————————————————————
Another Ivory-bill update article today, this time in the Washington Post, if you can access it (always nice to see a major publication covering the saga seriously). Nothing terribly new; does mention that USFWS is still debating its decision because of all the controversial views/data it must evaluate (in its slow, not-very-transparent way); even says at one point it’s not known when they’ll make a decision, though USFWS earlier indicated they would have a decision by the end of this year — not very far away at all, or will they again be AWOL come December 31?
I did find it interesting that in well under 24 hours the article already has over 160 comments (when I last checked -- Edit: a day later, 250 comments!)… few of which add much value to the piece at all, but still nice to see that much public interest remaining. IBWO skeptics, I suppose, will cancel their subscriptions... ;)
————————————————————
The information in the above article has by now been passed along in dozens of other press articles (including NY Times), testament to a story that will not die (anytime soon). I’m not too convinced myself of the competency of the USFWS at this point, but nonetheless have to chuckle a bit at the degree to which skeptics must be tearing their hair out by now…. ;)
Someone on Facebook did recently post a link to this lengthy skeptic-take from a year ago:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.13144
It’s two main (and old) arguments are that 1) all the recent “evidence” for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is sketchy and uncertain — this is of course a matter of some prolonged and subjective debate as to just how sketchy each piece of evidence is (though I agree it isn't conclusive), and 2) the ongoing ‘limited pie’ argument that every dollar (or even hour) spent on the IBWO is money and time that could be better spent on some other pressing conservation issue — I get a little tired of this take, since it is almost ALWAYS the case that one can find a “better” place to spend any given set of dollars, time, energy. I suspect the authors themselves have spent money on lattes, furniture, family vacations, doodads, etc. etc. that could’ve instead gone to help endangered species, starving children, earthquake victims, or whatever. Even money spent saving say the Bald Eagle, California Condor, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, etc. could also have been well-spent on other different cases (including less glamorous ones). While the ‘fixed pie’ argument can sometimes have merit, it will always be one of debatable choices between competing interests, and the relatively small amount being apportioned for the Ivory-bill makes it seem a tad disingenuous/rhetorical.
---------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment