This is in response to Rick Wright's "Ivory and Wood" in the May/June Winging It, in which he states that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct.
Despite the lack of an unambiguous photograph, video, specimen, or DNA sample, numerous reports by respected ornithologists and birders strongly suggest that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still live in the southeastern U.S., and the American Ornithologists' Union has not declared the species extinct.
A declaration of extinction by someone of Wright's stature may contribute to the actual extinction of the species by providing ammunition for developers, regulators, and officials who would destroy remaining Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.
I do not understand the motivation of those who, ever since the 1940s, have declared the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct and ridiculed anyone who dared to report seeing it. Scientists must be skeptical, but don't the recent credible reports of the species' existence make Wright skeptical of its extinction? And considering the possibly dire consequences of a premature declaration of extinction, wouldn't the conservative approach be to acknowledge that the species may exist?
Can Wright acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood) that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still live in the southeastern U.S? After all, we may yet have a "chance to do things right."
--Julian Sellers, St. Paul, MN
Open Thread
1 hour ago
Posts
5 comments:
"numerous reports by respected ornithologists and birders"
Formerly respected.
"I do not understand the motivation of those who, ever since the 1940s, have declared the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct"
We respect the truth, however unpleasant it may be.
"and ridiculed anyone who dared to report seeing it."
because they were all stringers.
"don't the recent credible reports"
Maybe I missed something, but have there been any?
"considering the possibly dire consequences of a premature declaration of extinction, wouldn't the conservative approach be to acknowledge that the species may exist?"
What about the definitely dire consequences of ignoring or at least not funding conservation measures for species that demonstrably do exist?
"Can Wright acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood) that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still live in the southeastern U.S?"
If credible evidence were forthcoming I suspect he could.
"After all, we may yet have a "chance to do things right."
Why stop with the IBWO? Why not fake rediscover and recover the Labrador Duck too and rename it the Lord God Duck?
"......numerous reports by respected ornithologists and birders strongly suggest that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still live in the southeastern U.S."
Make that "formerly respected" or "respected only by other Ivory-billed fanatics."
Why did Rick Wright, Editor of Birding, feel obliged to publish this drivel?
Perhaps the Trilateral Commission is at work here.
Can Wright acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood) that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still live in the southeastern U.S?
There's also a possibility (or likelihood) that Dick Cheney is an alien. Since virtually anything could be deemed "possible", one must base their opinions on probability.
The vast amount of negative evidence (no pic, no matching audio, no DNA, no sighting by an experienced field birder of more than 2 seconds) is what is driving people to say the bird is extinct. You might prefer that they say "very highly probably extinct", but that's pretty cumbersome.
I do not understand the motivation of those who, ever since the 1940s, have declared the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct
Oh, Julian, please don't pretend to be so stupid. The motivation is the same as that which drives people to declare that the earth rotates around the sun and water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at 1 atmosphere pressure.
and ridiculed anyone who dared to report seeing it.
That's a combination of a desire to (1) inject humor into what is basically a sad situation (extinct bird, stupid people who refuse to admit it) and (2) put an end to the nonsense.
If ornithologists and birders had done a better job of ridiculing the so-called stringers over the years, Fitzcrow and his fellow propagandists at Cornell would likely not have succeeded in their attempt to use Science magazine to kick manure into the world's face.
Post a Comment