[texbirds] Re: Golden cheeked warbler (Good news)

  • From: "Richard Bello" <rbello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:47:26 -0500

Agreed.   As someone who is an empirical researcher (though not in any
aspect of biology), I know that it is possible for results to be altered
because of unconscious "choices" and not simply because a researcher is
maliciously altering them.

Rick Bello
Huntsville, Walker County
East Texas

-----Original Message-----
From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hutch
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:46 AM
To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Golden cheeked warbler (Good news)

Funding source does matter and should always be fully disclosed. Or perhaps,
it usually only starts to matter when it is NOT disclosed.

Denver, CO (soon to be Euless, TX)

On 7/29/12, Toby Hibbitts <thibbitts39@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Funding source shouldn't matter or else the researchers should be 
> kicked out of the university for fudging results. Truth is numbers 
> aren't as important as total area of occupied habitat which probably 
> has changed little in recent years.
> Toby Hibbitts
> Millican tx
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 29, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Brush Freeman <brushfreeman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This study is controversial and not everybody buys into it given how 
>> extrapolated it was based on aerial photos of possible habitat etc 
>> ...While it has an amazing amount of data and maybe is good with a 
>> lot of effort was put into it, some are not sure it makes the cut. 
>> There are those that would like to know who really backed the funding 
>> for this it seems. Can't say that I agree or disagree with the report 
>> nor do I have the answers for sure, just saying it has its critics, 
>> this I know first hand but am not going to provide that info publicly 
>> or privately as the report may be challenged by those far more 
>> knowledgeable than I. This is just an FYI. If this single study, as a 
>> stand alone effort, leads toward a USFWS de-listing, then a lot of 
>> folks may have reason be concerned. BTW TPWD recently held a meeting 
>> to discuss potential birds to be considered as threatened on the 
>> state level...I am not here to share that list but it should be made 
>> public after the report is complete and the TPW Commissioners etc.
>> have a chance to review  it....What the TPWD and USFWS do are 
>> seperate issues as always...I am not sure the TPWD can add or 
>> subtract any species from the endangered list but they can modify the 
>> lists of SOC in the state for any flora or fauna.
>> Also your link does not take one to the article or the paper, but I 
>> am just presuming the report you are referring to is the Morrison.
>> B
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Charles W. Easley <cwebirds@xxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> All Texas birders:
>> The work of the past 40-50 years by concerned Texas birders and 
>> conservation people may be paying off. A & M researchers calculate 
>> the rangewide population of male Golden Cheeked Warblers in Texas at 
>> a shade over 263,000. Previous surveys counted roughly 9,000 to
>> 54,000 birds. To understand the survey better and read about the 
>> findings of the Fish and Wildlife Service see
>> http://www.statesman.com/news/local/a-m-study-places-golden-
>> cheeked-warbler.
>> This, I believe, proves in part, that the bird is in better shape, 
>> number wise, than we thought. And my friend, Warren Pulich, now 
>> passed, would be excited about the findings of the survey. We can 
>> make a difference by the things we preserve and protect.
>> Charles Easley
>> Life Member TOS
>> cwebirds@xxxxxxx
>> Brush Freeman
>> Independent and affiliated Field Biologist
>> 361-655-7641
>> http://texasnaturenotes.blogspot.com/
>> Finca Alacranes., Utley,Texas
>> The greatest musician of all time is mother nature.
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at

Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at 

Other related posts: