Thursday, January 27, 2022

— USFWS Meeting… pros and cons —

 ———————————————————

Luckily was able to clear off my evening schedule and listen to the entire 90-minute USFWS de-listing meeting for IBWO last night, so here’s some take-aways and generalizations of the good and the bad:


At the peak there were close to 170 people attending. Only about 15 people though spoke on the de-listing proposal, and all but 2 opposed it — I was surprised there weren’t more speakers, including more skeptics; surprised also that not a single prominent, well-known, “name” birder spoke at the meeting (…or, do they just presume the debate is already over?). Disappointed too that more professional ornithologists, either pro or con, didn't take time to participate. And there were about 10 “no-shows” — people who registered ahead of time to speak but then weren’t present (a couple of others who registered to speak, changed their minds, saying they would instead offer further written comments, but not speak). [ Further comments can be submitted here, until Feb. 10: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0107 ]


The 2-minute limit per presentation was of course verrrrrry limiting in what one could address or how much data or evidence could be referenced — again that will be remedied in submitted written comments or private presentations (which probably explains why a lot of fairly prominent "believers" neglected speaking at the meeting, as well).


Time constraints gave the meeting, in my view, more the look of “window-dressing” than real substance, but with that said, and despite a few fairly pithy, not-very-consequential comments, thought the overall range and content of comments was quite good and varied given those significant limitations.


 As typical for Zoom meetings there were a number of procedural and glitchy issues which frankly wasted a lot of time that could’ve been employed for more presentation; I’d say at least 20% of the time was squandered, but ohh well, not unexpected.


USFWS took no questions themselves during the meeting, but did say (if I understood correctly) that the meeting would be recorded and posted on their website -- not sure how soon that will happen [ they now report the meeting will be posted within 2 weeks here:  https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2022/01/service-proposes-to-delist-ivory-billed-woodpecker/#virtual-meeting-and-hearing ]; nor did they say how soon a final decision on de-listing will be made (though I assume it won't come before summer) [on one Gov't. page, if I understand it correctly, they cite Sept. 2022 as the date for a final decision].

Again, can’t imagine that the meeting itself will change any minds, that would be up to the more detailed presentations that USFWS receives in writing or private contacts.

Lastly, worth commending Matt Courtman (and his passion) for just making this meeting happen.

[for any who don't already know, he hopes to embark on a 5-year effort to document the IBWO to everyone's satisfaction]


Finally, I'll reiterate what I’ve essentially said in the past: What is needed is really pretty simple. These birds (if around) MUST BE nesting and daily roosting and foraging. Find a nesthole, roosthole, or foraging site, stake it out with a human or automatic remote camera, and get the required photo/video (not easy, but shouldn't take decades). End... of... debate… Individual sighting claims, audio data, and blurry or distant flight videos, will NOT do it… though yes, we can easily spend another 25 years gathering/debating that level of evidence.

De-listing is the issue of the moment, but long-term we must get the birding/ornithological/conservation community behind this species, and last night’s meeting, as pleasant as it was, won’t accomplish that... and the low participation from skeptics implies to me that they still think the debate is already long over (or perhaps they watched simply to see what points would be stressed and will now submit more written comments to oppose those points?). Bottom line: the bar is high, very high, to document this species, but honestly, the bar is even higher to declare extinction. 


....Seems like possibly a good time to close out with Sufjan Stevens' moving tribute to the Ivory-bill (which I used to post about once-a-year, but haven't done so in quite a while): 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9K6MHe890


———————————————————



Monday, January 24, 2022

-- Upcoming --

 ————————————————

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

                                                       -- Richard Feynman (bold added)


Gee, time flies, and the big day is almost upon us for the USFWS Zoom meeting Wednesday evening, following a pretty crazy few weeks over at the FB “Ivory-billed Woodpecker Re-discovered” group pages; probably hasn’t been that much active debate since early years over at BirdForum.net (and, on this very blog).

I still don't know what the format, ground rules, order of speakers, will be for the meeting, but shan't be long now.


Never been sure in my own mind whether FWS called for this meeting and comment extension because they genuinely wanted to review more scientific evidence for the species, or, more for public relations reasons, to mollify vocal believers by offering them a full hearing… but for now I’ll stick with my prediction that, barring truly new, significant evidence from the current winter search season, their decision to de-list will remain unchanged (though could be delayed).


