On page 21, under a videograb from the Luneau video, the following text appears:
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is currently classified as a Code 6 species ("cannot be found") by the ABA Checklist Committee. If definitive evidence of its occurrence were to be published and then evaluated by the Committee, the status of the species would be changed to Code 3 ("rare"). The bird in this videograb is judged by some authorities to be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but the Committee has not endorsed that judgment.Elsewhere in the article, it says that current ABA Checklist Committee members are Bill Pranty, Jon Dunn, Steve Heinl, Andrew Kratter, Paul Lehman, Mark Lockwood, Bruce Mactavish, and Kevin Zimmer.
Posts
9 comments:
In many ways, the ABA is the least of Fitzcrow's problem. The ABA is just like Sibley et al. They are just the science based opposition. They can be negated by just arguing the "science".
But now even many of the True Believers are quietly slinking away. That just leaves the true crazies such as birdforum (except Tim!), fishcrow, and the like.
Fishcrow posted on BIRDCHAT that he will soon publish definitive proof and he didn't get one reply. I suspect everyone is embarrassed to have their name associated with a reply. Hence it's just ignored.
Even the IVORY BILLS LIVE!! blog which has normally been tongue in cheek in taking sides just posted
"...tomorrow we may ponder how many skeptics it takes to screw ...up a rare bird species. . . ". Yes his exasperation is getting the better of him. The Skeptics are now to blame for not being able to find the Ivory Bill!
Some agency people are posting complaints that Skeptics may get their budgets cut.
It's not about the bird anymore. IT'S ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE SKEPTICS.
Is this over or what?
Hopefully, objective heads will continue to prevail at the ABA-CLC. They don't buy the silly video, or the silly cluster of sight records. And, they probably sense a certain level of fraud. Not necessarily an all-out conspiracy to commit blatant fraud, but a kinder, gentler form of "passive" fraud. There's also "petty fraud" involved, a la the Luneau boys claiming that they saw the large woodpecker flush, yadda, yadda, yadda. So, they (CLO) reached the end of the road to fraud, but it was sort of a backroad, so to speak.
RemFitzsenPatrick must be thinking of ways to punish the ABA-CLC. Maybe they can publish a point-counterpoint in Birding.... "The ABA-CLC is incorrect blah, blah, blah....."
By the way, I know that you're all wondering what happened to Super Anon. Well, he/she told me a while back that they were being followed by a van full of guys with binoculars and "Found!" T-shirts. Haven't seen him/her lately.....
yeah, but at this point, how long before someone publishes' the fitz's mustache montage, beside his fuzzy screen captures with all his "consistent with IBWO" crap in some mainstream publication and the wheels just come flying off?
That photo that some anonymous person posted on the skeptic blog is going to be famous ...
tom why does it load so slow?
"tom why does it load so slow?"
Maybe some problem at streamload.com? I've now switched to a photobucket.com link, and it seems to load acceptably fast.
Tom
It’s against the law to stash
An Ivory Bill in a moustache
It’s endangered for heaven’s sake
You better hope this is a mistake
The fine is heavy indeed
You will be made to bleed
But mow Golden-cheek habitat?
You can get away with that
The agency people are away
They went to Arkansas for their pay
This is so funny. First the fellow posts the Moustache pic but nobody follows it because it is a cut and paste thing. Including me! I don't follow it either.
But I remember the fellow or someone kept posting on this and other blogs, "yeah but what about the IBWO in Fitzcrow's moustache?"
He couldn't get anyone to respond. We just all ignored him. Then suddenly TOM posted it in all it's full glory and now we all think it's the funniest cleverest thing we have ever seen.
What a hoot! Sorry fellow! You almost missed your 15 minutes.
"Is this over or what?"
Not yet. Fitzcrow hasn't capitulated.
The ABA checklist committee has taken no action with regards to the IBWO, neither affirmative nor negative. It has deferred decision for the time being. This was made clear months ago; the photo caption in the current issue does not change their stance of "no vote, no position." Indeed, the IBWO is not mentioned at all in the actual body of the article, which focuses instead on the controversial 2003 record of Thick-billed Parrot from New Mexico.
It is misleading to present this non-action as a rejection.
Anonymous wrote:
"It is misleading to present this non-action as a rejection."
Don't see what is misleading in Tom's presentation. The caption reads pretty clearly as a rejection of the Luneau video, etc. as definitive evidence. And "definitive evidence" is what Cornell continues to "sell."
How was it that Jon Dunn (checklist committee member) referred to Cornell's evidence?
"I've never seen such awful documentation on any record. I just look at the video and say, `God, it's hopeless.' It's hard for the human being, in such high-profile cases, to just relax and say, `Well, maybe we made a mistake.'"
Come on Fitz, just say "Well, maybe we made a mistake." so we can all move forward. It'd be really tough going at first, but this would all go away eventually. People would respect you for doing that.
Post a Comment