Article here.
Related post here.
“Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
19 comments:
"The 22,200-acre Congaree Swamp is considered prime habitat for ivory-billed woodpeckers, said Ross.
“It’s the biggest chunk of old-growth forest left in the United States,” he said."
This can't possibly be true. An Alaskan should know better.
More sloppy thinking from an IBWO TB.
22,000 acres is about 34+ square miles or about 6 miles (10km) by 5+ miles (8+ km). I may have made a mistake here... but surely there are bigger chunks of old growth forest. And some of the Northeast hasn't been cut in 150 years.
We still don't know if swamp land really was/is prime habitat for woodpeckers or the place where
they merely made their last stand
in the 40's and possibly later.
Maybe someone can correct my assessments on the size of this
swamp which is continuously touted as the huge area where IBWOs have been hiding.
Well, Congaree is a very impressive tract, but I would agree, that statement is likely not true. The Congaree National Park web site says it is "the largest remnant of old-growth floodplain forest remaining on the continent", which seems plausible. Note on that site, as well, discussion of the visitor's center, nature trails, etc. It is birded frequently by active SC birders, whom I think, might have noticed a population of Ivory-bills all these years. Rather the same situation as White River in Arkansas--hard to believe that large, diurnal, noisy woodpeckers could raise chicks successfully all these years and not be noticed. Hard to believe that an adult might not have flown over the nature center. Hard to believe that an adult would not have taken to feeding on a tree within site of a nature trail and been photographed by all the camera-toting birders that visit the place. All of this is hard to believe, though of course, not completely impossible.
It is an excellent place to bird, however, with lots of other neat wildlife as well, such as abundant reptiles and amphibians.
Just how wrong was Mark Ross and his fellow Alaskan journalist? The Tongass National Forest, in the United States the last time I checked, includes 9.4 MILLION acres of old-growth forest. This error reminds me of the ludicrous America's Amazon claims made by other overzealous TBs.
"It is birded frequently by active SC birders, whom I think, might have noticed a population of Ivory-bills all these years"
As I've said before, the CLO and other TBs must think southern birders (and northern visitors) are totally incompetent to even suggest that an IBWO could persist in the Congaree and similar "remote" places. IBWO atheists may be the "not nice" ones, but the CLO and other TBs are the ones continuing to disrespect the expertise of American birders.
"All of this is hard to believe, though of course, not completely impossible"
It is completely impossible. Real Campephilus are loud, obvious birds that cannot possibly be overlooked, even by non-birders, and cannot possibly be misidentified by a competent birder. They are not wary and it is easy to obtain excellent photographs as can be seen by doing an image search on any of the non-extinct species.
On another subject, a birding friend of mine not involved in the IBWO controversy told me yesterday all about a "huge" Pileated hole he found.
Odds are the error was made by the journalist, not Ross, in leaving out the word "bottomland." Sloppy writing and editing rather than sloppy thinking. If you have ever been interviewed for an article in the popular press, you learn to dread reading the quotes that are ultimately attributed to you.
The quote that caught my attention was this one: "'The reason I agreed [to participate] this time is because I can go and freelance rather than follow survey protocol," said Ross, a renegade of sorts who prefers to be along in the wild."
NPS and TNC should be embarassed for allowing this charade to happen. If Ross reports kents, double-knocks, or visual detections of IBWOs they will become just more "tantalizing evidence" in a long string of unverifiable single-person observations. If these agencies and organizations are going to go to the trouble of organizing IBWO search parties, then they should require ALL participants to adhere to standardized protocols, period.
John, the official search in Congaree has already happened, apparently. See this PDF file from the USFWS, quoting:
In addition to Arkansas, state-led searches were conducted during the winter of 2005-2006 in South Carolina primarily at Congaree National Park, in Georgia at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, and along the Louisiana-Mississippi border using ultralight aircraft over the Pearl River. Several other searches were undertaken based on recent potential encounters with Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in other states within the historical range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Again, no conclusive evidence has emerged from these efforts, but information has been gathered that will be used to guide further searches in these States (see below).
They do mention "state-led" searches to happen in 2006-07 (presumably done by now), including in SC. They fail to mention the other conservation projects that are having their budgets cut because of the wild woodpecker chase! (As I mentioned previously, an active SC birder mentioned that nobody can get the USFWS interested in funding work on the Rusty Blackbird, a species in rapid decline due to unknown causes. I also got an e-mail from somebody at the USFWS saying he was sure the IBWO would eventually be documented "in six river systems" in the south. Yeah, right.) So-called "true believers" need to consider the policy implications of clinging to the Ivory-bill chase--this fiasco is eating up time and money that could be spent on extant birds in trouble, of which there are plenty.
Note. If there were convincing evidence of the existence of the IBWO, I'd be all for substantial FWS funding.
Woodpecker searchers are also surveying Rusty Blackbirds in the same habitats (to relieve the tedium of recording endless negative data on large woodpeckers).
Ross is a private citizen entering open public lands at his own expense on his own time. It is none of NPS or TNC's business what protocols he chooses to follow. Nor is it any business of John L. Trapp. Are private individuals to be prohibited from entering open public lands for the purpose of birding without pre-approval of their procedures, data recording, and reporting? That would indeed be a fiasco.
If these agencies and organizations are going to go to the trouble of organizing IBWO search parties, then they should require ALL participants to adhere to standardized protocols, period.
So far, these standardized protocols established by the academics have gained us nothing but shoddy science, over-anxious glimpses of big woodpeckers with lots of white in the wing, and interesting cavities.
Give me a few real birders who know how to identify birds and how to use cameras. They won't find IBWOs either, but at least they won't waste millions of dollars that could be directed towards valid endeavors.
It appears that the "official" search in the Congaree continues, Patrick. Information about the formal IBWO search efforts conducted in the Congaree Swamp in winter/spring 2006-2007 (through April) by members of the South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Work Group (i.e., FWS, NPS, TNC) can be found here, here (.pdf), here, and here.
"It is none of NPS or TNC's business what protocols he chooses to follow. Nor is it any business of John L. Trapp."
anon 12:17: Who made it your business to decide upon what is John L. Trapp's business? Don't informed members of the public have every right to critique foolish behavior when it is endorsed by the NPS and TNC? Some of us used to expect better from these agencies.
Bad Southern Birder--
You said it, Bubba!
If I or any other competent birder want to waste my time swomp stompin' and river rattin' looking at prothonotaries, ceruleans, swainson's warblers, rusty blackbirds, pileateds, kites, kinglets, gators, bears, rabbits, orchids, and whatever the hell else we run in to, and a one-in-six-dot-oh-two-times-ten-to-the-23rd chance of finding that big 'pecker, more power to us. All the better if I have a camera and know how to use it. Plenty of those tantalizing glimpses and that interesting cavity bunk have come out of the organized searches without help from the GDIs (that's goll-durn-independents for you of delicate sensibilities). Competent experienced GDIs-who-know-the difference-between-having-really-found-a-bird-and-just-thinking-you-might-have-found-a-bird rambling ethically about in important wildlife habitat is a good thing no matter what gave them the crazy idea to go there. Problem has been too many "ivory-bill searchers" out there that don't fit that description, including sloppy GDIs and sloppy megasearches.
You all read way to much into a short article in the popular press intended mostly as a human interest story.
"You all read way to much into a short article in the popular press intended mostly as a human interest story."
Ya think?
Hey, we are waiting for the next long article in the scientific literature intended mostly as a fund-raising ploy. Until then we will take what we can get.
I think there's more nuts on the ground than in the trees!
"You all read way to much into a short article in the popular press intended mostly as a human interest story"
If the mistakes in media coverage are honest, why do they always seem to make the IBWO "rediscovery" appear more likely, important, or interesting? If the IBWO TBs are honest, why don't they politely correct misleading statements about the IBWO rather than exploiting them for their fundraising?
I don't see Mark Ross pursuing fundraising. And his saying that he doesn't know whether or not the bird still exists doesn't jibe with calling him a "TB." If the IBWO_Atheist is honest, why doesn't he stop these straw man arguments of smearing nefarious attitudes and motivations universally across everyone he choses to brand as a "TB" so he can discredit them all with one sweep of his tar brush? Atheist, you used to make sense. Now you've begun sounding like just another stream of "talking points."
Yawn :O)
Post a Comment