit
this.

> Does this mean it would have been acceptable
> for other rarities, like the Short-billed Dowitcher, the Hudsonian
> Godwit, the Arctic Tern, the Lesser Yellowlegs, the Oriental Pratincoles
> and Northern Shoveler at Werribee , the Blue Rock Thrush at Noosa, the
> Blue Flycatcher near Broome, to name some of our more recent rarities, to
> be similarly shot for museum collections ?

This doesn't happen, so this is irrelevant.

This is not a black and white issue.  It must be judged on a case by
case basis.  This is why permits are needed.  The collection of
bird specimens does happen.  Everyone should be aware that it
happens.  This will ensure that they do not overstep the mark. 
Without details of this SA case, it is impossible to judge.

Museum specimens are very valuable.  They last for centuries, and
are regularly used for field guides, DNA analysis, taxonomic analysis,
research papers, etc etc.

_________________________________________________________________

Frank O'Connor           Birding WA http://birdingwa.iinet.net.au

Phone : (08) 9386
5694             
Email : 


Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to