At 11:23 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Kai Schraml wrote:
>Dear Don,
>
>On what basis? Ivory Billed were found on a highly pressured piece of real
estate way out in the ocean, otherwise known as Cuba, after all the experts
called them "goners".

Cuba's big. The area in which they were found was relatively remote.
Physical size of a country
doesn't necessarily equate with the amount of relatively undisturbed
habitat (though it can,
of course). Highly industrialized countries have the MONEY (strange
concept) to exploit more
remote areas than third-world countries do.

In Mexico, for instance, there is one paved road from Durango to the west
coast, and for a long
stretch north and south, no other. This is because Mexico is poor. Lack
of infrastructure
impacts the ability of industrial forestry to enter remote areas. We don't
have as many
problems here in the US.


> There is a whole lot more habitat on the continental land mass, and more
than likely much more suitable habitat >remaining intact. Island ecologies
are usually much more susceptible to degradation by human pressure. If they
survived >in Cuba till fairly recently, is not fair to assert that there is
a greater chance of them surviving on a continuous >continental land mass?

The landmass is continuous...much of it nth growth slash pine and the like.
Landmass continuity has
no obvious correlation with habitat continuity.

>True, they may be gone again, but I'll ask the question on more time. Does
anyone know if a team has sought either species by reading biomass
satellite data to find old growth areas, matched to topography, with human
disturbance data, and sought the remaining pockets out for possible survivors?

And I only speculated as to why this is a forlorn hope. The habitat needs
of these species are
large.

Let me put it this way: I've got $1,000 I'll put up against US ivory billed
woodpeckers being
found by your suggested algorithm in the next 25 years.

Wanna pony up?

After 25 years, I'll give you 10x or nothing for the next 10 years (I'm too
old to do
two 25 year bets in a row :)

>It seems to make sense to me.

Whoopy whoopy!

> Now, I don't proclaim to be an expert.

(no comment)

> I'm just trying to use some common sense.

Then why do you reject mine?

>I know, common sense commonly leads to foolish errors.

Only among the foolish...

> I am hoping some of the more enlightened will fill me in.

I did.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net