Edward woodwood
Member
Where's Mr Wompoo's post gone?
he has a PM now anyway
Tim
he has a PM now anyway
Tim
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
humminbird
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
So some foreign list includes them as extinct when the governing agencies of the nation list them as critically endangered, etc.
Again, I ask, show me an agency that has listed them as extinct.
humminbird
Well-known member
IBWO_Agnostic said:
What is it about AGENCY (Governing body, people who hold the purse strings) that is being misunderstood. IUCN, TNC, etc. have absolutely NO authoritative role in US wildlife.
Again, show me an AGENCY that has listed the bird as extinct.
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
This article by Eirik Blom is neither tongue-in-cheek nor in poor taste. It is thoughtful and well written.cinclodes said:
You seem to have missed my question yesterday so I will repeat it: You are now leaning towards hoping that no one gets a good photo soon. Do you think this will help the cause of conservation?
Adam
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
And still waiting for Jesse to explain how he has shown that the textbooks are wrong. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time.
Nice to see the IUCN Red List being referred to as "some foreign list", by the way. Helped me start my day with a laugh.
So much BS, so little time.
Adam
Nice to see the IUCN Red List being referred to as "some foreign list", by the way. Helped me start my day with a laugh.
So much BS, so little time.
Adam
Edward woodwood
Member
I know AdamBlackstart said:
It almost makes you cry to hear 'birders' talkinhg about BirdLife and IUCN in his way
anyone seen any woodies with those 60Hz wing beats then?
Tim
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
The fact that you guys across the pond are missing is that here in the USA the IUCN Red List and BirdLife don't make the RULES on conservation, the GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (who have the big money) make ALL the rules on what species gets the money. The GOVERNMENT AGENCIES in the USA are the ones who don't care about listings in the IUCN Red List and BirdLife, it's not the 'birders' who don't care.
Blackstart said:
Tim Allwood said:
Edward woodwood
Member
timeshadowed said:
I think you need to find out what the role of BirdLife and the IUCN actually are
they aren't UK or European organisations - they are worldwide - and don't make rules for anyone
people who search for, and find, rare birds in other countries know all about the BirdLife criteria and use Red Data Books to aid their foreign travels. It seems IBWO observers aren't quite up-to-speed on these things, which is understandable since they aren't generally into world birding. It is probably the only very rare bird (only one i can think of) that is seen by lots of 'less serious' - I know that's a loaded phrase but i can't think of a better way of putting it - birders, while no none else is able to pin one down. BUt then we're crap and couldn't find one cos we ain't stealthy enough and don't understand how the bird behaves - or somesuch load of arse
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
Jos Stratford said:
fall over laughing, or fall over dead.....depending on what part of the world you are in, and how much oil is under your sand.
But in reality, I've been birding for over 20 years and have only been out of US/Canada a couple times. The IUCN is very low on most US birder's radar. We don't get out in the world as much as birders from other countries.
Over here we are used to dealing with National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and each state's Department of Fish & Game (or Natural Resources). While some US birders are aware of IUCN or Birdlife, I would bet the percent is low (say < 30%).
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Posted by Blackstart
Post#5467
This article by Eirik Blom is neither tongue-in-cheek nor in poor taste. It is thoughtful and well written.
--------
If you have never seen an Ivory-bill, then you may consider this well written. If I had never seen one, I may even agree with you.
Since I have seen one first hand, this come across to me as inconsiderate to those who have seen the bird and not well written. I find it’s content disrespectful.
Steve
Post#5467
This article by Eirik Blom is neither tongue-in-cheek nor in poor taste. It is thoughtful and well written.
--------
If you have never seen an Ivory-bill, then you may consider this well written. If I had never seen one, I may even agree with you.
Since I have seen one first hand, this come across to me as inconsiderate to those who have seen the bird and not well written. I find it’s content disrespectful.
Steve
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
Thank You, IBWO_Agnostic, for explaining the situation here in the USA better then I could.
Non-birding hunters who have reported seeing IBWO's are probably unaware of the IUCN and Birdlife, but they are VERY much aware of the role of the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and each state's Department of Fish & Game (or Natural Resources)" in protecting habitat. Therefore, they don't realize that the IUCN and Birdlife have declared that the IBWO is 'extinct', so those who see one are UNBIASED, and realize that they have NOT seen 'just another PIWO'.
Another factor is that most 'birders' don't venture deep into the bottomland swamps to 'bird', but hunters do go there to hunt. And it is in the deep swamps that the IBWO's have retreated.
Added to the above statements that thoughout the years these 'IBWO reports' have simply been dismissed, it is no wonder that the IUCN and Birdlife have declared the IBWO extinct.
It seems to be a clear case of 'circular reasoning'.
