In place of "evidence", they offer a blurry video of a different species (and a branch stub). From distant, widespread locations, they also offer some ambient sounds also easily produced by a large number of non-Grail-bird sources. Their so-called "robust sightings" are so uniformly weak that as much as two years later, no documentation has even been submitted to any Rare Birds Committee.
In hindsight, you might think that Cornell would have become a laughingstock from Day 1.
It's interesting to consider why this farce has continued for almost a year now. How did we get this far without much more candid public conversation about the shocking weakness of Cornell's claim?
I see at least four major reasons:
1. The feeling that Cornell must have confirmed it (no serious institution would make this claim if it wasn't true).
2. Fear of alienating friends on the team (I think a healthy percentage of serious US birders had a fairly close connection to one or more Cornell team members.)
3. Fear of hindering conservation efforts (even if Cornell's claim wasn't true, the resultant money flow towards Big Woods conservation was A Good Thing).
4. Fear of reprisal (skeptics who did speak up faced vicious personal attacks, on the 'net and elsewhere; for some people, speaking skeptically could also adversely affect book sales and other income)
A paragraph from Dan Purrington's recent Louisiana Birding List post illustrates reasons 2 and 3 above:
I have avoided weighing in on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker question up to this point, primarily because two ornithologists I greatly respect (and count as friends), Van Remsen and Ken Rosenberg, have been directly involved. Moreover, it has not seemed advisable to offer arguments which might hinder efforts to protect possible IBWO habitat. So please excuse these remarks.
Posts
8 comments:
Tom good points and a thoughtful post, however I think that there is a structural reason why the "birding" community was so susceptable to beliving that there was an IBWO in AR even though no irrefutable evidence was presented.
Let me qualify this comment as something that is painful for me to say but I think needs to be absorbed by birders everywhere.
It is this: birders don't pay their own way - like other enthusiast groups do. They look to others to pay for the things they want. Because birders are "freeriders" they are docile and unquestioning of the people who represent them in print and media and unltimately these people are unaccountable to their constency because their constitency does not fund them in the first place. People like Fitz et al are funded either by universities or by their own ability to get monied people to write checks.
There are no user fees or tickets to buy to the game to be a birder, you don't have to buy licences or permits to enjoy your pastime.
If you wave a $5000 check at a bird club they will name a wildlife sanctuary after you it is that cheapskate of a pastime. (keep in mind before you say "geeez 5000 is a lot of money - that is about what a nice front door (not installed) costs) ...
Compare a Ducks Unlimited banquet with your typical birdclub type dinner. The DU crowd is in control, they are masters of their game and they know that they are entitled to get what they want cause ... well, they pay for it. Birders on the other hand seem to think that they have "moral rightness" on their side. That even though they themselves are not in a position to do anything to help support their hobby, they feel that the world SHOULD because it has an obligation to.
If the head of DU did something that brought disgrace on duck hunters everywhere - say he shot someone in the face by accident - then the hunting community rise up and defend their traditions and oust the errant leader. The leader would publicly resign and apologize to their constituents because he had to.
Fitzpatrick et al. can basically do what ever they want because they know that at the next funding dinner it won't matter what the average birder thinks of them - they are just nattery people in funny hats.
In this case the funders don't want to make a fuss because their attitude is "well that didn't go the way we thought" but who wants to draw attention to themselves.
The only people who can address this are the big media outlets and they are, as the Carpinterio Real said, asleep with visions of sapsukers dancing in their heads.
Most birders that I know also give annually to The Nature Conservancy, some give to Audubon (for better or worse), some birders are deeply involved in protecting important bird areas in their local area. Many birders buy duck stamps and pay admission to National Wildlife Refuges to bird. Yes, you can bird without a license, but that doesn't mean we don't pay somewhere, somehow. I would LOVE a tax on bird seed and optics like the Pittman-Robertson tax, and maybe it will be a reality one day.
Why were we so susceptible? Because EVERYONE wanted to believe, and Cornell has a reputation. That is the only necessary explanation.
Because EVERYONE wanted to believe, and Cornell has a reputation.
