I think a point that needs to be made, is that the search for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is providing direct benefit via habitat preservation to several species of neotropical migrant songbirds. Warblers such as Hooded, Prothonotary, and Cerulean in particular use the same habitat as the Ivory-Billed, and have undergone dramatic declines in the past several years. Keeping the public enthusiastic about the search will no doubt preserve more habitat, and perhaps reverse the decline of these neotropical migrants. That, to me, would be a success story even if the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was found to no longer exist, and would turn a possible conservation tragedy to a conservation victory.I think it's bad policy to intentionally deceive the public, and I doubt that most of us will eventually view this whole sorry saga as a "conservation victory".
Sunday
23 minutes ago
Posts
12 comments:
Although I'm convinced that the ivory-bill was identified correctly I wouldn't call a deliberate misrepresentation a "conservation victory". By the way - does anybody know when the news of the 2005/2006 search get published?
Michael (m.strobl4@chello.at)
Michael,
I went from "convinced based on Cornell's reputation" to "disgusted" simply by viewing all of the evidence. So many have questioned the evidence that I am certain that if more were found, it would already have been released by Cornell. Besides, humans are lousy at keeping secrets.
May 10th is the magical date when all will be revealed. Seven pair will be revealed is my latest prediction. Then you Skeptics will be put in your place, never to darken the doorway of science again.
(Although I still love Paul, he only recently became a Skepic under the relentless attack of people like YOU.)
So May 10th, the eminent Dr. Fitzpatrick's day of truth as I call it. Or before. Or a week on either side. (just in case Cornell's computers are down for a while and they can't get the scientific paper all type up nicely)
Signed,
The True Believer
Filling the deck chairs on the Titanic
Having spearheaded the largest conservation story in the last century (based on some of the flimsiest evidence obtained in the last two centuries) the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is advertising (on their website) for a “Marketing Manager for Citizen Science & Education”. They also seek an “experienced development officer to fill the newly created position of Senior Director, Development and Philanthropy”. The latter is a new position indicating that Lab has recently obtained enough funding to expand its staff.
If it is true that there is no such thing as bad publicity then the CLO would seem to be in a great position to both educate and fleece those who first heard of the Lab when the “IBWO rediscovery” was announced last spring. While neither job description states that applicants should have complete contempt for fact-based scientific inquiry and the general public, it would seem both would be necessary for either position.
This is some serious "ends justify any means" reasoning. What separates this from the moral or ethical violations alleged of "industry" researchers? If "environmental" types will obfusticate or deceive to achieve their ends, then where or when does it stop? Do we fabricate phony evidence of threatened species (recent USFWS lynx fiasco)? Do we cobble up phony global warming results (several questionable studies/claims)? Inflate already-extrapolated #'s of species becoming extinct? Hey, they'd all lead to another "conservation victory". Given several pro-environmental alternatives, will the one that's selected be chosen on the basis of who's the best prevaricator? "Enviromentalists," say hello to Rush Limbaugh - he's been accusing you of just this attitude for years.
Even as a scientist I realize that efforts require money. After all, the Republicans didn't get into power by just having true believers. They could fund raise too.
BUT misleading the public is a bad short term solution. Just look at Bush's policies.
If Cornell can get back to good science-backed conservation, then all the power to them. As for Fitz, he won't get the benefit of another "Elvis" sighting in his lifetime. Cornell should move beyond the "Fitz era".
What say you LSU?
I think, we can all pretty much agree with Don Hendershot's "Swami" prediction on the upcoming CLO report. Don needs a Medal of Recognition from the Skeptic Convention. How about a free head cam and Arkansas license plate?
Where do the Skeptics go after the report is issued. Life just won't be the same. The BirdForum gentlemen and Mary Scott followers will continue to believe that their are IBWOs skulking around every Southern state and maybe Alaska too. I can admire their earnestness but their True Believer mentality is a wee bit scary.
CLO and it's followers (Nature Conservancy, Audubon, Arkansas tourist industry, et al) will continue their mission.
I'll be lost!
They'd do just as well telling the tale of the demise of the IBWO as incentive to reforest more of the South. Theodore Roosevelt put aside the lands of the Adirondack Park in NY State, the largest wilderness in the Northeast.
Now these are mature forests.
What happened in the South? What could be more egregious than the mowing down of the Singer Tract...
And now there is little old-growth forest. Does there need to be a single reason like the IBWO to restore the old-growth forest?
Better to refine and broaden the message.
Paul Sutera
Well True Believer, I poked my head out the door up here in the cold North and heard an IBWO kent-kent'g away. In fact my Blue-Jay
was more dead-on than the "possible IBWO" recorded in 2005 by the ARU. I'm glad I didn't fall down on my binoculars.
Cornell admits that there *are* Blue Jays out there that sound a lot closer to the IBWO than the Blue Jay they recorded. But the Blue Jay they recorded gives a kind of simpering half-hearted little call.
I can still believe in extant IBWOs but I feel it's deceptive to put something out there so far removed from the Blue-Jay's true IBWO-like capabilities. Skeptical of Cornell is different than skeptical of the IBWO.
Of him, that wary, mute, fast flying emissary of the conservation movement... he's heading now to join those 7 pairs, just as you might predict!
Paul Sutera
Seven and a half pairs, Paul? I'll take it.
Signed,
The True Believer
Cornell and the Nature Conservancy's campaigns don't rise to the level of deception. Calling yourself the @@@@@@@ Preservation Group for the purpose of getting support to develop a subdivision does rise to the level of deception.
Curunir said:
Cornell and the Nature Conservancy's campaigns don't rise to the level of deception. Calling yourself the @@@@@@@ Preservation Group for the purpose of getting support to develop a subdivision does rise to the level of deception.
___________________________________
The deception comes from the inability (due to arrogance or academic elitism) to admit a mistake. Instead they continue with the charade and waste precious dollars and labor effort.
Post a Comment