Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[MMinNY]

I didn't mean to suggest that they would-- only that so little is known and that the presence of observers on a regular basis could be disruptive in and of itself. That's what I found a bit worrying about the Allen and Kellogg article.

I think no Cornell birder or any other birder would behave like these guys decades ago.

Equipment, skill, means of transport, conduct of ornithologistss were completely different than today. I think it makes us easily mis-understand their words.

They write they camped 300 feet (100m) from active nest. What they call "shy" or "visible" can mean completely different things. For example, ivorybill can be described as "noisy" because they banged into the tree trunk and then sat 10 m from the tree. I wonder if they had binoculars and what quality?

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Gallagher showed several pictures from the 1935 expedition, and there was one each of Allen and Tanner looking through a large tripod-mounted binocular. The intrument appeared to be about 80 mm aperture.

 

[fangsheath]

Allen and Kellogg certainly did things that would be unheard of today, including cutting down a feeding tree and not one but two nest trees (after abandonment). Of course those nests with their gouge marks are handy to have today, nevertheless I found that disturbing given that they thought the species was probably teetering. Of course the CLO plays down those aspects of their study. Today I would imagine that they would not even approach within 100 yards of a suspected nest until the area had been thoroughly probed from a distance with high-performance microphones and it had been determined that the birds were regularly using the cavity.

 

[curunir]

I agree Curtis, slim chance, after oh this many years. Why has not someone with credentials declared this bird extinct? It has been 60 years! We wish to maintain this species in our head but that is in itself not maintaining our responsibility. This matter should be resolved and not put off for another generation to decide. You are as old as I, you and I need data yes or no not maybe or rumors. Keep looking ....I am.

Hopefully this question will never be decided without finding the living bird. Even if there is no longer a breathing entity, we should be happy with a phantom. As a ghost the Ivorybill could be protecting the land and waters of it's former haunts through the ESA. Without it, logging and real estate interests will gradually eat up the land. Consider the amount of money spent on Ivorybill conservation and the money to be made by developers. The difference is not measured in percentages but in orders of magnitude.

As to the credentialed extincter, pucker up. If I were a developer, I'd be funding any academics who could help get the right declaration from F&WS. (Tax deductible of course)

 

[MMinNY]

On the funding of scientists, you betcha. . .I posted on that subject yesterday, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they're paying people to post on the net as well (again I'm not singling out anyone on birdforum or anywhere else, just making a general observation).

On the bright side, International Paper has just sold a couple of hundred thousand acres in several southern states to the Nature Conservancy. The news reports seem to be scattered state by state, so it's hard to tell exactly where the land is located:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/business/14210649.htm

Hopefully this question will never be decided without finding the living bird. Even if there is no longer a breathing entity, we should be happy with a phantom. As a ghost the Ivorybill could be protecting the land and waters of it's former haunts through the ESA. Without it, logging and real estate interests will gradually eat up the land. Consider the amount of money spent on Ivorybill conservation and the money to be made by developers. The difference is not measured in percentages but in orders of magnitude.

As to the credentialed extincter, pucker up. If I were a developer, I'd be funding any academics who could help get the right declaration from F&WS. (Tax deductible of course)

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

"If I were a developer, I'd be funding any academics who could help get the right declaration from F&WS. (Tax deductible of course)"

No development is being halted due to the IBWO (before Arkansas or after). For development to be stopped you have to PROVE that it would kill an endangered species, and that is hard to prove even for those species that we KNOW exist. Witness the development in Florida (Scrub Jay, Snail Kite, Wood Stork, Florida Panther....all listed as Threatened or Endangered). Even if the USFWS declares the IBWO to be extinct, it won't change a thing. They (and TNC) will still work to restore and protect bottomland hardwoods.

 

[MMinNY]

I don't think your statement that you have to "PROVE that it would kill an endangered species" for an action to be prohibited under the ESA is true, and I really question your motives in making such an assertion, since you have provided nothing to support it. There may be case law on your side, but let's see the links. And what is the burden of proof?

It certainly wasn't the case under the 1999 regulations (which may have been modified since, but I haven't been able to find anything that suggests this is so). Here's the relevant regulatory provision, and as far as I can tell it has not been changed:

SUMMARY: This final rule defines the term ``harm'', which is contained
in the definition of ``take'' in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify the type of actions that may
result in a take of a listed species under the ESA. This final rule is
not a change in existing law. It provides clear notification to the
public that habitat modification or degradation may harm listed species
and, therefore, constitutes a take under the ESA as well as ensuring
consistency between NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This
final rule defines the term ``harm'' to include any act which actually
kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may
include significant habitat modification or degradation that
significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or
wildlife."

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/federalregister/1999/s991108.html

I got this link off the current FWS website. If you are going to make this kind of assertion, you really had better back it up with links to support it.

Moreover, there is ongoing litigation about IBWO habitat in Arkansas under the ESA, so I must say that your post is -- to be charitable -- disingenuous.

In addition, your bit about species we "KNOW" exist is utter nonsense. As a listed species, the IBWO is protected just as much as any other listed species, and the FWS has accepted the Arkansas sightings, so for their purposes, the IBWO exists, even if it doesn't for yours.

