NYT/AP: Ivory-billed Woodpecker Halts Arkansas Irrigation Project

[DeepModem Mom]

Woodpecker Halts Ark. Irrigation Project
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 20, 2006

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- A federal judge halted a $320 million irrigation project Thursday for fear it could disturb the habitat of a woodpecker that may or may not be extinct.

The dispute involves the ivory-billed woodpecker. The last confirmed sighting of the bird in North America was in 1944, and scientists had thought the species was extinct until 2004, when a kayaker claimed to have spotted one in the area. But scientists have been unable to confirm the sighting.

Still, U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson said that for purposes of the lawsuit brought by environmental groups, he had to assume the woodpecker exists in the area. And he ruled that federal agencies may have violated the Endangered Species Act by not studying the risks fully.

''When an endangered species is allegedly jeopardized, the balance of hardships and public interest tips in favor of the protected species. Here there is evidence'' that the ivory-billed woodpecker may be jeopardized, he said.

The National Wildlife Federation and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation had sued the Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that the project to build a pumping station that would draw water from the White River would kill trees that house the birds and that noise from the station would cause the woodpeckers stress....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ivory-Billed-Woodpecker.html

[maxsolomon]

1. i love it

take that, Corp of Engineers. you suck!

[Kagemusha]

2. I um, dunno about this.

I'd hate to think someone might do this but... let's say someone claims an unverified sighting of a thought to be recently extinct bird, but falsely, for the purpose of halting a major irrigation project. What's to stop someone from doing just this?

Now, that's not to say the issue shouldn't be studied. That is a good point. But if scientists can't confirm the sighting, relying on that as fact for the purpose of a lawsuit, is the equivalent of taking rumor as sworn testimony. That makes me squirm.

But hey, if the woodpecker really is out there, great.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. The sighting was caught on video and has been studied. The

video is not the best quality, but it has been looked at by experts in the field and many believe it to be the ivory billed woodpecker. If it truly is, it would be a shame to take the chance of spoiling the habitat of such a rare bird, especially before it's continued existence could be proved or disproved beyond doubt.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/multimedia/videos

[semillama]

7. That's even a different sighting than the one the article refers to

It's a poorly written article, slanted to cast doubt on the existence of the bird and to portray environmentalists yet again as people who want to stand in the way of progress. If this reporter had bothered to do basic research (or report the results of that research honestly), he'd mention that while no confirmed sightings took place during the last field season, double raps were heard, and previously the bird had been seen by researchers.

From the Cornell Lab of Ornithology webpage:

"Were there Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings during the 2005-2006 field season in Arkansas?


There were 14 possible encounters with ivory-bills during this past field season. Ten of the 14 encounters were glimpses of birds that witnesses said gave them an impression of something different than the superficially similar Pileated Woodpecker, but yielded no discernible field marks. These are considered “low probability” encounters according to the search team’s ranking system. Of the remaining four encounters, one was reported by a volunteer searcher and three by members of the public. In each case, the observer noted and described a single field mark: a broad band of white on the trailing edges of a flying bird (two observations) or a large white patch in the lower part of the folded wings of a perched bird. Encounters of this type (when one field mark is clearly observed) are strongly suggestive of Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but still cannot be considered definitive. Based on the search team ranking system a definitive encounter is only achieved when an observer clearly identifies at least two diagnostic field marks. No sightings are considered confirmed unless they are accompanied by photographic or video evidence. There were no definitive or confirmed visual encounters during the 2005-06 field season. The encounters from 2005-06 season are being treated as supporting evidence for the existence of ivory-bills, but not added confirmation."

"What are the conclusions after the 2005-06 search?

Following the 2005-06 field season, search leaders are fairly certain that the bird seen at least seven times in 2004 and 2005, and videotaped in 2004, is no longer frequenting the Bayou de View area of the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge. They conclude there is no nesting pair in Bayou de View. For that reason, managed access restrictions for the site have been lifted.

Enough encouraging data have been collected over the past two field seasons from searchers and from the public to warrant a continuation of the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, especially in the White River National Wildlife Refuge. Scientists at the Lab of Ornithology conclude from the data gathered that there is a likelihood the Ivory-billed Woodpecker continues to be present in the region."

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/field/new0506qanda/document_view

[Arkansas Granny]

8. Here's what our Game and Fish Commission has about the

ivory billed woodpecker on their site.

http://www.agfc.com/ivorybilled/index.html

It's really quite exciting that it has been spotted after being believed to be extinct for so many years.

[pitohui]

4. because it's too hard to get birders to agree on anything

if every human being who has interviewed the people who saw the bird or viewed the videotape and agree it is real, except jerome jackson (and that for petty personal reasons) agree it's verified and the bird exists we need to get over it

when 98 percent of scientists say there is a law of gravity, we can pretty safely ignore the old guy who never heard of it pounding his fork on the tabletop

birders are TRES picky, no one is getting away w. claiming a bird is on their list and not getting laughed off the map if they don't have serious proof

hundreds of people claimed over the last 40 years to have seen ivory billed woodpeckers, they were all laughed out of dodge

we now know that at least some of them must have been telling the truth, too late for many of them who have left this world unacknowledged

if you think claiming you saw an extinct bird is an easy way to protect a parcel of land, YOU TRY IT -- bearing in mind that the endangered species act has NO provision for protecting officially extinct species

[pitohui]

5. unverified reports are just ignored of course

as i should think you would realize?

[Kagemusha]

9. Um, that's not what the original post says at all.

It says unverified reports are being taken as conclusive scientific proof for the purposes of the lawsuit until disproven.

And I'm not sure that's a good way to go about it. But, granted, the other posters here added information this article did not...

[SoCalDem]

6. I SAW that woodpecker on a special.. It managed to survive..

Leave it alone :)

Surely they can find some other place to derdge and rip apart.. there are so few pristine places left on earth..Let the people move elsewhere..they have a choice...the woodpeckers does not.. He cannot just pack up and move to Memphis or Dallas or Indianapolis...

[alarimer]

10. Damn activist judge!

one of the good guys.