Washington Post article here.
Regardless of its effect on the "Ivory-bill", I think we can all at least agree that this irrigation project could be devastating to any local leprechaun, Bigfoot or jackalope populations.
Here is the Wikipedia page for the Daubert Standard, which is now being mentioned by some emailers and commenters.
COP 29: The big UN money grab
4 hours ago
Posts
16 comments:
"Ornithologists caught on tape a flicker..."
NOW we're getting to the truth?
Oops. Now I see why a lot of people are anonymous on this blog.
Ornithologists caught on tape a flicker of what they believed was the bird but announced this year they couldn't prove conclusively that the woodpecker still lives.
Perhaps it died from embarassment after reading the Science paper.
How hard would it to be to prove in a lawsuit that the Science paper is a piece of crap and the IBWO is extinct?
Answer: not very.
You see, in a well-litigated suit both sides will have a chance to prevent the testimony of experts and all the evidence will come in, not just what some journal editor and some lazy peer reviewers think is important.
I wonder about the standard used by the Judge. Is the "evidence" referred to by the judge simply the fact that there is the appearance of a controvery about the IBWO's existence, as indicated by the as-yet-unretracted Science paper?
Someone might want to alert the attorneys for the Army Corp of Engineers to this website ...
As a certified Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology Woodpecker Naturalist (I may be a CLOWN but I can assure you I am laughing all the way to the bank) I would like to say that any observations of flickers have to be cleared with The Lab. If we see any parental behavior we have to determine gender and let Fitzcrow and others know that there are mother flickers here in the woods. We have overheard locals in Brinkley referring to sightings of those “camouflaged Cornell mother flickers” out in the swamp but we have yet to see any. Fitzcrow is curious about their camo plumage and thinks we could get another cover story in Science.
I fear that enviros are fixing to meet the Daubert Standard. This is a new 1993 Supreme court ruling that says that Judges should and indeed must become gatekeepers on keeping juck science out out of the court room.
So yes, the judge could appoint a special group of "competent" ornithologists to advise him on the technical aspects of the IBWO "rediscovery".
Now that would be interesting! Wonder who would be in that group?!
Daubert! Is this part 4 of this fiaco? I feel shakespeare lurking in the shadows.
A flicker? I thought we were leaning toward Pileated. I'm so confused!
Don't all you professional academic ornithologists agree that the multi-million dollar project must be halted to save the IBWOs whether they exist of not? If not, then where is your public disavowal of this statement from the CLO's Auk letter (p. 591), "Fortunately, all parties in the discussion agree that intensifying the conservation efforts is worthwhile, even as the search continues." Unfortunately I doubt that I am worthy of being considered a party in the discussion and am therefore relying on you to set the record straight.
This is the best line in the article:
Under the judge's order, the agencies must evaluate any ivory-bill nests and forage sites within 2 1/2 miles of the construction project.
C'mon! How hard can it be to evaluate zero nests?
The ironic thing is that the project could actually be a good thing for the habitat. Those levees have been keeping water levels artificially high for a long time.......
"Unfortunately I doubt that I am worthy of being considered a party in the discussion and am therefore relying on you to set the record straight"
Couldn't agree more, Mr. "mudslinging somebody". Couldn' agree more.
C'mon! How hard can it be to evaluate zero nests?
Let's see now.
$0.5 million for administrative overhead.
$250,000 for logistics including Ghillie Suits
$100,000 for LSU
$50,000 for private jets
$10,000 for field biologists.
That's about it. Assuming Birdchick's tab is picked up by Eagle Optics.
Don't all you professional academic ornithologists agree that the multi-million dollar project must be halted to save the IBWOs whether they exist of not?
If the IBWO's don't exist, the multimillion dollar project should not be halted to save them.
I think that's logical, don't you?
If not, then where is your public disavowal of this statement from the CLO's Auk letter (p. 591), "Fortunately, all parties in the discussion agree that intensifying the conservation efforts is worthwhile, even as the search continues."
There are legitimate reasons to conserve the Big Woods that are not based on junky videos and some dudes waving wooden birds around.
In my dream, a gigantic woodpecker is lying dead at the base of the Empire State Building. A policeman says "Well, Fitzpatrick, the skeptics got him." "Oh no," Fitzpatrick replies, "It wasn't the skeptics. It was soybeans killed the beast."
I hope you guys caught South Park today. Cartman discovers endangered Jakovasaurs, there is a press conference with the Dept. of the Interior, then a recovery program, followed by relocation of this annoying species to Memphis. Sound familiar?
Holy Milagro Beanfeild wars ... another sign of the end times. Does anyone have a link to the documents in this case.
Does this reporter have this right?
And how in the world did the court arrive at the 2.5 miles? Is this the distance that the pump NOISE can be heard?
God bless these second tier enviros who will go in a sue so that TNC can maintain that it doesn't engage in litgation to achieve its conseration goals.
Post a Comment