Bobby's story

Here.

Official award announcement

Here (PDF format).

An excerpt:

Because of the anticipated high response, biologists will only be able to follow up on those reports substantiated with an original photograph or sound recording of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, or other evidence considered substantive by the biologists. Such evidence must be obtained without harassment of the woodpecker. To collect the reward, you must be the first individual to lead a biologist to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker site, and the biologist must be able to take a good quality photo or video of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

More from The Birdchick

Here, here, and here.

Questions from Leslie Peacock

I sent the following email today to Leslie Peacock of the Arkansas Times:

Hi Leslie,

Just checking--have you had a chance to look at my Ivory-bill Skeptic blog lately? If not, you should take a look--your name is coming up quite frequently in the comment section...

Regards,
Tom Nelson

Leslie responded with some questions for us "guys":

Dear Tom,

Don't any of you guys have jobs? I'm astounded at the number of blogs and the number of people, believers and non-believers, who are endlessly debating the ibwo question. Why are people so invested in this issue? Particularly people who've never been to arkansas or done ornithological research? I am wondering if there is some mad-at-conservationists feeling fueling the skeptics rather than considered questions on whether this woodpecker could still exist. Why do you have a dog in this hunt?
Perplexed,
L. Peacock

P.S.:
I apologize for my error making Joe Neal a member of the bird records group.

Re: whoever wrote in about the bayou being Sparling's favorite kayaking spot-- I believe his trip to the bayou was one of his first. He got a map of the white and cache from the refuges just before he started exploring the swamps. I don't think there's any evidence that he had an agenda on the Big Woods.

Can any of "you guys" provide some answers for Leslie?

"About to get serious"

Another article on the reward is here.

An excerpt:

The money for the reward will come from private donor Mitchell Massey, a real estate developer from Fayetteville, Ark. People who provide solid evidence will maintain rights to the evidence to use or sell as they please.

"Hearts and minds" battle becoming a rout

See the comments here and here.

More on the reward

Cyberthrush weighs in here. He makes an interesting point--what if crackpots and hoaxers get involved now?

Another blogger's take is here.

"Refuge Opens Bayou DeView to Public Use !!"

Until now, I had somehow missed seeing this exciting USFWS news release.

Note that the title receives no fewer than two exclamation points here.

$10,000 reward proposed

Here.

An excerpt:

Officials from The Nature Conservancy and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission announced a proposal Tuesday that would give a $10,000 reward to anyone who provides information that leads biologists to an ivory-billed woodpecker's nest, roost cavity or feeding site.

Update: another article is here (subscription may be required).

The "tree spacing" excuse

From this article (previously posted in the comment section:

“What was your most exciting moment?” “One early morning while paddling up the bayou a Pileated Woodpecker flew over the bayou – it was a brief encounter and it was so huge and I saw so much white and I wanted it to be an Ivory-billed – but it was not. Sightings are very brief because the trees are dense - 3 ft apart or less – that allows only glimpses and momentary views of birds. I see now why it has been so hard to document a bird with pictures.”

Check out the pictures at the bottom of the article--do those trees look to be "3 ft apart or less"?

"Millions of gates"

Here is a relevant Washington Post article on how traditional journalism is being disrupted by Web technology. A quote:

"The news, as 'lecture,' is giving way to the news as a 'conversation'."

I wonder how the Cornell "Ivory-bill" story would have played out if it was announced a dozen years ago. Back then, presumably people would have received a far greater proportion of their information from sources like Science, The New York Times, and Cornell road shows, and far less via "web" tools and sources (ie Google, blogs, message boards, email, etc).

If only they could use shotguns?

Curtis Croulet said this today on Birdforum:

If CLO had been legally allowed to use shotguns, this entire discussion might have been resolved by now.

Hey Curtis--in your estimation, specifically which CLO searcher(s) possess the ability to wingshoot an "Ivory-bill", given a 100-meter, three-flap glimpse?

The bounty idea

I'm hearing more discussion these days about the idea of a bounty (say $1M or $100k) for information leading to the discovery of one or more living Ivory-bills.

Some of the discussion appeared on Birdforum recently. Piltdownwoman wrote this:

...The bounty idea is GREAT_.We need a high bounty for identifiable photos and or videos of this bird. CLO has spent millions, USFWS has spent millions. There could easily be a team of video reviewers set-up to review the videos/photos, standards could be set a priori. It is a great idea, and one that has been tossed around in the skeptic world for a long time...

Piltdownwoman also posted this:

...There are other people working on the Prize idea as we write. One of the ideas is to eliminate the photo/video reward, and have the reward for information that leads to the discovery of an individual or group. That is an interesting approach, as it eliminates the hoaxing, eliminates the need for lots of expensive video equipment, and is indisputable...

I think this is a very good idea. (Previously, I wrote about the subject here).

What do you folks think?

Ivory-bill comments deleted from Cornell website?

That excellent Amy Lester comment thread mentioned here has now been deleted.

You may not realize that that comment thread was actually hosted on a Cornell website (Designparadigm). More details are here.

Update 1: Elsewhere on the Designparadigm website, I found this request from Amy:

I just wished to implore the Powers That Be to leave the “hobbit” thread intact for future reference.

The ivory-billed woodpecker story is a fascinating topic for philosophers of science for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity it provides to get close to the ground floor of what (I respectfully believe) is surely going to be the Bigfoot of the 21st century.

Many of issues related to the debate about evolution are present — the sufficiency of evidence for proving certain claims, what constitutes an “extraordinary claim,” what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of data, who qualifies as a “scientist,” the standards for “peer review” as a function of the “sexiness” of the work, etc., etc.

There is an interesting blog devoted to the topic (I wish I had found it earlier!):

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 10:42 pm

Update 2: According to a commenter, the "offending" dialogue may have been moved to a different place (here).

A lone voice of reason

Many of us were interested to read the following in a recent Arkansas Times article:

With three other members of the Bird Records Committee of the Arkansas Audubon Society, Neal voted to accept Dr. David Luneau’s evidence that the ivory-bill was back in Arkansas. The vote was 4-1.

Mike Mlodinow was the odd man out. Mlodinow, a researcher who like Neal and James lives in Fayetteville, was not impressed with the evidence. “I don’t like the video,” he said, referring to Luneau’s film of the bird, the feather in the cap of evidence presented to Science magazine. “You can barely tell it’s a bird.”

“For something like an ivory-billed woodpecker, you have to be pretty sure,” Mlodinow said. “If you’re wrong, it’s like crying wolf. You have to be exceptionally certain.”

Mlodinow called it “strange” that Cornell biologists interpreted every facet of the 4-second film as supportive of their interpretation that it is of an ivory-billed woodpecker. “It’s almost too good to be true.”

After I emailed Mike and asked for further comments, he graciously emailed me the following reply, dated June 17, 2006:

Dear Tom,

I have not read the Arkansas Times article,but there is at least one significant error,Joe Neal is not a member of the ABRC.The current members include Doug James,an Ornithology prof. at U. of AR in Fayetteville;Max Parker,the "curator" of bird records(the head of the ARBC);Chris Kellner,an ornithology prof. at AR State U. in Russellville,Kenny Nichols,the state's most active and productive birder from Pangburn,and then there is me. We have to state a reason in writing when we reject a record along with our vote.If you're interested I could send you a copy via "snail mail".In brief I thought that the video,despite the extensive analysis,gave rather weak proof for the existence of the Ivory-biled Woodpecker(IBW).I thought that the amount and positioning of black and white on the bird was open to interpretation;that the bird's "length" was dependent on knowing its posture more precisely than could be claimed; and that if the bird resided in the area searched, that a roost and/or nest sites would have been found during the last 2 seasons.I did not know what to make of the vocalizations.It seemed that the "double raps" might be made by other things,but it was hard for me to reconcile the "kent" calls.However,if they were really made by IBWs I think that the searchers would have located the bird(s).I did not even mention Bayes' Rule,since I regard the evidence to be weak, a priori.I did mention that if it became accepted that the IBW still lived when it actually did not,that this would ultimately involve considerable cost to birders, environmentalists, and to the scientific community,whereas rejection involved little cost-one could still claim that the bird may exist,just not that it definitely did. In the end,I think it's "possible",but unlikely,that the "Luneau" bird could have been an IBW,but that there's strong negative evidence against any residing there now;something which is implicitely admitted by the Cornell Team,as they will search mostly elsewhere next season.

Perhaps,it is already clear as to how and why the IBW came to be accepted as living,but I refer you to a novel by Allegra Goodman to help imagine the psychological pressures that may be involved,both on the side of the accepters and on the side of the deniers.The title is "Intuition".

You can use the above in any way you see fit.

Sincerely,
Mike

Personally, I think Mike deserves a lot of credit for standing as the lone voice of reason on the Arkansas Bird Records Committee.