———————————————————
Luckily was able to clear off my evening schedule and listen to the entire 90-minute USFWS de-listing meeting for IBWO last night, so here’s some take-aways and generalizations of the good and the bad:
At the peak there were close to 170 people attending. Only about 15 people though spoke on the de-listing proposal, and all but 2 opposed it — I was surprised there weren’t more speakers, including more skeptics; surprised also that not a single prominent, well-known, “name” birder spoke at the meeting (…or, do they just presume the debate is already over?). Disappointed too that more professional ornithologists, either pro or con, didn't take time to participate. And there were about 10 “no-shows” — people who registered ahead of time to speak but then weren’t present (a couple of others who registered to speak, changed their minds, saying they would instead offer further written comments, but not speak). [ Further comments can be submitted here, until Feb. 10: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0107 ]
The 2-minute limit per presentation was of course verrrrrry limiting in what one could address or how much data or evidence could be referenced — again that will be remedied in submitted written comments or private presentations (which probably explains why a lot of fairly prominent "believers" neglected speaking at the meeting, as well).
Time constraints gave the meeting, in my view, more the look of “window-dressing” than real substance, but with that said, and despite a few fairly pithy, not-very-consequential comments, thought the overall range and content of comments was quite good and varied given those significant limitations.
As typical for Zoom meetings there were a number of procedural and glitchy issues which frankly wasted a lot of time that could’ve been employed for more presentation; I’d say at least 20% of the time was squandered, but ohh well, not unexpected.
USFWS took no questions themselves during the meeting, but did say (if I understood correctly) that the meeting would be recorded and posted on their website -- not sure how soon that will happen [ they now report the meeting will be posted within 2 weeks here: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/
Again, can’t imagine that the meeting itself will change any minds, that would be up to the more detailed presentations that USFWS receives in writing or private contacts.
Lastly, worth commending Matt Courtman (and his passion) for just making this meeting happen.
[for any who don't already know, he hopes to embark on a 5-year effort to document the IBWO to everyone's satisfaction]
Finally, I'll reiterate what I’ve essentially said in the past: What is needed is really pretty simple. These birds (if around) MUST BE nesting and daily roosting and foraging. Find a nesthole, roosthole, or foraging site, stake it out with a human or automatic remote camera, and get the required photo/video (not easy, but shouldn't take decades). End... of... debate… Individual sighting claims, audio data, and blurry or distant flight videos, will NOT do it… though yes, we can easily spend another 25 years gathering/debating that level of evidence.
De-listing is the issue of the moment, but long-term we must get the birding/ornithological/conservation community behind this species, and last night’s meeting, as pleasant as it was, won’t accomplish that... and the low participation from skeptics implies to me that they still think the debate is already long over (or perhaps they watched simply to see what points would be stressed and will now submit more written comments to oppose those points?). Bottom line: the bar is high, very high, to document this species, but honestly, the bar is even higher to declare extinction.
....Seems like possibly a good time to close out with Sufjan Stevens' moving tribute to the Ivory-bill (which I used to post about once-a-year, but haven't done so in quite a while):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9K6MHe890
———————————————————
1 comment:
One of the critiques arising lately (came up on the meeting from USFW and a commenter, and on recent FB posts) is the allocation of efforts to species worth saving. It's important to counter this with the idea that the IB is a symbol for the ENTIRE linked woodland ecosystem of the southeast US, and perhaps more. It is clearly linked to rivers, streams, wetland, and riparian systems. It is disingenuous to suggest the money be spent more on localized endangered species. The word efficiency was used; the most efficient species to study and safeguard in this manner is the IB. Yes I will be adding this in my USFW written comment
Post a Comment