[texbirds] Re: Golden cheeked warbler (Good news)
- From: Rich Kostecke <rkost73@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
I suppose I will enter the fray - to an extent. It is certainly a touchy
subject for several folks.
First, the original report (2010) as well as many other research
reports/publications can be found on the TAMU Institute of Renewable Natural
Resources website < http://irnr.tamu.edu/publications/research-reports/ ;>.
These are technical reports, not news paper stories (so lots of detail, jargon,
and statistics).
As several folks have commented, the funding source for this project
is unclear. Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I *think* a fair
bit of the funding for their work has come from DoD and TXDoT, some from TPWD,
and probably other sources as well (various private grants, etc.). Considering
the sources, a lot of that info should be of public record. In general, as much
as we would like to be idealistic and think of science as a pure, objective
pursuit; it is conducted by people (thus egos and personalities come into
play) within a cultural/economic/social/political context. So, I do think it is
fair game for folks to ask questions like where is the money coming from, even
if it is a bit sad that we seemingly increasingly feel the need to have to do
so.
I think it can be acknowledged that the work in question is a landmark study.
Certainly in terms of geographic scope, and it will also likely have a
significant influence on the current status review for the Golden-cheeked
Warbler (i.e., the review that will provide a recommendation on whether or not
the warbler should remain listed as endangered or not). No doubt it was a major
and significant effort and provides a lot of new information. It certainly has
generated a lot of vigorous discussion, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
With that said, I think the important thing to emphasize here is that there is
some controversy surrounding the study within the warbler conservation
world, and that there are multiple view points on the matter. Anyway, the study
has received some critiscism on its methodology as well as on
the interpretation of the results. While the study may provide the best
available science at the moment, it may not be the best
science that could ultimately be obtained (i.e., there is more work that could
be done to improve the information that has been obtained or to build upon it -
and, to be fair, I do think they plan on doing additional
analysis/research) and there is also other science that is currently being done
out there by other folks. So, even though it may be a landmark study, the
results should not necessarily become dogma. However, I don't see any of this
debate as being particularly problematic, though. This type of debate is all
part and parcel of the scientific process. Anyway, a detailed review of much of
the work in question can be found in the following report on the TAMU IRNR
website (see link above): "The Wildlife Society Review of the Study on
Golden-cheeked Warbler Population Distribution and Abundance and Associated
Manuscripts". While generally supportive of their research, it does highlight
some issues and limitations that otherwise seem
to get buried.
Indeed, partly in reponse to some of the limitations of the study in question,
several new efforts have been initiated. For example, the University of
Missouri effort with the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve in Austin. Or, even my
efforts on several TNC preserves to get finer scale estimates of warbler
abundance that might be used to groudtruth some of the coarser-scale abundance
estimates produced by TAMU IRNR.
As has been alluded to already, one of the primary issues is with habitat
identification and extrapolating numbers based on that identified habitat. A
lot of assumptions are at play and I think there are many who would like to see
some of those assumptions tested further. A big concern by many reviewers of
the study has been that the assumptions that have been made seem to be biased
towards higher amounts of habitat and higher abundance estimates. Or it is
assumed that habitat quality is more or less uniform. Many would consider
taking a more conservative approach to generating these estimates as being
wiser. Or at least a more explicit discussion of the limitations of
the approach or a presentation of multiple scenarios (worst case to best case).
With that said, I think we can all agree that there is more warblers out there
than we initially thought (I certainly believe that to be the case, even if I
am not yet totally on board with a number like 264K). Even with a more
conservative approach, I'd probably be willing to bet that you would end up
with significantly more warblers than had previously been officially
acknowledged. And, generally speaking, I doubt that conservation has had much
to do with the increase. We are primarily just acknowledging that there has
been more habitat and more birds out there all along. So, the question now is
how many more and what does that mean in terms of recovery of the species and
whether it should remain listed or even have been listed in the first place?
And, numbers and extent of occupied habitat are both important as recovery
goals are typically couched in terms of both of those things. Anyway, if the
species is truly as abundant as it appears to be,
does it really deserve the same status as say Attwater's Prairie Chickens,
Whooping Cranes, or Kirtland's Warblers (birds that you can count in the 10s,
100s, or maybe few 1000s rather than 10,000s or potentially 100,000s like the
Golden-cheeked)? Though, it is also important to realize that even though the
warbler may be doing relatively well, the species has lost habitat, has a
restricted range, and its habitat continues to be under threat of degradation
and loss (climate change, over-browsing, close proximity to if not overlap
with major urban areas that continue to grow rapidly, etc.). So, even if there
are lots of them relatively speaking (even more than we thought), our work to
protect the species may be far from done.
Another issue I have is with the presentation of the results. The one thing
that seems to be missed in all of the reporting on the warbler numbers is the
uncertainty involved in the estimates, in the habitat identification, etc.
Uncertainty does not make for a good sound bite. Basically, often only one
potential scenario seems to be presented - the best case scenario. Anyway, from
the initial 2010 report, the mean number of male warblers was 220K, but the
true number could be anywhere from 177-264K. It is hard to tell, but I think
that upper number is what the reporter ran with. Although I have not looked
closely enough to figure out why the numbers have shifted (I assume they have
tinkered with their model since the initial report), but their more recent
publications suggest a mean of 263K male warblers with the true number being
anywhere between (223-302K). In general, a more precautionary approach that did
not always default to the upper end of
the confidence interval or even the mean might be more stomachable for many,
including myself (and in terms of their study, we'd still be talking about some
pretty huge numbers regardless).
Anyway, I think the bottom line is that there is potentially some very good
news for the warbler here. However, the issue is also complex and many of the
specifics are open to debate. A lively and collegial dicussion of the matter is
not a bad thing and will likely result in better conservation for the species
over the long term in my opinion. Better to argue these matters now than to
rush to judgment and find out that we didn't get things quite right. So, the
story is not over yet.
Rich
Richard Kostecke, Ph.D.
The Nature Conservancy
318 Congress Ave., Austin, Texas 78701
Email: rkost73@xxxxxxxxx or rkostecke@xxxxxxx
From: Charles W. Easley <cwebirds@xxxxxxx>
To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: [texbirds] Golden cheeked warbler (Good news)
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
Other related posts:
