Note the lukewarm quote from Jon Andrew:
“There’s enough evidence that I have to behave like the birds are there,” said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Jon Andrew, who is team leader for the recovery effort.Update: An April 2005 email from Van Remsen is here. An excerpt (the bold font is mine):
-- yes, we have tangible evidence -- a lousy, blurry, but indisputable video clip that will be available on the web, possibly Thursday.
-- despite many thousands of hours of systematic searching and deployment of dozens of Autonomous Recording Units, we have only a few reliable glimpses, and, on tape, some double-raps and some 'kent' calls. The bird (no evidence for more than one) is incredibly wary, mostly silent, and uses the core search area only a couple of days every couple of months, as best as we can tell. It has mostly eluded a core of experienced field people. No surprise, then, that I had no luck either.
Posts
25 comments:
In government-ese, Mr. Anderson means "I don't believe the bird exists but I have to cover my butt, just in case."
Here's a story that illustrates how the whole Arkansas fisco started:
I was walking in the woods yesterday. I saw a reddish-gray animal trotting along. It looked to be about the size of a small fox, with a white-tipped tail. It looked too short-legged to be a red fox, and the tail appeared too short, too. Having never seen a gray fox in the wild, I assumed that's what I was looking at. I watched it with binos while I followed it as quickly as possible, but it disappeared. Reaching the spot, I checked to see if the big oak was hollow and my first gray fox had disappeared into it. Then I scanned the branches. Near the top of the tree was a fox squirrel, with a stubby white-tipped tail. That was my "gray fox."
Now I've seen thousands of fox squirrels. I know what they look like. I know how they move. I know how big they are. One big difference from normal fox squirrels (a ball of white on the end of the tail) and my observations were immediately skewed to fit what I thought I must be seeing. Also, I believe the shorter, white-tipped tail, and also what appeared to be an unusual gait, was likely the result of an old injury. That squirrel became three times as large, and moved "like no other squirrel I'd ever seen."
Am I crazy? I hope not. Am I delusional? Nope, just human.
When Gallagher and Harrison began searching in Arkansas believing there were IBWOs in the area, all they needed to see was one of those aberrant Pileateds that were in the area (the ones that Cornell kept secret as long as possible) and it became an IBWO and the snowball started rolling.
That's why there's no good photos of IBWOs, and there are good photos of those aberrant Pilieateds.
When Gallagher and Harrison began searching in Arkansas believing there were IBWOs in the area, all they needed to see was one of those aberrant Pileateds that were in the area (the ones that Cornell kept secret as long as possible) and it became an IBWO and the snowball started rolling.
Yep, what we statisticians say is that they had "Observer Expectancy Bias". Just a fancy way of saying that they were primed to see. Hill had a really bad case of it. At the time they went into the Chockacallitwhatyouwantee the world thought Fitz et al had rediscovered Lord God hisself. How could Hill and Tyler and Swinson and everyone who went into that swamp primed with Observer Bias not see?
They would not have been human if they had not seen!
(hey that was good, where's that damn poet? Why do we prose people have to wax all phylosophical? Isn't that his job?)
Remsen has always believed in IBWOs, so no surprise there. The ultimate factor in believing is that you are either "genetically programmed/emotionally biased", or that you are gambling that the IBWOs exist and you have "an agenda towards fame and glory." Maybe some, like Remsen, have both factors affecting them?
Anyway, here's how they rationalize the validity of the Luneau video and the "credible sight records:"
They "know" Pileated Woodpecker and they go out and look at Pileated Woodpeckers and then they say that there's no way that the bird in the video is a Pileated. There is a COMPLETE DISCONNECT between what they see with their own eyes and what a normal Pileated can look like on a blurry video (despite the CLO examples of PIWO video that are exact matches for the bird in the Luneau video).
They also can't comprehend (again, based on their own viewing of PIWOs) how "credible observers" could mistake PIWO for IBWO, then proceed to "declare" certain sightings as "credible."
So, it's not so much that anything 100% proves IBWO, but that the video and sightings CAN'T BE PIWOs. Apparently, over time they expect that the skeptics will one by one "accept" the Luneau video based on this reasoning.
"Remsen has always believed in IBWOs, so no surprise there."
Maybe so, but note this early 2004 exchange, from page 126 of The Grail Bird:
---
At this point, I [Tim Gallagher] asked him the big question: "Do you believe there are any living Ivory-billed woodpeckers left anywhere?"
"I'd say that hope is fading fast," he [Van Remsen] said. "I hope they're out there. I give it a slim chance--a five percent chance that there are some birds left."
---
LSU is our last hope for reason. Van Remsen remains just about the only person at LSU who still believes. But everyone is afraid to tell him that he is living in the land of oz without an exit strategy.
Go tigers!
"I hope they're out there. I give it a slim chance--a five percent chance that there are some birds left."
Isn’t anyone who gives it this slim of a chance essentially a non-believer? If someone says they think there is a >50 percent chance they are saying they believe it exists. If <50 percent they are essentially saying “probably not” and when that “probably not” is at the 5 percent level they are just saying there is no reason to be an absolutist at 0 percent so they might as well place the minimum bet that will allow them to later say “Oh, I never completely gave up hope” if someone does produce an image.
Presumably, Remsen's 5% was right after the failed Kulivan-Pearl searches and before the AR fiasco. Now he's back to 100%. Didn't Remsen used to be one of the biggest skeptics about rare bird reports? How times have changed.... Remsen has become very Bush-like: kinder and gentler, and doesn't read anything critical of IBWO.
Also, it's great to see the fair-and-balanced media at work, with this whole article spoon-fed to them (as usual) and not a single comment from "the other side."
There is no truth left, only obfuscation.
BTW, what did happen to that airport?
I know Jon Andrew. Jon Andrew is a friend of mine. This fiasco is not Jon Andrew's.
But what can the guy do except give cryptic explanations of why no one in the guv'ment can just lock the doors and turn out the lights on this farce?
This stupid ball of dung has been started on it's roll downhill. The CLO and Auburn are going to get messed all over. All Jon can do is to make sure the sh*t doesn't splash over on to good agency people or projects that don't deserve to be messed with.
This stupid ball of dung has been started on it's roll downhill. The CLO and Auburn are going to get messed all over.
Eventually even the True Believers will smell it.
But even then, they'll claim that prior to The Point Where They Became Reasonable, it was "unfair" for anyone else to have scoffed at the mysterious and "unexplainable" "evidence."
”But what can the guy [John Andrew] do except give cryptic explanations…”
Well for starters he could just come out and say that in his personal opinion the current 21st century IBWO fiasco is a demonstration of what happens when zealots believe their hearts more than their eyes and when scientists are blinded by fame and funding and ignore rigor and logic. He could also assure that public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is doing everything possible to truly manage our country’s wildlife and that the government’s participation in the IBWO exercise should be viewed as an anomaly and was an opportunity for the Agency to realize it has to stay out of self-serving poorly documented “conservation issues” that are perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. Or he could just collect his pay and go off to his next meeting – as any good bureaucrat is likely to do.
All Jon can do is to make sure the sh*t doesn't splash over on to good agency people or projects that don't deserve to be messed with.
That statement contains an major oxymoron.
That statement [". . . good agency people . . .] contains an [sic] major oxymoron.
Excuse me a**hole, but if you had ever had any first-hand experience with anyone from the Fish and Wildlife Service, you would know that that Federal agency has many dedicated and knowledgeable biologists who work unselfishly and tirelessly behind the scenes to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats on behalf of the American public, often with little or no thanks or acknowledgment. Idiotic comments like this are neither helpful nor appreciated.
"Well for starters he could just come out and say that in his personal opinion the current 21st century IBWO fiasco is a demonstration of what happens when zealots believe their hearts more than their eyes..."
Agreed.
His words carry some weight, and if he clearly and publicly spoke some sense about this fiasco, he'd become a welcome part of the cleanup.
If he just continues to "behave as if the birds are there", I'm afraid he's part of the problem...
Fyi, most popular video on www.cnn.com is a report on a Wisconsin man's citing of Bigfoot. Where was Bigfoot cited? Alongside a road, reaching for a dead deer the man had stuck in his trunk.
According to the report, the man who saw Bigfoot knows that his claim his outrageous "but he wants people to know that something is out there."
Oh, something is out there all right. Just be careful not to step in it.
Van Remsen is an enigma on this. He was a hot-shot birder in California during the early days of the Revolution that got us all excited about finding and carefully documenting rare birds. He went off to LSU, one of the last places in academic ornithology to champion the shooting of rare birds for specimens. Now he's thrown his lot in with all this muddledness. I just don't understand it.
At NAOC in Veracruz, there were other whispers about this. Its true, there are LSU folks out there who just don't know how to bring this up with Van. There are other folks who respect him so much that they think there MUST be something to this IBWO business if Van is involved.
Van, we still love you. Leave the dark side. Admit that in retrospect it all looks a bit stringy, and we'll welcome you back into the demigod birding fold!
Excuse me a**hole, but if you had ever had any first-hand experience with anyone from the Fish and Wildlife Service, you would know that that Federal agency has many dedicated ...
Actually, I have had a great amount of direct interaction with the USFWS over many years. IMHO while it may be good at many things, the agency is about as responsive and effective at its overall conservation mission under the ESA as FEMA was in New Orleans. I believe that a honest evaluation would demonstrate striking similarities. That said, it was rude and wrong of me to disparage individuals. I apologize to anyone that was offended.
Remsen likes to champion untrained observers, sometimes it seems at the expense of skilled observers. The Pearl wasn't the 1st, and AR wasn't the 2nd example of his proclivity (an LA Whooping Crane comes to mind). What is his motive? To encourage new birders? (exhibit A: his classroom popularity) To challenge experts? (a JVR specialty) To distinguish himself from his peers? (hardly necessary) Is there an ornithology psychologist on this plane?
BTW, has anybody cited Amy lately?
I don't believe anyone in the USFWS can come out and publically say the IBWO is extinct. While the agency is still spending money to find hidden populations, no underling can muddy those waters without suffering some about of grief. No one would be fired for it, but it would be unpleasant.
Besides, it's hard for biologists to say anything definitively. Most believe it is POSSIBLE for IBWOs to still exist, but most also believe no one has presented definitive evidence. I'm sorry, I read this blog religiously, and frankly I don't think that is such an extreme statement. Yes, I wish we had more money to spend on extant species that need protection, and maybe the new Congress will allocate more money than the President requests, but spending a few dollars here and there to search for a possibility really isn't so terrible.
. . . spending a few dollars here and there to search for a possibility really isn't so terrible.
Hmmmm. I didn't realize that searching for "hidden populations" of extinct animals was part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative."
Now that we have a new congress its time to divert USFWS money back to the Blue and Purple States. Massachussets is about as blue a state as there is, so for most of the year I propose that we search for Labrador Duck (winter), Heath Hen (spring), and Eskimo Curlew (fall) in New England. In the interest of bipartisanship, we can spend summers in Alaska to search for extinct cormorants. On vacations its off to Hawaii to find O'o, Akialoa, P'o'ouli, Nukupu'u, Ou, Hawaiian Rail, Mamo, Ula-ai-hawane, giant flightless geese and ibis....
Who needs the IBWO? We can rediscover an entire extinct fauna, not a mere single species. Anyone who wants to join or fund the search? Please send inquiries to Cyberthrush.
After that we can rediscover the birds of Guam. These are not extinct, just extremely wary because of the snakes.
On vacations its off to Hawaii to find O'o, Akialoa, P'o'ouli, Nukupu'u, Ou, Hawaiian Rail, Mamo, Ula-ai-hawane, giant flightless geese and ibis....
Just knowing that these possibilities exists fills me with hope!
Sorry Amy, but you're not welcome. Its negative people like you who caused all these species to be declared extinct in the first place without a thorough search.
Also, I just called my psychic and she doesn't like your energy.
"Also, I just called my psychic and she doesn't like your energy."
Try calling her tomorrow after 3:30. We Pisces always suffer from temporary brown auras when Jupiter is in the 3rd house.
Post a Comment