Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (21 Viewers)

[Imaginos]

I do like the way the goalposts keep moving in this thread. Evidence is not proof; the woodland is dense & difficult for birding, unless you're watching an IBW; the integrity of those who have reported sightings must not be questioned, unless you claim to see them in your backyard, etc., etc.

I would note that if the opposers of the proposed developments outlined in the above posts have hanged all their hopes on IBW, then they have shown a serious lack of imagination in 'bigging up' other aspects of the area and may suffer from having put all their eggs in a basket made of string. This would be a great shame.

Have there been other notable finds turned up during the search for the IBW? Any birds not previously thought to be there been recorded? Or is everything not the right size or shape being ignored by all these birders?

 

[Harold Stiver]

I am extrapolating and I am impugning (although comments in Tom Nelson’s blog, by those that have birded with him suggest I was being rather kind).

Gosh, if "anonymous" says that about Hicks, it must be so.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Ok, so no IBWO found - soooo cut down all the trees and destroy all of the wetlands and build roads and houses!

I'm sure you will agree with the above statement, right Tim?

Just what part of OBC - helping to conserve Asia's birds don't you understand? Despite all of my frank comments i've never maligned the motives of these people. Everyone of them wants the habitat conserved. Are you very dim or do you really believe i don't give a shit about things like this?

Anyway, stay tuned for developments of a bit of backtracking by Cornell - the rumour mill is at work...

Ilya is spot on. Hill and Hicks are fools and should just slink away quietly. It's frightening that some dudes who reckoned there were nine pairs of IBWOs who keep getting auditory 'detections', and who have 'evidence' but not 'proof', can't locate a bird but know they're there, are taken seriously. Hang on though... they're not. Except by a rag-tag bunch of non-birders, single species obsessives and stringers.

 

[humminbird]

I would note that if the opposers of the proposed developments outlined in the above posts have hanged all their hopes on IBW, then they have shown a serious lack of imagination in 'bigging up' other aspects of the area and may suffer from having put all their eggs in a basket made of string. This would be a great shame.

The presence or absence of any animal, even one as rare as the Ivory-billed, by itself would not guarantee the stop of any project. Just look at the Singer Tract history for evidence of that. It would definitely make it much more difficult to proceed, but if they were hanging their hats on it, they were badly misguided. I know of cases where habitat of newly described species is being cut up even now.

 

[humminbird]

Anyway, stay tuned for developments of a bit of backtracking by Cornell - the rumour mill is at work...

How many times have we heard this in the past two years Tim?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Gosh, if "anonymous" says that about Hicks, it must be so.

I hope you’re not implying that anonymity is in some way connected with the integrity of ones post. Otherwise, the various Dromaius drivers, shadowers of time, alledged residents of New York, Trochilidae lovers and others who regularly post on this thread, but don’t reveal their identity could been in for a bit of a rough ride!

 

[Edward woodwood]

How many times have we heard this in the past two years Tim?

I haven't before now

anyone else?

Tim

 

[Ilya Maclean]

The presence or absence of any animal, even one as rare as the Ivory-billed, by itself would not guarantee the stop of any project. Just look at the Singer Tract history for evidence of that. It would definitely make it much more difficult to proceed, but if they were hanging their hats on it, they were badly misguided. I know of cases where habitat of newly described species is being cut up even now.

I would have thought it would be in direct contravension of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. An Act which I believe contains a citizen suit clause, (Section 11) which allows citizens to sue the government to enforce the law?

Edit: p.s. Tim. I hadn't heard that before either. PM me with details.

 

[humminbird]

I would have thought it would be in direct contravension of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. An Act which I believe contains a citizen suit clause, (Section 11) which allows citizens to sue the government to enforce the law?

Edit: p.s. Tim. I hadn't heard that before either. PM me with details.

One would think so, however that has not proven to be the case. You still have to show direct, intentional "take" of the species to stop the work.

 

[timeshadowed]

Just what part of OBC - helping to conserve Asia's birds don't you understand? Despite all of my frank comments i've never maligned the motives of these people. Everyone of them wants the habitat conserved. Are you very dim or do you really believe i don't give a shit about things like this?

Tim,

What you have failed to see in this thread is that developers in America don't give a rat's A$$ about saving habitat just for the sake of preserving our natural resources. The IBWO stands for a symbol of conservation. If one could prove it still exists (ie photo) that would go a long way in saving what is left of America's 'Big Woods' habitat. Since no photo has been taken so far, America will loose more wetlands and woods this year.

Your snide comments in this thread have only helped destroy the wetlands and bottomland swamps of America! That is why I'm so upset with your comments in this thread!!

You are the one who does not 'get it' Tim!

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Your snide comments in this thread have only helped destroy the wetlands and bottomland swamps of America! That is why I'm so upset with your comments in this thread!!

You are the one who does not 'get it' Tim!

This sounds like you are saying that it is OK to mislead developers and governments in order to preserve habitat. Even if it works once it will backfire in the end.

If a convincing case for habitat preservation cannot be made without lying then we're in a very poor situation.

Tim's comments have not affected the swamps either way I'm afraid..

Cheers,

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Tim,

What you have failed to see in this thread is that developers in America don't give a rat's A$$ about saving habitat just for the sake of preserving our natural resources. The IBWO stands for a symbol of conservation. If one could prove it still exists (ie photo) that would go a long way in saving what is left of America's 'Big Woods' habitat. Since no photo has been taken so far, America will loose more wetlands and woods this year.

Your snide comments in this thread have only helped destroy the wetlands and bottomland swamps of America! That is why I'm so upset with your comments in this thread!!

