Ea$y for Maine environmental groups to turn a blind eye to citizen’s concerns about wind (Part II)

Comment

Comment by arthur qwenk on March 2, 2015 at 6:01pm

Mike you are so polite.

Consider this please.

Maine Audubon , Corporate Environmental shills and despicable enablers of avian species murder in Maine! 

Comment by Mike DiCenso on March 2, 2015 at 5:02pm

Spell correction below"Audubon" thanks.

Comment by Mike DiCenso on March 2, 2015 at 4:59pm

Maine Audobon has no scruples or common sense.

Comment by Whetstone_Willy on March 2, 2015 at 1:02pm

First Wind a Maine Audubon EAGLE sponsor? That is rich.

From: http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fmm-attacks-maine-audub...

Rand Stowell, FMM Founder and Chairman said “ The Maine Audubon report is troubling and should be withdrawn and re-evaluated. The MAS has an ethical and moral obligation to their members, the people of Maine, and the wildlife they were founded to protect. The conclusions presented to the public in this report are not in keeping with that mandate. MAS needs to rethink its position, open it up to a higher standard of scientific review, and get it right.”

Dr. Rebecca Holberton, Professor of Biology and Ecology at UMaine/Orono and an extensively published researcher in the field of bird migration for over a quarter of a century, agrees with FMM's position on this report.“FMM's concerns are at the heart of the weaknesses of the MAS report. The report is not a report of actual findings but is a hypothetical model or hypothesis that would need to be tested and confirmed empirically before anyone could accept its validity. It is troubling that, although the report is replete with disclaimers and acknowledged weakness by the authors themselves regarding the types of information that went into the work and the limitations of any conclusions stemming from it, it has been confidently presented to the public as a tool that would reliably serve as guidelines for siting land-based wind energy development. I’m not aware that during any stage of the project’s development that any effort was made by MAS to bring in biologists from academia, as well as state and federal wildlife agencies for input. More.............

Friends of Maine's Mountains – Pg. 2

The leadership of MAS is well-aware of the extensive research in the region on bird and bat migration, having recently hosted an extensive public talk on the topic by me and my colleagues just a few months ago. There is nothing in this document that addresses collision risk taking into account new studies that show that wind energy development may be having a greater impact on birds than previously thought and that higher turbines result in greater collisions. Further, although the main approach in the MAS model focuses solely on habitat characteristics on the ground, there are no studies showing that on the ground habitat characteristics have anything to do with the spatial densities of birds aloft during migration. Regardless of the motivation behind MAS’s decision to produce these purported guidelines without seeking knowledgeable resources for input and comment, some may consider it, at best, a catalyst for improving how we approach spatial mapping of wildlife risk, and at worst, a poorly-developed model to be misused by those looking for an open endorsement for wind energy development in the state without being made to consider the true viability of alternative energy sources. How we balance the different ways we impact the environment should be based on factual information, which, when used properly, should lead all folks with different perspectives to the same conclusions. The MAS report fails miserably in that regard.”