snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) (01/04/88)
In article <10600@cgl.ucsf.EDU>, Darwin O.V. Alonso <alonso@ucsfcgl.UUCP> writes: >What do you all thing about "collecting"? I remember the the first >time I realized that a lot of university zoo types actually blasted >birds so that they could be stuffed and the ratios of certain bone >lengths measured so that two very similar species/races could be dif- >differntiated (ref: Steamer Ducks in Tierra del Fuego by U. Kansas people) >I was appalled. Why do you find this appalling? Each collector has had to apply for government permits, has had to justify the collecting, and has had specific limits imposed. Collecting permits are given for specific areas, for specific species, in specific amounts. No one is given a permit to simply kill whatever they want, wherever they want. The number of animals killed are a tiny fraction of the total population. Populations of animals are not adversely affected by reasonable levels of collecting. Few if any birds are collected these days simply so that they can be "stuffed." You can be certain that it is many, many times more difficult to get a collecting permit, for even one animal, than it is to get a hunting or fishing license. >How prevalent is this? Hundreds of collecting permits are issued each year. It has been estimated that only 0.0002% of the annual avian mortality in the US is the result of killing birds for scientific and educational purposes. And, collectors obtain but a fraction of a percent of the numbers of birds which annually fall before the hunter's gun. Now I fully realize that for the anti-vivisectionist, this is of no importance. I am well aware that many people think even banding birds is some sort of despicable sin. As well, I am aware that the `animal rights' activists think every creature is the moral equivalent of a human (and those who do not agree are `speciesists'). I am not really interested in arguing against such articles of their faith. >What is the prevailing attitude >in academic ornithology towards collecting? Attitudes have certainly changed since Audubon's day. Then, it was thought entirely appropriate for him, or anyone, to "blast" as many of anything they wanted in search of the `ideal specimen', or any other reason they might choose. Wildlife, and wilderness, was seen as virtually inexhaustable. What matter would it make? Now, wildlife is seen as a resource which is limited, and must be protected. Collecting on a reasonable level will make absolutely no difference to a natural population, however. Far fewer animals are collected than would meet their demise through simple accident. Things have changed even in the last 10-15 years, within the scientific community. Animals are no longer killed as a routine teaching exercise. Frogs are no longer pithed in undergraduate classes in Ontario. (Cats are still dissected, but they are the pound animals which are killed anyway--the `animal rights' activists do not like this, of course.) Collecting permits are not issued so that the animals can be used in undergraduate teaching experiments, at least not in Canada. Currently, collecting is an integral part of most academic ornithological taxonomy, as might be expected. As well, it is in integral part of much current work in evolutionary biology. Computer models are all very fine, but without specimens themselves, from critical areas, it is all just so much smoke. >My feelings are that >collecting might be justified in a few exceptional cases, but should >only be viewed as a last resort to solving a questions of major >biological importance. While few if any scientific collectors would like a return to the old days where any and everything was collected, it would be most unfortunate if the `animal rights' movement were ever able to eliminate collecting. Unfortunately, imposing a condition that research where collecting is done must be "of major biological importance" is rather difficult. As with all science, one does not `know' the answer in advance. (If you do know, you are not doing science.) The relationships among animals being studied may be quite unexpected. It is rather difficult to determine, beforehand, what is going to be of `major' rather than `minor' importance. As well, a series of `minor' studies frequently add up to a major contribution. The sum exceeds the parts. -- Name: Richard Snell Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,linus,pyramid,yetti,utai}!utzoo!snell