April 28, 2006 -- During the winter and spring 2005/06 seasons, researchers cover 8 percent of the 550,000 acres that make up the Big Woods of Arkansas. (During the 2004/05 search, researchers also covered approximately 8 percent of the potential ivory-bill habitat.) During the 2005/06 search, additional evidence gathered includes sightings as well as dozens of new sound recordings that scientists believe may be those of the ivory-bill.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Update from The Nature Conservancy
From this link:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Do you think Cornell will publish a representation of the transected/searched area to demostrate the 8% figure for 2005/2006 season? Why is the number the same as 2004/2005, didn't they have a lot more people searching this year? This number seems spun to me to make it seem like there is still a lot of area to search.
anonanon
Truly that is the intent, we covered 16% of this dark woods. 84% area and 100,000,000 dollars to go.
Here's how I'm guessing they got that number. They took all the researchers transcects (GPS tracks). Buffered them by lets say 50 feet. Laid it over the top of the 'Big Woods', calculated the acreage of overlap and compared it with the total acreage.
But....woodpeckers fly. You don't have to be under them to see them. You can hear them from a greater distance and walk up to them. So, perhaps these transects were in all areas of the "Big Woods" but separated by gaps of 150-200 meters. I would then argue that you've covered a LOT more than you are saying you did.
While it is easy to focus on Fitz as the point man, a total of seventeen authors (listed below) put their names and reputations on the line in the documentation of a "crowning moment in conservation history".
Like it or not their names will forever be associated with this "crowning moment" (or "biggest scam") in conservation history. If Robert McNamara can spend his dotage discussing why the war in Vietnam was wrong, one of these people should consider making some honest money by breaking from this pack and providing details about how the 21st century IBWO “sightings” went wrong. Then they could actually make a contribution to conservation, by documenting how those who manipulate data and the public for their own personal agendas were able to pull this off. The yet unborn naive public of future generations will benefit from that sort of honest (vs. self serving) analysis.
John W. Fitzpatrick
Martjan Lammertink
M. David Luneau, Jr.
Tim W. Gallagher
Bobby R. Harrison
Gene M. Sparling
Kenneth V. Rosenberg
Ronald W. Rohrbaugh
Elliott C. H. Swarthout
Peter H. Wrege
Sara Barker Swarthout
Marc S. Dantzker
Russell A. Charif
Timothy R. Barksdale
J. V. Remsen, Jr.
Scott D. Simon
Douglas Zollner
another fruitless line of inquiry.
of course by declaring that they have 92% of the area as terra incognita leaves the obvious impression that there is a lot room for the 6 pairs of breeding IBWO - to exist undetected.
But of course it also leaves open the equally obvious possibility that when they were searching the 8% that the woodpecker was in the other 92% and when they search the 92% (over the next 10 years) that the woodpecker could be in the 8%.
It really is Schrodingers Cat ...
Remember there are people whose full time job is to do PR on the IBWO - there are consultants working on PR for this ...
We can't even get the world to decide if David Sibley is right about 33.3's wing orientation - you expect to blow the smoke off of what percent of the possible habitat the IBWO was using during the 2005 search season?
Keep dreaming.
Besides they got more evidence from the ARU?
Aahhh yes....the second tier reputations. Not as far to fall.
Van Remsen at LSU? Had a chance to question an IVY and couldn't do it. Blew his chance to be the next head of CLO.
I think that I shall never see
An IBWO knocking on a tree
It's in the forest over there
while I'm a'searching over here
I've got my camera and my bins
If I see it, we all wins
Unless of course it's just the wings
a couple kents or double-knocky things
Oh why oh why can't I see more
the chips litter the forest floor
from scalings and creating holes
my boots, I've just worn out the soles
How much more money will it take
For a solid ID, someone to make
Not silly girls in ghillie suits
or stringers wearing camo boots.
It's sad you know, how things
progress
from videos that are a mess
from audio that's not quite there
to birders pulling out their hair
What I want is not so much
An IBWO I don't need to touch
just an image, that is clear
more blurry videos I just can't bear
So keep on looking, BIRDFORUM dudes
Eat Dinty Moore, and no fresh foods
paint your face, disguise your scent
Just find out where that DAMN bird went.
Damn nice poem! I'll give you this.
Oh Mary Scott
What have you wrought?
Your whisperer
Did not deter
An Ivory bill
From hiding still
may I suggest
An idea best
To get your view
That is your due
You might prefer
To toke reefer
Then just sit back
There’ll be no lack
Of birds you’ll see
If still you lack
The proof or fact
That you deserve
Then get up nerve
Drop some acid
You won’t be placid
I guarantee
That you will see
From 1 to ten
And never again
Will people beg
Or pull your leg
Or doubt you still
You’ll see the bill!!!
This is not a test
Don’t ignore the rest
Bird forum dot net
You will regret
The solution?
Make restitution
That fellow there
In white so fair
Is Tomas Wolfe
He’ll be your guide
Take him in stride
You’ll be famous
Not ignoramus
As you are now
You’ll have tao
New Yorker zen
All by his pen
I love reading the IBWO section of BIRDFORUM. The participants clearly know as much about ornithology and data as people in AOL chatrooms know about sex (i.e. they've never participated but have seen it on the Internet).
Some recent comments in BIRDFORUM questioning the validity of the NY Times Hitt piece because of the Times past problems with a reporter (Jason Blair) fabricating stories misses the point that at least the Times fired Blair when it was clear something was amiss. After the firing they had a detailed examination of the circumstances leading to the dissemination of false information and then took actions to reduce the chances of fraudulent stories in the future. Cornell and TNC continue to celebrate their misinformation and incompetence while asking the public for additional funds. But if you are in the fundraising vs. scientific inquiry business maybe that is just what you do.
The reason the 2005 IBWO announcement was an “earthshaking” event wasn’t because of its scientific or conservation importance - that was just A.A. Allen spinning rapidly in his grave.
"...one of these people should consider making some honest money by breaking from this pack..."
Let's suppose no one breaks from the pack. Eventually the fear that has been expressed here before is realized and people start using this episode to cast doubt on the funding of legitimate conservation projects. But then you see, the villain is "opponents of conservation" (those scoundrels!). If someone breaks from the pack then the villain becomes the errors committed by CLO and friends. So either way the truth comes out and the damage is done, but collectively it's better to hold tight and wait to become a victim of development interests than to admit error. Right?
Of course there is the possibility that someone could demonstrate that scientific inquiry is an accountable endeavor that can be trusted to correct itself. In that case the "opponents of conservation" get their legs knocked out from under them because it can be shown that... "Even under the great pressure of the IBWO episode, scientists did the right thing and stood up for the truth... that trustworthy lot that they are..."
Somebody, make a run for it...
Wait a minute!!
Wolfe in white suit?
I hallucinate
Is it too late?
If I stop now
And say a vow
To go cold turkey
May seem so quirky
But these people
Seem so needful
They need a life
Not pied piper’s fife
Post a Comment