Well Cornell HAD a reputation and now they have another one. They used their political capital up on the IBWO and I hope they allow some other group to announce the next "biggest conservation story of the last century" so that people will take it seriously.
What really amuses me is the same people who decry Prof. Behe's science of Intelligent Design are the same people who are guilty of exactly the same type of distortion of science.
Look in the mirror people! Come to your senses.
Tom wrote: It's interesting to consider why this farce has continued for almost a year now. How did we get this far without much more candid public conversation about the shocking weakness of Cornell's claim?
_____________________________
I agree with your four points, but would like to offer a few more. Look at all of this through the lens that there is a credible estimate that the IBWO has been worth about $50 million to TNC and CLO - their "truthiness" is completely compromised.
1. Responding to Cornell's arguments was a monumental task. They argued from multiple lines of reasoning, most not often seen by either birders or scientists - the blurry video (who knew about de-interlacing then, and do most people know now that the image in the video is made up of 1/2 interpolated pixels?), the publication of the black-white-black object which is not even a bird(still not officially corrected), the incorrect wingspan measurements, the incorrect flap rate, the incorrect position on the tree. These all require lots of effort to debunk, and there just are not a lot of videographers who happen to be bird identification experts who happen to be bird flight experts....the expertise was just too spread out.
2. People knew Prum et al. were working on a paper, and assumed that it would get to publication. When Prum et al. pulled their paper in July, that is when others began their formal paper writing. That time lag gave Fitz et al. the chance to continue to spin, and spin on a massive scale. And they got the boost of Prum pulling the paper even though he disagreed with the identification. Prum iwas way out in front here, and i hope he is getting ready to publish again.
3. Ornithologists are not, by-and-large, bird identification experts. The 2 hour presentation at the AOU with only one question (I think the question came from Jim Gorman) was shameless. The flap rates, b-w-b object etc. and all that should have been questioned there, and whoever ran the plennary and did not allow for more time for questions really did the world a disservice. This was a critical juncture in the "truthiness" of the story, and my colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for letting it go on unchallenged.
4. The continued secrecy, including demanding that federal employees while being paid by the federal government, and searching on federal land must surrender all of their information collected while "searching" on a "team" may be the biggest problem. All information (including all those searches with ZERO sightings) is the property of CLO, and they are not able to backtrack. At the very least, we need somone new to run these searches.
These are some of the tendrils. It is up to the Feds to pull the plug on this, but they too are in too deep. The Recovery Team needs to face the awful truth that CLO did not find any IBWO's , and that they need some outside opinions to help them not make this an even bigger mess.
Fitz et al. are now going to try to evicerate Jackson, bully more field techs, and present more doctored evidence. As long as the money rolls in to CLO and TNC they will stay in the bunker and keep this alive with inuendo, suggestions, and character assaults.
P.S. Loved the Dodos of Diluth.
I respect Tom. I really do. But he gets lost in all the words of his 5 points even though he says all the right things. Here's how all of us on the right side of this issue would restate, in Tom's own words, his 5 points.
1. No serious institution, such as Cornell, would make this claim if it wasn't true.
2.A healthy percentage of serious US birders had a fairly close connection to one or more Cornell team members. Therefore, Cornell has all the expertise needed.
3.The resultant money flow towards Big Woods conservation was A Good Thing.
4. Book sales are brisk. Other income is coming in nicely.
Now just what is the problem?
Signed,
The True Believer
Dear TB,
Or....
1. People and institutions will lie for money and fame.
2. Expertise can be bought.
3. Money corrupts.
It isn't that the majority of people "know" these people it is that the majority of people concerned with non game wildlife conservation are only a degree of separation removed from the axis of NFWF, PIF and TNC funding - somehow these largely publicly funded entities have eneded up in private control of conservation priorites and Cornell has positioned itself as the center of all this.
It would be great if the state agencies got PR type monies and could set their own priorities and do conservation without having to run it all through a tight nit PIF cabal.
The idea that Fitz et al. still have jobs after this farce has gone on and they refuse to admit that they made a mistake has undermined all of non game conservation forever.
From here on out any issue of non game wildlife will be met with hoots from the "anti's" of "viva the Ivory Bill"
Post a Comment