I do remember the issues with the Eleania, as I followed the threads on Tex-birds when the bird was discovered. I agree that much of the acrimony among birders who missed it was silly. You can't predict how long birds like that stick around, and people should have known that going in. In fact I suspect most people knew and accepted that, with complainers being relatively few, though admittedly I'm not familiar with the TX birding community. I still think it's a legit comparison however, if only from the species similarity (both austal migrants, both flycatchers, etc).

I personally believe that collecting is a legitimate and positive tool for bird science. I have no intention of arguing otherwise and would support you generally in that endeavor. This bird is a tricky subject though, and I won't deny that my instincts and interests as a birder rather than a academic are largely behind the distaste I feel at this particular collection. You're probably right, those inclined to disagree will do so regardless.

In any case, thanks much for commenting.

First off, the bird wasn't collected because of ID uncertainty. Mac had seen this species in S.A., and his uncertainty consisted of not remembering the exact name of the species–although he recalled it had the longest binomial of any bird–and whether or not it had any close look-alike congeners. This bird was collected because we felt its scientific value as a specimen was so great. Had we known the ID chapter and verse, we would have still collected it. Keep in mind that there are very few specimens of vagrant austral migrants from the U.S., and while many believe that there's a genetic basis for vagrancy in his group, there's almost no genetic material to test this theory.

Many have stated that specimens are no more than dusty stuffed birds, and that collecting is a pointless holdover from the past. In reality, while a lot of collecting in the past was useless, modern DNA and isotope studies can provide information that was untouchable only a few years ago. Surely more methods will emerge in the near future that will make this specimen even more valuable to science.

As for the implications to birders, listing the mission statement of adjacent land is curious. How does that connect? It simply happened to be on the same chenier as a small Audubon Sanctuary. A parallel to the Elaenia in Texas doesn't fit. As I recall, the Elaenia situation was hardly a mellow affair, anyway. By the time it left there was a rather acrimonious discussion about the ethics of viewers stirred up. Some were claiming birders had spotlighted it in the dark, and others accused a Texas school of collecting it. There was a lot of anger from birders who missed out on it.

I do appreciate the kind appraisal of my photos. However, you'll notice that they're still grainy even after the photo editor of NAB did everything he could to make them publishable. They are barely, if at all, conclusive, but that's not really relevant. We didn't collect the bird to ID it, or prove the sighting.

I personally have no problem with anyone collecting similar birds. The facts are that it is abundant in its range, that it was so off-course that return was no longer possible, and that the specimen has great scientific potential. I would agree with anyone in a similar position that decided to collect such a bird.

Again, I'm happy to state my position, but anything more than that would be sinking into argument. It's easy enough for anyone who disagrees to brand me as a redneck Neanderthal with a rifle rack in back, or some clueless academic that looks down on birders. I can't change those views, and I won't try. Those inclined to outrage will feel outrage no matter what I say.

Paul Conover

It's a sad state of affairs to do this to a bird that is so far from it's range.

Dan

@Jochen- The gun question is central to understanding the mentality of Conover and Myers. Is this how bird surveys are done in LA? That, just about more than anything, was shocking.