Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-05-2005, 01:56 PM   #1 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker not extinct! Let's celebrate by logging more of its habitat.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...er.found.reut/

Many people have heard of this story by now. A woodpecker that has been though of as extinct for 60 years has been "rediscovered". It has the nickname of "Lord God Bird" Because people who saw it would exclaim "Lord God, what a bird!"
The bird was discovered in a protected forest in Arkansas.
This bird requires large tracts of old growth forest for it's habitat to survive.
Gale Norton was on the tube last night talking about how huge this find was.

Today they come out with this
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w100120D84.DTL
Basically a retraction of a last minute Clinton era rule that kept roads out of national park lands.
Bush, Industry and some states want the roads opened up for "resource recovery" and the building of attractions that would support a local tax base.

Reading the article you see that most of the areas opened up are in the west, though this rule change does make it easier for the other 2/3 of national forest lands to be invaded as well, eventually.

Why do some place greater value on a short term and temporary source of money at the expense of a permanent degradation of our last natural areas?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 02:19 PM   #2 (permalink)
Loves my girl in thongs
 
arch13's Avatar
 
Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada
Because the only thing people care about is themselves and their short little lives.
As long as the money is good for them, and they don't have to worry about paying for their house, they'll sail every succeding generation up the river if need be.

Measures to open up park land for tourism to boost economy's have historicaly failed to work, and have usually been a precedent for use of the natural resources. After all, building the roads in is the needed access for resource extraction.

No one has the balls to actually say that a small population in a failed town is less important than keeping the natural resources protected. But the reality is they are less important. They only live 70 years at best. Small time frame compared to what it would take to regrow those tree's.

(By the way, I actually detest environmentalists, I simply don't see the small residential populations as worth saving via economics or for that matter, them being the real purpose of this bill.)
__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever
arch13 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:36 PM   #3 (permalink)
Addict
 
Master_Shake's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
It's not a resource if you don't do something with it. Forever cordoning off areas from development makes just as little economic sense as fire-bombing the whole thing.

If these birds are valuable let someone buy them.
__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.
Master_Shake is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
It's not a resource if you don't do something with it. Forever cordoning off areas from development makes just as little economic sense as fire-bombing the whole thing.

If these birds are valuable let someone buy them.
I think this pretty well encapsulates the group that doesn't understand that something can have value other than material worth.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:17 PM   #5 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
hmmmm these birds were thought to be extinct for 60 years huh? That means we have done nothing to "protect" thier habitat for 60 years....amazing that they managed to survive without us humans "protecting" them for all that time isn't it? It was also thought that the spotted owl required "large tracts of old growth forest for it's habitat to survive". Most logging of old growth in the northwest was halted when the spotted owl was a hot issue, now that we know it will also breed in second third growth forests we can go back to selectively logging some of these stands of trees that were closed to logging because of this, right? Well, we can can't we? No they are still closed, even though the reason they were closed was an out and out lie.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:21 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath
I think this pretty well encapsulates the group that doesn't understand that something can have value other than material worth.
And that is exactly what is wrong with things these days. People don't have to be able to make money off of it or even see it for it to have its own value.
kutulu is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:48 PM   #7 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
It really is amazingly great news. I remember looking at the pictures of the ivory in my birding books 20 years ago, thinking what an incredibly beautiful bird, and wondering if -- maybe -- it's still out there somewhere. . . .

Of course we don't know how big the population is and whether it's viable; who knows, there could be only a half dozen individuals still in existence. Next step is to get in there and do as accurate a census as possible.

On logging: there's only about 5% of the original old growth forest left in the NW; I think it's ridiculous that the timber interests claim that they need that 5% for their economic survival. The spotted owl does depend on large tracts of old growth; the fact that it uses a lot of younger growth now too is simply a matter of necessity. Its demographic rates in younger forest alone are abysmally low, not high enough to maintain a viable population.

Quote:
Glenn, E. M., M. C. Hansen, et al. (2004). "Spotted owl home-range and habitat use in young forests of western Oregon." Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1): 33-50.

