As participants in the scientific debate about video purported to show an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, we read with interest the March/April 2007 Birding, particularly the Hayes and Hayes survey results (pp. 36–41). Although this survey illustrates a wide range of opinions on the topic, it did not employ random sampling and therefore cannot be considered truly representative of perceptions in the birding and ornithological communities. Moreover, Hayes and Hayes instructed respondents to review only two interpretations of the evidence: the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and “FishCrow” websites. We hope that future surveys will encourage people to review other published analyses as well, since several of those differ sharply from the FishCrow and Cornell interpretations. It would also be interesting to know where, specifically, respondents obtained their information on the evidence and, especially, whether they have read the original scientific articles.
Our concern is that many people seem to have based their views on press coverage and online discussions, which are often opinionated and emotionally charged. This situation is troubling to us because our published analysis of the video is often misrepresented by those secondary sources. As an example, we did not emphasize the narrow—and ambiguous—black trailing edge to the wing when ruling out Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Instead, we judged that the bird in the video must be a Pileated because of four other details of wing pattern that cannot be explained as video artifacts or as the wing pattern of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker; see figure online [here].
Three years of intensive formal surveys in Arkansas, two years in the Florida panhandle, and countless hours of informal searching by birders all over the South have failed to confirm the Ivorybill’s presence. Many people have adopted a “wait and see” attitude with beliefs tending towards either optimism or pessimism. These beliefs are not necessarily wrong, but they are simply a matter of opinion. Meanwhile, the scientific debate and public-policy decisions must be based on a clear and objective understanding of the strength of the evidence, not on suggestive or emotional arguments, and we encourage everyone to read the peer-reviewed scientific publications, all of which are available online.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), which might have saved the Ivory-billed Woodpecker if it had been enacted 70 years ago, has been chronically underfunded, and the 2007 budget for the ESA is 5% less than in 2006. On average, each of the 1,200 species of plants and animals designated as threatened or endangered receives only about $14,000 per year in federal and state funding—compare this to the $5.87 million in federal funds spent on the Ivory-bill in 2005, to say nothing of the huge investment of time and effort by government and non-government parties. Another 228 species that warrant protection have not yet been reviewed because of a lack of funding for the listing process. And, still, many more species are declining. In this dire situation we question the wisdom of devoting such a large proportion of scarce resources to a bird that cannot be found.
But the real issue is not that we are spending too much on hopes that we might save the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; it is that there is simply too little money to go around. Under these circumstances, funding one species inevitably takes money away from others. As long as funding is limited, it is important both to direct money where it will have the greatest overall benefit and to base those decisions on sound scientific evidence.
Whether or not the Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists, birders should demand better funding of the Endangered Species Act and speak out against attempts to weaken it. While we wait and search for confirmation of the Ivory-bill, one of the best things we can do is to make sure that other species do not meet the same fate.
— David A. Sibley, Concord, Massachusetts; Louis R. Bevier, Waterville, Maine; Michael A. Patten, Norman, Oklahoma; Chris S. Elphick, Storrs, Connecticut
Monday
50 minutes ago
Posts
12 comments:
"we encourage everyone to read the peer-reviewed scientific publications"
OK, but peer reviewed publications were the main part of the problem and only part of the rebuttal (solution) to the IBWO fiasco. Tom said it first, and better, and never retracted his critique for no good reason.
"On average, each of the 1,200 species of plants and animals designated as threatened or endangered receives only about $14,000 per year in federal and state funding—compare this to the $5.87 million in federal funds spent on the Ivory-bill in 2005"
So why did Sibley have to say in public that we ALL (except IBWO atheists) agree that saving the habitat (which harbors NO rare birds) is important?
"In this dire situation we question the wisdom of devoting such a large proportion or scarce resources"
ANY?
"Under these circumstances, funding one species inevitably takes money away from others"
This was obvious in 2005 but you didn't say this then. At that time conserving the Big Woods was something we could "all" agree on.
"Whether or not the Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists"
Still on the fence at this point?
"While we wait and search for confirmation of the Ivory-bill"
and the Great Auk and my favorite the Labrador Duck...
Sibley could have been a great skeptic hero but he blew it by crying and showing that birders are the wussies the bullies in school always thought we were.
Three years of intensive formal surveys in Arkansas, two years in the Florida panhandle, and countless hours of informal searching by birders all over the South have failed to confirm the Ivorybill’s presence.
That's an exceedingly generous intepretation of what is essentially 60+ years of goose eggs.
the real issue is not that we are spending too much on hopes that we might save the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; it is that there is simply too little money to go around.
What the ...? So if there was more money, then we could waste millions on searching for extinct woodpeckers? I suppose if the allocation to the Endangered Species Fund was even more generous, we could fund searches for the Great Auk and the passenger pigeon. Keep the hope alive!!!!
Come back to earth, Sibley. We understand the "strength of evidence." You'd have to be an idiot not to. You'd have to be an ever bigger idiot to PRETEND not to. So what's Sibley's excuse?
Our concern is that many people seem to have based their views on press coverage and online discussions, which are often opinionated and emotionally charged.
The press is emotional charged? LOL.
Sibley is playing it in all directions. It must feel so wonderful sitting up so high on his throne and criticizing not only the mainstream press but blogs, too, for being "opinionated."
So Sibley, can you articulate the argument that explains how IBWOs can be continually "sighted" in the United States for 60 years but never credibly documented in an objective fashion?
I'm waiting for your non-opinionated, non-emotional response. And if you can't articulate that argument in a way that explains all the data (i.e., the continual "sightings" and the failure to obtain any objective evidence to support the sightings), then can you explain why you are unable to simply state the obvious, i.e., "The CLO peddled garbage to the American public and the IBWO is as extinct as the dodo"?
It's funny that each of these commenters refers exclusively to Sibley, as though he wrote the letter alone. And it's pathetic to see these internet tough guys refer to Sibley (and Bevier, Patten, and Elphick) as "wussies" and "idiots."
There's something to be said about using tact when publicly airing strong criticisms about an emotionally charged topic like the IbWo. Tact allows for the possibility of changing peoples' minds rather than simply screeching and preaching to your own nameless, faceless choir.
So there you go, anonymous internet tough guys -- time to step up to those keyboards again, steeped in your own righteous indignation, and let everyone know once more how awesome you are and how stupid everyone is who doesn't fall in lockstep with every aspect of your pure and perfect worldview.
I have written before about how Ornithology has entered it's post-modern age of pseudo-scientific every-idea-is-worthy-of-consideration phase.
In many ways, Sibley also reflects this. It's the thought that even mistaken beliefs such as the continued existance of the IBWO is somehow good for the environment if it makes us consider loss of species and loss of habitat.
Whereas, before this postmodern age we would have all thought that this whole fiasco was a horrendous waste of time and distraction from real endangered species.
Yes, truly even our heroes have fallen into the post-modern trap.
There's something to be said about using tact when publicly airing strong criticisms
What "strong criticisms"?
Let's be clear: Sibley isn't persuading anybody. He's simply going with the flow. He's reacting to *us* and trying to claim the high ground by refusing to call a spade a spade. But that's what started this mess in the first place: pretending that a pile of garbage isn't a pile of garbage just because the oh-so-serious CLO created the pile.
So there you go, anonymous internet tough guys --
LOL, coming from the anomymous Ms. Manners of the Internet.
At least people can recognize my username and know when I'm posting, unlike you.
It's funny that each of these commenters refers exclusively to Sibley, as though he wrote the letter alone.
Whatever. He signed it. I believe I've already complimented Bevier on his website:
http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/iWeb/ivorybilled/Overview.html
But like Sibley, Bevier dances around the issue. He essentially admits that the IBWO is extinct (where no credible evidence supporting its viability has been provided in the past 60+ years) but refuses to address the obvious question: why are scientists and expert birders even discussing this in 2007 ??? And the answer to that question is that some self-described scientists and "birders" are engaged in charlatanism and self-promotion.
And they are mostly getting away with it because people like Sibley are afraid to simply call them out.
LOL, coming from the anomymous Ms. Manners of the Internet.
