Mike Stuckey, senior news editor at MSNBC, uses some skeptical wording in
today's MSNBC article on the Ivory-bill (the bold font is mine):
As scientists debate whether the ivory-billed woodpecker, once widely assumed to have been extinct for decades, still haunts the Big Woods of Arkansas, environmentalists have enlisted the bird as a key soldier in their fight against a massive irrigation project.
...
Despite the Cornell researchers’ presentation of numerous sightings, audio recordings of what they say are the woodpecker’s distinctive “double knock” and its “kent” call and one bit of grainy video footage of an alleged ivory-bill in flight, there are experts who remain skeptical that any of the birds are still alive.
...
Meanwhile, Cornell’s Gallagher, who has now published “The Grail Bird” about the hunt for the ivory-bill, says it has been “a difficult year” in the bid for new sightings. “The water level is the lowest it’s been in years” in the swamps and bayous of the Big Woods, and “a lot of places, you can’t even get a canoe in there.”
While Gallagher may consider the recent dry weather a liability, Martjan Lammertink apparently disagrees.
Joe Mosby wrote:
It's been drier than normal this year in eastern Arkansas. Martjan Lammertink of the Netherlands said that's an asset. Lammertink is working for Cornell on this project and is regarded as a world authority on large woodpeckers. "The water is lower, and we can get to places on foot that we could not reach last time," he said.
Posts
8 comments:
This is not good news. Things aren't looking good for the IBWO.
They should have found something by now...something.
Reminds me of 4 years ago...the Pearl River Search.
Darn.
Every person quoted from Cornell tells a different story -- low water is good, low water is bad, we'll release hot news if we get it, we'll release all the results in May be patient, we've not found much, we've found some really interesting things. Seems like there's not much to be learned from what they say.
Tom: you also missed a reference to the "low water" question in Eirik A.T.B's article. EATB was in on the big Pearl River search. EB said:
"The true believers...argue that THE BIRDS WERE OVERLOOKED BECAUSE because the area is usually inaccessible and IT WAS ONLY THE DROUGHT THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE TO GET IN AND SEE THE WOODPECKERS. It won't wash." (All caps emphasis is mine)
In other words, the "true believers" at Pearl held that the bird was originally found because a drought made them accessible. The birds were never relocated, according to the party line, because the drought broke and flooded out the access routes to them.
Two years later, the "true believers" once again have reversed themselves in order to explain why they can't find IBWOs. This time, the drought is PREVENTING them from finding the birds.
It won't do to use the "they're two different swamps" card. They're in different locations, granted. However, if the two didn't have similar habitat, terrain and hydrologies to the original IBWO habitat, the believers couldn't really suggest that the birds are there anyhow. A drought ought to have the same effect of permitting/barring access in one swamp as much as another.
So, how many contradictions are we up to?
1) IBWOs are unwary/IBWOs are wary
2) IBWOs are gregarious/IBWOs are loners
3) Low water makes birds accessible; high water doesn't/low water makes birds inaccessible; high water does
4) There are no aberrant Pils/there are aberrant Pils
5)Blue Jays can sound like IBWOs/Blue Jays can't sound like IBWOs,
etc., etc.
All of which is completely irrelevent to the birds, which are either there or not there just the same regardless of all our arguing about whether or not they should be.
People are superb at coming up with explanations for anything based on anything. I think this is more reflecting just the fact that the researchers are not getting together to "get their stories straight;" rather, individual researchers are simply expressing their own individual experiences and opinions.
Yes by all means lets drain more wetlands, now we know what you skeptics really stand for, the army corp. and lumber industry. You must be so proud of your efforts.
Hey, I happen to think that habitat conservation is a wonderful thing.
However, I don't think it logically follows that we need to pretend that an out-of-focus picture of a branch stub is evidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives.
Yes by all means lets drain more wetlands, now we know what you skeptics really stand for, the army corp. and lumber industry.
That is true baloney. We need to protect the environment regardless. Your statement is like the old "if you don't agree with me you must hate America!" arguments. Completely out of line.
Post a Comment