To assess spotted owl use of young forests, we studied home-range sizes and habitat-use patterns of 24 adult northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) on 2 sites in the Oregon Coast Range: the Elliott State Forest (ESE) and state forest lands in the Northern Coast Range (NCR). Conifer forests at ESF were characterized by a mixture of old, mature, and pole-sized conifer, similar to other areas occupied by spotted owls in western Oregon, USA. In contrast, conifer forests at NCR were younger than most other sites occupied by spotted owls in western Oregon and consisted primarily of conifers <80 years old. Broadleaf forest also was abundant (approx 22%) at both ESE and NCR. We used an information-theoretic approach and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to evaluate a priori hypotheses about spotted owl home-range sizes and habitat-use patterns on our study areas. Considering previous knowledge about habitat requirements of the species, we predicted that owls occupying sites with fewer old conifer stands would have larger home ranges and that owls would select the oldest and most structurally diverse forest available for foraging and roosting. Our top model for evaluating home-range sizes indicated that the proportion of older conifer forest within the home range best explained the variability in home-range sizes. Although we found considerable variation in home-range size among owls, home-range sizes at ESF generally were smaller than home-range sizes at NCR, and home ranges at both sites were smaller than those reported for other study areas in western Oregon. Habitat-use patterns also varied widely among owls both within and between sites. Models containing distance to the nest tree, proximity to nearest forest edge, and proximity to nearest broadleaf-forest edge were the most parsimonious models for distinguishing owl locations from random points. On average, owl locations at both study areas were closer to ecotones between broadleaf forest and other cover types and farther from forest-nonforest ecotones than random points. Overall, we did not observe strong selection or avoidance of any cover type, although owls at ESE showed greatest use of older conifer forest while owls at NCR showed greatest use of broadleaf forest. Use of these habitat configurations and cover types by spotted owls had Dot been well documented prior to our study. The predictive power of our models was not great, however, indicating that factors in addition to those we included in our analysis may have influenced owl habitat-use patterns at our study areas. Based on our results, we recommend that managers at these sites maintain existing old and mature conifer forest, broadleaf forest, broadleaf-forest edges, and forested riparian areas as owl habitat; avoid timber harvest in core use areas; and plan the size of areas managed for spotted owls to reflect actual home-range and core-area sizes for owls in those forests.
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:59 PM   #8 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
my point was that what is said to be required, often turns out to simply be what the animal prefers. I prefer a Ferarri, but I drive a Nissan. As I stated earlier, this burd has survived for the last 60 years without our "protection". It was supposedly extinct. Now all of a sudden we have to protect it? Why? The bird has a lifespan of approx. 15 years, so it's definitely been breeding without any help from us. Why do we NEED to protect it now?
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 05:22 PM   #9 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
As I stated earlier, this burd has survived for the last 60 years without our "protection".
Not true; the sightings are within the protected Cache River National Wildlife Refuge.
Quote:
The bird has a lifespan of approx. 15 years, so it's definitely been breeding without any help from us.
Breeding is not all or none. If the reproductive rate hasn't been keeping up with the mortality rate, then the population is heading to extinction. The "birds" sighted may be just a single male seen over and over again. Nobody has any idea how big the colony is.

Quote:
Why do we NEED to protect it now?
It's a big bird. It needs big trees to nest in. Preferably decaying, so it doesn't kill itself trying to excavate a hole.

"Its disappearance coincided with the systematic annihilation of virgin tall forests across the south-eastern United States between 1880 and the 1940s," scientists said.
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 05:43 PM   #10 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
The Cache River Refuge was established in 1986, so what about the other 40 years we didn't protect it? I still don't see why if we thought the bird was extinct for 60 years, why we feel we NEED to protect it now. THere have also been sightings in Cuba within the last 25 years. "There has got to be a pretty serious lineage," Gill said. "It's got to be more than a few" Frank Gill is the senior ornithologist at the Audobon Society. I'd say he has some idea of the size of the colony.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 05:56 PM   #11 (permalink)
Psycho
 
jonjon42's Avatar
 
Location: inside my own mind
well the forest existed for those 40 years...it became a refuge so that the forest may continue to exist. If those rules are relaxed and development starts the habitat for these birds will be destroyed...

and cj2112 that anology sucks :P
I hate anologies but here is one that may be a bit better.
You live in a nice house, until suddenly it's replaced with a rusty trailer.
__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....
jonjon42 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:42 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The first thing I thought when I heard that they found evidence that this bird was still alive was "hmm, what would one of those taste like?"

