-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Gallagher, who has a bit of interest in the decision ;) has written a piece for Audubon regarding the USFWS recommendation to declare the IBWO extinct:
It largely rehashes the arguments that have been made all along and Tim’s own personal experience, and Tim is a good writer so it is an enjoyable read. But with that said, I was disappointed that toward the end, and you could hear the frustration/aggravation in his words while writing about the difficulty of attaining evidence strong enough to sway skeptics, he ventured over-the-top with this bit:
“So, unless someone manages to take the most stunning, crisp, unbelievably vivid photograph or video imaginable—or better yet, find an active nest that other researchers can view—it may not be universally believed.”
No, it does not require “the most stunning, crisp” or “unbelievably vivid” photographic evidence to demonstrate this species’ existence. Crappy, blurry, but closeup photos that simply show a few key features will do, or fuzzy, prolonged video of very mediocre quality will suffice… and that is what we haven’t had for an amazing and disappointing 75+ years. One doesn’t require a Leica camera with a 600 mm. lens… an iPhone may do the trick (…or, if you were to believe Fielding Lewis, a Brownie camera suffices nicely). So folks please don't hold back your photos of Ivory-bills because they're not of stellar, award-winning quality ;)
There are plenty of reasons to explain why getting such a photo or video may be difficult… but, given what has been accomplished with other rare species, it is also difficult to explain the lack of even one given the effort put in over this long a time. "I couldn't get my camera out fast enough," "I couldn't get the camera to focus in time," "I was so stunned, I didn't even think to reach for my camera"... gets a li'l old after awhile... coulda, woulda, shoulda.
And photographic evidence is not the only possibility. A clear, prolonged sighting by a truly universally-respected, and skeptical, ornithologist or birder would definitely rev up belief in this species, or even such a sighting by a large group (say 8 or more) of less well-known, but very experienced, birders, could do it. ...David Sibley saying "I think I may have seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker" wouldn't do it, but David Sibley saying "I saw an Ivory-billed Woodpecker" would! A slimmer possibility might be finding Ivory-bill DNA at a nest hole or foraging site… let alone a dead carcass.
These are not near-impossible levels of evidence to achieve; in fact they are possibly inevitable, given enough time (whatever that be), IF the species is indeed extant. And IF the bird is finally documented to everyone’s satisfaction, stunned ornithologists and naturalists worldwide will likely regard it as one of the greatest, most incredible sagas in all of zoological science and history. Meanwhile, we believers, will quietly (or, perhaps not-so-quietly) shake our heads, knowing it could hardly have turned out otherwise.
p.s…. Tim encourages everyone with thoughts on the matter to comment to the USFWS before they make their final decision at end of November:
-----------------------------------------------------------
8 comments:
Could someone explain in detail what is wrong with this idea-- the USFW understands that the IB still exists, but is listing it as extinct so they can allocate more money and time to other species that are much more endangered. The USFW also understands that there are serious private efforts underway (Project Principalis, Mission Ivorybill, others) to prove the bird's existence.
"... gets a li'l old after awhile... coulda, woulda, shoulda." This type of comment can only convince those who have had sightings to remain silent.
"A clear, prolonged sighting by a truly universally-respected, and skeptical, ornithologist or birder would definitely rev up belief in this species". There are no universally respected ornithologists or birders searching for IB. And if one happened to see the birds, why would he risk his reputation against "coulda, woulda, shoulda" type of derision?
John: USFWS is a large agency, and I doubt there is unanimity among their own staff; I don’t doubt many there believe the IBWO extinct and any other stance lends them less credibility… while others there recognize the possibility of the IBWO being extant (but, even then, likely not salvageable).
IBH: I believe there may still be ~$50,000 reward for the individual who leads ornithologists to living Ivory-bills, but even if not, the fame & fortune that would follow such an individual is worth far more than 50,000… so I think the incentive is easily there for sincere, credible folks to speak up… If anything, I felt Tim’s calling for “stunning, crisp, unbelievably vivid photograph or video” in order to be believed was a disincentive to searchers.
I'm curious to learn more about the recent photos and videos that have not been made public. There is also a new book coming out - probably next month - that will intrigue many.
The Lower photographs are unambiguously an ivory-bill, it's only a question of whether it's alive or a taxidermy. Agey and Heinzman produced fresh feathers. Neither of those were accepted as a demonstration the birds are still alive.
So, yeah, the threshold is pretty high.
in case it's not clear to anyone, Brian meant the "Lewis photographs" (Fielding Lewis) from the 40s, not great photography but yes, unambiguously IBWO, still highly debated real or hoax (and I lean toward the latter, though I'm basically agnostic).
p.s... the ability to 'hoax' photography today is greater than ever... BUT also the ability to detect/uncover hoaxes!
Oh, sorry, yes, George Lowery was the guy who presented the photos to the general world, Fielding Lewis is the guy who took them. They aren't from the forties, though, they're from 1971. If they were from the 40s, they probably wouldn't be controversial.
I can't say if they're a hoax or not, but if they are they're probably a stuffed bird. You can't be sure, I personally lean not, but basically for circumstantial reasons - the photographer wasn't interested in being involved, and if I were hoaxing I wouldn't climb a second tree to set up a second, worse photo, and I would take the time to whittle a wooden bill for an ivory billed woodpecker if the original bill was lost or whatever. Those are very weak reasons, and you really can't have much confidence either way (unless you're Fielding Lewis, I guess)
ahhh, thanks for the 1971 correction!... I won't try to review or re-argue all the reasons the photos might be real or a hoax, since it's all speculative and in the end indeterminable. I will mention that it was rumored there were additional Lewis photos of same bird that were not passed on to Lowery, and there was some hope they might be located following his (Lewis's ) death. If they exist they could likely once-and-for-all settle the debate if found, but unfortunately they've not been produced. :(
Post a Comment