Since the original announcement of the Arkansas rediscovery there has been a small segment of the ornithological community that has been less than happy with the quality of the documentary evidence that has been presented to substantiate the sightings. This is inevitable in a scientific setting and everyone involved agrees that stronger documentation is vital. We can be no less demanding of any possible encounters that might occur in our own project.
AI Energy Surge – Microsoft to Re-Open Three Mile Island
28 minutes ago
Posts
8 comments:
John Arvin is a great birder. A nice guy. In the "old days", I'm sure he would have been the first to look askance at the data presented so far and say "hold it right there, partner, not so fast". After all, he's the fellow that hsas had to reject tailess grackles misidentified as "antpittas" in S. Texas and such.
Now he works for a non-profit and he has to help fund it. So he went out and got some search monies from Fish and Wildlife. Well good for the non-profit.
I can only sigh for the "good old days".
Isn't it possible to do a search without necessarily having to believe the evidence from Arkansas?
As an aside, I'd like to say it's sad when we're arguing about $60,000 in conservation money, compared to how much more the government spends on worse crap.
Yes, but think of all the habitat, including bottomlands, and actual living bird species that could use the monies.
As I said, it's a shame when $60,000 represents a huge chunk of change. Or even the $10-20 million being spent in Arkansas, especially when you consider how much more is being spent on a single pork barrel project like a bridge no one really wants.
I'm not suggesting that there should be enough money so we could just 'throw away' a million here or there. But isn't the fact that conservation is so woefully underfunded the bigger problem? Why not get up in arms about that?
All this commotion about how the pie is being cut up instead of complaining about how small the pie actually is...
You've set up a straw man and now are attempting to knock it down. Everyone on this blog is going to agree with the fact that conservation is underfunded. Heck, we've been in conservation for years. Everyone knows that fact.
But let's use the monies that we DO get on real living species.
But is $60,000 too much to spend on a search in Texas (plus another $60,000 in South Carolina)?
$60K buys you a GS-9/11 biologist for one year or maybe 5 to 30 acres of land. In most cases, that isn't going to make much of an impact. Considering that there haven't been any large-scale organized searches for Ivory-billeds in TX or SC, is it that big of a waste? I'm sure you'll say it is because you are certain the Ivory-billed is extinct, but I say spending $60K is a small risk to take a look.
Everyone on this blog is going to agree with the fact that conservation is underfunded. Heck, we've been in conservation for years. Everyone knows that fact.
But let's use the monies that we DO get on real living species.
My point was that many people on this blog seem to be expending a whole lot of energy discrediting the Ivory-billed claims (and I'm not claiming that those claims are correct). Have these same people ever put this much effort into trying to get more conservation funding?
Every Skeptic on this blog that I know has dedicated his life and time to conservation.
Now exactly what is your point? That we should waste $60,000? I know of very valuable conservation research that is unfunded that could use those monies.
Post a Comment