I listened with interest to the Birdchick and Stan Tekiela on Rob Drieslein's show last Saturday morning.
In his role as "devil's advocate", Rob asked some good, skeptical questions--more than I've heard on any other television or radio interview on the subject.
In Stan's view, Pileated Woodpeckers are "very very difficult" to photograph.
In response to a question from Rob, the Birdchick said "I've seen footage of this abnormal Pileated. It's got like two or three feathers on the back that are white that shouldn't be white." (Note that several abnormal Pileateds were seen in the search area).
When asked about the secrecy surrounding this year's search, the Birdchick mentioned that some of the land is "still public", and suggested that the secrecy was necessary to prevent some disgruntled person from "taking care of the bird".
To me, that explanation just doesn't make sense. As I've written previously, Cornell has already published a detailed map (North American Birds, Dec '04-Feb '05, page 199) showing exactly where each claimed sighting occurred.
According to the Cornell's secrecy rules, the Birdchick said she specifically is not allowed to say whether she "did or did not see" an Ivory-bill.
Hypothetically, let's say the Birdchick was allowed to publicly say "No, I didn't see an Ivorybill". I'm having a hard time understanding how that disclosure would put any living Ivory-bill in danger.
Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
2 hours ago
Posts
17 comments:
I have said this before....if they got the million dollar photograph or video...why would they not at least tell the world that? If it happens to be on public lands....then don't disclose where it is until they can work out details of protecting the birds habitat etc. They must have a PR person...don't they? I guess the search members are sworn to secrecy. That is fine. But they can release information to the press...without specifics. I imagine they don't have anything at all....that is my guess. Why would you not at least announce...that...yes...we finally got a conclusive photo or video? Details will be forthcoming as soon as we can make sure the bird is protected. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I am curious.
I think we can safely assume that there is NO better evidence in Cornell's possession. There is enough skepticism in the air to make the release of better information helpful rather than hurtful. Skepticism dries up donations, removal of skepticism brings MORE money to TNC/Cornell. More money = more protection of habitat. Why would TNC/Cornell act any different?
BTW, I'm glad that Tom is allowing comments. I will not post on BIRDFORUM anymore due to their handling of dissenting views. I know Tom moderates comments, but I doubt he does so for any reason other than to eliminate spammers.
Because the are not journalists, their purpose is not to prove the existence of the bird to the general public before the press deadline. I don't understand why this seems to be soo hard for so many people to grasp!
If you are forbidden to say that you have seen the bird, you also have to be forbidden to say that you have not seen the bird, otherwise people will make too many inferences from what you don't say.
What do they gain by releasing that information to the general public? Nothing but trouble. The purpose of the research there is not to just get the "million dollar shot," publish it, and say "nyah nyah nyah" to the doubters. It is to survey they area extensively and document what is there, where it is, and how it is living. Releasing information early accomplishes no good. Whatever evidence the may have now will be just as good in a month or a year, it makes no difference to the actual survival or lack thereof of this bird. The only place it could possibly be helpful is working funding and regulatory and other agencies for setting priorities and making plans. And I am certain that, if information sharing is needed there, it is happening in a timely fashion.
The map that keeps getting mentoned here was published many months after the sightings on the map were made. The potential problem here is with real-time leaks that could result in real-time hassles and harrassment.
If you are allowed to say you didn't see one but aren't allowed to say that you did see one, well then refusing to answer that question is the same as saying "Yes, I did see one." Therefore, the only way to maintain secrecy is not allowing that question to be answered either way.
The areas where the search is occurring is public knowledge now. Hasn't Birdchick basically said where she was working? It wouldn't be too difficult to figure out where Cornell obtained the "million dollar photograph or video". Releasing that info would draw a lot of unwanted attention. I don't think there would be any way to disclose that info without already having all the protections in place.
I don't begrudge Cornell for not releasing specific info during the search. But with that said, I'd still be surprised if they actually have anything new, and I also find the "PR machine" to be a little too much, but I wonder how much of that actually comes from the science staff there and how much of that is administrative/PR staff trying to cash in on the situation.
MAN you people have a cynical view of Cornell!
I am not cynical of Cornell. Not at all. I am speculating that they don't have any conclusive evidence because we have not heard anything. I think this would help their cause a lot. I guess they could wait to tell the world. I am not mad if they do have conclusive proof and keep it a secret. Fine...we will find out eventually.
With no news...people speculate...human nature. I speculate... no news = no conclusive evidence. I could be wrong....
