Joe Mosby, billed as "Arkansas' best known outdoor writer", recently wrote
this article on the Ivory-bill search:
It's been drier than normal this year in eastern Arkansas. Martjan Lammertink of the Netherlands said that's an asset. Lammertink is working for Cornell on this project and is regarded as a world authority on large woodpeckers. "The water is lower, and we can get to places on foot that we could not reach last time," he said.
...
News accounts refer to the discovery of the ivory-bill in "a remote Arkansas swamp." Yet the setting is such that the hum of traffic on Interstate 40 is audible. Nevertheless, get in a canoe at an access point, paddle a few strokes into the cypress wetlands, and you are quickly "remote."
He also wrote about the Ivory-bill in
this article:
...How many times lately have you heard someone ask, "Did they ever find any more of those woodpeckers?"
Yes, the top of the Arkansas outdoor news for 2005 has to be the ivory-billed woodpecker discovery, or more accurately, the announcement of its discovery.
Posts
3 comments:
In the above-mentioned article there is a quote...
"As much attention as is on this sophomore season search,don't expect an immediate blaring of trumpets if one or more birds are found . Science doesn't work that way. The press conferences and television satellite hookups will have to wait for checking, rechecking and analyzing."
[bold is my addition]
If they actually got a good photograph or video or found a roost hole, why would they need to check and recheck before announcing it. That is my opinion. So NO news means NO conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence would be an easy sell to the birder world, media, and the general public. When they don't have conclusive evidence they have to find a way to present what "evidence" they have in scientific way. Like analysis of wingbeat frequencies, measurements, sound etc. I will wait for the photo or video before I believe.
I'm not sure why you include these quotes; the context of both articles make it absolutely clear that the author expresses no doubts about the veracity of the sightings.
Re: No news is bad news. You are operating on the assumption that the search team is going to use a journalistic approach to their findings. Clearly this is not the case. Proving their sighting to the general public is unlikely to be their first priority. Doing an extensive survey that will allow them to make firmer estimates of the number of birds present (including the possibility of that number being zero), and the ranges, habitat utilization, and behavior of any birds that might be present is their priority. There is nothing to be accomplished by early leaks or announcements before the end of the search season; and quite possibly there is data to be lost if this were done.
I'm not sure why you include these quotes; the context of both articles make it absolutely clear that the author expresses no doubts about the veracity of the sightings.
Joe Mosby may have no doubts. I'm sure the blogger included them mainly to show that this isn't some savage, remote, unexplored territory as has been pitched by the news, and to a lesser degree by Cornell.
I think Mr. Nicosia is right: If they get "the photo," they'll release it. The pressure is mounting, and if they can silence the skeptics, they'll jump at the chance. Other, less conclusive evidence, such as feeding sites, more brief glimpses, etc, they may well wait until spring before presenting.
Post a Comment