I've employed the famous quote above from physicist Richard Feynman because I think that in essence will be the underlying message skeptics may employ at the Zoom meeting regarding "evidence" for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. And that will be the perception "believers" must overcome. No easy task. USFWS will be left to ponder whether there is greater risk of egg-on-their-face by declaring the species extinct, only to have it possibly documented in the future, or by maintaining it as endangered when most of the birding/ornithological/conservation community believes it extinct.

I presume that the bulk of regular readers here will already be familiar with what the 'pro'-IBWO speakers will have to say; what will be interesting to see is which skeptics speak (perhaps including some 'rock-star' birders), and which points they choose to emphasize in the limited time. One person I'd be particularly interested to hear from is Pete Dunne, but no idea if he's involved.


[actually not certain how much, if any, of the meeting I'll sit in on, though sure it will be well covered elsewhere if I don't manage to carve out the needed time]


P.S.... on a complete side-note, I awoke this morning to find this post in my Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/mkeriverkeeper/status/1485270284454219777


————————————————


Tuesday, January 11, 2022

-- Another Date Set -- +Addenda

———————————————————


In some encouraging news, according to a press report, the USFWS will hold (as requested by Matt Courtman) a final, virtual 90-minute “
public hearing to air competing views” of Ivory-bill persistence on January 26.  Encouraging on the one hand, but also hard to imagine officials will hear anything they haven’t already heard either through the written comment period or in private communications, and unlike that period which was dominated by “believers” this meeting may have a stronger showing of “deniers” countering with their case. Even if IBWO proponents got the bulk of time (say 60+ minutes to 30 or less for skeptics), it will be difficult to squeeze the most significant evidence into that time-frame, and perhaps the purpose of meeting is to give skeptics the opportunity in real time to counter such evidence. Very few details given as yet.

Also, I’m not sure if “public hearing” means it will be open to the public-at-large, but assume, in any event main speakers will be designated ahead of time (otherwise, it could be one raucous meeting!). When more info is available I will add it onto this post. 

(Hey, in the meantime, read Chris Haney's book ;))

———————————————————


ADDENDUM:  OK, some additional information:


The virtual (Zoom) meeting will take place from 6 to 7:30pm (Central Standard Time) on Wed., Jan. 26, and requires preregistration to attend. Register here:

https://empsi.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwvc--oqzItHtAA9U6PXgtsa5Xk85dKtaxm


(The form asks if you wish to make a public comment during the meeting… I have no idea if all who answer ‘yes’ to that will get a chance to?)


In addition to the meeting, the comment period on the FWS recommendation to de-list the IBWO has been extended for another 30 days (through Feb. 10), so if you still wish to comment you may do so.


…It would be great to be a fly on the wall at the current FWS meetings where this is all being discussed/debated ;)

.................................................

ADDENDUM 2:


ahhhh, was getting snippets of info from various small news services before, but finally found official announcement with all the info here:

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2022/01/service-proposes-to-delist-ivory-billed-woodpecker/#endangeredspecies

.................................................

ADDENDUM 3  1/13/22 (just for fun)…:


First, just passing along a nice write-up on the amazing journey of the Steller Sea Eagle that has shown up, sort-of, ummm, against all probability, in the U.S. lower 48:

https://www.audubon.org/news/inside-amazing-cross-continent-saga-stellers-sea-eagle


Now, just for fun, am trying to figure out how the FWS Zoom meeting will go on Jan. 26. The meeting is only 90 minutes and I assume at least 10 minutes will be taken up with some sort of official opening and closing statements, and perhaps interruptions or glitches along the way, leaving at most 80 mins. for signed-up public speakers. What’s hard to guess ahead of time is how many folks will wish (or be allowed) to speak at the event. But say speakers are limited to a 4 minute presentation, that would then permit a max of 20 speakers, some of whom will undoubtedly be skeptics and conservationists arguing for de-listing (and spending any dollars/resources that would be allocated toward the IBWO on other more savable species). Even if it’s one-sided (which I’m not at all sure it will be) and there were only 5 naysayers, that leaves time for 15 IBWO proponents — I again have no idea if a lot more, or a lot less than 15 will request speaking time (with a lot less, then perhaps speaking time could be expanded well over 4 minutes). I assume FWS are themselves trying to work out the format and ground rules as they go along. Alternatively, maybe Matt Courtman, since he requested this meeting, will get to organize who and for how long proponents speak, and someone else will be responsible for organizing the rebuttal response; just don’t know but fun to think about…. and hey, maybe ALL my numbers are screwed up from the get-go… in less than 2 weeks we’ll know better... once again though, I'd keep expectations low; such a meeting may delay a final decision 'til after the current winter season is over, but still difficult for me to see it altering the decision.

[If anyone knows for certain more details of the meeting format, feel free to describe in comments.]

[addenda to Addenda!:  in comment below, "John" mentions he has signed up and been given 2 minutes to speak; I assume, unless I hear otherwise, that will be the limit for most or all speakers.]

.................................................


ADDENDUM 4  1/14/22  (sorry for extending this out so much, but hard to stay silent):


For any who don’t already follow it, I’ll note that the main IBWO-search Facebook page has become very active with comments (one post has over 230 comments!) back-and-forth on several different postings:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368


(I don’t personally engage on FB, at least not on controversial topics, because of my disdain for Zuck and his creation, but am happy to see more skeptics once again entering the fray on that site which is heavily believers preaching to the choir, existing within a bubble that I don’t think recognizes the magnitude of the skepticism that must  be overcome — with that said, I will say I admire the persistence and approach of Matt Courtman through all of this, even while finding him overly-optimistic. The success (for believers) of the USFWS Zoom meeting will likely be dependent not so much on the evidence presented by the pro-IBWO camp, but rather by the effectiveness of the counterarguments and points by skeptics.  

After all this time I still believe the best evidence (unfortunately) for the IBWO was that compiled by Cornell in the Big Woods over 15 years ago (which could’ve been a single bird, long-since deceased — I don’t believe that's the case, but just sayin’ could be). Everything since then has been weaker evidence, though often intriguing, but I won’t get into all the unresolvable arguments over it, leaving that to others. And while there may be more, newer evidence not yet made public, am very doubtful any of it will be a game-changer (even possible it could serve to increase skepticism).

Luckily, whatever USFWS eventually decides, folks will continue to search for the IBWO, and it may even eventually be documented, not by a searcher, but by another Gene Sparling or David Kulivan type figure who simply stumbles upon it.

...In the meantime, a Steller's Eagle continues to hang out in Maine (as of 1/14) giving photo-ops to lucky chasers. ;)


[Another Addenda to Addenda!:  I'll just point out this one comment from Professor Mark Bonta as one of the simple reasons I still hold significant hope for IBWO persistence:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5013687525319304/ ]


and m-m-m-more Addenda: Well, at the risk of overdoing it and entertaining you too much ;) I’ll pass along yet another thread of comments from FB with a lot of back-and-forth (including ABA’s Nate Swick drawn back into the fray among other skeptics):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5009219549099435/


The thread begins to illustrate what has to be overcome (and quite likely won't be, without truly fresh, game-changing evidence), at the USFWS Zoom de-listing meeting in a little over a week. The next 9 days over at FB could be wild.

.................................................


Sunday, January 02, 2022

— A Little Birdtime Reading (...seriously, get THIS book) —

---------------------------------------------------


Besides a cautionary tale, Woody’s Last Laugh illustrates at least 50 common, every-day mental shortcuts that don’t work, and how to recognize their traits and consequences... just a single point of uncertainty, whether a woodpecker was still living or not, could and did go on to trigger a host of serious cognitive errors and thinking fallacies in us….

“My book is among the first to expose cognitive derailment inside the environmental and conservation sciences, disciplines for framing knowledge that we normally consider less prone to such blunder. Yet across all human pursuits, mental mistakes routinely upset our need to find and apply reliable information. Human reason is fallible in science and conservation, too. Because we put up stiff resistance against ambiguity, we commit errors of thinking and action in order to achieve closure… None of us are immune from this cognitive bias, either. Indeed, several of our social identities and conventions tend to just magnify these errors in us.

                              from the Introduction to Dr. J. Christopher Haney’s book


Might as well start the new year off with something positive, like a new book!…


Mark Michaels called Christopher Haney’s recent volume, “Woody’s Last Laugh,the most important book on the ivorybill since Tanner,” which seemed like a bit of hyperbole when I first saw some excerpts and a couple of Dr. Haney’s video presentations… but after reading the volume over the Holidays, I agree (it is certainly the most unique Ivory-bill book in a long time, or, ever)… BUT with one possible huge caveat: it’s the most important book since Tanner if, If, IF, the Ivory-bill is eventually documented! — this book will go a long way to explaining the time it took, and the many ways scientists (and others) went astray. IF the IBWO is never conclusively documented, and 25 years from now the consensus is once again that the species went extinct in the 1940s or shortly thereafter, well, then this book may be relegated to the dust bin of so much other Ivory-bill commentary (even though as a historical and ecological account it still has great value). With that said, and as someone who majored in cognitive psychology in college, I do also enjoy this read simply as a text on cognitive science and critical thinking (important subjects these days, in their own right)… indeed, again, if the IBWO is eventually confirmed, I can imagine this volume becoming a text in some such college courses. It is all about the cognitive errors and biases we humans make in perceiving and analyzing the world around us.


Will get some (pragmatic) criticisms out of the way first… Unfortunately at 500 pages, some will avoid the volume as too long or intimidating… however many of those pages are copious chapter endnotes (which are, themselves, very worth scanning over, and offer an incredible treasure-trove for additional reading!); still, the main chronological text could probably have been organized better, written more succinctly, cut down somewhat (by a good editor), and succeeded at making the same points. It lacks a much-needed Index (big pet peeve of mine when missing). And I wish it was put out by a more major American publisher with better publicity and distribution. And finally, the title and cartoonish cover page unfortunately give the ‘feel’ of some sort of humorous, light-hearted book, instead of the substantive volume it is. (I might also mention that the title will falsely imply to many readers that the beloved cartoon character “Woody Woodpecker” was modeled after the Ivory-bill… he wasn’t, and Haney acknowledges this before book's end.) Some folks will ignore the volume thinking it too light-hearted and others will find its 500-page semi-college-text-like approach too burdensome. In short, it won’t reach the full audience it deserves. But both as an academic treatise on the IBWO (LOTS of historical/background info here as well) and as a discussion of timely issues in critical thinking more generally, I would encourage all to give it a whirl… and also realize that while Haney is largely critiquing deniers and skeptics, many of the points he makes cut BOTH ways; i.e. “believers” also suffer from cognitive lapses and biases (indeed, “groupthink,” “wishful thinking,” “cognitive bias,” "blind spots," and "cherry-picking" are among frequent accusations regularly hurled our way). So perhaps there is too scarce an application of “thinking errors” mentioned for believers, or for the current spate of evidence being offered by some as “proof” of Ivory-bill presence (with that said, though, Haney does at times voice harsh, maybe even overstated, criticisms of individuals and ideas across the board, and classifies himself as a bit of an 'agnostic' on the species’ current status, though “believers” will easily embrace him). Another interesting side-note that arises from time to time in these pages is the friction or rift between birders and academic ornithologists — yes, these are two quite different categories, even if not a clean split… though it must also be said that within each group there are certainly a mix of believers and naysayers (and furthermore, within both groups the majority are surely the latter). Overall though, I am truly gobsmacked by the sheer amount of historical, technical, speculative information and material Haney has compiled here, and thrilled to see someone bring together all these cognitive issues in one place. IF the Ivory-bill is documented it would be nice to see this volume shoot to #1 on bestseller lists!  So hey, someone out there please make it happen! ;))