I don't care about some stupid bird. I've seen thousands of birds, this one isn't so hot. A
ll the bill does is put up the issue of parks for debate. Instead of saying that there can be no roads, it lets all intrested groups get in their say. It gives more power to states to regulate what is done with land. If they want to turn all their parks into strip malls and parking garages, more power to them. It's funny that Dems only seem pro-choice when the choice is in killing more people, deity forbid that an animal might be killed.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 03:26 AM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
hmmmm these birds were thought to be extinct for 60 years huh? That means we have done nothing to "protect" thier habitat for 60 years....amazing that they managed to survive without us humans "protecting" them for all that time isn't it? It was also thought that the spotted owl required "large tracts of old growth forest for it's habitat to survive". Most logging of old growth in the northwest was halted when the spotted owl was a hot issue, now that we know it will also breed in second third growth forests we can go back to selectively logging some of these stands of trees that were closed to logging because of this, right? Well, we can can't we? No they are still closed, even though the reason they were closed was an out and out lie.
The protection of endangered species as a matter of official federal policy, ended about four years ago. Almost no new plant or animal species have been listed as endangered or threatened in that time. Furthermore, our government blocks archiving of all of it's sites these last few years by archive.org. My reaction is to remind all of you who vote for or who support the current regime of elected officials who control our federal government, that you are complicit and culpable in their anti-American and unlawful activities. Stay informed !

Bush admin. Secty of the Interior Gale Norton has been appointed to a second term in Bush's cabinet. She oversees the Fish & Wildlife agency that is responsible for the designation and protection of endangered species. The stats show that under her watch, designation of new species has nearly halted and the list awaiting designation grows.......

Archived fed. Wildlife website link from May, 2000:
http://web.archive.org/web/200008152...e.html#Species
http://web.archive.org/web/200008172...s.gov/webpage/
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010528193131/ecos.fws.gov/webpage/webpage_nonlisted.html?module=undefined&listings=0&type=C">Candidate Species as of 5/28/2001 Candidate Species count is 235</a>

"Box Score" Listings and Recovery Plans as of May 31, 2000
http://web.archive.org/web/200006220.../boxscore.html
Total U.S. Endangered -- 961 (368 animals, 593 plants)
Total U.S. Threatened -- 270 (128 animals, 142 plants)
Total U.S. Species -- 1231 (496 animals**, 735 plants)

Links to Current Site:
http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage
<a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.NonlistedSpecies?listings=0&type=C">Candidate Species as of 05/06/2005 Candidate Species count is 289</a>

"Box Score" Summary of Listed Species and Recovery Plans as of 05/06/2005
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSBoxscore
Total U.S. Endangered -- 987 (388 animals, 599 plants)
Total U.S. Threatened -- 276 (129 animals, 147 plants)
Total U.S. Species -- 1263 (517 animals***, 746 plants)

Quote:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=125
For Immediate Release: January 29, 2002
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

GALE ("TYPHOON") NORTON WREAKS HAVOC AT INTERIOR — Disastrous First Year, Say Employees

Washington, DC - In her first year as Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton has done more to disrupt efficiency, discredit the department and depress employee morale than any modern Interior Secretary, says Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national organization representing employees within Interior agencies.

"As the Department of Interior's leader, Gale Norton has been a walking disaster area," commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "Graded by administrative competence, apart from the environmental consequences of her actions, she is the worst Secretary since Teapot Dome - and, incredibly, instead of getting better, she is actually getting worse."

On the eve of the first anniversary of Gale Norton's confirmation, the employee group points to:

*Disruption of both public access and employee productivity flowing from the closure of Interior web sites and employee e-mail for the past two months, with no date for re-connection; http://www.billingsgazette.com/archi...02-network.inc

*Embarrassment from being cited for contempt of court hearings in the long-running tribal trust fund case after trying to intimidate agency employees to sign off on documents inappropriately; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002Jan7.html http://www1.msnbc.com/local/knbn/m124169.asp

*Falsification of her own agency's science in reporting to Congress on the biological effects of oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Oct18.html http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,...200861,00.html

* Destruction of morale from a post-Thanksgiving all-employee e-mail pledging to contract out five percent of all employee jobs in the short-term and up to half within five years; http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...241955,00.html

* Frustration of her own top professionals by blocking the Fish & Wildlife Service from filing prepared comments on a major relaxation of wetlands protections and then claiming it was Congress's fault; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jan20.html

* Confusion from threatening to pull out from, and then agreeing grudgingly to enforce, the land use restrictions resulting from a settlement to a desert protection lawsuit her own agency had signed; http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20...000041483.html (archived) http://uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/fri/index.html (archived)

* Refusal to adopt a non-retaliation policy to protect agency scientists, following the abrupt termination of a mapmaker, attracting both national and international publicity and featured in a Doonesbury series. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...169290,00.html http://www.defenders.org/den/dl00036. #SEVEN

"Scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other staff within Interior are dispirited and dismayed by the Secretary's performance," Ruch concluded. "If Gale Norton is trying to stimulate early retirement of her professional staff, she is doing a bang-up job."
http://www.honestchief.com/ Website of fired whistleblower Federal Parks Police Chief, Teresa Chambers
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
Park Police Chief Fired After Dispute, Suspension

By Karlyn Barker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A01

The Interior Department yesterday fired Teresa C. Chambers as chief of the U.S. Park Police, acting seven months after suspending her for going public with her concerns about money and staffing.
Quote:
http://www.peer.org/dgssearch/search.php?q=norton&r=10

1. http://www.peer.org/campaigns/chiefc...iacpletter.php - Translate
January 15, 2004 The Honorable Gale A. Norton Secretary of the Interior U.S....
...N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Secretary Norton: I understand that officials...
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/chiefc...iacpletter.php - - Feb 1, 2005 22:19:10

2. http://www.peer.org/watch/wiseuse/education.php - Translate
...project is perhaps best illustrated by Becky Norton Dunlop, right-wing activist...
www.peer.org/watch/wiseuse/education.php - - Feb 1, 2005 11:14:23

3. BUSH/NORTON PLAN BIG STAFF CUTS AT INTERIOR (2001-03-12) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=72

4. BUSH & NORTON'S BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IGNORING GRAZING AGREEMENT TO PROTECT DESERT TORTOISE (2001-03-29) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=74

5. SECRETARY NORTON FALSIFIED ARCTIC REFUGE DATA (2001-10-19) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=110

6. GALE ("TYPHOON") NORTON WREAKS HAVOC AT INTERIOR (2002-01-29) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=125

7. CONSERVATION GROUPS PETITION SECRETARY NORTON AND NPS (2002-06-20) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=166

8. SECRETARY NORTON IGNORES BALANCE AND BEST SCIENCE WITH PERMIT TO OPEN DUNES HABITAT TO ORVS (2003-04-08) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=239

9. SECRETARY NORTON IGNORES BALANCE AND BEST SCIENCE WITH PERMIT TO OPEN DUNES HABITAT TO ORVS (2003-05-23) - Translate
www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=255
host is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 04:43 AM   #14 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
The Cache River Refuge was established in 1986, so what about the other 40 years we didn't protect it?
The Cache River Refuge is probably the reason the bird still exists.

Take a look at this satellite photo:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=26320+...9206&t=k&hl=en

See the long dark green band meandering up and to the right, east of the refuge headquarters? That's the woodpecker habitat along Cache River. Notice how narrow the band is, and that it is completely surrounded by cleared farmland and development.

If the refuge and other conservation efforts hadn't been instituted to protect the waterfowl and other endangered species in the area, most likely that narrow little band would be either clearcut or farmland now.

Quote:
"There has got to be a pretty serious lineage," Gill said. "It's got to be more than a few" Frank Gill is the senior ornithologist at the Audobon Society. I'd say he has some idea of the size of the colony.
... and Frank Gill also believes the bird should be protected now.
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 09:50 AM   #15 (permalink)
Addict
 
Master_Shake's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath
I think this pretty well encapsulates the group that doesn't understand that something can have value other than material worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
And that is exactly what is wrong with things these days. People don't have to be able to make money off of it or even see it for it to have its own value.
Hey, I'm not trying to make money off the birds. I just don't see how it benefits me to have the bird protected, in fact, I don't see how it benefits anybody.

Also, if you think the bird has some value other than economic, what kind of value is that? And why is that value important?

Even if we let the bird survive we're never going to give it free reign to do as it likes. The choice you're giving us seems to be:

a. Exterminate the species

b. Forever imprison it in federal land.

I'm not sure which is really worse for the bird as a species, to be eliminated through natural selection or to become a species perpetually frozen in time.

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
val·ue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vly)
n.
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).
5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.
6. Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
7. Music. The relative duration of a tone or rest.
8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color. See table at color.
9. Linguistics. The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.
10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value.
Maybe the definition of value you are using fits under #4 but I think that's stretching it. If you mean it is important for bio-diversity or some such thing then say so, don't try to obscure things by claiming it has value.
__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Last edited by Master_Shake; 05-06-2005 at 09:57 AM..
Master_Shake is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 03:41 PM   #16 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
Nobody has answered my question, so I'll ask it again....why do we NEED to protect this bird when it has survived (while supposedly being extinct) without our protection for the 40 years before the refuge was created? Keep in mind, that we don't know for sure that this refuge is it's only habitat....we were wrong when we declared it extinct, we were wrong when we said those who had sighted this bird mistaked for a pileated woodpecker, now we're assuming that this bird is in danger of becoming extinct and assuming that in only lives in this one little tiny refuge? I don't buy it. I do agree that we should at least attempt to get an idea of how many of these birds exist. However i don't think that we need to tie up peoples private forests, prevent them from cutting trees on their own land, or otherwise prevent them from developing land they own.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 03:53 PM   #17 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
Hey, I'm not trying to make money off the birds. I just don't see how it benefits me to have the bird protected, in fact, I don't see how it benefits anybody.

Also, if you think the bird has some value other than economic, what kind of value is that? And why is that value important?
What is the value in a forest? Aside from the obvious side effect of keeping us alive, I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
Even if we let the bird survive we're never going to give it free reign to do as it likes. The choice you're giving us seems to be:

a. Exterminate the species

b. Forever imprison it in federal land.

I'm not sure which is really worse for the bird as a species, to be eliminated through natural selection or to become a species perpetually frozen in time.
This wouldn't really be considered natural selection since we destroyed its habitat. That's not particularly natural. All human beings do is screw up natural selection with intelligence. Now, don't get me wrong; I think we have the most right to be here and if it's between a human and a bird I'll pick the human. But if I can preserve a species and thus the diversity of the planet without inconveniencing mankind, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
EDIT:

Maybe the definition of value you are using fits under #4 but I think that's stretching it. If you mean it is important for bio-diversity or some such thing then say so, don't try to obscure things by claiming it has value.
I didn't bother to put in your dictionary definition because I don't care what the American Heritage folks have to say about a word. I know it's important that we preserve nature for future generations. We don't really need to go all the way down to species, do we? One from each Genus, or maybe Family if we're feeling generous should be enough. Sorry, rest of the primates. We took your slot.

