A couple of excerpts:
“Obviously, the judge’s ruling was a major victory for wildlife, this wonderful wildlife refuge and the people of Arkansas,” Kostyack [an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation] said. “We’re going to work to continue that victory.”
...
Just what Sparling — and researchers who captured a blurry video purportedly of a ivory-billed in 2004 — saw is the subject of an ongoing debate among ornithologists and bloggers.
However, the debate over the bird’s existence is not a factor in the lawsuit.
Since both parties feel the bird exists, “For purposes of this case, it does,” Wilson wrote in his order.
Posts
8 comments:
Prediction: It will take 10 for the Skeptics to get the upper hand. But in the end, Fitzcrow won't be as admired as the fellows who discovered "life on Mars",
10 years
I think the skeptics are already ahead of the curve. Several of the best field birders in the nation have already shot down the only "conclusive" piece of evidence.
I'll give it a countdown clock of 5 years, with a possibility of as few as 3 years.
I'm sorry to keep bangin on this drum, but why is it that we can't get the USFWS and the Federal Courts to protect some of our extant birds that we know are in trouble (Red Knot, or Gunnison Sage Grouse - for example)yet they will go to the mat - even unilaterally declaring the extinct, extant - for this bird.
Maybe because it's USFWS never declared the bird extinct in the first place, so based on the law, it is an extant species. I'm sure most biologists at USFWS would like to add species to the endangered species list, but they're hands are tied by the Bush administration, and the court bases it's decisions in part on the list of endangered species, which still includes Ivory-billeds.
I haven't really dug into the details of the court case. At any point, has the posibility of IBWO not being present in Arkansas been raised? Since both sides agree that "for the purposes of this case, it does [exist]", then the court isn't going to rule on that issue.
I'm goin' to love it when all of you skeptics have to eat your own words! The IBWO LIVES!! And soon all of skeptics are going to have to admit defeat!
The main issue of this lawsuit if the constrution of the Grand Prairie Irigation Project being done by the US Corp of Engineers & the security of the habitate which is under the control of the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
The judge, by his ruling has placed the two goverment agencies in a position where one of them is going to have to punt. The Corp draws it's Taxpayer dollars from building it's project in this area does not need the bird to be an issue & the USF&W Service is getting it's taxpayer dollars in this area from the bird suppose to be alive & well.
The judge was not a dummy when he did this. Someone is going to have give before it's over. The question as of now is which one will be able to come on top!!!!
"The judge, by his ruling has placed the two goverment agencies in a position where one of them is going to have to punt."
Well not completely. The Corps will delay until USF&WS does a "study" and "survey" for the bird in the surrounding habitat. After a year or two the IBWO will still be said to exist, just not in the project area.
Then the profect will go ahead, maybe with a biologist on board to make sure breeding pairs haven't moved into the area (yeah..right).
It's all very above board and professional. Except of course, the bird is extinct. But that's just a minor factor.
two thoughts:
The neglect of our extant, endangered but unlisted birds is nothing compared to the apathy toward our endangered insects!
What the "I'm goin' to love it" TB fails to grasp is that a genuine, properly documented rediscovery of the IBWO would in no way excuse the highly inappropriate conduct of the CLO-led "rediscovery"
Since both parties feel the bird exists, “For purposes of this case, it does,” Wilson wrote in his order.
Someone above commented that this was "pretty lame."
On the contrary, this is not lame at all. A good judge does not reach beyond his courtroom to resolve disputes that are not before him/her.
When this case first came up here, I wondered whether the judge was asked to evaluate the evidence and make a decision. It sounds like he was not asked to do so by either party.
Post a Comment