My favorite chapter (though it is hard to choose) may be Chapter 8 (“Curse of Small n”) which critiques the work/conclusions of Tanner (which is the foundation of so much skepticism), as I’ve long held must be done, despite the remarkable effort Tanner made as a simple grad student solely (and impossibly) attempting to fully understand the IBWO. Many of the other chapters as well pick apart ‘myths’ or expose contradictions in our purported understanding of this species. Chapter 9 (“Poetic License”) may be my least favorite chapter where Haney takes to task various semantic aspects that are pretty commonplace in most writing and argumentation — ironically, Haney himself plays a little loose with the language (I think) with his theme comparing the IBWO to Woody Woodpecker in its efforts to toy with or “fool” us, when its likely only intention is to avoid us and live out its life. The “Woody” analogy detracts (for me) from the seriousness of what this book is actually all about (I don't even know if 'Woody Woodpecker' is still relevant or familiar to upcoming generations?).  Anyway, I also especially enjoyed parts of the final wrap-up chapter (“The Last Laugh”), as well as parts of the Afterword and 3 Appendices (especially Appendix 2) that follow — so don’t miss them. Also at the end comes a glossary of the 50+ cognitive flaws that become a bit of a blur through the text. A lot of the ‘cognitive psychology’ material is not new to me, but may hold special appeal to other readers less familiar with it. Every… single… chapter... makes points worth thinking about while also offering a breadth of rich information found in probably no other IBWO volume out there. Just chockfull of good stuff that may dismantle reader assumptions/preconceptions. Some of the arguments are disjointed or redundant in the way they reappear in different contexts through the volume, and Haney may overplay his hand a bit at times, but overall a monumental and innovative effort!… and from someone who's name, so far as I know, was not even previously associated with the whole IBWO debate. 


I’ll mention that at the very end Dr. Haney lists a few books for “further reading” about critical thinking (definitely a thrust of the book), and I was disappointed at how short that list is (7 entries), given how voluminous his IBWO references are. There have been a slew of such books out in recent years (one favorite of mine is Daniel J. Levitin’s “A Field Guide To Lies” but there are many others), and this really is a topic area that ought, in my opinion, be stressed and taught in schools from the elementary level on -- cognitive aspects of language and semantics should be taught right alongside spelling, grammar, syntax!!


Dr. Haney, by the way, was also friends and college colleague with Bill Pulliam (now deceased), for the many of you familiar with Bill’s great contributions to the IBWO saga. Haney is the author of several books and papers, and you can read much more about his extensive, wide-ranging background here:

https://www.terramarappliedsciences.com/about-j-christopher-haney


If you want to get a jump on his ideas before you grab hold of his book, here are 2 podcasts he’s been on that give a sense of his approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLbbzWoEHM


https://tinyurl.com/y4qvuqgl


Dr. Haney’s book came out in the same time-frame as Guy Luneau’s (David’s brother), The Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Taunting Extinction which by the author’s own admission is more “a feel good book, not so much a form of science paper.” I won’t discourage folks from reading Guy’s take, but will caution one ought do so with a hyper-critical eye and indeed accepting its “feel good” nature moreso than the “science” presented (which I believe suffers from some of the very cognitive biases Haney speaks of). I agree with a great many of Guy’s points and speculations though (in fact, by now, I’d almost wager some of them must be ‘truths’ in order to account for the Ivory-bill’s elusiveness!), but also think other statements/assertions are over-the-top and not so easily resolvable. The reason this controversy just goes on and on is, in part, because precision science in field biology is so difficult to do.


I’ll opportunistically throw in here one of my own long-ago speculations that Guy doesn’t mention, and no one has taken seriously (but I’ll stand by) which is that the IBWO has largely become a creature of the upper canopies, perhaps rarely in its lifetime venturing within say 30 ft. of the ground; nesting/roosting, foraging, mating, hanging out, well up in the forest skyline (at least in any areas that humans traffic) and largely out-of-range of clear human or camera sight (again, my feeble attempt to account for the scarcity of good sightings or photos over decades). Only Mike Collins’ tree-climbing technique (or a drone) might get a good view of such a bird… and ironically, the best evidence he puts forth is of a bird flying far below him (the so-called ‘fly-under’ video), not one at tree-top eye level. Anyway, I have fun imagining a species possibly learning to live its entire life in the treetops, detached from human interaction.


Finally, while skeptics no doubt tear their hair out at such further published tracts, I find it delightful and motivational that at this late stage, Ivory-bill books continue to emerge and press their case. Hopefully, the last one has yet to be written (...and in any event, I reiterate, read Haney's book!).


I’ll close out this post, on a Sunday morning, with a famous old quote from writer/naturalist Henry Beston in his classic, "The Outermost House":


We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” 


Amen….


—————————————————