Superbelt

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...er.found.reut/

Many people have heard of this story by now. A woodpecker that has been though of as extinct for 60 years has been "rediscovered". It has the nickname of "Lord God Bird" Because people who saw it would exclaim "Lord God, what a bird!"
The bird was discovered in a protected forest in Arkansas.
This bird requires large tracts of old growth forest for it's habitat to survive.
Gale Norton was on the tube last night talking about how huge this find was.

Today they come out with this
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w100120D84.DTL
Basically a retraction of a last minute Clinton era rule that kept roads out of national park lands.
Bush, Industry and some states want the roads opened up for "resource recovery" and the building of attractions that would support a local tax base.

Reading the article you see that most of the areas opened up are in the west, though this rule change does make it easier for the other 2/3 of national forest lands to be invaded as well, eventually.

Why do some place greater value on a short term and temporary source of money at the expense of a permanent degradation of our last natural areas?

arch13

Because the only thing people care about is themselves and their short little lives.
As long as the money is good for them, and they don't have to worry about paying for their house, they'll sail every succeding generation up the river if need be.

Measures to open up park land for tourism to boost economy's have historicaly failed to work, and have usually been a precedent for use of the natural resources. After all, building the roads in is the needed access for resource extraction.

No one has the balls to actually say that a small population in a failed town is less important than keeping the natural resources protected. But the reality is they are less important. They only live 70 years at best. Small time frame compared to what it would take to regrow those tree's.

(By the way, I actually detest environmentalists, I simply don't see the small residential populations as worth saving via economics or for that matter, them being the real purpose of this bill.)

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Master_Shake

It's not a resource if you don't do something with it. Forever cordoning off areas from development makes just as little economic sense as fire-bombing the whole thing.

If these birds are valuable let someone buy them.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Kadath

I think this pretty well encapsulates the group that doesn't understand that something can have value other than material worth.

__________________
it's quiet in here

cj2112

hmmmm these birds were thought to be extinct for 60 years huh? That means we have done nothing to "protect" thier habitat for 60 years....amazing that they managed to survive without us humans "protecting" them for all that time isn't it? It was also thought that the spotted owl required "large tracts of old growth forest for it's habitat to survive". Most logging of old growth in the northwest was halted when the spotted owl was a hot issue, now that we know it will also breed in second third growth forests we can go back to selectively logging some of these stands of trees that were closed to logging because of this, right? Well, we can can't we? No they are still closed, even though the reason they were closed was an out and out lie.

kutulu

And that is exactly what is wrong with things these days. People don't have to be able to make money off of it or even see it for it to have its own value.

raveneye

It really is amazingly great news. I remember looking at the pictures of the ivory in my birding books 20 years ago, thinking what an incredibly beautiful bird, and wondering if -- maybe -- it's still out there somewhere. . . .

Of course we don't know how big the population is and whether it's viable; who knows, there could be only a half dozen individuals still in existence. Next step is to get in there and do as accurate a census as possible.

On logging: there's only about 5% of the original old growth forest left in the NW; I think it's ridiculous that the timber interests claim that they need that 5% for their economic survival. The spotted owl does depend on large tracts of old growth; the fact that it uses a lot of younger growth now too is simply a matter of necessity. Its demographic rates in younger forest alone are abysmally low, not high enough to maintain a viable population.

cj2112

my point was that what is said to be required, often turns out to simply be what the animal prefers. I prefer a Ferarri, but I drive a Nissan. As I stated earlier, this burd has survived for the last 60 years without our "protection". It was supposedly extinct. Now all of a sudden we have to protect it? Why? The bird has a lifespan of approx. 15 years, so it's definitely been breeding without any help from us. Why do we NEED to protect it now?

raveneye

Not true; the sightings are within the protected Cache River National Wildlife Refuge.
Breeding is not all or none. If the reproductive rate hasn't been keeping up with the mortality rate, then the population is heading to extinction. The "birds" sighted may be just a single male seen over and over again. Nobody has any idea how big the colony is.

It's a big bird. It needs big trees to nest in. Preferably decaying, so it doesn't kill itself trying to excavate a hole.

