The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with their partners in the South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group, are seeking volunteers for conducting ground searches for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) in South Carolina for the 2006 Field Season. Work will begin on/around 20 February 2006 and may continue through 30 April 2006.
...
The South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group is a joint partnership between Federal and State agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private entities, sharing information and resources related to Ivory-billed Woodpecker issues in South Carolina. This group will be funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct searches for IBWO in South Carolina during the 2006 Field Season.
“Gender-responsive climate action”
2 hours ago
Posts
6 comments:
Is this another strange state to be checking for the bird?
(unsure, not making a statement)
I thought the I'ON swamp had been thoroughly checked for Bachman's Warbler in years past.
I'd like to think they were checking for IBWO's during those
searches.
I don't remember seeing any rumored IBWO sightings from that state. I think they'd better check for Bachman's while they are at it... if someone claims they
saw or heard, a Bachman's,
at least they can say they already searched such and such area.
Though Bachman's habitat was likely on the edges of IBWO habitat.
Paul Sutera - New Paltz, NY
Okay, Tom, so what's your point? (BTW, I was the poster of that request for volunteers). So the USFWS wants to search for Ivory-bills in other states. Is that so bad? We've had some interesting reports from SC. It would be irresponsible NOT to follow them up, don't you think? We can't dismiss all reports as those from crack-pots. Most maybe, but not all.
These opinions are my own and have nothing to do with those of my employer, blah, blah, blah....
In my humble opinion, publicly-funded Ivory-bill searches in other states are currently based on a flawed premise (ie, "we have a recent, confirmed record of a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas").
In my view, the probability of success is vanishingly low, so spending public funds in this way is highly questionable.
If these searches were based on possibly credible sightings (some prior to the big announcement), and targeted at habitat that looks pretty good, and would use the tiniest fraction of federal tax dollars, would you still object? We can't find the good, definitive photograph if we don't look. We also can't blow off EVERY sighting that comes in. Some are NOT made by crackpots!
If you read the announcement, the amount of money being spent is very small. The plan is being conducted extremely frugally. They are providing the volunteers with modest mileage reimbursement at well below the going mileage rate for federal employees, with housing, and with basic field equipment (boats, portable GPS, cameras) much of which is probably already in inventory and all of which will be useful for many projects, not just this one. The volunteers receive no stipend and provide their own clothing and optics.
This looks to me like a very thrifty, even shoestring, project that is trying to make use of volunteer expertise to get maximum data for minimal cost.
To answer Paul:
South Carolina had a proven population of Ivorybills into the 20th Century, and there have been many post-"extinction" sightings there at multiple localities as recently as 2004. It has always been high on the list of Ivorybill potential, probably just below Lousisiana and Florida. The "I'On swamp" (which is actually just the "Iron Swamp" written in "dialect") is a very small part of the area under consideration, and has always figured more prominently for Bachman's Warbler than for Ivorybills.
Post a Comment