Note this sentence from the above press release:
At least four of the five committee members must vote for acceptance before the sightings become part of the official record.Last June, we found out that the vote was 4-1, with Mike Mlodinow dissenting. Mike identified these five people as the Arkansas Bird Records Committee:
Doug JamesNote that Kenny Nichols is also listed under "Part-time Ivory-bill Search Crew" on the Nature Conservancy site here.
Max Parker
Chris Kellner
Kenny Nichols
Mike Mlodinow
I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing by Nichols, but I am suggesting that a part-time member of the Cornell search crew might be hard-pressed to offer a truly independent evaluation of their evidence. Independent evaluations by expert birders tend to be more along these (PDF) lines.
Note that Nichols' name is not mentioned by Cornell anywhere on this "Meet the 2004-05 Search Team" page.
Posts
12 comments:
Rumor has it that the AR BRC would not necessarily have accepted the Luneau video record, etc. if they had "taken their time" to review the record, in which case mounting skepticism might have influenced their decision. The AR BRC has always had a tendency to "rush" reviews, which is great for their efficiency track record but perhaps not so great in the long run when there is pressure to quickly rubber stamp controversial records.
If more members of the AR BRC have figured out by now that they blew it on this one, can't they recirculate the record and correct their mistake?
Yes, if they had any balls....
Just think, innocent people are sent to prison in America everyday on much less evidence than this!!!! Wake up people.
So we should accept a video of a PIWO (and a branch stub) as conclusive proof of an ornithological miracle?
If the AR BRC functions like most State record committees, records (including ones previously accepted) can be recirculated for re-review at any time. If and when the AR BRC makes a decision to recirculate or resubmit the Luneau video for consideration, they should also review the 6 or 7 supplementary sight records reported in the Science paper. The question is, can a petition for recirculation of a record previously accepted by the AR BRC be made by anyone, or must it come from an AR BRC member to be considered?
"...they should also review the 6 or 7 supplementary sight records reported in the Science paper."
I don't think anyone has submitted any of the '04-'05 Arkansas sight records to any bird records committee.
How 'bout the Auburn sightings. Have they been submitted to the FL committee?
Word on the street is that Hill has submitted his team's sightings to the Florida committee. It will be their moment of truth when they meet soon.
ABA, of course, is playing for time. They have a record accepted by a valid state records committee of a species presumed to be extinct. By there own rules, they should now review the evidence submitted to that committee. They chose not to because of fear of political fallout. That's just spineless.
I don't think the ABA committe is spineless. I think they've informally reviewed the video, think its crap, and so don't see the point of doing a more formal review, though they may have to if more reports are accepted by records committees.
Eyes will be on Florida to see what they do with the Auburn sightings up for discussion at their next meeting.
I think they've informally reviewed the video, think its crap, and so don't see the point of doing a more formal review
The ABA checklist committee reviews records of new species (that should include new to the ABA area or of a bird believed to be extirpated) once they have been accepted by the local records committee. They do this for vagrants and introduced species all the time. By their own admission, however, they are intentionally avoiding (or considering avoiding) assessment of the Arkansas IBWO report for political reasons:
"To avoid further polarization among the ABA membership, the CLC may wait until additional evidence is presented that might bear on the hypothesis that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker occurs in the ABA Area."
ABA, you have a record accepted by a valid state records committee. Assess that sighting. If you don't accept it and either new evidence comes to light later or another state committee accepts IBWO, then vote on that evidence. Do your duty!
Post a Comment