-- Suppose... --

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

Suppose one looks at a typical collection of 100 Ivory-bill reports/claims... Some skeptics, even without much knowledge of the sighters, will quickly discount all 100 claims based on the presumption that Ivory-bills are likely extinct... and create alternative explanations for the claims willy-nilly.
On-the-other-hand, in reviewing 100 typical reports I'm more likely to find 60-70 that don't seem credible (to me), 5-10 that are credible enough for further study, and the remainder (which is a significant chunk) neither believable nor discreditable based on available details --- and therefore also in need of further scrutiny.

The point is that each and every sighting ought be adjudged independently based on the merits of it's own circumstances and the skills/experience of the observers, not dealt a knee-jerk reaction based on presupposition as is too often the case. And some claims remain forever of uncertain credibility, which does not mean they are not credible, but only that certain information is lacking to tell.
Skeptics insist on saying that it is up to sighters to 'prove' their case... but it is just as true that skeptics must 'prove' their case, faced with so many repeated reports over the years. They must illustrate the inexperience, dishonesty, incompetence, or foolhardiness of all those who feel certain of their claims; one cannot simply postulate or assume these qualities for individuals without any basis for doing so. Casting such aspersions with no demonstrated basis is simply too easy.
It is one thing if someone merely says, "I think I may have seen an Ivory-bill;" it is quite another when someone states, "I'm sure I saw an Ivory-bill." Either show me such an individual's lack of bird knowledge or their previous history of error-proneness, rash conclusions, delusionary nature, prankish tendencies, or outright pathology... or, if you can't do that, then you really have little to offer on the matter; maybe best just to remain silent.

On a sidenote, Cornell's 'Team Sapsucker' won the World Series of Birding for a second straight year with 230 species (...that is, if any of them are to be believed), here and here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New Hummingbird Discovered --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another too-good-not-to-pass-along story, for everyone who loves hummingbirds (EVERYone here, right). A new exotic (Colombian) hummingbird discovered, called the "gorgeted puffleg" (gotta love that moniker). A few links here:

http://africa.reuters.com/odd/news/usnN13250007.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1922035.htm

http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2007/05/colombia_new_hummingbird_discovery.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Guthrie Interview Archived --

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

Rich Guthrie's NPR interview now available on archive here.

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

from the Web Grab Bag:

those gol' dang pesky 'buzzards' here.

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

-- Of Extraterrestrials and Extinction --

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

Do you believe there is intelligent life anywhere else in the Universe? I suspect most scientists think there is, not because there is any hard evidence for such a belief; there is NONE (no documented crashed saucers with little green men, no radio signals received despite decades of scanning for such, no messages in cosmological bottles saying 'Hi ya Earthlings!'). Yet most scientists likely believe such because of the probabilities involved --- given BILLIONS of stars with potentially BILLIONS of planets, the likelihood that we reside on the absolute only one to harbor advanced lifeforms (....and yes, I'm assuming there IS intelligent life on Earth ; - ) is so miniscule as to be beyond debate.

I mention all this because the Ivory-bill debate is of a similar form. The scientific evidence supporting Ivory-bill existence is weak... but it is head-and-shoulders above the huge absence of evidence for Ivory-bill extinction. For the umpteenth time --- NO solid scientific evidence has yet been presented for the extinction of this species; NONE, EVER, NADA, ZERO ACTUAL EVIDENCE, just speculation and conjecture. And when I ask people for evidence, all I get is a recitation that persons A, B, and C, went looking for IBWOs in places X, Y, and Z, and couldn't find any. Well, DUUUUUHHHHHHHH!! Meanwhile persons D, E, and F claim they HAVE seen them and places T, U, and W haven't even been adequately searched... EVER. As long as skeptics start with an unproven and biasing assumption ('Ivory-bills are extinct') they will lack the objectivity and open-mindedness required in a scientific review of evidence. You can't declare things extinct that are being repeatedly reported, without thorough searches. Some want to believe that a lone grad student (a grad student mind you!) did such an infallible study with flawless conclusions, that no IBWOs could have persisted through the 1940's. I'll remind folks yet again of the MOST important passage in James Tanner's entire monograph (from his "Introduction"):

"The chief difficulty of the study has been that of drawing conclusions from relatively few observations, necessary because of the extreme scarcity of the bird. My own observations of the birds have been entirely confined to a few individuals in one part of Louisiana... the conclusions drawn from them will not necessarily apply to the species as it once was nor to individuals living in other areas. The difficulty of finding the birds, even when their whereabouts was known, also limited the number of observations. Especially was this true in the non-breeding season. With these considerations in mind, one must draw conclusions carefully and with reservations." [all italics added]