I maintain anonymity on the internet for the same reasons most people do, presumably you included. It's partly for this reason that I think it's pathetic for the great "invisible bird" to be taking pot shots at Sibley and the others who have gone to the trouble to competently research CLO's claims and who have attached their actual names to their comments. I think they deserve a lot more credit for taking a reasoned public stance against the IbWo madness than what they get at this site.
Let's be clear: Sibley isn't persuading anybody. He's simply going with the flow. He's reacting to *us* . . .
That's one of the most delusional and self-aggrandizing statements I've read in a long time. What a laugh.
Anyway, my point is not that everyone should agree with Sibley et al., or that it's in any way unfair to critique them, but it bugs me that commenters on this site disrespectfully slam Sibley et al. simply because they haven't adopted the hardest line against CLO et al. If that makes me "Ms. Manners" I guess I can accept that.
"it bugs me that commenters on this site disrespectfully slam Sibley et al."
Me too.
I maintain anonymity on the internet for the same reasons most people do, presumably you included.
I'm talking about at least using a "handle" that clearly sets you apart from the other folks who can't spare two seconds to fill in the blank with something besides "anonymous." That's all.
I think they deserve a lot more credit for taking a reasoned public stance against the IbWo madness than what they get at this site.
More credit? Like what? Prizes? For publishing a rather weak statement about the IBWO debacle in 2007? If it's all about baby steps, I guess I can muster a tired 'whup-ee' on behalf of Sibley et al's letter.
That's one of the most delusional and self-aggrandizing statements I've read in a long time.
Now you're slamming me. How disrespectful!
Look, there is nothing "disrespectful" about disagreeing with Sibley et al. or their approach to this issue. I think he's soft-pedaling and think soft-pedaling is stupid because it just slows down the process of undoing the damage that the CLO and other opportunists have done.
As for the alleged extraordinary "self delusion" I displayed when I suggested that Sibley et al are merely putting a happy face on the exasperation and scorn felt by many towards the TBs and their script-writers, I don't get it. Why did it take 2 years for this letter???? Was there some "research" that needed to be done first?
You see the problem, I hope. The problem is: what is to prevent this ridiculousness from happening all over again the next time somebody floats some dubious garbage about the IBWO and some "credentialed" scientist says "that's extremely interesting"? Is ornithology doomed to repeat this stuff on an endless loop or what?
I'm serious. Crystal clarity is essential here or the virus will keep on giving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infection went "to the top", more or less, did it not?
Can you imagine if Stephen J. Gould had begun promoting 6 day creationism as an alternative theory to evolution? I can't. But I can imagine the response from his peers: quick, decisive, and devastating.
What is the difference here? Clearly there are differences. But why do they matter?
Is there any doubt that ornithology postmodernism is in full bloom? Listen to you guys argue over Sibley's take on "hope" and "wishes". Meanwhile Hill is going to give a talk on 14 sightings of the Ivory-billed and no one bats an eyelash anymore.
The whole thing has totally entered the world of newage puffery.
Let's be clear. The only, and I mean only, valid belief at this stage is that the IBWO is extinct. Everything else is just a sell-flagellating tongue-lashing of the truth whether it comes from Sibley or god himself.
I appreciate the varied viewpoints posted in response to our recent letter in Birding. Still, some criticism is unduly harsh. It took two years for this letter to appear because dealing with the "fallout" of the initial claim is an ongoing process. I wish it were so, but opinions do not change overnight.
In that vein, bear in mind that we could not publish at all until public opinion diminished enough to quell vitriolic backlash. Recall that "believers" seemed to outnumber skeptics manifold in the early stages of this affair. And there was coercion and worse.... I like to think that our rebuttal in Science helped turn the tide, and it is nice to see that there are now many who question the IBWO claims comfortably, without fear of reprisal. That opinion has not swung entirely to "our" side is hardly for lack of effort on our part, let alone our approach or our choice of wording.
Besides, for my part I prefer to keep the debate as civil as possible, meaning we shall not drift into blasting with both barrels in classic talk radio fashion. If we let anyone down in behaving thusly, I can only apologize and encourage you to take up the baton with your own published critiques.
Thanks again to all who shared their thoughts.
-Michael
Post a Comment