"....The truth is out there."
-- Dr. Jerome Jackson, 2002 (... & Agent Fox Mulder)
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
"All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Sunday, July 02, 2006
My initial gut reaction to a monetary reward offered for information leading to the confirmation of the Ivory-bill in Arkansas was one of leery skepticism. Birders/conservationists should not require such an incentive, and other more dubious types may wreak mischief from such motivation. However, on further reflection I feel better now about the 'bounty' approach in this instance. One of the thoughts over decades, has been that the very individuals, hunters, fisherman, swampers, who would be most likely to spot Ivory-bills would never report it due to their fear of the 'Feds' stepping in to tightly regulate the land they hold dear. To the degree that the financial incentive is aimed, not at birders, but at securing the cooperation/aid of 1000's of Southern outdoorsmen bearing such fears, just maybe it will serve a purpose overriding its potential downside.
The officers I speak to do not want anyone in the woods doing a "study". It will ruin everything they have worked hard for.
I hope they do not create a "reward" here, the birds are already on protected land and if such time that the land is threatened by a careless administration then they have a tool to come forward with to protect the woods.
My conversations with Jerry Jackson revealed that he wants lands closed that harbor the birds. Even Tanner in his report to the Audobon society demanded that the land be closed to all hunting and such. It will absolutely be done when someone comes forward with the "proof" that everyone wants. I think this pandora's box needs to stay closed and the skeptics need to be the ones who "win" so the birds can win. Bill
Absolutely. That is my point. But is this species in need of a "recovery" plan? From what I have discovered it is doing fine despite humans. Hunting and land use is being done in a responsibly managed way here in Florida and the bird seems to be doing fine.
Maybe the FWC people have the right idea and are using the knowledge they have to hold a trump card in case of a need to save forests.
I have been duly notified that a judge could, if he or she decided, hold a person in contempt if they refused to disclose locations. This is disturbing to me, but havng questioned my family attorney, this is a real possiblility backed up by legal precidence.
I wish I could resolve my personal quandry and figure out what to do with the information I have gathered.
Mike Collins might make it easier, once he publishes his paper he will answer the question once and for all that they at least survive.
This might make it easier for others to come forward with their information. I have never had a doubt that he photographed the birds and I have yet to figure out why his video hasn't been considred definative proof.
sincerely, Steve Sheridan
The excerpted statement is simply incorrect. There is no federal, state, or local law that would ever require a private citizen to disclose the location of a bird.
It's just plain silly.
Links to this post: