-- Bumper Sticker ??? --

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

-- WWRTPD --

(what would Roger Tory Peterson do)

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

-- How Can It Be --

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

"Every ant knows the formula of its ant-hill; every bee knows the formula of its beehive. They know it in their own way, not in our way. Only humankind does not know its formula." -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Sometimes I wonder how it is that two groups of people can look at essentially the same body of evidence and arrive at such different conclusions. In the Ivory-billed Woodpecker arena we all have access to the same info yet some conclude that the species likely still survives, and others believe with near certitude that it has been extinct for 60 years (and a range of opinions in-betwixt). What is going on here?

Part of the explanation may lie in fundamentally different underlying views of the natural world (this won't apply to all in the debate, but possibly to some). Many people, consciously or not, see humans as the center of the natural world, the kingpin, the apex of creation and complexity, lone masters of Nature. All other lifeforms are, by comparison, little automatons, to be understood, categorized, quantified, and made predictable to the all-knowing human mind. For such folks, the Ivory-bill is just one of those many knowable, predictable, understandable simple forms. We comprehend it and its behavior, because that's what we do as humans, and because, afterall, it's just a 'dumb' creature. Tsk, tsk...

But living things ARE NOT billiard balls or planetary objects easily studied with precision as in physics. The variables involved in biology, are unimaginably complex, innumerable, resistent to precise study or control. They swirl with unseen connections and influences. Some of us thusly see humans, as but one thread in that overall web of life, no more or less central than any other (actually, if all humans perished tomorrow, the Earth would get along swimmingly well; if all bacteria died tomorrow life on this planet would largely perish --- which living form is really more important, or more central, biologically speaking?). All life is essentially inscrutible; an amoeba or a cicada may be as mysterious and complex, as any human out there; even knowing genetic codes does not get us very far, any more than knowing the alphabet and phonetics of a language yields much insight into the grammar, semantics, richness or complexity of that language. How much difference really would an extraterrestial being, a million years more advanced than us, see between humans and cicadas objectively observing both from afar?

So there is much too much I'm unwilling to presume to know, that others seem to presume they DO know, about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to reach the conclusions they have reached. I DO know the bird's history is one of being written off prematurely time and time again, by those who thought they knew more than they did. Until you recognize the Ivory-bill (or any other creature), for the deeply complex form it is, it's easy to be deceived by one's own intellect into quick answers. "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing," it is said, and also, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Of course, one of these times the pessimists are bound to be right, and the Ivory-bill really will be gone. I just don't see any sign we're there yet... and I'm looking at the same data they are, but, looking at it stripped of many of their ever-present human preconceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Auburn Update --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New update from Dr. Hill here, with emphasis on the 24-hr. turnaround time they are attempting with acoustic data turned in from automatic recording units in the field; never before accomplished in IBWO searching and hopefully leading to quicker, more efficient stationing of searchers as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- What Be The Chances --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just checked in with my Las Vegas bookie, Vinnie Boom ('The Shark') O'Bromowitz, this weekend, to get the current odds for various folks getting a conclusive Ivory-bill photo/video this search season, and uhhhh, here's what he tells me:


Geoff Hill -- 6:1
Tyler Hicks -- 7:1
Martjan Lammertink -- 8:1
David Luneau -- 10:1
Jerry Jackson -- 12:1
Bobby Harrison -- 14:1
Tim Gallagher -- 15:1
Brian Rolek -- 16:1
Mike Collins -- 17:1
Van Remsen -- 19:1
John Fitzpatrick -- 21:1
Some guy named "Dunne" -- 23:1
A female -- 25:1
Marty Stauffer -- 500:1
Any teenager with a cell-phone camera -- 799:1
David Sibley -- 800:1
Brad Pitt -- 2100:1
Cheech OR Chong -- 8000:1
Anybody named Jebediah -- 9999:1
Regis Philbin -- million:1
Beyonce -- billion:1
Homer Simpson -- ?????:1
T. Nelson -- googol:1
None of the above (...but someone else) -- 5:1

(Mind you though, Vinnie has been wrong before; he picked Detroit in the World Series last year; what a bozo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New Mennill Pages --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Geoff Hill's collaborator, Dr. Dan Mennill, has started new updates covering his part (bioacoustics) of the Choctawhatchee search here:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/dmennill/IBWO/IBWO07News.html

and Homepage here:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/dmennill/IBWO/IBWOindex.php

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

-- And This... --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a bit of a diversion (because sometimes a bird story just tugs at me) :

Many of you have heard the recent stories in the U.S. of sudden bird deaths, but you may have missed this far more massive story from Australia of birds falling out of the sky --- a couple of the many possible internet links to the story here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21036489-30417,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2789942

