[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: FW: The Ivory-billed and the IBA

I agree completely with Dave's thoughts on this. Hopefully the individual found does not represent a lone remnant individual like the last female in the Singer tract in Louisiana in the 40's. We would all like to see this bird return to a viable population that makes it possible for birders of many generations to see. Certainly contributions to the organizations mentioned may help. It has been mentioned as well by those involved in the conservation efforts that the help of birders in finding other areas that have also Ivory-billed Woodpeckers would be most welcome. However, I would not want to heap guilt upon those birders who wish to try and see this bird (please understand that for my part I don't plan on going), as long as they obey the rules laid out by the management team and observe the highest standards of birding ethics. If you look at the map and read the management restrictions, you can see that there has been considerable thought put into how to make the area available to birders who want to try for the bird (while also being frank about how slim the chances are of seeing one) without compromising the survival of the species.

One element in the conservation effort that has been ignored in the discussions I've seen so far is the role of the local people. The conservation of this species will not be accomplished through the efforts of the government agencies and conservation organizations alone. There are people living there, who make their living from the land, often with practices that conflict with the goal of ensuring the survival of this species. After all, that is why the bird was pushed to the brink of extinction in the first place. The local people will be asked to make very real sacrifices to save this bird. They will be asked to sell their land, reforest land they currently farm, allow flooding in places where it is now controlled, and accept new restrictions on the use of public lands they used to enjoy freely. All this may come with no tangible benefit to them. There is a very real chance that what now appears to be some local pride over the finding of this bird could quickly change to resentment. Without the continued cooperation of the locals in the conservation efforts, these efforts will fail. We see much the same situation right here in Utah with the Gunnison Sage-Grouse in San Juan County, where conservation efforts are hampered by indifference and antipathy of the local landowners.

The economic boost that responsible birding tourism can bring to the area would go a long way to ensure that the local people stay firmly behind the efforts to save the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. If all birders stay away, what then?

Mark Stackhouse


On Apr 30, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Dave Rintoul wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-birdtalk@utahbirds.org [mailto:owner-birdtalk@utahbirds.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Stackhouse
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:57 PM
To: birdtalk
Subject: [BirdTalk] FW: The Ivory-billed and the IBA

Here's a note from the local folks about the Ivory-billed and the IBA
program there. It's especially of interest to anyone who wants to try to see
this bird, as it has a link to information about where to go to see it.
Apparently there are certain areas off-limits, but they have designated
sites where the bird has been seen that birders can go to look for it.
===

Perhaps a better approach would be to donate the money you might spend on a
trip to Arkansas to the Nature Conservancy, the Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology, or Audubon. You would even put it into a savings account that
might allow your children to go to Arkansas in a few decades, when hopefully
the population(s) of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are large enough to not be
affected by too many humans. Or spend the money to travel to someplace else
wher the bird has been reported in the past few decades, and see if you can
help find another population. All of these things would help ensure that
your kids might get to see the bird someday.

The birds apparently did OK for 60+ years without us; I think we should give
them about 60 more. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see one myself. But the
ego gratification of having that bird on my personal life list is not worth
the very real risk that we will now "love them to death". We don't know
enough about this population; if there are only a couple of birds or a
couple of pairs, they probably don't need more humans in the area. This is
surely one case where birders can see that it is better to err on the side
of caution, and put aside personal desires vis-a-vis their life lists. And,
as noted above, if you have the money to travel to Arkansas, there might be
better ways to spend it.

regards

Dave

Dave Rintoul, Ph.D.                          <drintoul at ksu dot edu>
Biology Division - KSU                            ICBM: 39.18N, 96.34W
Manhattan KS 66506-4901                              VOX: 785-532-0104
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~drintoul/               FAX: 785-532-6653
Currently on sabbatical leave at the University of Utah

Babe, you're just a wave. You're not the water.
                                - Butch Hancock

_______________________________________________

"Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
     BirdTalk:
To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
_________________________________________________


_______________________________________________

"Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
    BirdTalk:
To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
_________________________________________________