Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

[fangsheath]

Assuming that the ivory-bill will persist if we merely expand and restore potential habitat, a very tenuous assumption in my view, an achievable solution to the problem begins with a realistic understanding of the prevailing local ethos. Trying to apply a solution that is uninformed about local people will be unsuccessful. Louisiana black bear conservation is a case in point. I happen to know a private landowner who has been active in La. black bear conservation for some years now. Yet he has no desire for “do-gooders” as he calls them to come on his property to “help” him with endangered species. What is enabling the bear to increase, and it is increasing, is a combination of land acquisition by the USFWS and especially management arrangements with private landowners like this person. I have little doubt that these same arrangements have saved many acres of ivory-bill habitat. This will continue to happen, quietly, out of the limelight, as we seek common ground between birders, hunters, and landowners, and find achievable solutions rather than push a very unpopular agenda, alienate people, and achieve nothing at all. What is unhelpful to such efforts is uninformed, arrogant preachiness from well-meaning people who know very little about these matters.

In my opinion the biggest single change resulting from the ivory-bill rediscovery is an acknowledgment from land managers that snags and old trees are essential in bottomlands. Previously it was widely assumed that there was no endangered woodpecker in bottomlands to be concerned about, and the hostility of forestry people toward snags and “overmature timber” prevailed. Now that we have a recovery process and working groups specifically working toward recovering this species, it is impossible to ignore the importance of these elements.

 

[Ivory Bill]

Sounds good to me

Assuming that the ivory-bill will persist if we merely expand and restore potential habitat, a very tenuous assumption in my view, an achievable solution to the problem begins with a realistic understanding of the prevailing local ethos. Trying to apply a solution that is uninformed about local people will be unsuccessful. Louisiana black bear conservation is a case in point. I happen to know a private landowner who has been active in La. black bear conservation for some years now. Yet he has no desire for “do-gooders” as he calls them to come on his property to “help” him with endangered species. What is enabling the bear to increase, and it is increasing, is a combination of land acquisition by the USFWS and especially management arrangements with private landowners like this person. I have little doubt that these same arrangements have saved many acres of ivory-bill habitat. This will continue to happen, quietly, out of the limelight, as we seek common ground between birders, hunters, and landowners, and find achievable solutions rather than push a very unpopular agenda, alienate people, and achieve nothing at all. What is unhelpful to such efforts is uninformed, arrogant preachiness from well-meaning people who know very little about these matters.

In my opinion the biggest single change resulting from the ivory-bill rediscovery is an acknowledgment from land managers that snags and old trees are essential in bottomlands. Previously it was widely assumed that there was no endangered woodpecker in bottomlands to be concerned about, and the hostility of forestry people toward snags and “overmature timber” prevailed. Now that we have a recovery process and working groups specifically working toward recovering this species, it is impossible to ignore the importance of these elements.

Seems the bird has despite the odds staved off the enevitable
To its own credit it has survived this long
Agreed private landowners probably hold a sizable piece of the habitat
puzzle ...
And amicable relations with them and hunters/outdoorsmen alike play
a pivotol role in sustaining lands and assiting in acquiring additional
tracts/acreage for the future use of this and other species
Shawn J

 

[bitterntwisted]

Seems the bird has despite the odds staved off the enevitable
To its own credit it has survived this long
Agreed private landowners probably hold a sizable piece of the habitat
puzzle ...
And amicable relations with them and hunters/outdoorsmen alike play
a pivotol role in sustaining lands and assiting in acquiring additional
tracts/acreage for the future use of this and other species
Shawn J

You got some line-break issue going on, Shawn, or are you just the worst poet ever?

Graham

 

[Ivory Bill]

what are you referring to

You got some line-break issue going on, Shawn, or are you just the worst poet ever?

Graham

Not a poetic bone in my body.
My grammar may not be the best but I do enjoy the forum here.
How are you doing today Graham?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Assuming that the ivory-bill will persist if we merely expand and restore potential habitat, a very tenuous assumption in my view, an achievable solution to the problem begins with a realistic understanding of the prevailing local ethos. Trying to apply a solution that is uninformed about local people will be unsuccessful. Louisiana black bear conservation is a case in point. I happen to know a private landowner who has been active in La. black bear conservation for some years now. Yet he has no desire for “do-gooders” as he calls them to come on his property to “help” him with endangered species. What is enabling the bear to increase, and it is increasing, is a combination of land acquisition by the USFWS and especially management arrangements with private landowners like this person. I have little doubt that these same arrangements have saved many acres of ivory-bill habitat. This will continue to happen, quietly, out of the limelight, as we seek common ground between birders, hunters, and landowners, and find achievable solutions rather than push a very unpopular agenda, alienate people, and achieve nothing at all. What is unhelpful to such efforts is uninformed, arrogant preachiness from well-meaning people who know very little about these matters.