"Its disappearance coincided with the systematic annihilation of virgin tall forests across the south-eastern United States between 1880 and the 1940s," scientists said.

cj2112

The Cache River Refuge was established in 1986, so what about the other 40 years we didn't protect it? I still don't see why if we thought the bird was extinct for 60 years, why we feel we NEED to protect it now. THere have also been sightings in Cuba within the last 25 years. "There has got to be a pretty serious lineage," Gill said. "It's got to be more than a few" Frank Gill is the senior ornithologist at the Audobon Society. I'd say he has some idea of the size of the colony.

jonjon42

well the forest existed for those 40 years...it became a refuge so that the forest may continue to exist. If those rules are relaxed and development starts the habitat for these birds will be destroyed...

and cj2112 that anology sucks :P
I hate anologies but here is one that may be a bit better.
You live in a nice house, until suddenly it's replaced with a rusty trailer.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

alansmithee

The first thing I thought when I heard that they found evidence that this bird was still alive was "hmm, what would one of those taste like?"

I don't care about some stupid bird. I've seen thousands of birds, this one isn't so hot. A
ll the bill does is put up the issue of parks for debate. Instead of saying that there can be no roads, it lets all intrested groups get in their say. It gives more power to states to regulate what is done with land. If they want to turn all their parks into strip malls and parking garages, more power to them. It's funny that Dems only seem pro-choice when the choice is in killing more people, deity forbid that an animal might be killed.

host

The protection of endangered species as a matter of official federal policy, ended about four years ago. Almost no new plant or animal species have been listed as endangered or threatened in that time. Furthermore, our government blocks archiving of all of it's sites these last few years by archive.org. My reaction is to remind all of you who vote for or who support the current regime of elected officials who control our federal government, that you are complicit and culpable in their anti-American and unlawful activities. Stay informed !

Bush admin. Secty of the Interior Gale Norton has been appointed to a second term in Bush's cabinet. She oversees the Fish & Wildlife agency that is responsible for the designation and protection of endangered species. The stats show that under her watch, designation of new species has nearly halted and the list awaiting designation grows.......

Archived fed. Wildlife website link from May, 2000:
http://web.archive.org/web/200008152...e.html#Species
http://web.archive.org/web/200008172...s.gov/webpage/
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010528193131/ecos.fws.gov/webpage/webpage_nonlisted.html?module=undefined&listings=0&type=C">Candidate Species as of 5/28/2001 Candidate Species count is 235</a>

"Box Score" Listings and Recovery Plans as of May 31, 2000
http://web.archive.org/web/200006220.../boxscore.html
Total U.S. Endangered -- 961 (368 animals, 593 plants)
Total U.S. Threatened -- 270 (128 animals, 142 plants)
Total U.S. Species -- 1231 (496 animals**, 735 plants)

Links to Current Site:
http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage
<a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.NonlistedSpecies?listings=0&type=C">Candidate Species as of 05/06/2005 Candidate Species count is 289</a>

"Box Score" Summary of Listed Species and Recovery Plans as of 05/06/2005
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSBoxscore
Total U.S. Endangered -- 987 (388 animals, 599 plants)
Total U.S. Threatened -- 276 (129 animals, 147 plants)
Total U.S. Species -- 1263 (517 animals***, 746 plants)

http://www.honestchief.com/ Website of fired whistleblower Federal Parks Police Chief, Teresa Chambers

raveneye

The Cache River Refuge is probably the reason the bird still exists.

Take a look at this satellite photo:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=26320+...9206&t=k&hl=en

See the long dark green band meandering up and to the right, east of the refuge headquarters? That's the woodpecker habitat along Cache River. Notice how narrow the band is, and that it is completely surrounded by cleared farmland and development.

If the refuge and other conservation efforts hadn't been instituted to protect the waterfowl and other endangered species in the area, most likely that narrow little band would be either clearcut or farmland now.

... and Frank Gill also believes the bird should be protected now.

Master_Shake

Hey, I'm not trying to make money off the birds. I just don't see how it benefits me to have the bird protected, in fact, I don't see how it benefits anybody.

Also, if you think the bird has some value other than economic, what kind of value is that? And why is that value important?

Even if we let the bird survive we're never going to give it free reign to do as it likes. The choice you're giving us seems to be:

a. Exterminate the species

b. Forever imprison it in federal land.

I'm not sure which is really worse for the bird as a species, to be eliminated through natural selection or to become a species perpetually frozen in time.

