It's only about three months until the next AOU meeting in Veracruz, Mexico.
Here is a link to the scientific program. I see some Cornell names there, but I don't see any mention of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
Can anyone out there predict what (if anything) will happen, Ivory-bill-wise, at that meeting?
Monday
1 hour ago
Posts
33 comments:
Open discussion titled:
"Fitz et al. & the Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Is this legitimate science?"
"With New Breakthroughs in Digital Signal Filtering: Should Bigfoot Videos Still Be Discarded Out of Hand?" Barkscrow as moderator.
"Is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Extinct?: Ornithological Thoughts on What the Meaning of "Is" is."
Panel Discussion-Gallagher, Harrison, Sparling. Fitzcrow attending.
"Funding Your Nonprofit: Does the Truth Really Matter?"
Panel-TNC, Audubon.
Panel and Musical Demonstration.
"Was Lynard Skynards' Song Freebird Actually a Foretelling of the Rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker"
Panel- Mary Scott's Psychic
Musical Dimonstration - Freebird played on Arkansas handmade mandolins and dulcimers.
"Poetry as Modern Commentary on Ornithological Stupidity"
Panel - Ditty Writer, Staff of Rhyme.com will be present handing out totebags and bumber stickers.
Ode to an Anonymous Ditty Writer
I am here but just barely
It’s nice to only post rarely
All these new peeps
I hope they’re here for keeps
I was running out of words
To entertain you nerds
And to make it worse
Rhyme dot Com wanted my purse
They said I had been using
In fact, perhaps abusing
Their free internet site
So I’ve been trying to be contrite
"English in Ornithology: Modern Origins of the Use of Crow to Denote Ornithological Oopsies"
Panel-Anonymous. A demonstration of "crowing" and how to "crow" someone properly will be...errr..demonstrated.
"Ag Extension: Must Chickens Always Come Home to Roost?"
Panel- Science Express editorial staff, Jackson, Sibley, et al.
"Errors of Fact: Fitz et al."
Here's a point on this topic to discuss, the Jackson Auk rebuttal (p. 1) states "Errors of fact.-- Jackson is incorrect in suggesting (p. 2) that the timing of our original publication (Fitz et al. 2005) and book (Gallagher 2005) was "arranged to coincide with the announcement." All members of the Big Woods Conservation Partnership had agreed for more than a year that no public announcement would occur in the absense of a peer-reviewed article. ... Contrary to Jackson's account, announcement of the rediscovery and release of the book took a back seat to the scientific process and the timing thereof."
At the following Houghton Mifflin URL you will find the May 18, 2005 publication date for "The Grail Bird":
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689406
So if the timing of the announcement and "The Grail Bird" publication date was to take a back seat to the timing of the scientific acceptance process, how was the announcement date of May 18 (with the coincidental TGB publication date) selected before the paper had been accepted officially? There was no time to have chosen the May 18th date after acceptance and then decide that the announcement date needed to be moved forward if the acceptance date was "26 April" as the rebuttal indicates. Unless of course the acceptance was a foregone conclusion. Sure sounds arranged to me.
There will be a special screening of "Swamp Thing," filmed in Louisiana, and CLO will point out all the perched Ivory-billeds seen in the background while everyone else watches Adrienne Barbeau.
Great Disappearing Acts
Moderator: Fitzcrow
Panel: Gallagher
Ivorybill, did somebody say Ivorybill. Really, we were just kidding.
Panel: The Secrets to Keep taxpayer's money flowing to fund Federal Jobs.
Panel: US FW&S
USGS
USDA
Panel: The Secrets to Keep taxpayer's money flowing to fund Federal Jobs.
Panel: US FW&S
USGS
USDA
Have any of these federal agencies gotten more funding because of IBWO? I thought one of the arguments against this fiasco was that funding was being diverted from other endangered species programs, i.e., there wasn't a bigger pie, it was just being cut into smaller pieces.
I was being a bit cruel on that one. A shot at huge bureaucracies.
Precious enviro money utilized for good paying jobs for no purpose.
It is not new money.
I cringe when I read about the money wasted on Katrina and Defense and Medicare/Medicaid fraud. If only a small portion of that money could be transferred to Interior and USDA.
I was being a bit cruel on that one. A shot at huge bureaucracies.
Precious enviro money utilized for good paying jobs for no purpose.
It is not new money.
Anyone interested in conservation would almost certainly agree that many of these agencies are incredibly underfunded to accomplish their missions. Therefore, I'd recommend being more careful with humor such as this because otherwise it could become "fact", and for what it's worth, I think these agencies have their hands tied. Whether they personally believe IBWOs exist or not, existence is now the "official" position, so they're legally obligated to proceed in that direction.
"Cryptozoology: An Unmined Field for Post Docs in Ornithology"
Panel- USGS, Mary Scott
Respect your comment, however, I will continue to throw humor darts at Federal Agencies who waste time and money chasing Bigfoot.
