The ongoing saga of the "rediscovery" of the ivorybilled woodpecker and the subsequent reported actions involving spending perhaps millions of dollars for habitat acquisition and protection in the absence of any data whatsoever on habitat use by the alleged "rediscovered" species makes me wonder if the cart has been placed before the horse. After perhaps tens of thousands of man hours devoted to locating nests and pairs of those woodpeckers, we seem to know absolutely nothing about habitat use of these birds in current geophysical settings, other than several mystical, if not mythical reports of sightings. How do we know, for instance, that even if sightings were real, that the locations the sighted birds were found in were able to support survival of those birds in terms of breeding, wintering, foraging, etc.? How do we know that the birds sighted were not in transit, or in dispersal, or in marginal habitat that could not support breeding or survival of the sighted birds?
Obviously, wildland habitat has intrinsic value for conservation and habitat preservation for its own sake can have an appropriate role in decision-making and actions. Even if habitats were ivory-billed woodpeckers are seen are not suitable for ivory-bill breeding or survival, they may be entirely suitable for conservation actions to benefit other taxa. But at the same time, conservation funds are finite, and often scarce, especially compared to known needs. Is it a good idea to set aside habitat for ivory-billed woodpecker "conservation" without knowing whether the species will likely benefit? Would it not be better to determine habitat use by the species in current settings if the species does prove to persist as a breeding component within a specific locate? Does it not make sense to prioritize finite conservation resources based on facts rather than on faith? Faith-based conservation, in my view, is no more appropriate than faith-based ornithology. The possible cascading of resource partioning based on partial understanding, if not faulty understanding of actual conservation needs may prove to be more harmful than helpful in the long term. Putting money and effort in supposed ivory-bill habitat without adequate justification may deprive other species from improved opportunities for survival, while ultimately not benefiting the "Grail Birds" either. Some healthy, science-based introspection would seem appropriate as we move forward. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
