-----------------------------------------------------------
Am getting a small assortment of inquiries lately that I don’t have the time or energy to reply to in detail, so will simply respond to in a general way:
1) No, I don't expect the USFWS to alter their recommendation to de-list the IBWO, though it is possible they'll postpone a decision long enough that perhaps fresh, persuasive evidence will come to light (though I’m not expecting anything significant soon). USFWS is likely very aware of most all the prevailing evidence from the last decade+ (not to mention the century prior), none of which will likely sway their opinion... but, hey, I've been surprised before, and always a slim chance that sheer public pressure, and not conservation issues, might cause them to alter their stance.
2) People are sending me various articles, links, news stories, etc., because so much IBWO-related material has arisen lately (that I don’t report on). These are almost always things I’m aware of, but don’t post about because the content is either old, redundant, or simply weak.
Folks can continue sending things in (I’d still rather have 10 people send me something I already know about, than miss out on something that might be new to me); just know that if I don’t use something you send in, it doesn’t mean I didn’t receive or appreciate the email, but it simply didn’t pass a certain threshold of significance. But yeah, lots of nice retrospective articles out there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 comment:
If USFWS is "very aware of most all the prevailing evidence from the last decade+ (not to mention the century prior), none of which will likely sway their opinion..", then why are Bobby Harrison and Steven Latta of the National Aviary (and Project Principalis) offering to show FWS new photographic evidence in private meetings? Your opinion doesn't seem to square with the facts. Latta's comment about publishing priority suggests a scientific paper is in the works.
Post a Comment