The evidence (or lack of solid evidence) they eventually provide this spring will no doubt be pivotal in the credibility of the IB's survival in many people's minds. My opinion.
The evidence (or lack of solid evidence) they eventually provide this spring will no doubt be pivotal in the credibility of the IB's survival in many people's minds
As it should be. Even the most optimistic among us would have to take a total strikeout as evidence that the Bayou de View bird was a lone wolf, possibly a last survivor, and thus perhaps more a shadow of doom than a harbinger of brighter futures.
Let's hope otherwise.
Bill Pulliam
You could call it "cynicism", without a doubt. I think it's better to look at this situation in terms of "business results" (no, I'm not implying that Cornell stands to turn a profit off this). Instead, we all recognize that Cornell is fundamentally a not-for-profit organization. The Lab has a limited amount of funds & there must be dozens of other projects that its board of directors wants to pursue. My guess is that their budget (in its original drafting) didn't make allowances for the kind of expenditures that they've had to lay out due to the ramped-up IBWO search. At some point, someone with fiscal oversight responsibilities to all the projects @ the Lab has to ask, "will further outlays of cash make any meaningful improvement in the chances of finding (and, by extension, "saving") the IBWO?" Or, have we hit the "point of diminishing returns", at which we get little or no improvement in our chances of success, and the expenditures are made to the detriment of other projects capable of demonstrable results?
This is analogous to "lost person" search and rescue (for purposes of explanation, think about a lost hunter in the Cache River NWR). Bear with me on this. Mathematics are applied to search and rescue in what's referred to as "search theory". In a grossly-oversimplifed nutshell, search theory can be thought of in terms of the equation "POS=PODxPOA", where POS - Probability that the hunter will be found in a segment of the larger search area; POD - Probability that the person will be detected by searchers in a segment of the larger search area; POA - probability that the lost person is actually IN the search area (there's always that chance that the "lost" hunter's really at the bar in the next town instead of the refuge). A lost person search is typically done by applying "sensors" (human searchers, dogs, aircraft observers, etc.) with a more-or-less known POD to high POA areas. The computations in mathematical "search theory" will progressively "shift" the POA as more "sensors" are thrown into the search. The probability of success normally increases incrementally as each search resource gets thrown into the mix. While it's not immediately obvious in this oversimplified formula, a search manager on a long, unsuccessful operation can reach a point in the math at which the probability of success no longer meaningfully increases any more regardless of how many additional times the search area is scrutinized. In other words, the manager has reached the point that expenditure of another dollar of agency funds will no longer improve the chances of finding the guy. That's the "bingo" point at which that manager's financial oversight (usually the county treasurer, manager, etc.) pulls the plug. Officially, the search is NEVER "called off"; instead, it's done on a "continuous, limited" (low cost) basis. A county, state, etc. could go broke searching the same area over and over if they didn't.
Again, I don't think it's entirely cynicism that prompted a lot of commentary about Cornell per se. Instead, I think that there's been a strong, un-articulated understanding that Cornell can't do this forever. Cornell either has something (which is prompting them to continue the cash outlays), or at some point (I think most of us believe it would have been sooner rather than later) someone with fiscal oversight responsibilities at the Lab will ask them to justify the continued rate of expenditure.
Need-to-know basis, son. And at this point there is no reason why you and I need to know.
Well, pops, that's a great attitude for Cornell to have when they've already spent millions of tax dollars on this project, and when they're trying to raise millions more from the public.
When Cornell decides it's time for us mere mortals to be let in on the big secret, that's when I'll let Cornell know whether I'm ever going to make a donation to them or to TNC again.
So, what, the only thing these two organizations do that matters to you is the IBWO project? Never mind gazillions of other acres of habitat and massive amounts of research and information over many decades, the only thing that is important now is this one program in Arkansas? There's been a massive loss of perspective here, it seems. And if you think that somehow there is something sneaky or underhanded going on here, you definitely need to take a bunch of deep breaths, step back, and try to remember the big picture and the long term view.
