$9.4 million committed to save ivory-billed landThe article (viewing may require paid registration) references this USDA news release. Note that the USDA news release contains no mention of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
Federal and state officials on Monday committed $9.4 million toward conserving 6,250 acres of wetlands and hardwood forests in the Cache River and Bayou DeView watersheds - land considered crucial for the ivorybilled woodpecker. BY KATHERINE MARKS
Climate Models, Clouds, OLR, and ECS
54 minutes ago
Posts
14 comments:
So how does this fit into the intellectual ivy-league enviro-nuts conservation backlash conspiracy touted on an earlier thread? Is CLO to be praised or blamed for the acquisition of even more land for conservation?
The USDA and a variety of state and private conservation agencies have considered the Cache/White River area a priority for many years, well before the Ivory-bill fiasco. The fact that the CLO is delusional does not change the incredible wildlife resources that are present in the lower White River.
"Is CLO to be praised or blamed..."
ClO is to be blamed. They continue to betray the public trust.
Very bad science combined with clever PR may mislead the public for a while, but this is not a sound long-term conservation strategy.
There are many reasons to preserve the Cache/White River area, some of them scientific, and some involving the preservation of local populations of globally non-endangered, widely-distributed bird species, some of which are pretty and/or tasty to eat.
If preservation of endangered birds is to be the basis for habitat conservation, deserving, extant species not adequately protected by existing reserves and management schemes should be identified, and funds used to benefit these. An example of a worthy species is Baird's Sparrow.
"The fact that the CLO is delusional does not change the incredible wildlife resources that are present in the lower White River"
The Choco rain forests of western Ecuador and the Alakai Swamp of Kauai are incredible habitat for very rare, endangered, endemic birds. The Cache/White River area really cannot be considered incredible habitat from the standpoint of bird species conservation. There is not a single bird species restricted to this latter area. All bird species present in Arkansas are rather widely distributed and have similar or larger populations elsewhere in the USA and often, as in the case of the beloved Swallow-tailed Kite, in MANY other countries as well. The entire Cache/White could be utterly destroyed and not a single bird species would be lost. Like it or not this is a fact.
It is fine to base conservation on sentimental appreciation of beautiful birds and a provincial sense of aesthetics, but it is not OK for leading ornithologists to misrepresent global bird conservation priorities.
On the subject of wildlife resources, enhancing Wood Duck nesting and the like is a worthwhile goal for the Arkansas Fish and Game and other agencies, but in my opinion the CLO should have more important things to do.
Do you really think that they are converting farmland to woodland in an effort to save the Ivory-billed? It will be 100 years before the trees reach suitable size. It sounds like a more general project with multiple goals of wildlife habitat, erosion control, improvement of water quality, etc.
Birds aren't the only reason to save the area. Plants always get short shrift when it comes to conservation. You can go out and collect a threatened plant, can't say the same for a bird. As far as importance, many drug discoveries come from plants, virtually none from birds. Are we going to spend money on a Tibetan duck? No way. Most of the public really could care less about IBWO anyway.
"Birds aren't the only reason to save the area."
This is so obvious it should go without saying.
"Plants always get short shrift when it comes to conservation."
Compared to birds maybe, but not compared to many invertebrate animal groups.
"You can go out and collect a threatened plant, can't say the same for a bird."
You can't legally collect plants that are protected or growing in a reserve.
"As far as importance, many drug discoveries come from plants, virtually none from birds."
But like birds, most plants have no forseeable utility. Conservation importance should not be based solely or even primarily on perceived utility.
"Are we going to spend money on a Tibetan duck? No way."
We should if we are basing our decisions on science. If global scientific criteria are to be neglected in public policy this should be due to the misdeeds of ill-informed or unethical policy makers. Good scientists should not be complicit. For example, they should not associate with Gale Norton and let her take credit for a fake conservation victory.
There are plenty of people and institutions devoted to the conservation of birds around the world, and they deserve much more support from American ornithologists and birders.
In regards to my statement that the White River system contains incredible wildlife resources, perhaps I am right that the birding community is amazingly short-sighted. I was not supporting conservation of the area because it has any birds in danger of extinction. I was supporting it becuase the Mississippi floodplain ecosystem is in danger of extinction! The lower White/Cache region is one of the largest remaining in the Mississippi Valley and since there is already a large amount of public land there, it makes sense try and restore additional pieces, especially when it conects large blocks of existing habitat.
True enough that rainforests of S. America are more diverse and contain many more endemics, but it is the job of American governmental organizations to protect American resources.
Also, for those of us who live in Arkansas, they idea that an area does not deserve protection because their are no endangered birds (there are endanged fish, mussels, black bear subspecies, plants, etc.) seems kind of odd. All people deserve conservation efforts in their region. How else will people get interested in conservation efforts unless they can easily see the results!
To get big money, the bird has to have some glamor. I'm sure Baird's Sparrow is duller than dirt. Now if you can get some big money for the IBWO, other species might bask in the fallout. There's a reason stars get millions and bit players get scale.
"I'm sure Baird's Sparrow is duller than dirt"
Do an image search and decide for yourself.
I like the shots at:
www.roysephotos.com
"Now if you can get some big money for the IBWO, other species might bask in the fallout."
But what happens after you get big money for a nonexistent IBWO?
The money is still there, conserving something, maybe an orchid in the bayou.
The point is, spend the money to conserve something that is actually present to conserve. Choose bears, plants, whatever. Why go with an extinct woodpecker? Does this story really grab the public's eye and purse more than black bears or pretty orchids? And even if it does, is it right to manipulate people with falsehoods in the name of conservation?
My Two Cents
curunir said...
The money is still there, conserving something, maybe an orchid in the bayou.
4:29 PM, January 30, 2007
____________
WoW! Methinks you'd work well in the current BushieUSFWS ESP. Wolves and Sage Grouse be damned, full speed ahead. They may as well just throw out the last 100 years of science based conservation, and just throw the money into the swamp! There lots of money for conservation, certainly enough to toss around and shore up the sagging careers of CLO biologists.
Great Idea! Maybe they'll sve an orchid...or something...maybe
Face it, the more charismatic you are, the better the chances of your being saved. Did smallpox get a bum rap? Money goes to popular causes, not necessarily where it's best used. And yes, the IBWO is grabbing the public eye, but not as much as we may think.
"the IBWO is grabbing the public eye, but not as much as we may think"
Its done pretty well for an extinct species!
Post a Comment