EDIT:
Maybe the definition of value you are using fits under #4 but I think that's stretching it. If you mean it is important for bio-diversity or some such thing then say so, don't try to obscure things by claiming it has value.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

cj2112

Nobody has answered my question, so I'll ask it again....why do we NEED to protect this bird when it has survived (while supposedly being extinct) without our protection for the 40 years before the refuge was created? Keep in mind, that we don't know for sure that this refuge is it's only habitat....we were wrong when we declared it extinct, we were wrong when we said those who had sighted this bird mistaked for a pileated woodpecker, now we're assuming that this bird is in danger of becoming extinct and assuming that in only lives in this one little tiny refuge? I don't buy it. I do agree that we should at least attempt to get an idea of how many of these birds exist. However i don't think that we need to tie up peoples private forests, prevent them from cutting trees on their own land, or otherwise prevent them from developing land they own.

Kadath

What is the value in a forest? Aside from the obvious side effect of keeping us alive, I mean.

This wouldn't really be considered natural selection since we destroyed its habitat. That's not particularly natural. All human beings do is screw up natural selection with intelligence. Now, don't get me wrong; I think we have the most right to be here and if it's between a human and a bird I'll pick the human. But if I can preserve a species and thus the diversity of the planet without inconveniencing mankind, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

I didn't bother to put in your dictionary definition because I don't care what the American Heritage folks have to say about a word. I know it's important that we preserve nature for future generations. We don't really need to go all the way down to species, do we? One from each Genus, or maybe Family if we're feeling generous should be enough. Sorry, rest of the primates. We took your slot.

I'm not trying to obscure things, as you put it; this bird isn't on trial here. I'm just saying it might be nice if we went the extra five feet and kept the species around. You are saying let it die because it doesn't affect you. A+ for self-involvement.

__________________
it's quiet in here

host

Until this news release, there were no confirmed reports of sightings of this bird for sixty years. Considering that, what methods would you propose to take a reliable census of the Ivory-Billed population? The sixty year absence of sightings has left you unconvinced. What difference would it make to you how many birds exist?

I posted documentation that the "wait and see" approach you advocate is already the recently implemented policy of the Dept. of the Interior. People with a similar philosophy to yours are in power. Species rarely, if ever, are added to the endangered list now, and pre-existing protections for those on the list are being rolled back with enthusiasm, not to worry.............

raveneye

Again, your premise here is simply not true. The bird had our protection for at least the last 66 years in the National Wildlife Refuge system in Arkansas. The neighboring White River NWR also contains sizeable habitat, and it was established in 1939.

So indeed we have been protecting the bird for at least the last 66 years, even though we weren't aware of it.

So if the argument is that "we haven't been protecting it and yet it survived, so protecting it is not necessary for survival, so we don't need to protect it" then that argument is invalid because the premise is simply not true.

And there is a second reason the argument is invalid: not only is the premise false, but the reasoning is invalid too. The logical assumption is that "if past protection wasn't necessary, then present protection is also unnecessary." This assumption relies on the belief that the threats in the past were equal to the threats in the present, and that simply is not true. Habitat destruction is permanent and ongoing.

Look at it this way: we weren't protecting the bird for the last 300,000 years and yet it survived all the way to the present day. Why do we need to protect it now if it survived for the last 300,000 years?

Your argument is reducible to absurdity; it implies we don't need to protect any species whatsoever.

That's entirely true, but that is not an argument for not protecting other habitat that benefits the bird. It's an argument in favor of protecting these other habitats.

We were right that the population was utterly decimated by clearcutting of its habitat. It may not have gone extinct, but it easily could have. It was pure luck that it didn't go extinct.
It's not an assumption, it's an inference. We are inferring from the facts that (1) the population was decimated; (2) small populations are orders of magnitude more likely to go extinct than large populations from demographic and environmental and genetic stochasticity; (3) scant habitat remains; and (4) remaining habitat is dwindling rapidly.

It's a reasonable inference. Many other bird species have gone extinct under the exact same set of conditions that the woodpecker finds itself in right now.

OK well this opinion is well beyond the biological facts. If you value private land rights more than you value the bird, then that's a completely different realm of argument.

I'm simply pointing out the biological facts, and I don't think anything I've said is seriously contested by the knowledgeable biologists involved.

moosenose

I understand that they are very tasty when deep-fried....

cj2112

We disagree that these are facts, I view what you are calling facts as enviro-nazi propoganda this has yet to be proven as fact, it is merely an opinion while it is certainly an educated opinion, it is still an opinion. Just as it is my opinion that the rush to save every creature on earth is not popular because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes people feel good to save some poor defenseless creature from the big bad human race. It simply lets people feel like they are good citizens of mother earth, while they enjoy their hardwood floors and furniture.