Agreed. Perhaps it's the skepticism, but I care less by the day about the IBWO question. "Science" isn't driving this. It's the romantic desire to snatch from extinction an unusual species that has been wrapped in a certain mystique. UGA professor James Kilgo wrote a non-science book, "Deep Enough for Ivorybills". Kilgo elegantly described the romance. This effort epitomizes Agent Mulder's poster in "X Files" - "I WANT TO BELIEVE", and I'm willing to accept less than solid evidence to support the belief. Taken in balance, the IBWO was (could be is) just a bird. It's no intrisically more or less valuable that any other one, except in the minds of the people that want to see them. And to that end, what will history reveal about "science" and its willingness to pound funds into this project? Will "science" have an objective answer to a very simply question: was the IBWO scientifically worth the return on the investment of millions of dollars that would have been more productively spent on more species and a greater variety/area of habitat? Or, was the investment worth a return that was little more than the satisfaction of a romantic desire to see this bird again? Giving the IBWO the benefit of the doubt, the IBWO would be only a single species, on the brink of an unviable population size, that serves as no "benchmark" or "keystone" or "indicator" species. Cornell et.al., has already argued that the IBWO has substantially shifted in behavior and habitat needs from our original understanding of it. Ironically, Cornell is saying that it exists because it's no longer an accurate gauge of the existence of mature river swamp. The IBWO isn't "Superman"; it has no ability, except as a totem, to "save the world". The IBWO will be used to drive other agendas, though. Fitzpatrick's speech title clearly articulates that.
The "big picture" is that after almost two years, thousands of hours of searching, and millions of dollars, Cornell has basically *nothing* to show for their efforts.
No decent photo; no nest site; no roost site; no idea how many IBWOs there are; no idea of their home range; no idea where they live; and no idea what they eat. A blind man could wander around in those swamps for two years and come up with pretty much the same thing Cornell has found so far.
And to answer the question directly: yes, I do feel that what happens with the IBWO trumps anything else those two organizations do. Look at the number of comments on this blog, and look at the amount of popular press that has been given to this story. This is probably the biggest bird conservation story of any of our lifetimes, and how Cornell handles the situation should be important to all of us.
You have to be realistic about the situation: there is only so much federal money that is going to be given to bird conservation in any particular year. And at this point I have serious concerns about whether the money spent in Arkansas so far could have been better spent on Red Knots or Least Terns or a host of other species that also need our help.
This is probably the biggest bird conservation story of any of our lifetimes
*Ahem* California Condor? Trumpeter Swan? Whooping Crane? Puerto Rican Parrot?
It was just a few years ago that the popular media were agog over the reestablishment of the eastern flock of Whooping Cranes. And in the 80s a national scandal ensued over the death of a wild Condor chick while being handled by researchers. Have you forgotten the raging debate about taking all the remaining free-flying condors into captivity? Or when a hurricane killed over half of the remaining wild population of Puerto Rican Parrots, leaving only 20?
This is exactly the absence of big picture I refered to. This is not a singular, unprecedented event in the conservation world.
If you don't think the IBWO is the biggest bird conservation story of our generation, then why don't you go post comments on all of those high-traffic Trumpeter Swan and Whooping Crane web sites??? Don't get me wrong, those are two great conservation stories (as are Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, etc etc) but to compare the IBWO with the Trumpeter Swan is just ridiculous.
There are currently thousands of Trumpeter Swans in the US. Swans (and for that matter cranes) are a species that can be fairly reliably bred in captivity. And nobody has spent the last sixty years trying to find a sustaining population of Trumpeter Swans or Whooping Cranes--because we know where those populations are, and we knew (thankfully) exactly what to do to save them.
Contrast that with the IBWO.
There are people who have spent virtually their entire lives looking for the IBWO. Regardless of what you may think about any of the publciized IBWO sightings over the last 60 years, it is undisputed that the last sustainable IBWO population that was known to science was in the Singer Tract in the 1940's. So even if this species has existed for the last 60 years, it has done so out of sight, in a country of almost 300 million people. And in the age of jet travel and cell phone cameras, that, if it is true, is simply amazing.
There is nothing about the Puerto Rican Parrot -- or the Guam Rail, or the Hooded Grebe -- that even comes close to parallelling the story of the rediscovery of the IBWO.
So if the rediscovery of the IBWO is not a "singular, unprecedented event in the convservation world," why don't you point me to all of the other "extinct" species that have been rediscovered in the US in the last 60 years?
And oh yeah, in case you don't want to take my word for it, here are just a few quotes on the IBWO rediscovery.
From TNC: "It is a landmark rediscovery," said Scott Simon, director of The Nature Conservancy's Arkansas chapter.
From Cornell: "Amazingly, America may have another chance to protect the future of this spectacular bird and the awesome forests in which it lives," said a statement from John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, The Associated Press reported.
From the AOU: With the stunning rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the White-Cache River system of east central Arkansas, questions immediately arise about conservation and management of a species about which we have no recent data.
What he said.
Post a Comment