I'm not trying to obscure things, as you put it; this bird isn't on trial here. I'm just saying it might be nice if we went the extra five feet and kept the species around. You are saying let it die because it doesn't affect you. A+ for self-involvement.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 03:54 PM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
Nobody has answered my question, so I'll ask it again....why do we NEED to protect this bird when it has survived (while supposedly being extinct) without our protection for the 40 years before the refuge was created? Keep in mind, that we don't know for sure that this refuge is it's only habitat....we were wrong when we declared it extinct, we were wrong when we said those who had sighted this bird mistaked for a pileated woodpecker, now we're assuming that this bird is in danger of becoming extinct and assuming that in only lives in this one little tiny refuge? I don't buy it. I do agree that we should at least attempt to get an idea of how many of these birds exist. However i don't think that we need to tie up peoples private forests, prevent them from cutting trees on their own land, or otherwise prevent them from developing land they own.
Until this news release, there were no confirmed reports of sightings of this bird for sixty years. Considering that, what methods would you propose to take a reliable census of the Ivory-Billed population? The sixty year absence of sightings has left you unconvinced. What difference would it make to you how many birds exist?

I posted documentation that the "wait and see" approach you advocate is already the recently implemented policy of the Dept. of the Interior. People with a similar philosophy to yours are in power. Species rarely, if ever, are added to the endangered list now, and pre-existing protections for those on the list are being rolled back with enthusiasm, not to worry.............
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 03:07 AM   #19 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Nobody has answered my question, so I'll ask it again....why do we NEED to protect this bird when it has survived (while supposedly being extinct) without our protection for the 40 years before the refuge was created?
Again, your premise here is simply not true. The bird had our protection for at least the last 66 years in the National Wildlife Refuge system in Arkansas. The neighboring White River NWR also contains sizeable habitat, and it was established in 1939.

So indeed we have been protecting the bird for at least the last 66 years, even though we weren't aware of it.

So if the argument is that "we haven't been protecting it and yet it survived, so protecting it is not necessary for survival, so we don't need to protect it" then that argument is invalid because the premise is simply not true.

And there is a second reason the argument is invalid: not only is the premise false, but the reasoning is invalid too. The logical assumption is that "if past protection wasn't necessary, then present protection is also unnecessary." This assumption relies on the belief that the threats in the past were equal to the threats in the present, and that simply is not true. Habitat destruction is permanent and ongoing.

Look at it this way: we weren't protecting the bird for the last 300,000 years and yet it survived all the way to the present day. Why do we need to protect it now if it survived for the last 300,000 years?

Your argument is reducible to absurdity; it implies we don't need to protect any species whatsoever.

Quote:
Keep in mind, that we don't know for sure that this refuge is it's only habitat
That's entirely true, but that is not an argument for not protecting other habitat that benefits the bird. It's an argument in favor of protecting these other habitats.

Quote:
....we were wrong when we declared it extinct, we were wrong when we said those who had sighted this bird mistaked for a pileated woodpecker
We were right that the population was utterly decimated by clearcutting of its habitat. It may not have gone extinct, but it easily could have. It was pure luck that it didn't go extinct.
Quote:
now we're assuming that this bird is in danger of becoming extinct . . . I don't buy it.
It's not an assumption, it's an inference. We are inferring from the facts that (1) the population was decimated; (2) small populations are orders of magnitude more likely to go extinct than large populations from demographic and environmental and genetic stochasticity; (3) scant habitat remains; and (4) remaining habitat is dwindling rapidly.

It's a reasonable inference. Many other bird species have gone extinct under the exact same set of conditions that the woodpecker finds itself in right now.

Quote:
i don't think that we need to tie up peoples private forests, prevent them from cutting trees on their own land, or otherwise prevent them from developing land they own.
OK well this opinion is well beyond the biological facts. If you value private land rights more than you value the bird, then that's a completely different realm of argument.

I'm simply pointing out the biological facts, and I don't think anything I've said is seriously contested by the knowledgeable biologists involved.
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 07:55 AM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
I understand that they are very tasty when deep-fried....
moosenose is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 04:06 PM   #21 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
We disagree that these are facts, I view what you are calling facts as enviro-nazi propoganda
Quote:
We were right that the population was utterly decimated by clearcutting of its habitat. It may not have gone extinct, but it easily could have. It was pure luck that it didn't go extinct.
this has yet to be proven as fact, it is merely an opinion while it is certainly an educated opinion, it is still an opinion. Just as it is my opinion that the rush to save every creature on earth is not popular because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes people feel good to save some poor defenseless creature from the big bad human race. It simply lets people feel like they are good citizens of mother earth, while they enjoy their hardwood floors and furniture.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 04:13 PM   #22 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
The fact is, it has been decimated by clear cutting.

How do we know? The entire community of trained ecologists and amateur bird watchers were able to see this bird on a regular basis up until 60 years ago, then nothing.

There are only a FEW unconfirmed sightings (the usual pileated woodpecker)
If this thing wasn't decimated there would have been some regular sightings.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 04:33 PM   #23 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
so it's a fact because you say it is? because evidence points in that general direction? did you read the cnn article you linked to that said that the bird is KNOWN to be shy?
Quote:
"It is not something you just go down and see. Your odds are very low," Gill said. "It is remote, difficult country. This time of year it is getting very buggy and very snakey and there is a lot of foliage."
that quote was taken from the cnn article you linked. Yes the article also says the disapearance coincided with the logging up to the 40's.....but it also states that the last verifiable sighting was in 1944...that coincides with the end of world war 2, so couldn't we infer from that fact that ending wars are bad for this bird? Yeah I know it's a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but so is this attitude that we have to save every friggin plant and animal just because it's the current popular thing to do.

Last edited by cj2112; 05-07-2005 at 04:35 PM..
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 05:17 PM   #24 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
No, we need to save plants and animals to save the biodiversity of this planet and protect the food-web.
A stable ecosystems and diverse flora and fauna are in our own best interest

When you kill off species there ARE other effects that happen. For instance, losing some bird species relieves some of the pressure from some insect species like beetles that feed off of different trees, and insects that can transmit diseases to other animals, like humans.

Life is like Jenga. Some pieces can be pulled and everything looks all right on the surface, because there can be some other pieces that can shoulder an additional load. But keep playing the game and eventually you crash.

People as a whole are tremendously short sighted. That fact that you don't care for every "friggin plant and animal", that you haven't even considered what affect any one animal can have on the whole system, shows that you suffer from a very common disease.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 05:34 PM   #25 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
this is exactly what I'm arguing....it was an opinion, presented as a fact, that we killed off the species, when in fact that species was still very much alive. It is also an opinion that the species is now threatened, also presented as a fact....I simply don't buy it.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 07:54 PM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
this is exactly what I'm arguing....it was an opinion, presented as a fact, that we killed off the species, when in fact that species was still very much alive. It is also an opinion that the species is now threatened, also presented as a fact....I simply don't buy it.
Here are links to your seven posts on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...07&postcount=5
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...69&postcount=8
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=10
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=16
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=21
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=23
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=25

You have asked questions and demanded answers from others. You "simply don't buy it", but your posts contain no documented information, references, or sources to back your opinion. You are the most prolific poster here, but what do you offer to increase the knowledge of the rest of us about this subject?
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2005, 08:06 PM   #27 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
I have yet to demand an answer, I have simply stated my opinion...is my opinion any less valid than yours? Did we not read the same information (most of my information was gleaned from the cnn article, or from the wildlife refuge website )and form our own opinions? I didn't post in this forum as some sort of personal competition, I was under the under the impression that this forum was for an exchange of ideas, not to try to convince people that one side is wrong, or one side is right. btw....is this thread about me and my posting habits, or is it about the bird and and the resulting environmental questions?
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-10-2005, 04:49 AM   #28 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
We disagree that these are facts, I view what you are calling facts as enviro-nazi propoganda
The fact that the population was decimated by rampant clearcut logging and farmland clearing is not disputed by any knowledgeable biologist. The only people currently disputing it to my knowledge (in the public realm) are conservative talk show hosts. They are not very good sources for scientific information and judgement.
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-10-2005, 05:08 AM   #29 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
I have simply stated my opinion...is my opinion any less valid than yours?
Well if you want people to take your opinion seriously, you need to defend it convincingly. Your original defense was logically invalid because of two false premises.

If you'd like to make a new argument, feel free.

BTW, here are the current protection plans for the woodpecker. There is nothing in here that would involve the government taking private property against the will of the owner.

The only restriction on private property is the usual one involving endangered animals: namley, it is illegal to kill them even if they are on your property. I don't consider that an outrageous infringement of anybody's property rights.

Quote:
The Interior Department, along with the Department of Agriculture, has proposed that more than $10 million in federal funds be committed to protect the bird. This amount would supplement $10 million already committed to research and habitat protection efforts by private sector groups and citizens, an amount expected to grow once news of the rediscovery spreads. Federal funds will be used for research and monitoring, recovery planning and public education. In addition, the funds will be used to enhance law enforcement and conserve habitat through conservation easements, safe-harbor agreements and conservation reserves.

. . . .

The Corridor of Hope and recovery teams have nine assignments. They will:

* Help develop and implement plans for local citizens to participate in writing a recovery plan that maintains historic public uses of land while protecting the bird’s habitat.

* Provide information for the consultation process required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that actions by federal agencies conserve endangered species.

* Provide information to private landowners on the voluntary conservation activities provided for in Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.

* Help develop and implement plans to manage visitor access. Response to the rediscovery is expected to trigger increased interest from bird enthusiasts and researchers. The conservation team will carefully evaluate management actions for public access to ensure opportunities to see the areas where the bird has been sighted and to facilitate research without jeopardizing its survival.

* Recommend to Secretary Norton others from local, state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, conservation groups hunting and fishing groups as well as private landowners who should be included in the recovery planning effort.

* Make recommendations for habitat that needs to be conserved through conservation easements, safe harbor agreements, purchase from willing sellers or other means.

* Help develop research and monitoring protocols. The recovery team will also reexamine previous credible reports of sightings in its historic range over the last few decades.

* Develop recommendations for the best use of federal funds being allocated to aid the bird’s recovery, utilize the Cooperative Agreement with the State of Arkansas under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act and work with private partners to integrate federal funds with private funds as part of an overall recovery plan.

* Develop effective communications tools, including the Internet, to inform bird enthusiasts, hunters, anglers, and others about significant developments related to the presence of this bird and its ultimate recovery.

The conservation efforts to be established for the benefit of the Ivory-billed woodpecker will emphasize working with local citizens and private landowners. The Interior Department will invite them to help develop the multi-year recovery plan that maintains historic public uses of land while protecting the bird’s habitat.

The recovery plan will adjust to emerging knowledge of these rare birds, their activities and habitat. Priority will be placed on developing a long-term plan that integrates federal, state, local and private resources. Recovery efforts will utilize partnerships, safe harbor agreements, easements and land purchases from willing sellers.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2005/r05-029.html
raveneye is offline  
Old 05-10-2005, 05:52 AM   #30 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
The fact that the population was decimated by rampant clearcut logging and farmland clearing is not disputed by any knowledgeable biologist. The only people currently disputing it to my knowledge (in the public realm) are conservative talk show hosts. They are not very good sources for scientific information and judgement.
The "fact" that the bird was extinct was also not disputed by any "knowledgable biologist....again it's not a fact, it's an opinion. People can call this a fact all they want, but that doesn't make it a fact. It may be the opinion of several biologists (many of whom swore up and down that old growth logging was the biggest danger to the spotted owl, we find out now that the biggest danger is another owl) that "rampant" logging "decimated"the population.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 05-10-2005, 06:02 AM   #31 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
he "fact" that the bird was extinct was also not disputed by any "knowledgable biologist
Yes it was disputed by many knowledgeable biologists. The standard opinion through most of those 60 years was that the bird was "probably extinct" although many people hoped it wasn't. It was listed as "endangered" in 1967, not extinct. It wasn't until 1994 until the IUCN listed it as extinct, but then they later changed the listing to "critically endangered" on the grounds that it could still exist.

While the possibility that the bird was extinct was always in dispute, the fact that it was and is endangered and in need of protection has never been in dispute by avian biologists.
raveneye is offline  
 

Tags
celebrate, extinct, habitat, ivorybilled, logging, woodpecker

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360