1. Dismiss reports
2. No one has seen an IBWO, therefore it is extinct.
3. Goto line 1.
Non-birding hunters who have reported seeing IBWO's are probably unaware of the IUCN and Birdlife, but they are VERY much aware of the role of the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and each state's Department of Fish & Game (or Natural Resources)" in protecting habitat. Therefore, they don't realize that the IUCN and Birdlife have declared that the IBWO is 'extinct', so those who see one are UNBIASED, and realize that they have NOT seen 'just another PIWO'.
Another factor is that most 'birders' don't venture deep into the bottomland swamps to 'bird', but hunters do go there to hunt. And it is in the deep swamps that the IBWO's have retreated.
Added to the above statements that thoughout the years these 'IBWO reports' have simply been dismissed, it is no wonder that the IUCN and Birdlife have declared the IBWO extinct.
It seems to be a clear case of 'circular reasoning'.
1. Dismiss reports
2. No one has seen an IBWO, therefore it is extinct.
3. Goto line 1.
IBWO_Agnostic said:
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
I'm glad I've never seen one then, if it means I can retain my objectivity about what is good writing and what is not. I've read a lot of things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean that they were poorly written.70ivorybill78 said:
Adam
dacol
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
It was not considered extinct either by the American Ornithologist's Union [ AOU] or by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or by the official wildlife agencies of all the states in the historical range of the IBWO. Thus clearly Birdlife International made a mistake and so did the IUCN by blindingly using Birdlife's opinion in its Red List before 2000. One has to wonder about the level of arrogance involved for Birdlife to consider the bird extinct when the association of professional ornithologists in the USA did not think it was.
The fact that the USFWS did not consider the bird extinct is of extreme importance because it means that the IBWO is under the protection of the Endangered Species Act [which has been weakened but not eliminated by the reactionaries currently in power in the USA].
Dalcio
London Birder
Well-known member
I blame Donald Rumsfeld
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Posted by Blackstart
Post#5478
I'm glad I've never seen one then, if it means I can retain my objectivity about what is good writing and what is not. I've read a lot of things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean that they were poorly written.
Adam
--------
I agree with you fully on the above points, where I deviate is from the following mention by the author stating that he has seen an IBWO, and describing in detail the sighting, only to finish with “But there was no bird there”.
I fail to understand ending an article with a statement like that, it seems anything but objective or open minded to me, that is one reason why I feel this article was poorly written. That statement makes me regard this article as fiction rather than one persons opinion or genuine evaluation of a specific situation.
I would have recommended either writing it as a fiction article (as Julie Zickefoose has done), or writing it as a genuine evaluation of the data at hand, with biased opinions omitted. If written as a genuine evaluation, then stating that he believed the bird to be extinct would come across as legit if he stated some facts to support that view (which he did). Ending with the last paragraph is why I feel the article was poorly written, not because he was disputing old sightings.
Post#5478
I'm glad I've never seen one then, if it means I can retain my objectivity about what is good writing and what is not. I've read a lot of things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean that they were poorly written.
Adam
--------
I agree with you fully on the above points, where I deviate is from the following mention by the author stating that he has seen an IBWO, and describing in detail the sighting, only to finish with “But there was no bird there”.
I fail to understand ending an article with a statement like that, it seems anything but objective or open minded to me, that is one reason why I feel this article was poorly written. That statement makes me regard this article as fiction rather than one persons opinion or genuine evaluation of a specific situation.
I would have recommended either writing it as a fiction article (as Julie Zickefoose has done), or writing it as a genuine evaluation of the data at hand, with biased opinions omitted. If written as a genuine evaluation, then stating that he believed the bird to be extinct would come across as legit if he stated some facts to support that view (which he did). Ending with the last paragraph is why I feel the article was poorly written, not because he was disputing old sightings.
IBWO_Agnostic said:
Just a quick note for clarification. BirdLife International is an international organization which generally realizes its activities and agenda [to form the leading authority on the status of birds, their habitats and the issues and problems affecting bird life] through association with PARTNERS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. In the US, the Audubon Society is said partner - perhaps why fewer American birders are "aware" of BirdLife's existence or purpose.
I think one would agree this arrangement is perhaps more effective for the organization, as Audobon would conceivably carry more weight in the system of lobby politics than would an international conservation organization.
That said, I tend to agree with Dalcio's comments above.
Brad
humminbird
Well-known member
dacol said:
Thank you. My point exactly.
When the national, regional, and local authorities have not made such a declaration, nor has the national association of professionals in the field, for an umbrella organization to make such a declaration is not appropriate. Maybe I chose the wrong word with "foreign" and should have used "international", but domestic organizations on the ground are not in agreement that the bird is extinct!
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
I think Jerome Jackson may have been responsible in part for keeping the bird off the extinct listing. Please feel free to correct me if I am in error on this.
Edward woodwood
Member
dacol said:
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary produced so far, looks like BirdLife got it spot on as per usual. And until a bird (nevermind 8 populations) is shown to exist, they are correct.
they are extremely nice, hard working people. Arrogant is the last word i would use to describe them.
Similar threads
