-- Draft Recovery Plan For the Ivorybill --

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

US Fish and Wildlife has finally posted its draft recovery plan (pdf) for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker here:

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/

(hmmm... talk about throwing red meat to skeptics ;-)))
...haven't had a chance to read it entirely myself though yet (it's close to 200 pgs., longer than Tanner's original monograph).

My hope to talk about 'infinity' turned into a piece too long to post, so will either cut it down or drop entirely, and replace with another post to make the same point (having to do with scientific thinking).

In the "let's-continue-to-beat-the-Luneau-video-to-death" category Louis Bevier has added some further skeptical (and "under construction") analysis to his website here:

http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/ivorybilled/Comparisons.html

At the same time skeptics insist no more money should be spent on the Ivory-bill, they persist in spending their own energy in attempts to debunk the bird's existence.

Gotta go now to check on some possible misinformation elsewhere about Birds of Paradise.

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

-- Stuff... --

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

The original, brief video from Auburn of a purported Ivory-bill along the Chocatwhatchee should be up on the Web soon giving folks something fresh and new to bicker over ; - )

And Dan Mennill of the Auburn team has posted a few of the better examples of double-knocks from this past season here:

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

....no doubt in actuality just a couple of those pesky Gadwalls giving some wing-clap high-fives to one another.

This week's (Aug. 17) edition of Science Magazine includes a 4+ page article by Erik Stokstad rehashing the Ivory-billed saga to this point. Doesn't add much new to the discussion, but with all the controversy involved I suspect Science felt pressure to do an update. There is behind-the-scenes mention of tension between Cornell's John Fitzpatrick and Jerry Jackson, but in reality conflicts amongst various protagonists within the Ivory-bill story have been around a long time (preceding the original Cornell announcement), even if not widely discussed (BTW, somewhat interesting to see elsewhere that Jackson is listed as the keynote speaker for next February's 2nd annual GALA celebration of Bobby Harrison's Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation).

Oddly, Auburn's Geoff Hill is quoted at times in regards to the Cornell evidence, but barely mentioned for his own claims in Florida. Hill is said to believe Cornell became convinced of the Ivory-bill's presence because they placed too much weight on the Luneau video --- this, I believe, is mistaken, or at least misleading. Cornell's commentary makes it fairly clear that Fitz was convinced the Ivory-bill existed by the multiple sightings and details of several credible observers. The Luneau video was (like the acoustic data) simply an additional piece of evidence desperately needed for moving ahead toward publication (but without it, Fitz would've been personally no less convinced as I understand it).

Kinda ashame we have to wait 'til winter for searching to begin anew --- there will probably be a number of piecemeal Ivorybilled-related items coming along through the remainder of summer but nothing amounting to much.

Not sure yet, but my next post may be on the topic of "infinity," so keep in mind that there are as many points in a 6-inch long line as there are in a 6-mile long line, or as many odd numbers as there are total integers in the real number system (although you'll be pleased to know I won't be presenting the mathematical proofs here).

Later....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Pseudoskeptics Unite!! --

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

Many many years ago I belonged to the skeptics' organization, "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), but after several years dropped membership once it appeared to me that, rather than objectively, open-mindedly studying their selected subjects, they were often specifically entering investigations solely with a goal of "debunking" --- in short, they had already decided what their general findings would be before initiating a study.
As in the Ivory-bill debate, often the 'debunking' simply meant finding an alternative explanation for an observed phenomenon and then assuming the alternative explanation was correct based, not on any actual evidence, but solely on perceived probabilities. Moreover, I don't recall them ever going after the indiscretions or weak science of more "establishment" parts of the medical and science community (but I haven't kept up with them over the years, so maybe they have). Though I still like a lot of the work they do I've never rejoined them.

Anyway, I was reminded of all this by a Wikipedia article sent to me from a reader (thanks) that all the "pseudo-skeptics" out there, and others, can read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

....a number of interesting points made in the piece, including this list of "characteristics" of pseudoskeptics:

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
• Double standards in the application of criticism
• The making of judgments without full inquiry
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
• Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
• ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More AOU --

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

Another post here by an attendee of the recent AOU meeting with some brief commentary on the Auburn presentations.

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

-- Late Night Thoughts --

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

Given the aspersions skeptics have cast at those claiming to see Ivory-bills I'm wondering if all past Christmas/spring bird count reports turned in by the likes of Hicks, Guthrie, Hill, Gallagher, etc. etc. should be automatically tossed out, or at least closely reviewed? If they are mistaken about the Ivory-bill how many other of their 100's or 1000's of bird identifications have been wrong?
Of course a lot of other people who participate in counts are even less experienced than these IBWO sighters. Surely for the sake of accuracy their count reports must also be discarded as untrustworthy.
And I s'pose too the recent extensive Audubon study evaluating declining bird species, based upon 40 years-worth of anecdotal, unverified data coming from just such folks, clearly lacks validity, and ought be tossed aside as deeply flawed (just trying to be consistent here).
Now that I think of it the whole biological definition of "species" seems to always be in flux or debatable, and with ornithological "splitting" and "lumping" and name-changing occurring on a yearly basis, sheeeesh, maybe it's just time to give up on birding altogether. Anyone for Scrabble...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Where's Heisenberg When We Need Him --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geee, how 'bout we discuss the Luneau video for a change ; - ) ...

Mike Collins, re-analyzing the Luneau video, found himself critical of Cornell's interpretation of the first few frames (bird behind the tree trunk prior to take-off). A bit paradoxically he still believes the bird is an Ivory-bill based on the flight frames, but seems more in accord with the Sibley/Bevier et.al. interpretation of the initial few frames (if I understand him right). See his Aug. 9/10 entries here:

http://www.fishcrow.com/winter07.html

I believe his point about the geometry of the bird behind the trunk is interesting, but not conclusive, given that we simply can't know how the bird's body and feet are truly positioned for the split seconds captured. The Cornell interpretation would be difficult were the bird actually perched stationarily, but with it being in rapid motion, odd things can happen and the possibilities greatly widen. Still, it has always troubled me that the bird's head is never seen in that opening sequence as one might expect given the pose that Cornell argues for. In fact regardless of the bird's posture, it is odd that we don't see it's head peek around the tree trunk in typical woodpecker fashion just prior to fleeing approaching humans (or have we already missed the 'quick peek' by the time the video captures the tree?).

As I've contended before, without seeing that head or feet (nor do we know the topography of the backside of that trunk) there is no definitive way of knowing that the bird is actually even perching on the trunk and thus a woodpecker. This may appear the highest probability but is simply not a certainty. And, if it is a woodpecker, there remains no definitive choice between IBWO, normal Pileated, or leucistic PIWO, just a stream of ultimately subjective analysis/judgments being made and passed off as "conclusive," which they are NOT. In the end, the best the PIWO-proponents can say is that a PIWO-interpetation is possible, and Pileateds have higher probability. There is NO MORE certainty here than with the sighters' claims of certainty that they saw an Ivory-bill, and the skeptic's ad hoc dismissal of such (full of conjecture but devoid of solid evidence of lying or mistaken ID). Unfortunately, we aren't dealing with rocket science here, just birding and field biology, both of which lack precision.

When all is said and done, it won't make a speck of difference what the Luneau bird is in regards to the Ivory-bill's potential existence in the Appalachicola, or Atchafalaya, or Pearl, or the Pascagoula, or Escambia, or Congaree, or Suwannee, or Altamaha, or Yazoo, or Big Cypress, or Green Swamp, or...or...or... Even if we knew for certain there were no IBWOs in the Big Woods or the Choctawhatchee that concludes nothing about other locales.
The vast majority of woodland birds go unseen and the vast majority of habitat goes unbirded most of the time. The way to argue that the Ivory-bill is extinct is not to spend hours debating 4 seconds of videotape, but to wait for humans to search 100's of thousands of acres of potential habitat and come up empty-handed; that will take time and money, and cynics have only themselves to blame that it wasn't done 40-50 years ago when it would've required far less of each. Meanwhile, as it is now being done, sightings continue to trickle in.

Sometimes I think all field biologists (or really all scientists) should be forced to study some of the work of Cantor or Godel or Schrodinger or Heisenberg, to better understand how uncertainty underlies all science, logic, and reason. Detachment and open-mindedness are required to grasp much of that uncertainty. And we are well passed the point of detachment or open-mindedness in the Ivory-billed debate. The insistent certainty of some skeptics, upon matters they can't possibly be certain of, is astonishing, to the point that any small piece of evidence put forth is quickly savaged in some quarters before thorough review. This is to real science what the Taliban theocracy is to democracy. In the end, real and patient science will win out (for one side or the other), but how long that will take remains in question.

As to the frequent concern voiced over other conservation projects being hurt by money going to IBWO searches, a simple suggestion: by far the single greatest peril to conservation on this planet is human population and longevity. I suggest those so very deeply concerned with this matter pledge to never have more than two children and agree to be euthanized by the age of 55. If everyone would do such it would (literally) do more for long-term conservation than all the piecemeal projects funded by Congress (...any takers?). Or alternatively, we can simply slash the billions spent on medical research and treatment to prolong human lives and move those dollars to conservation purposes... but only if you're serious.

And to end on a cheerful(???), forward-looking note, at some point we'll have the Auburn video to debate tirelessly 8 - ((( ... and soon --- prepare to celebrate!!! --- Karl Rove will be out of the White House (and possibly on the road in key states rigging more voting machines... but hey, I'm not certain about that).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- AOU IBWO Summary --

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

Chuck Hagner from Birders' World Mag. summarizes the Auburn presentation at AOU (sightings, sounds, blurry video) on Saturday here:

http://bwfov.typepad.com/birders_world_field_of_vi/2007/08/ivory-bills-in-.html

It will no doubt lead to more of the identical repetitive redundant (did I say repetitive) internet discussion that has floated around for the last 2 years --- it's all been said/argued before. Skeptics have set the bar at a clearcut photo or video (or carcass), so that is what we must continue to wait for.
Apparently, the old Auburn video will finally be posted on the Web soon, but not expected to unmuddy the waters anymore than the Luneau version did. It is possible that even at this point we are still nearer the starting gate of the search for Ivory-bills than we are near the finish line.

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