"Draw conclusions carefully and with reservations" --- hmmm... what a novel idea!!!
...And the skeptics' current mantra that anything which hasn't been photographed by humans doesn't exist should be of interest to physicists who tell us that over 90% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" never seen (let alone photographed) by human eyes.
But seriously... the arrogance and ego-centrism underlying certain skeptics in their persistent judgment that ALL sighters (every one of them over 5 decades) must be wrong, mistaken, foolish, incompetent, dishonest, fanciful, delusional, crazy, or worse, while they, as armchair skeptics often far from the scene, of course know better, is also NOT a part of good science. I need only believe one claim in the last several years; skeptics must disbelieve thousands of claims (and yet those same skeptics will readily accept and turn in brief and undocumented sightings for bird counts all the time, with no verification whatsoever that the spotters even left their living room, let alone saw the species being recorded).

Most English words are vague and ambiguous --- "extinct" is NOT!! It doesn't mean there are less than 30 left, or only 5, or maybe only 1; it means there are ZERO left, zero anywhere. It is a word to use with utmost care, given the difficulty of 'proof.' Obviously, the documentation of a single Ivory-billed Woodpecker will mean the species isn't extinct and NEVER has been. All of us in the birding community should have a vested interest in this species being found and protected (even though it will likely be too little too late); too many on the skeptical side have so painted themselves into corners by now that they have a vested interest in the species never being documented. Pity. (...or so it seems to me).

And just to play catch-up on a few things:

1) as far as Rich Guthrie's claim, I find it credible, but still don't have enough details to be fully convinced --- and it is really somewhat inconsequential since photographic documentation is now required; ALL sightings are immediately considered suspect in too many quarters.

2) An Oxford University Press interview here with Auburn's Dr. Hill: http://blog.oup.com/2007/05/birds/

3) And with summer approaching, if you like trashy pulp fiction you may wish to read this science-fiction offering:

http://www.worldtwitch.com/ivorybill.htm

ooops, gotta go now, there are some little green men knocking on my window....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Mobile Team Update --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely the final update from Cornell's Mobile Team now posted here, as they finished out their season in South Carolina (mostly the Congaree). Here's part of their summary statement:

"Our Mobile Search Team did not see an ivory-bill, but we are encouraged
by finding several sites with high quality habitat. In many promising places we could only spend two to twenty days on the ground with a small team and we feel that we have barely scratched the surface in searching these areas. Often it took a large proportion of our time to locate the best forest in a region, giving us only several days to search parts of the better sites. Even in the Congaree National Park, where we spent most time this season, we do not rule out the existence of a few ivory-bills. More work is needed in places like the Apalachicola, Escambia, Pascagoula, and parts of the Atchafalaya and South Carolina, before it can be said whether ivory-bills are to be, or not to be. "

They covered a lot of ground in a relatively short time, and certainly are to be hugely applauded for their efforts. Having said that, and in no way meaning to detract from their work, I am still especially disappointed that they did not venture into various parts of central and south Florida, and bypassed most of Mississippi. Parts of Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee,and N. Carolina, may yet require more attention as well. But one heck of a good start... just too bad that start didn't come 40 years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Silence... --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The silence from Cornell this season has been deafening... sometimes silence is golden, and sometimes silence is... well, just silence. Anyway, Rich Guthrie's interview on NPR, regarding his Ivory-bill experience with Cornell, will be on a show titled "Vox pop" from 2-3pm EDT today, here (NY station; I assume it will be archived for those needing to tune in later):

http://www.wamc.org

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

-- Yet Another Sighting (Arkansas) --

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York birder Richard Guthrie reports seeing an Ivory-bill in Arkansas while volunteering for Cornell in April. Look for his original post here:

http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/NYSB.html#117862

Thus far, few details given, but note he says he will be on a NY NPR station tomorrow to tell more, or go to the May 8th entries here for more info:

http://blogs.timesunion.com/birding/

Addendum: Rich has added another post now at the above listserv including a few of the details already available at his blog (still, a lot of details missing) --- I would think the NPR program tomorrow might flesh out more specifics, or maybe Cornell will post their own summary of the sighting at their site (and maybe even ACONE will update their site at some point!! ; - ) Still awaiting possible news from one other state as well as summer approaches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------