For the moment, I would call this an extraordinary event, although a simple (even if disturbing) explanation is likely to come along. Most "extraordinary" events have quite simple explanations, once understood. If the IBWO is confirmed some will call it extraordinary, but 10 years from now when all the data and evidence has been reviewed, in Schopenhauer's words, it will appear "self-evident" that the species was there all along, and folks will wonder aloud, 'WHAT in the world were those skeptics thinking?'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Covering Old Ground --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All riiight!, today 3 rants for the price of 1! -- this is all stuff I've covered at some point before, but since the blog is always getting new readers, and these issues come up around the Web, we'll touch on 'em yet again:


-- "Extraordinary" --

If someone says that they spotted an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Brooklyn, NY., hey, I'd call THAT an extraordinary claim, or if they said they had one at their backyard feeder in Miami, Florida, or saw a flock of 25 Ivory-bills while hunting in the woods outside Brinkley, AR., or had one land on their shoulder anywhere --- all of those would be "extraordinary" claims. However, claiming to see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker every now and then (a bird known to hang out in dense canopies and tree cavities in remote woods) briefly, in perfectly suitable habitat, that is not frequented by birders much, IS BY NO MEANS an "extraordinary" claim --- interesting, unusual, odd, maybe even improbable, but NO, not "extraordinary." Semantically, it's a sheer and frequent misuse of the term for mere sophistry. However, claiming that a creature is extinct, when 100's of reports of it have been turned in, and all it's potential habitat has never even been thoroughly searched... well now THAT'S an extraordinary claim!!

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

-- "Proof" --

A couple days back in a "comment" David Martin talked of how tired he was of hearing the inappropriate word "proof" thrown around in the IBWO debate. AMEN!!! Technically, there IS NO PROOF in science. Even in math all 'proofs' are dependent upon UNprovable assumptions. In science, there are assumptions and evidence, and conclusions based upon perceived probabilities, but whether or not Ivory-bills (or James Tanner, or the planet Earth) have ever existed, let alone do today, can NEVER be PROVEN (there are ALWAYS possible alternative explanations); in the end, we make ultimately subjective judgments of the evidence that lead us to overriding probabilities. For many this seems picayunish word-play, semantic mumbo-jumbo, but it is quite crucial, to get us past this point of continually raised bars of evidence, or evidence that is "definitive," or for that matter evidence that is always viewed from the pre-disposing and circular presumption of Ivory-bill extinction. In some arenas, skeptics are more involved in witch-hunts at this point than they are in any sort of open-minded science, but so be it; they can NEVER "prove" their case, and believers still only need one bird to make their case convincing. Thus, this intense interest in the Ivory-bill is not merely an obsession with a magnificent creature, but is a far broader story of the huge weaknesses of ornithological 'science' --- in fact one thing I and skeptics no doubt agree on is that the Ivory-bill debate is chock-full of poorly-thought-through science; we just disagree on which side has the greater share of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Benign Neglect --

Edmund Burke famously said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." In the case of the Ivory-bill it could be altered to read "all that is necessary for the extinction of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is for birders, conservationists, and ornithologists to do nothing." This species survived the loggers, hunters, collectors of its day, but what it can't survive is inaction and benign neglect from the one group of people who ought to be interested in saving it. Harsh cynicism and skepticism aren't mere attitudes, they have effect on the behavior (or stifled behavior) of others. To the many who are arduously working to find and aid this bird, in whatever capacity they are able (and you know who you are), THANK YOU, THANK YOU, truly THANK YOU, even though your efforts may come 30 years too late for any successful recovery program. But to the hardcore unrelenting naysayers, cynics, and non-believers (and you know who you are too; I'm not talking about agnostics and fence-sitters here), forever sniping at searchers and evidence and hypotheses, offering only snideness, obstructionism, and concocted alternative explanations, in place of encouragement or productive discourse, or even a wait-and-see attitude, the extinction of this species will be on your hands when/if it comes to pass (deny it all you wish, but yes it will). YOU delayed and frustrated and forestalled the actions that were needed. You abandoned the birds prematurely and asked others to do the same. Moreover, YOU have now created the circus atmosphere that will overtake any discovery of the species. And I'm bored of hearing all that armchair scoffing/sniping followed with, "like everyone else, we'll rejoice if the species IS found" --- it rings pretty hollow (I think it's called CYA). Since when do people "rejoice" at having ignorance/naivete hung out to dry like so much dirty laundry? Or having foolishness magnified for all to see? This tawdry, strung-out episode in failed American ornithology is so shameful I'm not sure myself, at this point, how much rejoicing such a discovery will deserve. But if the photo comes and the party follows, of course I'll be delighted for those who did something positive along the way, had true patience and determination, kept the faith, moved things along, stayed focussed on the science of it all, did the difficult hands-on fieldwork, and realized the importance of the effort being made. In that event, I hope the select mocking cynics that I'm addressing, will puhhh-leeeze stay home, where you can further twiddle your thumbs, and don't weasel your way into a party you had no role in planning --- from your past behavior I'd have to question both your sincerity and motives... and, I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------