You may have already touched on this, but I just noticed that the Official State List of the Birds of Florida, "updated through 12 February 2007" by the Florida Ornithological Society's Records Committee, gives the status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida as "extinct native species." And they do not denote it as a "review" species requiring further documentation. What isn't clear is whether they (1) considered the evidence of Hill et al. (2006) in making this determination, or (2) this merely reflects the conclusion of Robertson and Woolfenden (1992) [which forms the basis for the list] and that the Records Committee has not recently reviewed the status of IBWO in Florida. A little confusing either way.
The entire State list is found here.
Dennis Overbye Retiring
53 minutes ago
Posts
18 comments:
There are just jealous that THEY didn't find 9 pairs.
Why they would look for a bird that may be extinct in the scrubby Choctawhatchee makes no sense to me. Better to check in Appalachicola or best of all Big Cypress. Big Cypress iswhere I would check even though I wouldn't expect to find anything. Choctawhatchee? lol!
So when is ABA going to review the bird accepted by the Arkansas records committee? I thought that was their job.
Have they been trying to give the parties involved one more field season (now complete) or are they peeing themselves with fear over who might be offend if they say the evidence is insufficient for re-listing?
"So when is ABA going to review the bird accepted by the Arkansas records committee? I thought that was their job"
They must have better things to do, such as reviewing plausible sightings endorsed by competent state records committees.
Of the five "extinct" species on the official Florida Bird List, why does the Ivory Billed encite the most passion. Of the five species decalred extint, in my opinion Bachman's Warbler is the most credible species to have survived into the 21st Century. My 1980 Peterson's Guide (10th & 19th Printing) describes this species as the rarest of American Sonbirds, while the National Geographic BoNA (2006) lists the species as probably extinct and Sibley's BNA (2003) completely drops the species, I don't care to elobarate/cite what these references refer to as the status of the IBWO. Wikepedia suggests that the Congaree Swamp in South Carolina may hold the last suitable NA habitat for the species (BW), fortunaltely this is an active birding area that I have the oppurtunuty to visit on a semi-monthly basis. Personally I would be satisified to secure a position in birding annuals by capturing a definitive photograph of this species in the referenced habitat. Why doesn't Hill, Fitzpatrick, Harrison et.al. reference/search for this species that may actually have survived into the 21st century? Whether it be in Congaree, Arkansas, or Choctawhatchee.
IBWO searchers/believers please demonstate that 4-1/4" songbird has survived habitat lose and then I might start believing that a 20" woodpecker might have survived the same habitat loss.
Dennis Jackson
Augusta, Georgia
"A little confusing either way."
Doesn't seem confusing at all to me. The IBWO is extinct and nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary, unless the existence of hacks, charlatans and rubes is considered evidence for living IBWOs.
Fortunately this is not the position of both the US Fish and Wildlife Service or of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission which consider the IBWO endangered in Florida. These two are the relevant official [as in Government] agencies for wildlife conservation.
State's ornithological societies and record committees are self-appointed private organizations, far from "official"...
Dalcio
What isn't clear is whether they (1) considered the evidence of Hill et al. (2006) in making this determination...
Evidence? What evidence? Hill et al. never submitted anything to the Committee.
Did he even present any evidence in his 2006 paper? Do glimpses and speculation rise to the level of evidence?
Dalcio wishes to quibble over what constitutes an "official" agency or organization, or an "official" checklist. I agree that the USFWS and FFWCC are official government agencies charged with wildlife conservation. As government agencies, they are also subject to political pressures that don't necessarily reflect biological reality.
Almost without exception, the various State bird record committees associated with State Audubon or ornithological societies are recognized as "official" bodies in charge of compiling authoritative lists of the birds known to have occurred in their respective States.
In most instances, Federal and Stae wildlife agencies recognize the authority and expertise provided by these non-governmental organizations, and State lists compiled by government agencies usually closely mirror those compiled by the State bird record committees.
In the case of Florida, the FFWCC does not maintain an "official" list of Florida birds (as far as I can determine, but the Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee does. The FFWCC does maintain a list of State-designated endangered and threatened species, as mandated by State law.
State bird record committees clearly provide an important service as independent authorities in documenting and verifying the status of bird species in their States. In most cases, these volunteer record-keeping bodies get it right, but in a few instances (notably Arkansas) they get it wrong. But official government agencies are no less fallible.
Dalcio:
Why is it fortunate that the positions of government agencies are not based on credible science?
"State's ornithological societies and record committees are self-appointed private organizations, far from "official"..."
This shows your ignorance of how rare bird records are evaluated and is disrespectful to the many good state bird record committees, obviously not including Arkansas'
As Tim Allwood has noted on Birdforum it is clear that many opinionated TBs have no understanding of birding or of bird conservation.
As usual John Trapp is a wealth of information by his pulling off the web these kinds of apparent contradictions. I thought I read somewhere that Bill Pranty from FOS stated that since Hill had not officially submitted his evidence that FOS was not in a position to review it, or something like that. Presumably, Hill realizes that despite what ever he believes is on the Choc that it is not enough to be accepted by a bird records committee. And I would agree with him, while personally not completely dismissing his evidence either. Just don't know.
By the way, the last detailed official treatment on the species in Florida was actually in Stevenson and Anderson's (1992) The Birdlife of Florida where they stated "there is little room for question about the Ivory-billed's present status in Florida: extirpated or very nearly so...," so not quite as definite as the Robertson and Woolfendon treatment that was completed the same year (and by the way had Fitz as special editor and Remsen as one of the referees). Even so, later Stevenson and Anderson in the ivory-bill account stated, "The fact that the Ivory-billed has managed to hang on so long after its anticipated extinction provides a faint ray of hope; there surely has been some successful breeding." Hmmm.
Anyway, beyond this bit of faint ray of hope vs. it's gone baby, I found the discussion between Trapp and "dalcio" interesting. So which types of treatments are more reliable: (1) those by state ornithological societies (OS) or (2) government (State and Federal) agency listings for endangered species. Generally I agree with John, for species where there are at least accidental documented occurrences, state ornithological societies are heavily relied on by State agencies for making legal decisions.
But what happens when there is no information to make a judgment? Does every state ornithological society treat the lack of recent reports the same way? And same question for State agencies?
I thought it might be interesting to conduct a "Trappish" look at how the State OS's list Ivory-bill on their official check-lists compared to how State agencies treat this species legally across the historical range of the species. I'm not sure what the results of my cursory look means other than it is hard to tell whether Florida OS was right in their treatment and Arkansas Audubon was wrong in theirs as John so boldly states. I think they are both wrong and right as all the States combined are all over the place in how they treat the status of IBWO (both agencies and societies).
Anyway here's what I found:
Texas: OS lists as extirpated and also as a review species (April 2007); State listed as Endangered
Louisiana: OS lists as E? (extirpated?) and a review species (April 2006); State listed as Endangered
Mississippi: OS lists as extirpated (1997); State listed as Endangered and extirpated in the State
Alabama: OS lists as extirpated (April 2006); not legally listed by the State agency
Georgia: OS lists as a review species (2005); State listed as Endangered
South Carolina: Carolina Bird Club-SC-lists as "definite" in 2005 (meaning fully documented) but no mention of whether or not they consider it extirpated and no indication that it is considered a review species (however, Bachman's Warbler is similarly listed but is a review species); not legally listed by the State agency
North Carolina: Carolina Bird Club-NC-lists in 2006 as "Official" (meaning fully documented) with 1 report (Alexander Wilson's perhaps) but again no indication on whether or not they consider the species extirpated or a review species (while for Bachman's Warbler they add the comment "Extinct?); State listed as Endangered
Missouri, Kentucky, and Oklahoma OS's list Ivory-bills as extirpated or extinct and their respective State agencies do not legally list IBWO
No mention at all is made in Tennessee or Illinois by either OS's or State agency
And then there is Arkansas where the "current" Arkansas Audubon (2005) checklist has Ivory-bill listed as extirpated, while of course Arkansas Audubon changed the status for the species later that year to "present;" The State agency however does not legally list Ivory-bill as endangered but has it as their bird of greatest conservation need (and much higher ranked than species that they do list as State endangered).
USFWS treats the species as extant despite a previous attempt to delist in the late 1980's (that Dr. Jackson's inconclusive report apparently halted). AOU still states "nearing extinction if not already extinct." BirdLife International states "Critically Endangered" (apparently still swayed by the Arkansas evidence, but they treat Bachman's Warbler the same way with nothing solid since the 1960's). NatureServe states "possibly extinct" (despite the Arkansas evidence and I might add their formerly close association to The Nature Conservancy), and American Birding Association lists IBWO as "birds that cannot be found" (but if I remember correctly ABA rules don't prohibit someone from officially counting an IBWO on their life list if they claim to have seen one, but no one can count a reintroduced California Condor yet).
Whether you are a true believer (for the species existence or its extinction) or a skeptic, the Ivory-bill perhaps now fits the ABA definition best as a species that cannot be found.