I have no respect for senior Federal bureaucrats feathering their nests under false pretenses.
And kiss up to TNC, CLO, and Audubon. They deserve scrutiny the same as any other Federal agency.
Official policies can change and do change.
"agencies have their hands tied"
Since when? Agencies are made up of people. USF&WS Ecological Services is supposed to follow science. You have more than enough valid information now to start defunding this ridiculous effort.
All the agency and NGO websites have already started de-emphasizing the IBWO. The last I checked only the WWF still buys google ads for Ivory Bill searches. Typical. since the WWF is the most worthless NGO that exists.
The rest of you should and probably are rightfully ready to move on. Good. Time to start applying for positions outside of Arkansas.
There was no shame in jumping on this effort. But once you realize that you were basically deceived, then there is shame in maintaining the sham.
Hey, here's an idea. Let's get back to REAL bird conservation.
How are monies wasted on the IBWO good for the agencies? Money wasted is just that. It didn't help the agency or the bird.
"agencies have their hands tied"
Since when? Agencies are made up of people. USF&WS Ecological Services is supposed to follow science. You have more than enough valid information now to start defunding this ridiculous effort.
A lot of these agencies are buried in lawsuits whatever conservation action they try to proceed with. Now while somehow the official version of the presence of Ivory-billeds in Arkansas needs to be changed, but who's that up to? If USFWS decided to not do anything, would it not be reasonable to assume that there would be a few lawsuits to contend with? Official policies can and do change, but it's not going to be an easy thing for it to happen, particularly not quickly, and I don't see how the feds would be able to do it without opening themselves up to a ton of litigation, which would tie up even more resources that could be used better elsewhere.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea to advance the idea that the feds are perpetuating the story to get more money (unless and until their is some concrete evidence to support it). In fact, I would imagine this has mostly a big headache for them, just one more thing to contend with that makes their jobs more difficult.
I'm not against criticism when warranted, but I don't think it is here. I still contend they have their hands tied at this point. Portraying the feds as using this to get more money or jobs, if they are in fact not, is how the conservation movement in general gets smeared for the mistakes of a few.
I have no respect for senior Federal bureaucrats feathering their nests under false pretenses.
And kiss up to TNC, CLO, and Audubon. They deserve scrutiny the same as any other Federal agency.
Who in particular are feathering their nests?
"If USFWS decided to not do anything, would it not be reasonable to assume that there would be a few lawsuits to contend with?"
Who's going to sue? TNC, Audubon? They can't even sue over the Golden-cheeked Warbler, as just one example.
Come on. Admit it. You are just hoping that by delaying someone will finally document the species. Anyone who knows anything about birds KNOWS that ain't goin' to happen.
So yes, that huge staff that USF&WS has in ARKANSAS is a waste. It's a featherbed. No doubt about it. At a time when other birds need their help, staff are missing in action.
What's Audubon going to do? Sue the CLO for not spending a million dollars on the search next year?
I don't think so! Audubon has it's hands full on just trying to get the feds and states to do right by the endangered birds that they know exist.
You cannot manage for a bird that you can't find. So until Elvis shows up, just transfer to areas of the country that we know need your many talents.
There are too many of you good agency people to be concentrating on a hopeless cause.
Get real.
"Effective Blogging in Ornithology: How to Turn a Non-event into a Five Part Series."
Moderator and only invited speaker- Birdchick
"Poster Presentation: Was Hitler's Moustache Really a Siberian Tit?"
Presenter- Crytozoology.com staff
USFWS IBWO Web Site, believe me or not, when you have a Corridor of Hope Team and a Recovery Team comprising the biggest name bureaucrats from multiple agencies, colleges, and an inordinate amount of NGOs/Partners, nests were feathered. When agencies such as USGS continue to post IBWO job vacancy announcements, the pork barrel continues.
The buried in lawsuits comment I don't understand. Whom is suing whom? Are you referring to the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, USFWS is mandated to take action.
Try this out ---
How about USFWS doing their own contracted out, independent, peer review. USFWS could be the final arbitrator, utilize some of the wasted bigfoot search grant money.
What's Audubon going to do? Sue the CLO for not spending a million dollars on the search next year?
There are too many of you good agency people to be concentrating on a hopeless cause.
I'm not contesting your last comment. My point is that I would bet most of the people in USFWS, USGS, etc. want this to go away because of that very reason. Seems to me that they didn't have anything to do with creating the story, and it also seems like they really aren't getting any extra money out of this. From everything I've heard, it's money being redirected from other sources, so I would think the agency people know they're really just shooting themselves in the foot with this program.
Regarding the comment about Audubon suing CLO, I think you're missing my point. I'm only talking about government agencies, so leading into the next quote from someone else:
The buried in lawsuits comment I don't understand. Whom is suing whom? Are you referring to the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, USFWS is mandated to take action.