In my opinion the biggest single change resulting from the ivory-bill rediscovery is an acknowledgment from land managers that snags and old trees are essential in bottomlands. Previously it was widely assumed that there was no endangered woodpecker in bottomlands to be concerned about, and the hostility of forestry people toward snags and “overmature timber” prevailed. Now that we have a recovery process and working groups specifically working toward recovering this species, it is impossible to ignore the importance of these elements.

Interesting post, but a few questions:

You mention that the "IBWO rediscovery" has lead to acknowledgement that snags and old trees are essential. Given that rediscovery is disputed and based on a few, relatively short sightings of birds that in the observers mind resembled IBWOs, surely it’s a bit far-fetched to say that we have learned anything new about its ecology? Yes retaining dead wood is bound to be important for woodpecker species and no doubt for a host of invertebrates and invertebrate feeders, but surely that’s just common sense and could have been suggested as a beneficial management practice for a host of species long before any claims of IBWO rediscovery?

You mention USFWS negotiation with land-owners. I agree that alienating land-owners is bound to be detrimental to conservation efforts. However, what are the carrots and sticks involved? Does the FWS carry any legal clout to prevent deleterious activities or have funds to subside conservation friendly practices? It’s all well and good to say that common ground can be found between birders, hunters and landowners through negotiation, but ultimately the activities of most people are governed by self-interest, to the extent that this trait above all else is the root cause of conservation problems. Time and time again and all round the world one can observe sub-optimal solutions for society in situations were public commodities are managed privately.

 

[fangsheath]

You misunderstood me. I did not mean to suggest that new info from the rediscovery about the needs of the ivory-bill was being plugged into the management equation now. I meant that before, the managers largely ignored the ivory-bill and every other bottomland woodpecker. Since other bottomland woodpeckers are not endangered it was not on their minds. No, the ivory-bill was not officially extinct. But there was also no recovery effort for this bird. Now there is. This has a huge effect on management.

As regards negotiations with landowners, it is not only the USFWS involved. It is state agencies, TNC, and some other private organizations. TNC IS a private landowner. These people absolutely understand that self-interest is involved in conservation along with most everything else. Even environmental organizations like the Sierra Club understand this. What those of us who I would call realistic work toward is enlightened self-interest. The complexities of the problem demand a balanced and adaptive approach, including land acquisition by the federal and state government (definitely occurring) as well as management agreements with private landowners. Simplistic notions of "public is better than private" or vice versa do not deal with the realities on the ground.

The USFWS should publish a Draft Recovery Plan for the ivory-bill soon. There will be a public comment period. I invite everyone to give them input. But whether you do or not, read the plan. The USFWS and its conservation partners are moving forward with this bird. I welcome thoughtful remarks or questions. Peanut gallery nonsense will be ignored, I don't have the time.

 

[MMinNY]

Whether or not anything new has been learned about IBWO ecology, I suspect that the need to develop a recovery plan (which is happening without regard to the controversy in the birding community) has altered the US government's attitude toward the management of potential habitat, whether or not such management approaches would have been commonsensical in the past.

As to carrots and sticks, one thing that has been lost in the debate (and amidst the accusations of venality that have been tossed about) is the role of the Nature Conservancy and the Nokuse Plantation.

http://www.nokuse.org/

Land acquisition is very important, as are other carrots like conservation easements. Everyone involved in the search and "recovery" is very concerned about the broader habitat issues, and I would suggest that even if no photo is ever obtained, the attention brought to the habitat by the rediscovery has been salutary.

Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the specifics of what the US government is doing can address your question about carrots and sticks in more detail.

Interesting post, but a few questions:

You mention that the "IBWO rediscovery" has lead to acknowledgement that snags and old trees are essential. Given that rediscovery is disputed and based on a few, relatively short sightings of birds that in the observers mind resembled IBWOs, surely it’s a bit far-fetched to say that we have learned anything new about its ecology? Yes retaining dead wood is bound to be important for woodpecker species and no doubt for a host of invertebrates and invertebrate feeders, but surely that’s just common sense and could have been suggested as a beneficial management practice for a host of species long before any claims of IBWO rediscovery?

