• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

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

The draft recovery plan appears to only include information through early 2006, so that's why there's no mention of the Choctawhatchee.

mmm

sounds well dodgy

there's been plenty of time to include Hill's stuff. Stringclodes is even in there. What gives?

What use is a Recovery Plan that ignores Hill's core population?

one day we'll look back and laugh...

Tim
 

Mike Johnston

Well-known member
Even the guy 'selling' this plan for the FWS, doesn't sound too convinced! http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/23/ap4049402.html:

Fleming said recovery efforts are worth the money even though some have questioned whether the ivory-billed woodpecker sightings were legitimate.

"I would characterize it as tantalizing evidence," he said. "We don't have an active nest right now, we don't have an 8 by 10 glossy to look at every day. ... But we're learning a lot about the bird's habitat needs and things like that. We're optimistic."


I'm sorry, but he needs to do better than that! Especially because PR's meant to be his thing: http://www.aci-2006.com/speakers/jefffleming.htm

Jeff Fleming is assistant regional director for external affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Region. He's been employed by the Service three years and previously served as chief of its Office of Public Affairs.

Prior to joining the Service, Jeff was the communications director at the Izaak Walton League of America for nearly two years. From spring 1991 to fall 2001, Jeff was press secretary to U.S. Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee. For much of that time he also managed conservation policy for the representative.

From 1988 to 1991, Jeff served as a staff reporter for The Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times-Free Press and The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tenn.

This is from the Association of Conservation Information Inc. website - Jeff gave a presentation at their conference last year on 'The Return of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker': http://www.aci-2006.com/thu.htm#10a

With the public excitement around the 2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas, communications were critical to getting the story out quickly and accurately. Nancy Ledbetter (Ark. Game and Fish) and Jeff Fleming (USFWS) will discuss the 'Ivory-billed Woodpecker Communications Working Group' as a model for collaborative communications.

'Ivory-billed Woodpecker Communications Working Group'?! Mmm...
 
Last edited:

Ilya Maclean

charlatan
Again, it is easy to sit at a computer and throw stones. I personally know some members of this team, and it has not been easy to write a plan for something many of them are not convinced is there.

I'm sure it's hard to write, but no matter how hard there's some very fundamental points they've missed. You can a*se about doing pseudo-science using proxy species, stick all sorts of caveats in to deal with the uncertainties – but come on, lets get a reality check! For IBWO populations to recover you need mummy and daddy birds to make baby birds. Any recover plan that ignores that fundamental biological fact isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
 

Ilya Maclean

charlatan
Surely there is some hysterical overreaction here?
It is proposed that 28 million dollars be spent over the next three years improving habitat, planting trees, creating environmental-friendly jobs and generally enhancing the southern forests.
Now if there are 300 million people in the USA, that works out at roughly 0.0933 dollars per head. (I am no mathematician!).
Per year, that works out at 0.0311 dollars per head.
A paltry 3.11 cents per head per year.
And the words I'm reading here to describe this "huge" cost?
Lunacy
Bigfoot
Certifiable
Terrifying
Debacle
Frightening

In comparison, I have come across a price which is truly frightening. Apparently one United States B2 bomber, capable of destroying many habitats and wiping out millions of human lives, costs 2.1 THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.

My two cents!

It's a small amount compared to that spent in a single day on the Iraq war or to the average US tax-payer. It's a large amount in conservation terms. For example, it would buy 4,000 km sq of rainforest. It would probably be enough to safeguard the Atlantic Coastal forests of Brazil or the Kalimantan forest of Sabah. It's 175 times more than will be spent on Inyo California Towhee over the same period and more than 200 times the money to be spent on golden-cheeked warbler, two species for which similar recovery plans exist.

Incidentally, it's also enough to ensure basic healthcare for the entire population of Chad for over a year!
 

CornishExile

rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn!
Thank you Ilya, that's exactly the point I was going to make. ;)

Unintentionally, Salar53 makes an eloquent case for why a Recovery Plan for a species that is still almost certainly extinct is such terrible waste of limited resources. And simultaneously highlights the topsy-turvy spending priorities of those in government.

ce
 

humminbird

Well-known member
It's a small amount compared to that spent in a single day on the Iraq war or to the average US tax-payer. It's a large amount in conservation terms. For example, it would buy 4,000 km sq of rainforest. It would probably be enough to safeguard the Atlantic Coastal forests of Brazil or the Kalimantan forest of Sabah. It's 175 times more than will be spent on Inyo California Towhee over the same period and more than 200 times the money to be spent on golden-cheeked warbler, two species for which similar recovery plans exist.

Incidentally, it's also enough to ensure basic healthcare for the entire population of Chad for over a year!

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!
 

sneaky pete

Active member
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!

I agree that saving habitat in the southeastern USA is the key here. Whether or not the bird exists shouldn't matter. I'll contribute my 3 cents as well.
 

TupeloN8

Active member
United States
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?

Of course they are, the issue isn't which species is more important, it's which species is more extant. I can't believe you're arguing for money spent on the "management of populations" of a bird no one can find populations of.

The conservation benefit is well worth my 3 cents!

Yeah, conservation is obviously great but the ends here don't justify the means. Misleading the masses in order to garner support doesn't go over well when it's done to wage a war in the middle-east or when it's done to save some woods. And certainly not at the expense of other endangered species in other parts of the US which suddenly don't have access to that money.

You may think it's worth your 3 cents but when the whole pie is 4 cents it's a big chunk. No amount of money is going to bring the Ivory-bill back, but funds cut off to other bird research could doom those that can still be saved.
 

sneaky pete

Active member
Of course they are, the issue isn't which species is more important, it's which species is more extant. I can't believe you're arguing for money spent on the "management of populations" of a bird no one can find populations of.



Yeah, conservation is obviously great but the ends here don't justify the means. Misleading the masses in order to garner support doesn't go over well when it's done to wage a war in the middle-east or when it's done to save some woods. And certainly not at the expense of other endangered species in other parts of the US which suddenly don't have access to that money.

You may think it's worth your 3 cents but when the whole pie is 4 cents it's a big chunk. No amount of money is going to bring the Ivory-bill back, but funds cut off to other bird research could doom those that can still be saved.

Many people like myself included arn't ready to rule the ivorybill extinct. Seems to me thats what the recovery plan is all about. What if there are some birds left?
 

lewis20126

Well-known member
are you up for funding anything that might not be extinct?

It might just catch on - why only this evening I put the finishing touches to another Laughing Owl nest box in the hope that it might help the population. Species guardians for extinct birds anyone?

a
 

Ilya Maclean

charlatan
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
 
Last edited:

Jane Turner

Well-known member
humminbird; said:
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!

I thought the point was the incredibly LOW % of the money in the plan, being set aside for habitat conservation.

edit: I see Ilya has already restated the point!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top