"Judge asked to clarify woodpecker order"

Here.

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.

Now over a quarter-million page views

Thanks.

"Pecking away"

1. Editorial here.

An excerpt:

The injunction and the hoops through which the corps now must jump before the judge will consider letting it resume the project provide a classic example of how a well-intended law is so easily abused. But the case also presents enormous opportunities for environmentalists in all 50 states to sidetrack projects they oppose simply by demanding the project operator disprove something that cannot be proved.

If this ruling stands, don't be surprised to see all manner of fauna arise from the Boot Hill of evolutionary history just long enough to stop unpopular projects.

2. From a short article in the online version of E/The Environmental Magazine here:

Meanwhile, farmers in the region are incensed, complaining that two inconclusive sightings of the bird a couple of years ago shouldn't be enough to jeopardize a project they say is key to the production of soybean, cotton and rice in eastern Arkansas.

Lidar to the rescue?

Here.

Check out the wording of this excerpt:

The latest possibility that this species long thought dead actually isn't was first raised appeared in February of 2004, when a kayaker reported spotting the woodpecker along the Cache River in Arkansas.

Some information on lidar is here.

Update: Here is another version of this story. This version contains the following sentence near the top (the bold font is not mine):

Unlike its more famous cartoon cousin Woody the Woodpecker, the ivory-billed woodpecker is thought to be extinct, or so most experts have believed for over half a century.

Educating Cincinnati

A short blurb from Cincinnati.com:

LECTURE

Friday: Taste of the Taft, noon, Taft Museum of Art, 316 Pike St., downtown. John A. Ruthven presents The Oh-My-God Bird: The Rediscovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Includes box lunch. $20. 513-684-4515.

A couple of Google hits on Ruthven are here and here.

The "distinctive pecking" of the "Oh My God Bird"?

Here.

(The letter above is evidently a rebuttal to this article, which was linked from this blog late last month).

Tim Allwood's 180

Over the past year, I watched Tim Allwood (aka Johnny Rotten) evolve from vocal Ivory-bill believer to strong Ivory-bill skeptic out on Birdforum.

Last summer, Tim argued that "the birds have been observed several times by some of the best ornithologists in the Americas".

About that same time, his advice to me (hgr389) was "keep your ramblings to conspiracy websites".

By July of this year, however, Tim was arguing that his own Ivory-bill skepticism was a position that "can be seen by one and all as plain unavoidable facts."

I think Tim's changing views are notable because they parallel the path that so many of us have taken: blind faith in Cornell at first, then ever-increasing skepticism as the actual evidence is examined.

Arkansas judge's ruling panned again

Here.

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.

Mike Mlodinow's rejection paperwork

Mike Mlodinow agreed to mail me a copy of his "official" reason for rejecting the Arkansas Ivory-bill record.

It's just a single sheet of paper, dated May 10, 2006.

Here are the scans:

Side 1
Side 2

More on this subject is here.

The backlash continues

1. On a blog here.

One paragraph:

If there is any good news here, it is that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is not around to witness this calamity, this abuse of our court system, and the waste of time and money that is taking place in its name. This story needs to be thrown into the face of every environmentalist who steps up to oppose anything. This is shameful behavior. I don’t know if the judge is another victim of this hoax or is just dishonest.

2. On a podcast available here.

(On this podcast, the Ivory-bill segment lasts a bit over 10 minutes, starting at about the 14:48 mark).

James Gorman's "My Times" page

I just noticed that someone accessed my blog from here.

Some background information is here. An excerpt (this time, the bold font is NOT mine):

But the NYT is also playing its ace card: beyond-the-headlines expertise from its own journalists. A small number of staffers (26 at last count) have set up their own pages and are sharing their “sources” with other MyTimes users, who can bookmark and keep track of “My Journalists’ Pages.” This is in keeping with the over-the-top tagline: “My Times: Where the best minds in journalism help you edit the Web.” Users also can add the staffer sources to their own page. This doesn’t seem to work both ways. I’m told these are just a sample of the personalized staff pages; more will be added.