Sibley et al. letter to Birding

The following letter appears in the July/August 2007 issue of Birding (starting on page 10):

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