I don't understand. The article states:

It is estimated that there are only 250–1000 mature individuals left, but the bird’s elusiveness puts even those figures into question.

But then the researchers claim that:

Paul Sweet, collection manager for the museum’s Department of Ornithology, told Audubon that he and his colleagues assessed the state of the bird’s population and habitat, and concluded it was substantial and healthy enough to withstand the loss.

So which is it? Do we have only the roughest estimate of the population, or do we know the population is stable enough to take a loss. I don't see how both can be correct...

Is this for real? Please tell me this is a Onion article.

It should be- that would be hilarious. This is trite and everything that's wrong with humanity.

:::begins squawking and cawing::: We birds aren't going to just take this lying down! This was just supposed to be a photo op!

Seriously though, Professor Bekoff says it best:

“Even if this handsome male were a member of a common species, there was no reason to kill him. It sickens me that this practice continues and I hope more people will work hard to put an end to it right now, before more fascinating animals are killed.”

For days the researchers looked for the bird. They set fine nets into the forest canopy, hoping to capture the individual. After a blustery morning of cold winds and rain showers, they managed to capture the male moustached kingfisher.

If the bird was caught, wouldn't it be a more valuable specimen when taken alive? Am I misunderstanding what "capture" means in this context?