"[The American Birding Association] Checklist Committee has not changed the status of the species from Code 6 (EXTINCT) to another level that would reflect a small surviving population. The Committee is waiting for unequivocal proof that the species still exists."
Sunday
48 minutes ago
Posts
15 comments:
So you're allowing comments now. Why the change?
I had turned off comments because of too much comment spam. Someone told me that enabling "word verification" was a good fix for this problem, so I'm giving it a try...
A fabulous site. I've been a skeptic since I heard about the quality of the "evidence" ... which quelled my excitement about the "rediscovery".
I believe the Ivory Billed Woodpecker does exist in Arkanasas. I will admit that the "objective" evidence is certainly subject to dispute; and, in fact, I am glad this skeptic blog site exists as it does properly question the findings. However, the fact that expert birders IMMEDIATELY recognized the Ivory Billed when they saw it is the "subjective" evidence that clinches this discovery for me.
Tom, I hope you're wrong. I figure we'll know for sure by May 2006. Regarding the Arkansas video that you dispute, I have read that those who've seen it in optimal viewing conditions can see the bird at rest, perched "woodpecker style" on the side of a tree with the classic Ivory-bill field marks visible on the wings. Please comment. Also, I had never heard anything about abnormally marked Pileateds. Where can I find photos?
One of those "perched views" is likely a branch stub.
According to Jerome Jackson and many others, the other "perched view" is actually a view of the underside of a normal Pileated Woodpecker's wing, held vertically (with the wingtip up). More information on both "perched views" is available in Jackson's January '06 Auk article.
Here is some Abnormal Pileated information . As far as I know, the photos mentioned have not been made public.
I just finished reading "The Grail Bird" and was disappointed at the implausibility of the IBW's "rediscovery". The bird has recently been sighted from highways and bridges and adjacent to powerlines and soyabean fields. Yet the IBW has managed to elude generations of duck hunters and 2+ winters of searching by experienced birders has failed to turn up any real proof. All this in spite of supposedly abundant evidence of IBW bark-peeling. Fuzzy, split-second, grainy, videos and sound recordings of easily-mimicked noises hardly constitute "proof".
"And ivory-bills are notoriously elusive." An expedition of 21st century scientists with 3 vanloads of scientific equipment has been searching over 2 winters now. We have yet to see anything remotely approaching Arthur Allen's 1935 footage from his primitive expidition to the Singer Tract. I desperately want to believe the bird still lives, but I think Mr. Gallgher is grasping at straws. I hope I am proven wrong.
I know the difference between an IBW and a Pileated. I assume you do as well. If you were the ones that were there in person when that video footage was shot and you used your ability to focus on the bird with your eyes and came away convinced that you had seen an Ivory Bill then what? Unless you are saying that you are a better birder and maybe just more honest then those ornithologists and experts that are sure they have seen the IB then what you are claiming is that even if you saw it for yourself you would still claim it didn't exist.
When the Luneau video was shot, the people there in person did NOT come away convinced that they had seen an Ivory-bill.
I asked earlier where I could see photos of abnormal Pileateds. You replied that as far as you knew, no such photos have been made public. Aren't you accepting the existence of abnormal Pileateds without the same incontrovertible photographic evidence that you say is required to prove the rediscovery of Ivory-bills?
Correct.
The difference is that the existence of a living Ivory-bill is an extraordinary claim; the existence of a living abnormal Pileated is not an extraordinary claim.
Hi Tom,
I'm the chairman of the American Birding Association Checklist Committee (CLC), which you mentioned on your site. With the Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) paper published in _Science_, we have sufficient information to vote on the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
However, some members of the CLC feel that the evidence provided in the paper is open to interpretation, as you and several others have noted.
Additionally, Cornell reportedly has gathered additional data that have not yet been published.
Given that at this moment, the Cornell search team is in its third season looking for Ivory-billeds, the ABA CLC has decided to wait until the end of this season to vote on the matter, in the hopes that additional proof can be gathered to support the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker survives.
We are also awaiting the publication of one or more rebuttals to the Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) _Science_ paper, which are rumored to be in press or in preparation.
You're probably aware that Jerry Jackson has just published his rebuttal in the current edition of the _Auk_; his paper can be read here: http://www.aou.org/persp1231.pdf.
Best regards,
Bill Pranty
Bayonet Point, Florida
ABA Checklist chair
Cornell has recently web-published phots of a leucistic Pileated Woodpecker from Arkansas. It's too white to have been mistaken for an Ivory-biled, but the webpage alludes to other aberrant-plumaged Pileated.
Bill Pranty
Bayonet Point, Florida
All those who have had the courage to express doubt around the re-discovery must be congratulated. The rediscovery claims have been nonsense from beginning to end and fairly average cryptozooology at best (think bigfoot videos..). The ongoing studies have been a near total waste of American tax payers money and have diverted focus from endangered species conservation elsewhere. As birders say in England: "Total string".
Factors possibly overlooked in this discussion:
1) Cornell is one of the few scientific institutions with "the hosses" to routinely follow up on far-flung rare bird reports like the Arkansas IBW. Other distinguished field ornithology programs, including those within the IBW's historic range, may have chosen to conduct the search differently, but were not and are not in a position, resource-wise, to captain that ship.
2) The scientific community has been roundly criticized for remaining "objective" and failing to strongly advise and/or instigate public policy based on their findings, for waiting too long to push for public action, and for failing to engage the public. In this instance, scientists chose to risk the perception of having lost their objectivity to become involved in public policy and outreach before the resource was jeopordized.
3) The IBW search team WAS waiting for better evidence, but because of "leaks" in (I think?) USFW, were forced to go public prematurely.
4) Unfortunately for us as citizens, neither our President nor the public does "nuance" well. Even facts, if they be at all technical, are routinely painted as iffy, fuzzy, or controversial. The IBW team chose to attempt to translate what they were finding and its implications for ecosystem sustainability action into a form understandable AND digestable to the current Washington crowd and a Fox News Brief/ Instant Messenger public.
Post a Comment