————-----------------------------——————
One of the amazing things to witness when the Luneau video first came out was how quickly, equally experienced, skilled, reputable birders/ornithologists came to utterly divergent conclusions: i.e. the bird was clearly a normal Pileated Woodpecker in escape flight, or no, the bird was potentially/probably an IBWO, and certainly NOT a Pileated. Any cognitive scientist will tell you how weak human vision, and especially brief looks, is as a basis for firm conclusions… indeed, many a criminal trial has hinged on eyewitness testimony that later proved simply erroneous.
Anyway, there are thousands of great optical illusions, demonstrating the clear shortcomings of human vision. Here’s a big handful of some faves:
https://twitter.com/Woofkoof/status/1467904569279762440
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1117597108259831808
https://twitter.com/TechAmazing/status/1335798167661662212
https://twitter.com/raastech/status/571203109919305728
https://twitter.com/sinix777/status/1384916614202679298
https://twitter.com/moreisdifferent/status/1445583175678238724
https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1465919065998782469
https://twitter.com/rajdeep_baral/status/1308711678553415681
https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/820926823479513088
https://twitter.com/RafaelCruzG11/status/372933866807230464
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1467063629564448770
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfFco7K9v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGg2arYDe0
With all that said, nevertheless I've consistently long-felt that short of clearcut photographic/video evidence, the only IBWO evidence that's very persuasive to me are sightings claims (preferably not brief or distant) from experienced, knowledgeable observers (which remain few-and-far-between). As weak or distrustful as such claims can be, the other evidence proposed for IBWO presence is yet far weaker, reminiscent of Loch-Ness-Monster evidence (...though DNA evidence, if ever found, could be interesting).
It is especially devastating that despite millions of frames shot by automatic remote cameras (which have issues, but not the flaws/constraints of human observers) focused on cavities, foraging sites, and flyways not one single IBWO has been captured in years of effort. As others have suggested, perhaps Ivorybills actually reside in points A and C but we are only repeatedly looking in point B where they briefly traverse/disperse through on occasion… or, of course, perhaps they simply exist no more. The beat goes on….
(I have 4 or 5 more postings I'm considering between now and end of January, but after that it could be a slow year here at the blog.)
————————————————————
9 comments:
Something tells me that it is not going to be a slow year my friend.
Ct, some of your recent posts suggest you're laying the groundwork to be critical of any new evidence. Should we now count you among the skeptics?
I’ll certainly look at any new evidence as it comes along, but am just not seeing anything in private or backchannels, nor in public venues that I find very convincing, or more importantly that would be persuasive to skeptics — we are somewhat still preaching to the chorus (believers preaching to believers), so I worry about optimism or expectations being raised too high in the short run (we’ve done that over & over again in the past).
By nature, I AM VERY skeptical, BUT that skepticism is across the board!: skeptical of Tanner’s work, conclusions, and interpreters, and skeptical of the assumptions made by “THE skeptics”… so, taking everything in full context I yet believe the highest probability is that IBWOs exist in small numbers in multiple states… but again, clearcut photographic/video evidence is necessary to persuade the unpersuaded.
Besides people at FWS, who is it necessary to persuade?
Why should anyone care what the European skeptics on birdforum think?
Even if FWS could act on their own for the IBWO’s benefit it would certainly be best for them to have the solid backing of the birding and ornithological community. It will not be good if a wide majority of birders/conservationists view FWS as acting foolishly and wastefully (of time/money/resources) on behalf of IBWO.
I want to see indisputable evidence of IBWOs produced, but if only controversial evidence keeps emerging then I want the best, most empirical birders/scientists from around the globe (be it Europe or Asia or Fiji or….) to feel free to analyze and debate that evidence, and BirdForum has a broad spectrum of such folks (there are other forums as well).
The IBWO saga is not some narrow American story, but if ever documented, will be a birding/conservation/zoological story of worldwide significance.
"Even if FWS could act on their own for the IBWO’s benefit..."
Huh?? What makes you think FWS can't act on its own for the IBWO's benefit? Doesn't the Endangered Species Act require FWS to act on the best available science? Where does it mention acting on or being restrained by public opinion, much less that from foreign countries?
"...but again, clearcut photographic/video evidence is necessary to persuade the unpersuaded." How high is the "clearcut" bar? Must it be Singer Tract quality? Would some comparable to the photos of Cuban ivorybills be good enough? Must it now be HD close-up video with kent calls? Why not tell us what quality of evidence is "clearcut" and why your description is appropriate.
Sure, FWS can do what they want, including I s’pose spend millions looking nationwide for Bigfoot or for Leprechauns, but they need to have the support of the taxpayers who fund them, not to mention, in this instance, of the birding/conservation/ornithological communities (otherwise they risk being branded gullible fools).
And I’ve already discussed the “quality” of photographic evidence in a post not long ago. Not HD quality, indeed it can be crappy (as photography goes), so long as the subject is immediately recognizable as an IBWO to any knowledgeable observer. The Fielding Lewis photos are poor photography but no one disagrees they are of an Ivory-bill; the only question is authenticity. Modern forensic techniques will likely be able to establish the authenticity of any such photo/video produced these days.
Your attempt at ridicule merely demonstrates ignorance of how split the public opinion will be even if absolute proof of persistence is provided. David Sibley spoke for many back in 2007 when he wrote:
...........................................
"If every endangered and threatened species had a multi-million dollar budget the Ivory-billed funding would not raise serious concerns. But proposing $27 million for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, when nearly 1400 other threatened and endangered species receive an average of only a few thousand dollars each, is shockingly unfair.
The Endangered Species Act specifies that:
“The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable – (A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans…”
It doesn’t say “most charismatic” or “most popular”, or even “rarest”, it says “most likely to benefit”. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker appears likely to be extinct, and therefore not likely to benefit from a recovery plan. Unless it can be found and studied, there is no evidence that it needs any management, and no way of knowing what actions might be harmful. Based on what is known today, almost any of those 1400 other species are more likely to benefit from the resources allocated to the Ivory-billed.
We need to do more for endangered species and I support major increases in funding for the Endangered Species Program. But spending such a large proportion of the current limited budget on one questionable species is wrong and appears to violate the Endangered Species Act. It diverts resources from many species with real, well-documented needs to a single unconfirmed species in an unknown location. In a finite budget there is no conceivable rationale for giving an unconfirmed species hundreds of times more funding than the average threatened or endangered species." https://www.sibleyguides.com/2007/10/ivory-billed-woodpecker-status-review/
....................................................
That doesn't even begin to mention the great many people who will be worried that their hunting of protected public lands will be restricted, others who will worry their own land will be confiscated or their property rights curtailed, developers whose projects will be threatened, etc etc. You're delusional if you think that everyone or even a large majority of people, especially in the South, will support FWS spending huge funds on IB research and greater habitat protections.
So, again, FWS should act on the best available science, and not raise a wet finger to judge which way the wind is blowing when new evidence is released.
Quoting the poster boy for lack of diligence on the IBWO story and lack of quality evidence review will get you few points with many.
And jt would have been honest of you to mention that only a fraction of the 27 million was spent on the IBWO and that a good part of the money spent went to purchase lands to help hundreds of species and hunters.
Regardless of your spinning the IBWO and some past wasting of money can be avoided with a minimum amount of capital and field management work if its ecology is correctly understood. There are literally hundreds of thousands of acres already publicly owned. Only a minute fraction of these acres need to be strategically managed and the IB could again surprise everyone and actually increase in numbers each decade. It will take work rather than the common place moaning and pontifications on crowd psychology.
Hunters are for open space and are not the most serious problem to get on board. As far as your erroneous premises..... " needs of a single unconfirmed species in an unknown location". You have an agenda. The species has recently been successfully videoed thrice and there is an obvious pattern of many many sightings where the remaining birds are. Your failure to even mention this even in your own slanted way is telling.
Also can you please explain the incongruity in your own thoughts over a few sentences--- you urge for usfws to not bend to public sentiment. then in the next sentence wax on about how public groups in the S do not want the IB and that their opinion counts. Make up your mind or proof before sending:
You " That doesn't even begin to mention the great many people who will be worried that their hunting of protected public lands will be restricted, others who will worry their own land will be confiscated or their property rights curtailed, developers whose projects will be threatened, etc etc. You're delusional if you think that everyone or even a large majority of people, especially in the South, will support FWS spending huge funds on IB research and greater habitat protections.
So, again, FWS should act on the best available science, and not raise a wet finger to judge which way the wind is blowing when new evidence is released."
Post a Comment