You mention USFWS negotiation with land-owners. I agree that alienating land-owners is bound to be detrimental to conservation efforts. However, what are the carrots and sticks involved? Does the FWS carry any legal clout to prevent deleterious activities or have funds to subside conservation friendly practices? It’s all well and good to say that common ground can be found between birders, hunters and landowners through negotiation, but ultimately the activities of most people are governed by self-interest, to the extent that this trait above all else is the root cause of conservation problems. Time and time again and all round the world one can observe sub-optimal solutions for society in situations were public commodities are managed privately.

 

[Russ Jones]

The “optimistic viewpoint”? Get real. It’s the credulous viewpoint. When you believe every Tom, Dick, and Fishcrow who claims to have seen an Ivory-bill, that’s not optimism. That’s credulity.

Who believes every Tom, Dick and Harry again? For the record I believe very few of the sightings made public, only a few made by people knowledgable enough and reputable enough to be taken seriously. Lumping everyone that believes the species survives into a "credulous" catagory is very presumptuous and speaks volumes about you and your reasoning. The majority of people on both sides are very rational, its folks like yourself with your sweeping assumptions and assertions that drag the conversation down. I'm not sure if you are deliberatly polarizing the issue or if you genuinly think this way. Did you put any thought into this post at all? Take your time next time.

Russ

 

[Ilya Maclean]

I'm sort of warming to the idea of an illusive species serving as a flagship for habitat conservation........;-)

 

[fangsheath]

To give just a limited idea of the carrots and sticks involved - It is easy for those of us who do not own large tracts of land to forget that this usually means large amounts of property tax. Land that is not producing revenue is usually consuming it. Many large tracts are leased to hunting clubs - Money comes in, the forest is not destroyed. This is how a LOT of private land has escaped the plow. In many cases these tracts are eventually obtained by the state or the USFWS. A conservation easement is another possibility. This often means the market value of the property is reduced, reducing property tax. And there are often other tax breaks. For many landowners, especially corporations, there is also the positive publicity. Conservation organizations will make a point to shower landowners with praise and awards that enter into conservation easements, donate land, or even sell land for conservation purposes. Witness the positive press generated by International Paper Co. regarding the sale of large tracts of their land. Here in southern Texas, the Valley Land Fund has a photo contest with substantial cash awards, giving ranchers an incentive to keep the brush intact so that their photographer can get that winning shot of a rare bird or other animal. The sticks are varied, the issue of liability is always on landowners' minds. That is why many of them sell or donate the land outright. And large corporations such as oil companies often have an image problem they want to try to improve. But the truth is, large tracts of private land are often still in forest because the landowner already values the forest. Often they are hunters or fishermen, sometimes they just love the wildness of the place. They frequently just need a polite, friendy nudge, not an imperious demand, to bring them on board in the recovery process.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Fang:

It sounds like what you are saying is that if we approach people with respect we may very often receive a respectful response -- and one that we may like. If we don't receive the response we would like at least if we were polite in the first instance we will be less likely to alienate people such that if the situation changes we may be able to work with them in the future.

That is a concept. Listen to people, determine their concerns, and try to work with them to resolve their concerns AND meet our goals.

And, even if we can't work something out at least we won't have made permanent enemies along the way that can later come back to haunt us. In fact, with such an approach we may be able to make friends along the way.

I am not so polly anna ish that I don't understand the reality that this will not always work. However, I do believe that such an approach is very likely to get positive results (because it has -- I know an "evil landowner" that wants me to put her timber rights in as much of a stranglehold as possible without reducing the value of her land)

And in the end we would all be much happier.

 

[curunir]

Whether or not anything new has been learned about IBWO ecology, I suspect that the need to develop a recovery plan (which is happening without regard to the controversy in the birding community) has altered the US government's attitude toward the management of potential habitat, whether or not such management approaches would have been commonsensical in the past.

As to carrots and sticks, one thing that has been lost in the debate (and amidst the accusations of venality that have been tossed about) is the role of the Nature Conservancy and the Nokuse Plantation.

http://www.nokuse.org/

Land acquisition is very important, as are other carrots like conservation easements. Everyone involved in the search and "recovery" is very concerned about the broader habitat issues, and I would suggest that even if no photo is ever obtained, the attention brought to the habitat by the rediscovery has been salutary.

Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the specifics of what the US government is doing can address your question about carrots and sticks in more detail.

Can you go through condemnation proceedings on a conservation easement?

 

[MMinNY]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you mean to ask whether a government can exercise the power of eminent domain over a property that has a conservation easement attached and thereby extinguish the easement, I believe the answer is that it can, but I think such a scenario is pretty unlikely.

