Here.
Rob's endorsement of Fishcrow is here. His report on a talk by Dan Mennill is the sixth post here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update17 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
7 comments:
Doomsday Clock Moves Two Minutes Closer to Midnight
and one of the reasons for that move was a concern about the effects of environmental degradation. How many seconds do you think the clock would be moved backward if another birder misidentifies a PIWO or even sees an IBWO. History will view the 21st century IBWO indulgence as something that distracted the conservation community and entertained the leisure class. The latter appears to be unaware that their leisure time is made possible in large part by the degradation of the environment.
That's a lot of guilt to put on the back of the Lord God Bird.
To paraphrase a recent episode of 'Heroes' (Save the Cheerleader..)
Save the Woodpecker &
Save the World!
Rob Tymstra!
To the anonymous from 1/20/07 at 10:28 AM, I'd like to ask this question. It is one that I have yet to hear a good answer to from anyone on this subject.
Who or what is being hurt by people searching for IBWO's? What is the source of your, and others', animosity toward the people who believe that they are out there and are searching?
For the most part it seems as though there are two types of searchers. The first group contains individuals (like Mike Collins) who are choosing to spend their time exploring in the area and are, as far as I can tell, financing the excursions by themselves. The second group are the ornithologists like those from Cornell or other schools that are conducting studies aimed at producing evidence of the IBWO. These groups are probably financed by their institutions, although I have no data that proves that. I'm having a hard time figuring out what anyone would have against either party, but based on some of the downright rude and hateful comments posted by many on these blog posts, there is clearly some evil that these searchers possess that I don't understand.
I can agree with people who criticize the science or lack thereof that has been evident in both the Cornell and Florida search teams, but I don't question their motives.
There is only one reasonable argument that I've heard that supports the notion that this entire controversy is harmful to anything. That is the idea that conservation funding is being devoted to preserving land that could potentially support IBWO's when those same funds could potentially be directed to preservation of species that are truly known to exist. While at first glance that argument is valid, it still seems like it is weak. The habitat being preserved is unique, and many organisms that live there, besides woodpeckers, will benefit by its preservation. Whether IBWO's are living there or not, preservation of this habitat cannot be a bad thing. Conservation funding is finite, and unfortunately there will always be species that are unjustly discriminated against. That's the world we live in, and it isn't always fair.
So once again, who is being hurt by the searching? Why are some people so antagonistic towards those who are searching? I just don't understand where the bitterness comes from.
Andy
To the Anon at 10:47 PM, January 20:
I hold no bitterness to the searchers. I was just pointing out that contrary to Fitzpatrick the IBWO story is not the "conservation story of the century" and I have said here earlier anyone who has been paying attention knows, this never came close to being the "conservation story of the century". No more than Britney Spears is the embodiment of beauty, Steven Spielberg is a genius or Robin Williams is still funny.
It is and was all about marketing and anyone who thought that finding a few thought-to-be-extinct woodpeckers was a bigger story than the deforestation and deicing of huge areas of the planet, while the entire atmosphere was being changed by unabated anthropogenic carbon emissions, also must think that the Audubon Society is really a conservation group and that drinking shade-grown coffee actually helps the environment.
Upper middle-class birders thought this was a big deal. Why do you think they announced it on NPR and why do you think they call NPR National Precious Radio. The audience for this event (and the people who bought the books, bought the cap, went to see the video and got the IBWO credit card) are the same people who have a lifestyle with a carbon footprint that would make Sasquatch blush.
The IBWO story was for that demographic what the “toddler stuck in the well” was for working class Americans. Something to take them away from their consumer-based humdrum lives for a short while and allow them to feel a more genuine emotion than they typically did when watching their favorite reality show. And that toddler in the well was to the issue of real children’s issues what the IBWO is and was to conservation.
Sure it’s easy to fool and entertain the American public. And that is what the CLO, TNC and others did. Something has to get this culture from one Superbowl to the next. But thank God we only have a few more weeks until the Superbowl.
To all commenters on this thread,
Fishcrow is nuts. The CLO is a bunch of crazy loonies. They have both proved this point many times over.
And I am not sorry to say it because the IBWO is extinct. How could it be otherwise?
That settles it then.
Uh, what's an IBWO?
Post a Comment