Endangered status considered for Bicknell's thrush

[BenedictGomez]

you know this. but, even in knowing the above fact feel perfectly comfortable with cutting a mere trail or two while not knowing the effects that will have.

My pointing out the limited terrain, is to suggest that the current population of this species could be completely expected, as it is with other species with such specialized habitat. To wit, if you paid careful attention, you'd note the researchers are NOT saying that the bird is currently numerically diminished (they cant). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the bird's current numbers are not normal - perhaps even above normal for all we know.

I've already mathematically pointed out the imperceptibly small area "a mere trail or two" of this bird's habitat would holistically represent. As such, in this instance it should be the scientists burden to somehow prove why a new ski trail couldn't be responsibly cut.

And your above bolded comment is the circular argument that environmental zealots repeatedly use to stall or permanently stop development (Well..... you cant know it isn't bad for sure, even if technically there might not be a problem right now, so we'll just go ahead and assume it IS harmful. You know....gotta err on the side of caution here folks).


Frankly, after reading that report? Their argument seems rather unconvincing in this case. But guess what? Logic and material fact doesn't matter here. This bird IS going to be listed at "threatened" in the next year. How? Well, since they cant use CURRENT numbers to suggest the bird is threatened (the math and statistics for that do not work, as I've already pointed out), they're going the "future numbers will be harmed because of Global Warming" route (a "problem" that we dont even know is legitimate or not).

At the end of the day, it's all a sham, and the environmental extremists who wont allow a shovel to ever be put in the ground will eventually win this fight - again. And given this bird's habitat is on virtually every friggin' New England ski resort's property? Yeah, put my guess down for this being a MAJOR impact for ski area management coming to a town near you about a year from now. If I were Jay Peak I'd start cutting those trees YESTERDAY for that terrain expansion they have planned, because if they wait until next summer, it might be too late.

Attacking the science (the information) without any real knowledge or basis is a way to avoid making difficult decisions. This has become so widespread in politics now that we've lost our ability to use scientific information the way it's intended.

No, you have it completely reversed. Once politics enters into the equation, science ceases to exist.

You're making the assumption that the science is solid; a dangerous assumption.

The politics is the problem, because increasingly it determines the RESULT of the "science" before the scientist(s) even develops his/her methodology for a study.

It's becomes not testing a hypothesis, but figuring out how to frame a study to end in the predetermined conclusion that supports one's political beliefs and ideologies. And IMHO, there is no larger party guilty of this, than the environmental lobby. They have become so self-righteous, that it is almost a religion. They believe their "religion" is on the side of good, so the ends justifies the means, bogus pseudo-science or not.

 

[kingdom-tele]

So to err on the side of caution, with the knowledge of scientific limitations, and as you have pointed out, the impact of result presentation to support predetermined conclusions is the wrong rationale in this context? Don't findings go in both directions, would a ski resort confabulate it's reports to proceeed with expansions that improve their business? Wouldn't it first seem prudent to have a better understanding of the situation, so maybe, just maybe, the implications of ski resort development can be better incorporated into the larger system. Besides, in this context, the zone of concern is already skiable, in a number of cases, with trails. I fail to see how this conservation concern is having a detrimental effect on our ski experience. IMO, note, only my opinion, its the constant rush to poor trail designs that have a more damaging effect on our ski experience

Whether you consider it a zealots stance is a matter of perception, frankly, knowing you have an understanding of biology, I am surprised the matters of how redundancy and inhibition effect selection create such upheaval. But, the sentiment you have for anyone or anything 'in the way' seems to be popular, it certainly is easier than entertaining multiple sides of any issue.

Oh, and don't worry, JPR development is below the zone of concern, so it should have no effect on their ability to provide acres of intermediate ski terrain

 

[MadMadWorld]

Hey There, thread drift!

I think there should be a debate about reasonable development vs. conservation. I see good points on both sides and there is no right answer... though I do think that both extremes are dangerous and not in almost any one's best interest.

How much development do we allow in established natural areas? We can't refuse any and all development. As a species in our current advanced state, we use a lot of resources and it would be hypocritical to only allow resource use that we agree with on a personal preference level. Call it the unfortunate Al Gore syndrome: featuring yourself in a documentary about Climate Change while driving around in a massive SUV.

On the flip side, we need to and should draw a line somewhere between our individual and collective enjoyment of the environment and protecting that environment for use and enjoyment of future generations of both people and other species.

On another aspect, the WMNF was pretty much destroyed in the logging days and it came back just fine with perhaps some differences but it is still there. Lost ski areas grow back in within a dozen years of their closing. Nature changes and adapts. But how do those adaptations effect other species and eventually ourselves? How much more value can we place on our enjoyment compared to other species being able to live without challenges to their long term survival?

I don't have answers. But as a person with a life long passion for the outdoors and strong inclinations to protect it, I also think extreme environmentalists and anti-development groups could have more negative than positive effect because they engender anti-environmental protection sentiment in those that see concern about the environment as a wacky fringe minority rather than the mostly universal concern that reasonable thinking persons have.

Maybe you don't have the answers but those are definitely the right questions that we all need to consider. Well said

 

[J'Hams]

So...lets say....if the Bicknell Thrush gets wiped out completely then can the resorts expand again?

ALSO: a good argument for the resorts is that white snow actually reflects harmful radiation and heat back into the atmosphere---preventing global warming--helping the Bicknell Trush.