There doesn't seem to be anything particularly devious about any of these treatments as most of them have been in place long before 2005 with the exception of the Arkansas Audubon status change. And anyone who suggests that State checklist and record committees aren't political in their decisions to accept or reject a report (compared to agency decisions to list) has never served on a State checklist and records committee. The politics involved is different of course, and doesn't usually involve regulations or how money should be spent, but more often than not evidence in support of an identification is not obvious nor conclusive. Otherwise why would there be need for deliberations of the evidence, internal lobbying, first round votes and many time second round votes and even then when things seem settled, complete retractions? State records and checklist committees are imperfect mechanisms for dealing with the identification of rare or otherwise hard to identify species, but no one has come up with a better approach short of shotguns. And when there is no information to make a judgment, well folks do the best they can with such species and move on to something they can actually examine in my experience.
So what is the answer based on all this above? Appears each of us could pick and choose which state societies and agencies, and which national-international agencies organizations that most support our pre-conceived notions on whether ivory-bills are still with us or are extinct for our own personal answers.
Beyond that, the honest answer is to say we collectively don't know one way or the other and leave it at that. But of course it won't be left at that.
I was told that Hill had submitted his sightings to the FL committee last year and they were set to discuss it at their last meeting back in February. I haven't seen an official rejection published by them since then, so maybe this is it?
Good job 12:05 AM Anonymous. Very interesting.
"ABA rules don't prohibit someone from officially counting an IBWO on their life list if they claim to have seen one, but no one can count a reintroduced California Condor yet"
If we can claim sightings of extinct IBWOs without credible evidence then there is no reason why we can't assert that a glimpsed California Condor is an overlooked remnant of the original wild population. However unlikely this may be it is no more absurd than claiming to find a living IBWO in Florida or Arkansas. ABA rules should be applied consistently. Do the rules allow us to make up implausible bird sightings unsupported by decent evidence of any sort or not?
"anyone who suggests that State checklist and record committees aren't political in their decisions"
At least they don't include Gale Norton.
On the subject of official assessments, it is also worth mentioning the IUCN Red List, which appropriately classified the IBWO as extinct in 1996 but unfortunately later reclassified it as Critically Endangered.
To clarify the confusion surrounding the evaluation of Hill's evidence by the FOSRC, I spoke with a Committee member.
Yes, they apparently did receive Hill et al.'s (2006) paper as a submission. They evaluated it in early 2007. A decision on that submission apparently has been made, but it has not yet been published.
If I were to pass along what I was told, I'd be twice removed from the careful wording that is somewhere en route to the breathlessly awaiting public. No, thanks.
anon (too lazy to make up a name for herself, apparently) writes
"I would agree with him, while personally not completely dismissing his evidence either."
What evidence are you referring to? Hill doesnt have any "evidence" that suggests IBWOs are alive. He has a collection of lies and allegedly "unexplainable" observations.
That's not evidence. Not by a long shot.
"our pre-conceived notions"
Nice bit of projecting there. Some of us actually look at the facts and make reasonable conclusions based on the facts. It's called "rational thinking." Try it sometime.
"Whether you are a true believer (for the species existence or its extinction)"
Who is a "true believer" in the species' exinction? What does that even mean?
For example, I believe that religion is a bad joke but if I wake up and the sky is purple and people are ascending into the open arms of the Sky Daddy, I'll give it a second thought. For the moment, however, all the "evidence" is on my side. An unpleasant fact for some, perhaps, but a fact nonetheless.
The point is: don't try to "be fair" and paint skeptics with the same brush that you paint the reality-denying morons. There's nothing to be gained by doing that, unless throwing yet another bone to the garbage-peddling TBs makes you feel good about yourself.
"....And anyone who suggests that State checklist and record committees aren't political in their decisions to accept or reject a report (compared to agency decisions to list) has never served on a State checklist and records committee...."
Anonymous, I tend to differ. I have served on two state committees and have been through the process with several others, since BRCs were first devised. I have never made a decision based upon political pressure. I do not know of any BRC member who has made a decision based upon political pressure. In contrast, I have found BRC members to be fiercely independent in their opinions and decisions, almost to a fault.
There is only ONE exception that I know of.. the Arkansas IBWO decision. That was obviously a matter of political pressure, and a poor decision. Normally, I would discourage second-guessing any state BRC decision simply on the grounds that they were probably privy to more information than outsiders. However, in this celebrated case, one must ask "did they see something the rest of the world didn't?" No, of course not.
They simply goofed. Big time.
Post a Comment