Saturday
2 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update4 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
6 comments:
I have a question for the true believers. How long is it reasonable for the states and feds to supply funding for IBWO research without that research producing evidence that is convincing to 95% of the birding population? This field season? Another? 5 years? 10?
Or do you feel that the case has been so solidly "proven" that the feds should continue funding IBWO research no matter what is found, or not found, in the future?
I'm interested to see if you people have a timeline or not.
Note that private funding doesn't count in this discussion. People and private organizations are free to do whatever they wish with their own money.
This is atrocious.
I wonder how much the USFWS spends per/species on invertebrate conservation?
Anon says, "Or do you feel that the case has been so solidly "proven" that ..."
This statement represents the TB problem: they "feel", they don't "think". There is a difference, and it's not subtle.
"95% of the birding population?"
Where does this number come from?
"95% of the birding population?"
Where does this number come from?
Nowhere in particular. It was really sort of a figure of speech. An equivalent example might be the Black-headed Nightingale-Thrush that showed up in Texas. There was no dissent on the presence and ID of that bird because it was fully documented. The fact that it could be independently followed up made the case even stronger.
When the IBWO is documented at that level, (though not necessarily, with independent follow-up) there will be no serious dissent either.
Post a Comment