Superbelt

The fact is, it has been decimated by clear cutting.

How do we know? The entire community of trained ecologists and amateur bird watchers were able to see this bird on a regular basis up until 60 years ago, then nothing.

There are only a FEW unconfirmed sightings (the usual pileated woodpecker)
If this thing wasn't decimated there would have been some regular sightings.

cj2112

so it's a fact because you say it is? because evidence points in that general direction? did you read the cnn article you linked to that said that the bird is KNOWN to be shy? that quote was taken from the cnn article you linked. Yes the article also says the disapearance coincided with the logging up to the 40's.....but it also states that the last verifiable sighting was in 1944...that coincides with the end of world war 2, so couldn't we infer from that fact that ending wars are bad for this bird? Yeah I know it's a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but so is this attitude that we have to save every friggin plant and animal just because it's the current popular thing to do.

Superbelt

No, we need to save plants and animals to save the biodiversity of this planet and protect the food-web.
A stable ecosystems and diverse flora and fauna are in our own best interest

When you kill off species there ARE other effects that happen. For instance, losing some bird species relieves some of the pressure from some insect species like beetles that feed off of different trees, and insects that can transmit diseases to other animals, like humans.

Life is like Jenga. Some pieces can be pulled and everything looks all right on the surface, because there can be some other pieces that can shoulder an additional load. But keep playing the game and eventually you crash.

People as a whole are tremendously short sighted. That fact that you don't care for every "friggin plant and animal", that you haven't even considered what affect any one animal can have on the whole system, shows that you suffer from a very common disease.

cj2112

this is exactly what I'm arguing....it was an opinion, presented as a fact, that we killed off the species, when in fact that species was still very much alive. It is also an opinion that the species is now threatened, also presented as a fact....I simply don't buy it.

host

Here are links to your seven posts on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...07&postcount=5
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...69&postcount=8
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=10
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=16
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=21
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=23
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=25

You have asked questions and demanded answers from others. You "simply don't buy it", but your posts contain no documented information, references, or sources to back your opinion. You are the most prolific poster here, but what do you offer to increase the knowledge of the rest of us about this subject?

cj2112

I have yet to demand an answer, I have simply stated my opinion...is my opinion any less valid than yours? Did we not read the same information (most of my information was gleaned from the cnn article, or from the wildlife refuge website )and form our own opinions? I didn't post in this forum as some sort of personal competition, I was under the under the impression that this forum was for an exchange of ideas, not to try to convince people that one side is wrong, or one side is right. btw....is this thread about me and my posting habits, or is it about the bird and and the resulting environmental questions?

raveneye

The fact that the population was decimated by rampant clearcut logging and farmland clearing is not disputed by any knowledgeable biologist. The only people currently disputing it to my knowledge (in the public realm) are conservative talk show hosts. They are not very good sources for scientific information and judgement.

raveneye

Well if you want people to take your opinion seriously, you need to defend it convincingly. Your original defense was logically invalid because of two false premises.

If you'd like to make a new argument, feel free.

BTW, here are the current protection plans for the woodpecker. There is nothing in here that would involve the government taking private property against the will of the owner.

The only restriction on private property is the usual one involving endangered animals: namley, it is illegal to kill them even if they are on your property. I don't consider that an outrageous infringement of anybody's property rights.

cj2112

The "fact" that the bird was extinct was also not disputed by any "knowledgable biologist....again it's not a fact, it's an opinion. People can call this a fact all they want, but that doesn't make it a fact. It may be the opinion of several biologists (many of whom swore up and down that old growth logging was the biggest danger to the spotted owl, we find out now that the biggest danger is another owl) that "rampant" logging "decimated"the population.

raveneye

Yes it was disputed by many knowledgeable biologists. The standard opinion through most of those 60 years was that the bird was "probably extinct" although many people hoped it wasn't. It was listed as "endangered" in 1967, not extinct. It wasn't until 1994 until the IUCN listed it as extinct, but then they later changed the listing to "critically endangered" on the grounds that it could still exist.

While the possibility that the bird was extinct was always in dispute, the fact that it was and is endangered and in need of protection has never been in dispute by avian biologists.