Arkansas Ivory-bill misconceptions

Many people tend to have some false impressions about the Ivory-bill and Arkansas.

Below, in black, I've listed some misconceptions, along with my perspective in red:

1. Cornell reportedly rediscovered the Ivory-bill "way back in the remotest swamp", where humans rarely go.

Well, the key Gallagher/Harrison "Ivory-bill" sighting occurred only about a quarter mile from a busy road, easily accessible via canoe. Hundreds or thousands of duck hunters are in the area every fall.

2. The Ivory-bill habitat in Arkansas is good, and it's improving quickly.

Not true. It appears that many decades will need to pass before the current crop of trees will get old enough and decrepit enough to provide good IBWO habitat.

3. If you choose to believe in the Ivory-bill, you are "siding with the experts".

Which experts? There are many high-profile, third-party experts that have expressed public skepticism. There are very few high-profile, third-party experts that have expressed public belief.

4. The video is conclusive, because it proves the bird is too large to be a Pileated, and the white wing and back feathers are diagnostic of an Ivory-bill.

Nothing in the video is inconsistent with an ordinary Pileated.

5. The video shows a distant, six-pixel perched Ivory-bill.

I think the video likely shows a distant, six-pixel dead branch.

6. The observers were all trained, professional biologists that are incapable of making identification mistakes.

Four key observers were Gene Sparling, Tim Gallagher, Bobby Harrison, and David Luneau. None of them are trained professional biologists. I'm not questioning their honesty; however, I would like to point out that they are human and like all of us, they are fully capable of making mistakes.

The observers may have been victims of groupthink.

7. The observers each noted "all the key fieldmarks of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker".

That's far from the truth. The one key fieldmark was "too much white on the upperwing to be an ordinary Pileated"--this fieldmark may also be seen on an abnormal Pileated.

8. The "abnormal Pileated" theory is implausible.

Cornell has publicly confirmed abnormal Pileateds in the search area.

9. In the reported sightings, some perceptions of size and flight style clinched the identification.

James Tanner said that for a lone bird, difference in length is not a reliable character. He also said he had frequently seen Pileateds fly directly, in no way different from the flight of an Ivory-bill. Some more details are here.

10. The audio is convincing.

I think the audio evidence actually weakens the overall case. Even Cornell doesn't claim that it's convincing.

11. The bark scaling evidence is meaningful.

Remote cameras have captured Pileateds doing this.

12. The ivory-bill is now ultra-wary and quiet.

I think it's far more likely to be extinct than it is to be alive but impossibly elusive. The bird was also vocal when last documented, and we have no evidence that it was getting any quieter.

13. We're likely to get better evidence if we just spend some more time searching.

"Prime-time" Arkansas expeditions in early 2003, 2004, and 2005 have already been completed with no hard evidence of an Ivory-bill. I think it's unlikely that the core problem here is "not enough searching".