Can you go through condemnation proceedings on a conservation easement?

 

[Sidewinder]

I'd love it to still be there too Russ. There's a forum for 'believers' though. Sceptics can't post. Except no one uses it. They all come here and then complain. Wonder why?

Since November 9, 2006

IBWO Researchers Forum (ibwo.net): 636 posts by "believers"
This thread: 566 posts by "believers" and others

 

[fangsheath]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you mean to ask whether a government can exercise the power of eminent domain over a property that has a conservation easement attached and thereby extinguish the easement, I believe the answer is that it can, but I think such a scenario is pretty unlikely.

Agreed. A bit more general info on conservation easements can be found at:

http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/privatelands/conservationeasements/
http://www.lta.org/conserve/options.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement

 

[Edward woodwood]

Since November 9, 2006

IBWO Researchers Forum (ibwo.net): 636 posts by "believers"
This thread: 566 posts by "believers" and others

and 90% are of the 'no content' type

the other 10% have rewritten the ecology of a species in its absence

ramblings of madmen. IBWO on three state lists? eeesh!

Tim

 

[EMalatesta]

Who believes every Tom, Dick and Harry again? For the record I believe very few of the sightings made public, only a few made by people knowledgable enough and reputable enough to be taken seriously.

I don't remember you joining with the sceptics in questioning any of the Ivory-bill sightings. For the record, why don't you list some of the sightings you find questionable? Better yet, why don't you announce them on the True Believers' forum.

Lumping everyone that believes the species survives into a "credulous" catagory is very presumptuous and speaks volumes about you and your reasoning.

A small clarification is needed. The sceptics are questioning the reported sight records, not necessarily the possibility that the species still exists. But yes, I agree that my statements speak volumes about me and my reasoning. I've been a very active birder for over 15 years. I've followed bird sighting reports equally as long. I know that non-migratory, diurnal birds are not this difficult to find and relocate, and I know that you can't trust everyone who posts rare bird reports to the public. In fact, the only reports you can really trust are from those people who have an established track record of posting sightings that were subsequently verified by other birders. As to people who don't have that track record, I never know what they saw. When it comes to bird identification trust is earned, never assumed.

The majority of people on both sides are very rational, its folks like yourself with your sweeping assumptions and assertions that drag the conversation down.

I disagree. The True Believers are not birders, and have no basis for announcing their opinions to the public. As far as rational arguments, you won't get much better than John Mariani. He tries to be as diplomatic as possible under the circumstances, but his posts on this thread have either been ignored or viciously attacked by the True Believers.

I'm not sure if you are deliberatly polarizing the issue or if you genuinly think this way.

The issue is already polarized.

Did you put any thought into this post at all? Take your time next time.

Russ

Every time I read a post from a True Believer I think to myself, "what a delusional, credulous, starry-eyed True Believer."

Save your next questions for the people who are posting sight records to the public. Those are the people who warrant vigorous, probing interrogation. No point in questioning the questioners.

 

[Tuna Slushie]

The issue is already polarized.

So why not make it worse, Mr All Knowing God of Birding?

Every time I read a post from a True Believer I think to myself, "what a delusional, credulous, starry-eyed True Believer."

Every time I read crap like that I cringe, which is actually probably what you're after if you continue to 'contribute' as you do. So much for respecting other viewpoints.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Whether or not anything new has been learned about IBWO ecology, I suspect that the need to develop a recovery plan (which is happening without regard to the controversy in the birding community) has altered the US government's attitude toward the management of potential habitat, whether or not such management approaches would have been commonsensical in the past.

As to carrots and sticks, one thing that has been lost in the debate (and amidst the accusations of venality that have been tossed about) is the role of the Nature Conservancy and the Nokuse Plantation.

http://www.nokuse.org/

Land acquisition is very important, as are other carrots like conservation easements. Everyone involved in the search and "recovery" is very concerned about the broader habitat issues, and I would suggest that even if no photo is ever obtained, the attention brought to the habitat by the rediscovery has been salutary.

Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the specifics of what the US government is doing can address your question about carrots and sticks in more detail.

Out of interest. What info is the recovery plan based on?

 

[MMinNY]

The USFWS material has not been updated since September of 2005, but here are some links that provide details about the plan and the people involved:

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/IBWFinalRecoveryPlanOutline.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/IBW-Recovery-Terms.pdf

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/...ries_reports_0506/recoverymeet1/document_view

They've missed the deadline for the preliminary report, which was supposed to be made public in September of '06.

Out of interest. What info is the recovery plan based on?