So, the fact that it is being spent in the South Eastern United States, and not in Brazil, Sabah or even Chad is the issue? Are not the bottomland hardwoods of the US just as valuable to the birds that spend some part of their life there, as the rainforests of Brazil are to the tropical species? As has been pointed out, several other species will benefit even if the woodpecker is not there. The conservation benefit is well worth my 3 cents!
The comparisons with Chad, Brazil and Sabah were in a response to Saler's comparison with B52s and aren't relevant except to illustrate a wider point about perversities in conservation funding, which is why I made them. Although bottomland hardwood is just as valuable to the birds that live there as the coastal forests in Brazil and rainforests in Sabah a lot more bird species live in the latter two.
The other comparisons I made, which you don't refer to are relevant as they involve the same pot of money. Additionally, only a small fraction (6%) of the IBWO recovery money will be spent on protecting / enhancing habitat. The remainder is to be frittered away on research. See my earler post and several others about the futility of this.
Anyway, I believe the issue to be this. Most people realise that IBWOs are extinct, including most of the staff at FWS. You said so yourself. However FWS stuck their necks out early on so are now unwilling to admit they're wrong, because it would mean they've been wasting tax-payers money. So rather than admit they're wrong, they think it better to waste more tax-payers money in the hope that somehow people might forget about the whole debacle a few years from now. If you want to defend that course of action, fair enough, but don't try to tell me its "all conservation", cos it isn't. It's deliberate lying and money wasting.
p.s. the Chocfullofpiwosawatchee "IBWO" video is out here if anybody wants a laugh:
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/scie...culty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/ibillvideo.html