by Jim Beers

I have just read a bundle of comments from readers of the Sierra Times to an
article by William Jud.  The article questions the authenticity of the
recent "discovery" of "an" "extinct" bird, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, in
eastern Arkansas.  The majority of responses exude a level of personal
nastiness that defies a reasonable response.  When you refer to someone as
smoking "crack" or an "embarrassment to mankind" or "smelling your own
excrement out of your own pie-hole" or "full of Republican propaganda and
corporate greed", you are signaling that your mind is made up and any
questions should not be tolerated or you will retaliate by personal
degradation.  Alas, these invectives make further discussion more necessary
than ever.

The following facts, as best the public knows them, make the question Mr.
Jud asked regarding the authenticity of the recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker
"discovery" a serious matter for determination.

1.) How likely is it that the largest woodpecker in North America could
remain unseen or unheard in Southern woodlands for 60 years?  Especially
while Red-cockaded Woodpeckers have been on the Endangered Species List for
30 years and have been counted, studied, and researched by ornithologists,
bureaucrats, bird watchers, and landowners throughout these Southern
woodlands during this period.  If we "know" there are 5,800 Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers in Southern woodlands, how did we miss the Ivory-billed
Woodpeckers that preceded this (these?) bird?  One need not subscribe to
"conspiracy theories to ask this question.

2.) The Ivory-billed Woodpecker bears little resemblance to any other
woodpecker (Pileated Woodpeckers look, fly, and sound different), so 60
years of hiding seems unlikely.  Ivory-bills "look like a pintail in flight"
and sound like a "red-breasted nuthatch, only louder".  Are we to believe
that the ancestors (colonies?, pairs?, etc.) of the (one bird is all we know
of so far) "discovered" bird went unnoticed by birdwatchers, hunters,
fishermen, farmers, loggers, birdwatchers, professors, bureaucrats, mushroom
hunters, etc. until only one was left 60 years later?  Such a scenario
defies logic.

3.) The Ivory-billed Woodpecker has been reported both to persist and to be
extinct in Cuba in recent years.  Cuba neither manages nor utilizes its'
natural resources to any degree and travel to and from that country by
reliable (meaning no hidden agendas) ornithologists with free travel about
the country is questionable at best.  There are reports of the birds
persisting there very recently.  Should we ask the Cuban government?  It is
too "Republican" to suspect that a bribe to Cuban officials might obtain the
unobtainable?

4.) Does one have to be on "crack" to understand that millions (5 Million
acres have already been claimed) of acres of "Critical Habitat" throughout
the South could be claimed for this bird?  Do you have to smell your own
"excrement" to realize the devastating effect this will have on southern
forest ownership, hunting, fishing, logging, waterway usage, etc., etc. when
the Federal government and the environmental organizations get going in
court, with Congress, with increasingly malleable State agencies?

5.) Is one an "embarrassment to mankind" to look honestly at the history and
impacts of the Endangered Species Act and radicals involving wolves, spotted
owls, sand flies, vernal pools, forest fires, logging, ranching, hunting,
fishing, public land access, private property rights, States rights, etc.
and urge caution until more is revealed to the public about this "discovery"?
Does the record of the bureaucrats and environmentalists (remember the "lynx
hair" planted in a "study" or the recent scandal about the mysterious use of
millions by The Nature Conservancy) to ask a reasonable question such as
"what guarantee is there that there is not some illegality involved here"?
Might organizations that claim millions in tax exemptions as "non-profit"
and then illegally lobby Congress also think they could get away with the
scam of releasing a Cuban bird or birds?

6.) The fact that the US Department of the Interior kept this "secret" for
at least 15 months should raise red flags.  How can a Department charged
with providing for Endangered Species keep such a thing "secret"?  Why was
Cornell included and not other Universities with respected Ornithology
Departments?  Will Cornell then get the lions' share of grants?  Which
Congressmen were "in" on the "secret"?  When announced $10.5 Million had
already been "committed" by Congress.  On what basis can a Federal
Department decide to involve certain organizations that represent
eliminating all natural resource use while excluding organizations that
advocate natural resource use?  One such organization, The Nature
Conservancy, is worth 100's of Millions (Billions?) and "partners" with
radical environmental organizations routinely.  The Department and such
extremist organizations regularly work with and partner with international
radical groups and UN bureaucrats intent on absorbing as much US
governmental jurisdiction as possible.  The history and record of these
groups is rife with deceit, hidden agendas, and the accumulation of enormous
power over society.  Surely we can ask if the Federal agency that arrests us
for a sealskin knickknack upon return from a foreign vacation has
investigated the possibility of the bird having been captured and
transported (a violation of law) to and released (another violation) in the
US.

7.) I filed a Freedom of Information Request right after the "joint"
announcement of the "discovery" to try and answer these questions.  Because
I had no record of informing the public and the assertion that I might not
understand what they would provide, my request was denied.  Well not
"really" denied.  Instead of saying they would provide all the information
from the "secret" period as well as before and after, they said I should
begin depositing thousands of dollars in an account and they would "begin"
looking for and copying documents.  No commitment to turn over "everything",
just what I pay for until I run out of money.  In other words they would be
under any obligation to provide "everything", just what I paid for until I
ran out of money.

So as Southern land is shut down, forests targeted, human activities
reduced, rural communities undercut, rural economies threatened, and the
careers of bureaucrats and lawyers enhanced; the above questions go
unanswered except that the arrogant bureaucrats scoff and the
environmentalists hurl invectives.  A Republic depends on the rule of law.
This is Anarchy where unmanaged bureaucrats and the loudest powerful
factions force themselves on minorities despite laws.  Questioning the
origin of that bird is not the badge of a conspirator, it is the mark of a
concerned free citizen being dismissed by his government and personally
demeaned to divert attention from the question he asks.

Jim Beers
11 July 2005

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91


Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.  Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net