"If I were a developer, I'd be funding any academics who could help get the right declaration from F&WS. (Tax deductible of course)."

No development is being halted due to the IBWO (before Arkansas or after). For development to be stopped you have to PROVE that it would kill an endangered species, and that is hard to prove even for those species that we KNOW exist. Witness the development in Florida (Scrub Jay, Snail Kite, Wood Stork, Florida Panther....all listed as Threatened or Endangered). Even if the USFWS declares the IBWO to be extinct, it won't change a thing. They (and TNC) will still work to restore and protect bottomland hardwoods.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

How's this:

"On the other hand, critics of the Act claim that it has unnecessarily adverse impacts upon the nation's economy. However, these critics can cite no studies to substantiate this claim. From 1987 through early 1992, almost 74,000 development projects came into potential conflict with endangered species under the Act, yet only 18 of those projects had to be stopped. "

From http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/testimony/2005/rayvaughan.htm

Disingenous? seems a little extreme, for neglecting a link or two.

 

[MMinNY]

And that's exactly why developers and corporate interests would find it useful to fund the skeptics. Great expert witnesses in any potential litigation.

And disingenuous because, yes, there is already litigation. And there may be more. It may not be related to development, but it's under the ESA.

How's this:

"On the other hand, critics of the Act claim that it has unnecessarily adverse impacts upon the nation's economy. However, these critics can cite no studies to substantiate this claim. From 1987 through early 1992, almost 74,000 development projects came into potential conflict with endangered species under the Act, yet only 18 of those projects had to be stopped. "

From http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/testimony/2005/rayvaughan.htm

Disingenous? seems a little extreme, for neglecting a link or two.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Do you honestly think that folks like Kenn Kaufman, David Sibley and Jerry Jackson would accept funding from developers for expressing their opinions on a bird ID question? Or is that just hyperbole?

 

[timeshadowed]

IBWO_Agnostic,

I think that if developers hired 'skeptics to post on the internet' they would all be posting as 'screen-name from somewhere', not from a real name such as you have mentioned. BirdForum has had a number of this type of poster in the past. Some have even had their own 'blog-sites' that express their 'skeptic' viewpoints.

TimeShadowed

 

[MMinNY]

You're being disingenuous, again. I wrote quite explicitly that I didn't have anyone specific in mind. I do have a very low opinion of Jerome Jackson's recent article and some of his public statements, which have been exploited by corporate interests, but I don't think he's been bought, so to answer your question about those three -- no. That doesn't mean there aren't or won't be others.

Do you honestly think that folks like Kenn Kaufman, David Sibley and Jerry Jackson would accept funding from developers for expressing their opinions on a bird ID question? Or is that just hyperbole?

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Perhaps you are talking about Tom Nelson? He's the skeptic with the highest 'web presence'. Come on, name names. Don't just throw out vague statements? Do you think that developers even have IBWO on their radar? They are concerned about stream buffers first and foremost. These are everywhere (and vitally important to water quality btw). I forget, this is the Internet. It's all ABOUT conspiracy theory.

What's so hard to believe about birders questioning an ID? It happens ALL THE TIME. We don't need any developer money to motivate us.

 

[Big Phil]

I do find it a bit odd that if you type ivory billed into google, 'The Ivory-bill Skeptic' is a sponsered link.

 

[MMinNY]

It most certainly is on corporate and developer radar. I refer you to my post #3825. The author of that article is the chairman of the "Virginia Land Rights Coalition" (which claims not to take corporate money but is clearly a pro-development organization that says rural Virginia is being "terrorized by conservation easements").

Also, see this article from a scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183643,00.html

For their funding sources, go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute


As for naming names, no one's under any obligation to do so, but paying partisans to post on blogs and around the net is a fairly common practice in the political blogosphere. It's perfectly reasonable to think something similar is taking place in this context, since this is a highly contested issue that could have a very significant impact on a number of levels, not least the repeal or revision of the ESA.

Perhaps you are talking about Tom Nelson? He's the skeptic with the highest 'web presence'. Come on, name names. Don't just throw out vague statements? Do you think that developers even have IBWO on their radar? They are concerned about stream buffers first and foremost. These are everywhere (and vitally important to water quality btw). I forget, this is the Internet. It's all ABOUT conspiracy theory.

What's so hard to believe about birders questioning an ID? It happens ALL THE TIME. We don't need any developer money to motivate us.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Are there idiots out there trying to use doubt about the IBWO's existence to further their aims at stopping environmental regulations? Yes. Did they need this debate to do so? No. That is their reason for living. Did the debate give them one more little tidbit to exploit. Yes. Are skeptics or Internet posters being given money to post their opinions? If they are, that would be one helluva story. I guess anything is possible in this day. Applying Occam's Razor, however, I find that it is easier for me to believe that we post just because we have an opinion and we want to share it. You are of course free to believe what you wish.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2006/01/whats-with-google-ads.html

"You may have noticed that when you search for something like "ivory-billed woodpecker" on Google, you sometimes see a sponsored link for my blog. Is this proof that my Ivory-bill writing is actually sponsored by some sort of Evil Arkansas Duck Hunting Cabal?