You are the one who does not 'get it' Tim!

I doubt very much that if developers in America don't give a rat's A$$ about saving habitat just for the sake of preserving our natural resources, they will give a monkey's *$@@ about what Tim or anybody else posts on birdforum. If you want to do something useful to conserve the wetlands and woods in the US, can I suggest that your time would be more fruitfully deployed by writing a letter to your state governor and anybody else in power, asking why:

(a) Despite the US ratifying the Ramsar Convention, no bottomland hardwood swamp forests have been designated as Ramsar sites (several would qualify under Criteria 1, 2, 3 and possibly several other Criteria of the Directive).
(b) Despite signing the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the US Government has yet to ratify the Convention (this convention provides an internationally framework for conserving habitat, amongst other reasons, just for the sake of preservation of natural resources).
(c) Why the US government still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol (there’s an awful lot of carbon locked up in those forests).

I suspect your words will fall on deaf ears, but I think if you want to conserve the habitat, its better to use the legislative tools that could potentially be at ones disposal than to resurrect a species that is almost certainly extinct.

 

[colonelboris]

What other endangered birds are in those swamps?

 

[humminbird]

What other endangered birds are in those swamps?

It doesn't matter! They would have to show that this is a deliberate take (kill) of the animal whether bird or Florida Panther, in order to stop the progress.

 

[martin kitching]

The IBWO stands for a symbol of conservation. If one could prove it still exists (ie photo) that would go a long way in saving what is left of America's 'Big Woods' habitat. Since no photo has been taken so far, America will loose more wetlands and woods this year.

Your snide comments in this thread have only helped destroy the wetlands and bottomland swamps of America! That is why I'm so upset with your comments in this thread!!

Are you saying that Tim's scepticism is the reason that no photo of IBWO has been obtained? Another one for the list of excuses then (although rather difficult to explain).

What is destroying wetlands and bottomland swamps in America is the lack of legislation allowing the protection of habitat. What will ultimately lead to the destruction of even more habitat is the undermining of conservation by the entire IBWO fiasco.

martin

 

[MMinNY]

You're not quite right about this. From the FWS website:

"Private landowners, corporations, state or local governments, or other non-Federal landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harm (or "take") wildlife that is listed as endangered or threatened must first obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Part of the process of obtaining such a permit involves developing a "habitat conservation plan."

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/

In the Florida case, the FWS determined that construction of the airport would not impact the putative IBWO habitat. It seems to me that this could be challenged in court, as could the sufficiency of Environmental Impact Statements prepared under Federal and/or State Law. I don't know if this has been done or whether legal remedies have been exhausted.

The problem is not so much the airport itself (though that may be bad enough); it's the opening of a remote, sparsely populated area to more tourism and development that will do the most damage.

At this point, I think there's been a net gain for conservation from the possible presence of IBWOs in various locations. . .especially if you include protection of the Congaree in the equation. I don't think the success or failure of efforts to confirm their survival will have much impact one way or the other. Attitudes toward conservation are pretty well hardened in this country.

As for other threatened and endangered species in the Choctawhatchee region, here's a link:

http://www.nokuse.org/wildlife/listed.htm

It doesn't matter! They would have to show that this is a deliberate take (kill) of the animal whether bird or Florida Panther, in order to stop the progress.

 

[emupilot]

I hope you’re not implying that anonymity is in some way connected with the integrity of ones post. Otherwise, the various Dromaius drivers, shadowers of time, alledged residents of New York, Trochilidae lovers and others who regularly post on this thread, but don’t reveal their identity could been in for a bit of a rough ride!

Tom Nelson's blog is the last place to look for integrity, as he's a right-wing hack with multiple dubious agendas. I'm surprised that anyone who values their own integrity would touch that blog with a ten foot pole.

BTW, I have put my money where my mouth is - by contributing toward protection of the habitat of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

 

[humminbird]

You're not quite right about this. From the FWS website:

"Private landowners, corporations, state or local governments, or other non-Federal landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harm (or "take") wildlife that is listed as endangered or threatened must first obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Part of the process of obtaining such a permit involves developing a "habitat conservation plan."

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/

In the Florida case, the FWS determined that construction of the airport would not impact the putative IBWO habitat. It seems to me that this could be challenged in court, as could the sufficiency of Environmental Impact Statements prepared under Federal and/or State Law. I don't know if this has been done or whether legal remedies have been exhausted.

The problem is not so much the airport itself (though that may be bad enough); it's the opening of a remote, sparsely populated area to more tourism and development that will do the most damage.

At this point, I think there's been a net gain for conservation from the possible presence of IBWOs in various locations. . .especially if you include protection of the Congaree in the equation. I don't think the success or failure of efforts to confirm their survival will have much impact one way or the other. Attitudes toward conservation are pretty well hardened in this country.

As for other threatened and endangered species in the Choctawhatchee region, here's a link:

http://www.nokuse.org/wildlife/listed.htm

Good luck. Case law is often very different than what is published on the website!

 

[TupeloN8]

Based on that, you have made a series of impolite assumptions about Tyler Hicks which fits your gut feeling. I would suggest that such a personality profile performed over the Internet without any actual contact with Mr. Hicks is extremely unreliable.

Tom Nelson's blog is the last place to look for integrity, as he's a right-wing hack with multiple dubious agendas. I'm surprised that anyone who values their own integrity would touch that blog with a ten foot pole.

:clap:

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Tom Nelson's blog is the last place to look for integrity, as he's a right-wing hack with multiple dubious agendas.

What are his multiple dubious agendas? Please enlighten me. Or are you impugning his character without actually having met him?