One paragraph:
WOODY HE’S NOT: I’m almost ashamed to say I was born in Texas with Arkansas blood flowing through my veins after a nutty ruling handed down the other day by a equally nutty Arkansas federal judge.By the way, I've been reading related stories everywhere on the net, and the consensus of those stories seems overwhelmingly negative on this ruling.
I posted a link to an article from DC Audubon calling the ruling "good news"; if you can find other articles strongly in favor of halting this project because of the Ivory-bill, feel free to post links in the comment section.
Posts
12 comments:
Tom -
Question for you.
Where do you go from here? Do you plan on posting for eternity? What is your thought process with this baby of yours? Write a book?
As of August 1st, 2006; every rational human being without an IBWO profit/loss of respect motive can agree that the bird was not re discovered in Arkansas.
Ha, that's pretty funny Marcus. Perhaps you haven't spent any time over at birdforum.net or at a local Audubon meeting. There are MANY people that still believe Cornell found an Ivory-bill, and some that even believe there are undiscovered populations spread across the southeast. These are folks with NO vested interest in the IBWO (either monetary or reputation).
Tom cannot rest until all of these poor misguided souls are set straight.
"Where do you go from here?"
I don't know. I'll keep posting, regularly or sporadically, as long as I feel like it.
The idea of writing a book holds zero appeal for me.
Tom
Bird Forum: I said "rational."
The CLO TNC Aubudon triumvarite are birds of a different color.
I perceive multiple streams of weirdness going on there:
You have the overt; loss of money, prestige, respect, pride, books, invitations to multifarious events,fame, et al
Yet, I also think there is the Holy Grail aspect that warps their field of thought. They had the Grail, they lost it, and then they claim to found it again. I still believe it mitigates the collective guilt that I keep bantering about.
As of August 1st, 2006; every rational human being without an IBWO profit/loss of respect motive can agree that the bird was not re discovered in Arkansas.
Bird Forum: I said "rational."
By your apparent definition of rational (i.e., not believing that IBWO was rediscovered in Arkansas), then clearly the answer is no. No rational person believes that.
From cyberthrush on BirdForum... I've little doubt that the birds will eventually be documented in La., Miss., and Fla.; enough folks will be searching there, and there's almost too many good locales to choose from. Texas, S.C., and of course AR. will be pawed over aplenty as well and if the birds are there will likely be found (again) in time.
Now that's confidence.
From cinclodes (Mike Collins of fishcrow.com fame) on BirdForum... I, too, have very specific views on skeptics. Considering all the physical evidence that has been obtained and all the ornithologists, biologists, scientists, birders, hunters, fishermen, wildlife officials, etc. who claim to have seen and/or heard Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, it's hard to imagine how one could remain a skeptic (especially a loud-mouthed skeptic). I almost feel sorry for the skeptics. They have no idea what's coming down the pike to crush their flat little world.
As to Mr. Tautology's brill reasoning, well, if you can show us just one clear and identifiable photo of a recent IBWO.
I was just having fun with the qualifier of "rational". I wasn't implying anything about the existence or non-existence of Ivory-billeds.
As to Mr. Tautology's brill reasoning, well, if you can show us just one clear and identifiable photo of a recent IBWO.
Just wondering, what does "brill" mean? I couldn't find it on dictionary.com (other than it being a kind of fish).
Wait let's get back to Tom's post,
"I posted a link to an article from DC Audubon calling the ruling "good news"; if you can find other articles strongly in favor of halting this project because of the Ivory-bill, feel free to post links in the comment section."
Well, every local Audubon society newsletter probably has an article in favor of halting the project because of the IBWO.
No, I still contend that the interesting article(s) for someone to find and post here would be articles AGAINST halting the project from Skeptics like us who also support conservation.
Otherwise, the blather of back-and-forth of "for" and "con" articles is just the noise of true believers on both sides.
Where's me jacket?
No, I still contend that the interesting article(s) for someone to find and post here would be articles AGAINST halting the project from Skeptics like us who also support conservation.
I brought this up before but it went mostly unnoticed: A strong argument could be made that the pumping project would be beneficial for Ivory-billed/bottomland hardwood habitat. The river has been levied for many years, creating unnatural water regimes, i.e., water levels deeper than they would be otherwise and flooding conditions outside of seasons when they would have occurred naturally.
If both believer and skeptic are interested in conservation, the question of whether this project should proceed or not should focus on what effect it would have on the habitat, regardless of the existence of Ivory-billeds.
Post a Comment