Sorry, no. No one has ever paid me a dime. I'm paying for those ads out of my own pocket. I think of it this way: for the price of one round-trip flight to Arkansas, I can buy a whole lot of hits from Google, because they're dirt cheap. I believe this is an important issue, and I firmly believe that my facts and logic are correct. I do spend considerable time on my writing, and it's worthwhile to me to spend a few bucks to reach a wider audience."

Sounds like he just likes people to read his stuff, and is willing to pay for it.

 

[Big Phil]

Sounds like he just likes people to read his stuff, and is willing to pay for it.

So he says. If thats true it's madder then having someone pay him.....

 

[MMinNY]

You've very deftly changed the subject, again. You said the IBWO debate was not on developer radar, I pointed out that it was and gave a couple of links to support my assertion.

It's more than just a tidbit. It's at least potentially a huge issue.

As to corporate interests paying people to post or paying scienitists, I have no way of knowing whether this is taking place, but it certainly could be, and again, it is common practice in other debates - look at climate change for starters. Your attempt to apply Occam's Razor won't fly, unless you assume that all skeptics have identical motives (the collective "we" in your post). This is simply not the case, as the two articles I've linked to make clear. These folks know nothing about the IBWO but are embracing the skeptical position because it is in harmony with their agenda and gives them ammunition with which to attack the Nature Conservancy, among others.

You too, of course, are entitled to your opinion, and there's probably nothing to be gained by pursuing this line of discussion any further.

Are there idiots out there trying to use doubt about the IBWO's existence to further their aims at stopping environmental regulations? Yes. Did they need this debate to do so? No. That is their reason for living. Did the debate give them one more little tidbit to exploit. Yes. Are skeptics or Internet posters being given money to post their opinions? If they are, that would be one helluva story. I guess anything is possible in this day. Applying Occam's Razor, however, I find that it is easier for me to believe that we post just because we have an opinion and we want to share it. You are of course free to believe what you wish.

BTW: Tom Nelson can't post here anymore, so from his website I found this (about paying Google). http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2006/01/whats-with-google-ads.html

"You may have noticed that when you search for something like "ivory-billed woodpecker" on Google, you sometimes see a sponsored link for my blog. Is this proof that my Ivory-bill writing is actually sponsored by some sort of Evil Arkansas Duck Hunting Cabal?

Sorry, no. No one has ever paid me a dime. I'm paying for those ads out of my own pocket. I think of it this way: for the price of one round-trip flight to Arkansas, I can buy a whole lot of hits from Google, because they're dirt cheap. I believe this is an important issue, and I firmly believe that my facts and logic are correct. I do spend considerable time on my writing, and it's worthwhile to me to spend a few bucks to reach a wider audience."

Sounds like he just likes people to read his stuff, and is willing to pay for it.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

But of couse if I stop that gives you the last word. We can't have that now can we. ;-)


I believe that IBWO is not a big factor in the day to day life of southeastern developers. You think it might be; based on some links by right-wing reporters. Okay fine.

"Your attempt to apply Occam's Razor won't fly, unless you assume that all skeptics have identical motives (the collective "we" in your post). This is simply not the case, as the two articles I've linked to make clear."

As you pointed out those articles aren't by skeptics that understand bird ID. They are by professional right-wing ideologues. I am talking about skeptics that see the evidence and post opinion about it. I maintain that they (and let's just say 90% of them to help us get past this), have purely scientific motives. You think otherwise. Ok fine. NOW I'm done.

 

[MMinNY]

One more point to clarify. You keep talking about "developers", and I keep referring to developers and corporate interests, and to that extent I apologize for incorrectly characterizing a couple of your statements. Nevertheless, I don't think you can separate the two; while you may be right with respect to developers in the southeast, that's casting the issue in terms that are far too narrow. The interests with the big money and the big power, the people for whom gutting environmental laws has major significance, are not the developers; rather, they are the people and corporate interests that fund groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The survival of the ivory-bill would be at least potentially a public relations disaster for them, since it is likely to engender more public support for the ESA and other environmental protections. Those interests have the money to pay people to do all kinds of things, including posting on blogs and fora. It's chump change to them, and it's also characteristic of the way they operate.

I thought that point needed clarification, but if you'd like to have the last word, that's fine with me.

ps. I'll even accept your 90% figure; it's the other 10% that concerns me.

But of couse if I stop that gives you the last word. We can't have that now can we. ;-)


I believe that IBWO is not a big factor in the day to day life of southeastern developers. You think it might be; based on some links by right-wing reporters. Okay fine.

"Your attempt to apply Occam's Razor won't fly, unless you assume that all skeptics have identical motives (the collective "we" in your post). This is simply not the case, as the two articles I've linked to make clear."

As you pointed out those articles aren't by skeptics that understand bird ID. They are by professional right-wing ideologues. I am talking about skeptics that see the evidence and post opinion about it. I maintain that they (and let's just say 90% of them to help us get past this), have purely scientific motives. You think otherwise. Ok fine. NOW I'm done.