That's correct, USFWS is mandated to take action. If they would choose to do nothing, they could be sued for ignoring the ESA, maybe by the Center for Biological Diversity or a similar organization.
This seems to be a very unique situation, and I don't know what options USFWS has in this case. They must have some power to declare a species extinct, but I don't know what the process is. When a "respected" organization such as CLO proclaims the species to be extant, does USFWS have the power to unilaterally reject that? Seems like the only way to get there from here is litigation.
I'll still contend that the federal agencies involved with this aren't benefiting from this. A job created in Arkansas is a job lost somewhere else, and there doesn't seem to have been an increase in anyone's budget overall. I don't even know the names of any feds involved with this, so it doesn't seem like it's being used to advance careers either. So I still think it isn't fair to paint this as a move by federal agencies to get money. It's been dumped on their laps by CLO, so that's where your jabs should be pointed.
Disclaimer: In case there's some confusion, I am not employed by any government agency, private conservation organization, nor any organization affiliated with anything to do with Ivory-billeds. I bring this up because of comments such as "you good agency people" may lead some to believe otherwise.
You can sue a fly for landing on your pizza. So what? Trust me. Fish and other agencies know how to handle these things. Ecological Services has every right to stand in court and say "Judge, we cannot manage what we cannot find. The evidence presented so far is suspect. The Endangered Species Act demands the best science be used. Since the IBWO is no where to be found and is in dispute, in any case, there is nothing more to do."
What's the judge going to do? Set aside southeastern Arkansas on such evidence? I don't think so.
BTW, a featherbed is a featherbed. But I will agree that as far as reputations go. A transfer to Arkansas wasn't the best move. I will concede that.
You can sue a fly for landing on your pizza. So what? Trust me. Fish and other agencies know how to handle these things. Ecological Services has every right to stand in court and say "Judge, we cannot manage what we cannot find. The evidence presented so far is suspect. The Endangered Species Act demands the best science be used. Since the IBWO is no where to be found and is in dispute, in any case, there is nothing more to do."
What's the judge going to do? Set aside southeastern Arkansas on such evidence? I don't think so.
If only it was that simple. USFWS can stand in court and say that, but would it be accepted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only published refereed paper on the subject of existence has been CLO's Science paper. Wasn't Sibley et al.'s paper only about the video evidence? They didn't include any statements about Ivory-billeds being extinct or not present in Arkansas?
So based on the refereed literature, the argument could be made that the "best science" available claims that the Ivory-billed is present. Though I will grant you that CLOs latest search report could give them the basis to back off. I haven't read it, nor do I know what the feds' reaction has been, except for the access restrictions for the Cache NWR (which perhaps is a sign that they will be disengaging from this).
As far as what the judge would do and the ability of these agencies knowing "how to handle these things", I think your view is a bit optimistic. A judge could order agencies to continue managing for Ivory-billeds, in essence ordering them to do what they're doing now, or possibly even devoting more resources to the program. An argument could be made that the feds' activities at this time is actually a strategy to minimize the damage. Defending lawsuits takes up resources, believe it or not.
And if these agencies know how to handle it, then why are they already buried in litigation? If you dispute that, take a look at the arguments supporting the Forest Service's Healthy Forests Initiative (or whatever it's called). Supporters of this program said this would free the Forest Service to actually do habitat management because under the current system, many management activities are held up because of lawsuits. Also, USFWS seems to be sued repeatedly for not designating critical habitat for listed species.
To quote someone else here who put it so eloquently, "Get real."
BTW, a featherbed is a featherbed. But I will agree that as far as reputations go. A transfer to Arkansas wasn't the best move. I will concede that.
One question: Who has been transfered to Arkansas, other than some law enforcement officers to patrol the restricted access areas of the Cache River NWR?
After my last couple of comments, I did some research and found references to the Data Quality Act and/or Information Quality Act. This could provide an avenue to force (or give them an "out" depending on your point of view) USFWS to get out of this work.
"One question: Who has been transfered to Arkansas, other than some law enforcement officers to patrol the restricted access areas of the Cache River NWR? "
Are you going to deny that Arkansas doesn't have more agency people now? It clearly does.
And worse, it has allowed the Bush Administration to posture that they love habitat. Focus on Ark. Screw the rest of the country. My local Ecological Services says that!! (under their collective breath of course!)
"One question: Who has been transfered to Arkansas, other than some law enforcement officers to patrol the restricted access areas of the Cache River NWR? "
Are you going to deny that Arkansas doesn't have more agency people now? It clearly does.
I can't deny that because I seriously don't know. Do they, and if so, are the new people all in law enforcement? (I'm restricting this question to the feds and not private NGOs.) I'm not asking these questions sarcastically.
Post a Comment