6 ms·

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting prob

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer or something and "not a scientist or expert". Not getting them to pay him any attention, he went home, shot the breeding pair, and returned to the officials office with proof.

bluejekyll 5y ago
Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker btw, I'm not saying this particular bread is at risk, it is not, but for how long before they are in a similar situation?
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's funny, because the number of people who regularly claim to have seen an IBW is really high. And 9 out of 10 times you can show them a picture of a pileated, and they instantly realize their mistake. Idk why people who can't ID fairly common birds get so certain in thinking they've ID'd a really really uncommon one, but they do.
Johnny555 5y ago
Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.
- beerandt 5y ago
  That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless. Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing him from "doing" anything with the land, and in a rural, wooded area, there probably weren't many options at the time besides farming it, anyway. If the guy would have known in 1944 that the endangered species act would be passed in 1973, you'd maybe have a point. But he wouldn't have known. If the government suddenly told you tomorrow you couldn't sell your house, then claiming it's fair because you could have sold it all the way up to yesterday doesn't do you any good if you had no advanced knowledge of it. And if it were public knowledge, who would want to buy it anyway?
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: Your argument would have more weight if you'd give facts instead of speculating what could have happened. What actually did happen?
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      I was curious what actually happened so looked it up -- looks like conservancy groups tried (and failed) to purchase the land to preserve it, and the land was logged despite the presence of the known endangered bird: "Eckelberry also saw the logging that cut down the trees used by the last Ivory-billed woodpecker" 40 years later a NWR was established on the land. https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fac...
      - akerl_ 5y ago
        So, just to confirm: he did what he wanted with the land, and other than attempting to purchase the land from him and being declined, nobody interfered with his use of his land?
beerandt 5y ago
There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations). Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near private land, in a way that will certainly incur restrictions on that land (to protect said species), considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be? More practically, as was the case with the sandhill crane, the government had to make concessions to land owners to get them on board and make the project politically viable. Now they're protected, but it's a "special/experimental program" where farmers and other land owners aren't restricted in the ways they would be if they were still naturally occurring in that location. (Of course it's still illegal to shoot them, but every few years someone manages to misidentify a 6 foot tall bird as a goose or something else legal to hunt.)
- Johnny555 5y ago
  There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. I'm not sure that's really a "perverse incentive". By hiding, destroying, or not reporting the endangered species, they're going to develop the land and harm the species. But if there were no endangered species act making them afraid of the endangered species being discovered, they'd have just developed the land anyway, so the end result is the same. But at least with the endangered species act, they face some legal repercussion if they are caught harming an endangered species.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat. The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.
    - 5y ago
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Imagine you are a farmer and you actually see an endangered species. What do you do ? Kill it and hide it so that no one finds it. If you by mistake report it, boom, your land is not your land anymore. Check this report by John Stossel here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIvbtzVoZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIvbtzVoZM
ceph_ 5y ago
> Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. Citation? Oh I see further down the chain you just made this up.

bluejekyll 5y ago

Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker btw, I'm not saying this particular bread is at risk, it is not, but for how long before they are in a similar situation?

beerandt 5y ago
It's funny, because the number of people who regularly claim to have seen an IBW is really high. And 9 out of 10 times you can show them a picture of a pileated, and they instantly realize their mistake. Idk why people who can't ID fairly common birds get so certain in thinking they've ID'd a really really uncommon one, but they do.

Johnny555 5y ago

Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.

beerandt 5y ago
That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless. Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing him from "doing" anything with the land, and in a rural, wooded area, there probably weren't many options at the time besides farming it, anyway. If the guy would have known in 1944 that the endangered species act would be passed in 1973, you'd maybe have a point. But he wouldn't have known. If the government suddenly told you tomorrow you couldn't sell your house, then claiming it's fair because you could have sold it all the way up to yesterday doesn't do you any good if you had no advanced knowledge of it. And if it were public knowledge, who would want to buy it anyway?
- Johnny555 5y ago
  Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: Your argument would have more weight if you'd give facts instead of speculating what could have happened. What actually did happen?
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    I was curious what actually happened so looked it up -- looks like conservancy groups tried (and failed) to purchase the land to preserve it, and the land was logged despite the presence of the known endangered bird: "Eckelberry also saw the logging that cut down the trees used by the last Ivory-billed woodpecker" 40 years later a NWR was established on the land. https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fac...
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      So, just to confirm: he did what he wanted with the land, and other than attempting to purchase the land from him and being declined, nobody interfered with his use of his land?

beerandt 5y ago

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations). Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near private land, in a way that will certainly incur restrictions on that land (to protect said species), considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be? More practically, as was the case with the sandhill crane, the government had to make concessions to land owners to get them on board and make the project politically viable. Now they're protected, but it's a "special/experimental program" where farmers and other land owners aren't restricted in the ways they would be if they were still naturally occurring in that location. (Of course it's still illegal to shoot them, but every few years someone manages to misidentify a 6 foot tall bird as a goose or something else legal to hunt.)

Johnny555 5y ago
There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. I'm not sure that's really a "perverse incentive". By hiding, destroying, or not reporting the endangered species, they're going to develop the land and harm the species. But if there were no endangered species act making them afraid of the endangered species being discovered, they'd have just developed the land anyway, so the end result is the same. But at least with the endangered species act, they face some legal repercussion if they are caught harming an endangered species.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat. The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.
  - 5y ago

KorematsuFredt 5y ago

Imagine you are a farmer and you actually see an endangered species. What do you do ? Kill it and hide it so that no one finds it. If you by mistake report it, boom, your land is not your land anymore. Check this report by John Stossel here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIvbtzVoZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIvbtzVoZM

ceph_ 5y ago

> Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. Citation? Oh I see further down the chain you just made this up.