Check out this review of "The Grail Bird" by David Sibley, dated June 26, 2005. Here's a snippet (the bold font is mine):
One of the consequences of Gallagher's telling of the human side of the story is to remind us how tenuous eyewitness accounts can be. The searchers, including Gallagher and Harrison, were so wrapped up in anticipation and emotion that it must have been very difficult for them to judge the sightings objectively. And many of the sightings were such brief and unsatisfying glimpses that I was left with more questions. Why is this bird so difficult to see? Where else does it go? The ivory-billed woodpecker remains ghostly and mysterious.
My only serious complaint about the book is its repeated jabs at the scientific community. Gallagher accuses ''them" (unnamed ornithologists) of bias, of not mounting effective searches for ivory-billeds, and of practicing what he calls ''the opposite of what true science should be." But true science, objective and unbiased, has to be based on concrete, testable evidence. Since 1944 there has been no conclusive evidence to go along with the sightings.
Some scientists took on the challenge. Reports were analyzed thoughtfully, legitimate debate took place, and in some cases extensive follow-up searches were mounted. Gallagher repeatedly minimizes these efforts and implies that scientists were anxious to declare the bird extinct. This is absolutely unfounded.
Gallagher's bias is clear. He is a self-described ''believer," and his emotional approach, powered more by faith than evidence, is the essential counterpart to science. I suppose it makes a better story when he can cast someone as the bad guy, but it is unfortunate that he has chosen ornithologists for that role. He can be triumphant in his success, but he has no grounds to attack the scientists for their scientific methods.