-- Another Date Set -- +Addenda

———————————————————

In some encouraging news, according to a press report, the USFWS will hold (as requested by Matt Courtman) a final, virtual 90-minute “public hearing to air competing views” of Ivory-bill persistence on January 26.  Encouraging on the one hand, but also hard to imagine officials will hear anything they haven’t already heard either through the written comment period or in private communications, and unlike that period which was dominated by “believers” this meeting may have a stronger showing of “deniers” countering with their case. Even if IBWO proponents got the bulk of time (say 60+ minutes to 30 or less for skeptics), it will be difficult to squeeze the most significant evidence into that time-frame, and perhaps the purpose of meeting is to give skeptics the opportunity in real time to counter such evidence. Very few details given as yet.

Also, I’m not sure if “public hearing” means it will be open to the public-at-large, but assume, in any event main speakers will be designated ahead of time (otherwise, it could be one raucous meeting!). When more info is available I will add it onto this post. 

(Hey, in the meantime, read Chris Haney's book ;))

———————————————————

ADDENDUM:  OK, some additional information:

The virtual (Zoom) meeting will take place from 6 to 7:30pm (Central Standard Time) on Wed., Jan. 26, and requires preregistration to attend. Register here:

https://empsi.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwvc--oqzItHtAA9U6PXgtsa5Xk85dKtaxm

(The form asks if you wish to make a public comment during the meeting… I have no idea if all who answer ‘yes’ to that will get a chance to?)

In addition to the meeting, the comment period on the FWS recommendation to de-list the IBWO has been extended for another 30 days (through Feb. 10), so if you still wish to comment you may do so.

…It would be great to be a fly on the wall at the current FWS meetings where this is all being discussed/debated ;)

.................................................

ADDENDUM 2:

ahhhh, was getting snippets of info from various small news services before, but finally found official announcement with all the info here:

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2022/01/service-proposes-to-delist-ivory-billed-woodpecker/#endangeredspecies

.................................................

ADDENDUM 3  1/13/22 (just for fun)…:

First, just passing along a nice write-up on the amazing journey of the Steller Sea Eagle that has shown up, sort-of, ummm, against all probability, in the U.S. lower 48:

https://www.audubon.org/news/inside-amazing-cross-continent-saga-stellers-sea-eagle

Now, just for fun, am trying to figure out how the FWS Zoom meeting will go on Jan. 26. The meeting is only 90 minutes and I assume at least 10 minutes will be taken up with some sort of official opening and closing statements, and perhaps interruptions or glitches along the way, leaving at most 80 mins. for signed-up public speakers. What’s hard to guess ahead of time is how many folks will wish (or be allowed) to speak at the event. But say speakers are limited to a 4 minute presentation, that would then permit a max of 20 speakers, some of whom will undoubtedly be skeptics and conservationists arguing for de-listing (and spending any dollars/resources that would be allocated toward the IBWO on other more savable species). Even if it’s one-sided (which I’m not at all sure it will be) and there were only 5 naysayers, that leaves time for 15 IBWO proponents — I again have no idea if a lot more, or a lot less than 15 will request speaking time (with a lot less, then perhaps speaking time could be expanded well over 4 minutes). I assume FWS are themselves trying to work out the format and ground rules as they go along. Alternatively, maybe Matt Courtman, since he requested this meeting, will get to organize who and for how long proponents speak, and someone else will be responsible for organizing the rebuttal response; just don’t know but fun to think about…. and hey, maybe ALL my numbers are screwed up from the get-go… in less than 2 weeks we’ll know better... once again though, I'd keep expectations low; such a meeting may delay a final decision 'til after the current winter season is over, but still difficult for me to see it altering the decision.

[If anyone knows for certain more details of the meeting format, feel free to describe in comments.]

[addenda to Addenda!:  in comment below, "John" mentions he has signed up and been given 2 minutes to speak; I assume, unless I hear otherwise, that will be the limit for most or all speakers.]

.................................................

ADDENDUM 4  1/14/22  (sorry for extending this out so much, but hard to stay silent):

For any who don’t already follow it, I’ll note that the main IBWO-search Facebook page has become very active with comments (one post has over 230 comments!) back-and-forth on several different postings:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368

(I don’t personally engage on FB, at least not on controversial topics, because of my disdain for Zuck and his creation, but am happy to see more skeptics once again entering the fray on that site which is heavily believers preaching to the choir, existing within a bubble that I don’t think recognizes the magnitude of the skepticism that must  be overcome — with that said, I will say I admire the persistence and approach of Matt Courtman through all of this, even while finding him overly-optimistic. The success (for believers) of the USFWS Zoom meeting will likely be dependent not so much on the evidence presented by the pro-IBWO camp, but rather by the effectiveness of the counterarguments and points by skeptics.  

After all this time I still believe the best evidence (unfortunately) for the IBWO was that compiled by Cornell in the Big Woods over 15 years ago (which could’ve been a single bird, long-since deceased — I don’t believe that's the case, but just sayin’ could be). Everything since then has been weaker evidence, though often intriguing, but I won’t get into all the unresolvable arguments over it, leaving that to others. And while there may be more, newer evidence not yet made public, am very doubtful any of it will be a game-changer (even possible it could serve to increase skepticism).

Luckily, whatever USFWS eventually decides, folks will continue to search for the IBWO, and it may even eventually be documented, not by a searcher, but by another Gene Sparling or David Kulivan type figure who simply stumbles upon it.

...In the meantime, a Steller's Eagle continues to hang out in Maine (as of 1/14) giving photo-ops to lucky chasers. ;)

[Another Addenda to Addenda!:  I'll just point out this one comment from Professor Mark Bonta as one of the simple reasons I still hold significant hope for IBWO persistence:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5013687525319304/ ]

…and m-m-m-more Addenda: Well, at the risk of overdoing it and entertaining you too much ;) I’ll pass along yet another thread of comments from FB with a lot of back-and-forth (including ABA’s Nate Swick drawn back into the fray among other skeptics):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5009219549099435/

The thread begins to illustrate what has to be overcome (and quite likely won't be, without truly fresh, game-changing evidence), at the USFWS Zoom de-listing meeting in a little over a week. The next 9 days over at FB could be wild.

.................................................