Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: IBW - Woodpecker Racket?

  1. #1
    Mergie Master's Avatar
    Mergie Master is offline Dedicated Tamiecide Practitioner
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Saluca (not Saluda)
    Posts
    71,579

    Default

    Link-->Woodpecker Racket?

    By Steven Milloy

    Last year’s reported sighting in eastern Arkansas of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, long thought to be extinct, raised the hopes of bird-watchers everywhere.

    But now a prominent bird expert has cast serious doubt on the report, characterizing it as “faith-based” ornithology and “a disservice to science.”

    Writing in the ornithology journal The Auk (January 2006), Florida Gulf Coast University ornithologist Jerome A. Jackson criticized the “evidence” put forth to support the conclusion that the Woodpecker wasn’t extinct after all — including a four-second video of an alleged sighting which garnered widespread media attention; several other anecdotal sightings; and acoustic signals purported to be vocalization and raps from the Woodpecker.

    News of the alleged Woodpecker sighting caught on video was first released in late-April 2005 in ScienceExpress, an online component of Science magazine. The full report subsequently appeared in the June 3 issue of Science.

    “While the world rejoiced, my elation turned to disbelief,” wrote Jackson. “I had seen the ‘confirming’ video in the news releases and recognized its poor quality, but I had believed [anyway],” he continued.

    “Then I saw [a still image] and seriously doubted that this evidence was confirmation of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Even a cursory comparison of this figure with [photographs and illustrations of real Ivory-billed Woodpeckers] shows that the white on the wing of the bird… is too extensive to be that of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker,” Jackson wrote.

    Jackson dismissed the other unverified sightings with, “I do not question the sincerity, integrity or passion of these observers [but] we simply cannot know what they saw.” The researchers who claimed to video the Ivory-billed Woodpecker later admitted that the acoustic information “while interesting, does not reach the level we require for proof.”

    Jackson went on to conclude that, “My opinion is that the bird in the [video] is a normal Pileated Woodpecker… Others have independently come to the same conclusion, and publication of independent analyses may be forthcoming.”

    Jackson isn’t some inveterate or knee-jerk skeptic with respect to the possibility of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s existence. In fact, in 1986 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened a panel to “officially” declare the Woodpecker extinct, Jackson argued that “it was unreasonable to declare the species extinct without making a serious effort to find it.”

    Only time will tell whether the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is, in fact, extinct, but one thing is certain — the fanfare announcing these now-suspect sightings was way overblown. And it’s worth noting that the beneficiaries of all this hoopla were also the ones behind it.

    The search to “find” the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was organized, supported and launched by the Nature Conservancy. The subsequent “find” was announced and widely publicized by the Nature Conservancy. Now, according to Jackson’s article, it seems the Nature Conservancy also stands to benefit substantially from its own “discovery,” possibly to the tune of $10.2 million federal dollars and hundreds of thousands of acres in Arkansas.

    To Jackson’s dismay, this money, which had originally been designated for other ongoing endangered species projects, has now been diverted into a “recovery” effort for the apparently-still-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker — involving none other than the Nature Conservancy, a private “nonprofit” group that uses land acquisition to advance its self-proclaimed “conservation” agenda.

    But a series of Washington Post articles in May 2003 exposed the Nature Conservancy, the world’s richest environmental group with $3 billion in assets, as more than just a “land bank.” In the past it has also acted as a broker of too-sweet-to-be-true land and business deals for wealthy insiders and corporate supporters, often at taxpayer expense.

    In one scheme reported by the Post, “…the Conservancy bought raw land, attached development restrictions and then resold the land to state trustees and other supporters at greatly reduced prices. Buyers then voluntarily gave the Conservancy charitable contributions roughly equivalent to the discounts, sums that were written off from the buyers' federal income taxes. The deals generally allowed the buyers to build homes on the land.”

    What’s all this got to do with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker?

    The Nature Conservancy says on its web site that it “has helped protect more than 120,000 acres of [eastern Arkansas forests], and is now aiming to conserve and restore an additional 200,000 acres of forest – vital habitat for the ivory-billed woodpecker…”

    Given that the land acquisition is made possible with taxpayer dollars and tax breaks — for who knows what ultimate purposes - you can almost hear the Nature Conservancy laughing like that other fictional woodpecker, Woody Woodpecker, all the way to the bank.

    A final note on this saga concerns the reported sightings that were rushed to publication by the journal Science — the same journal that rushed to publication last year’s faked South Korean stem cell studies, and a faked 1997 Tulane University study on environmental chemicals.

    While there’s no evidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker study was faked, Jackson’s characterization of the report as wishful-thinking certainly doesn’t say much for Science’s peer review process — intended as a safeguard against the publication of unsubstantiated scientific claims and junk science.

    Science has enjoyed the reputation of a preeminent journal. But over the last decade, it seems to have developed the print-first-ask-questions-later tendencies usually associated with tabloid publications.

    It would be terrific if the Ivory-billed Woodpecker weren’t extinct — but we’ll need better evidence than just four seconds of blurry video hawked by special interests.
    The Elites don't fear the tall nails, government possesses both the will and the means to crush those folks. What the Elites do fear (or should fear) are the quiet men and women, with low profiles, hard hearts, long memories, and detailed target folders for action as they choose.

    "I here repeat, & would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule—to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    I'm a very serious birder (bird watcher) and I've also seen the video.

    I personally don't believe the bird in the picture was a pileated not just because of the coloring but because the bird just didn't fly like a pileated.

    The flight pattern and plumage pattern match with old photos and descriptions of flight for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

    However, I do have to admit to being a little skeptical since they still haven't found any better evidence.

    But no matter how good the evidence there will be those that don't believe. There are still people that don't believe that the holocaust really happened.
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Gobbler's Knob, GA/ Bamberg,SC
    Posts
    21,469

    Default

    I bought in......... read "Grail Bird" ...interesting read. Nonetheless, until they capture one or someone produces a warm carcass, it will be tough to absolutely, positively prove.

    I thought after this Duck season, one would be found floating feet up in Bayou de View....

    To quote the Arkies "Damned Peckerwood"
    F**K Cancer

    Just Damn.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    the peer review process takes place at 2 levels. First,journals vet material internally to head off publication of material that isn't competent or noteworthy. At the second level, after publication, other scientists respond with articles criticizing the methods and conclusions of the original. I don't understand why the publication of the IBW discovery is some sort breakdown of the peer review process. Serious scientific journals encourage peer review, not fear it. It seems to me that the real purpose of this article is to attack the Nature Conservancy.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    24,463

    Default

    When dealing with endangered species, NAWCA grants can match 90 cents on the dollar. Alot of woodpecker habitat(flooded green timber) can be bought for 10 cents on the dollar with the government picking up the rest(90%) of the tab.

    That alone makes the sightings SO important.

    Follow the money.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •