--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ridiculous yesterday ("Ivory Bill Jones") to the sublime today --- a passage, just for the heck of it, by Annie Dillard from Pilgrim At Tinker Creek, Chapter 2, entitled "Seeing" ) :
"Unfortunately, nature is very much a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't affair. A fish flashes, then dissolves in the water before your eyes like so much salt. Deer apparently ascend bodily into heaven; the brightest oriole fades into leaves. These disappearances stun me into stillness and concentration; they say of nature that it conceals with a grand nonchalance, and they say of vision that it is a deliberate gift, the revelation of a dancer who for my eyes only flings away her seven veils. For nature does reveal as well as conceal: now-you-don't-see-it, now-you-do. For a week last September migrating red-winged blackbirds were feeding heavily down by the creek at the back of the house. One day I went out to investigate the racket; I walked up to a tree, an Osage orange, and a hundred birds flew away. They simply materialized out of the tree. I saw a tree, then a whisk of color, then a tree again. I walked closer and another hundred blackbirds took flight. Not a branch, not a twig budged: the birds were apparently weightless as well as invisible. Or it was as if the leaves of the Osage orange had been freed from a spell in the form of red-winged blackbirds; they flew from the tree, caught my eye in the sky, and vanished. When I looked again at the tree the leaves had reassembled as if nothing had happened. Finally, I walked directly to the trunk of the tree and a final hundred, the real diehards, appeared, spread, and vanished. How could so many hide in the tree without my seeing them? The Osage orange, unruffled, looked just as it had looked from the house, when three hundred red-winged blackbirds cried from its crown.
"....Peeping through my keyhole I see within the range of only about thirty percent of the light that comes from the sun; the rest is infrared and some little ultraviolet, perfectly apparent to many animals, but invisible to me. A nightmare network of ganglia, charged and firing without my knowledge, cuts and splices what I do see, editing it for my brain. Donald E. Carr points out that the sense impressions of one-celled animals are not edited for the brain: 'This is philosophically interesting in a rather mournful way, since it means that only the simplest animals perceive the universe as it is.' "
===> AND, on a separate note, Mike Collins arrived back in the Stennis/Pearl River area (La.) yesterday for a new winter search season and reported back to BirdForum a tad cryptically as follows: "This morning, I saw some very, very exciting data. As I mentioned several months ago, studying the ivorybill is going to be like studying a new species. Some of the data that I saw this morning is unlike anything I have ever seen in the field or in the literature. It's downright fascinating."
I assume, but don't know for certain, that this has to do with data to be presented soon at AOU, for which there may be a news release or publication in the week prior to the Veracruz meeting (unsure). Given how few Ivory-bills have been studied in the past, and how long ago the last ones were recorded one might well expect MUCH new (even surprising) information/data to arise. As previously stated here, two of the bigger problems in IBWO discussions are simply 1) how much we don't know with certainty, and 2) how much we think we do know, that is wrong or incomplete. James Tanner's study, as good as it was, simply handed us for decades afterwards an illusion of knowledge that never was that solid. Good luck in the season ahead Mike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some corners of the Web, I'm seeing some opportunistically-timed, strategic backpedalling by card-carrying members of the negative, scoffing, cynical, shallow, contentious, obstructionist, CYA, all-knowing, circular-reasoning, logic-challenged, video-obsessed, Ivory-bill extinctionist-and-abandonment crowd lately. Backpedalling when you're plummeting off a cliff is a neat trick... But, hey, seriously, this debate is actually far, far from over; just headed for a new turn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the current eBay page for Ivory-billed Woodpecker wares, just on the off-chance you want to stock up on any items ahead of any possible future news or pronouncements.
And totally separately, here is an item I've picked out specially just for the resolute cynics out there to bid on and use ; - ) In fact if they're in a shopping mood they may as well pick up a few of these (from another site) for friends and family as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The locale where Ivory-bills will be announced at the Oct. AOU meeting was never visited by James Tanner, and one has to wonder how many other such sites his 'definitive' study completely missed, especially since he didn't have the benefit of aerial photography. Tanner's monograph on Ivory-bills is often referred to as a 3-year study, but by his own admission he only spent 21 months in the South, and a lot of that time was travelling on the road and engaging locals in conversation for information-gathering. Over 10 months alone were spent solely at the Singer Tract where all of his personal observations were made, leaving less than 11 months for a single individual to cover the entire remainder of the south -- essentially an impossibility for anyone to do today adequately, with good roads, better/lighter equipment, and far fewer key areas to explore, and truly an impossibility in Tanner's day (indeed, he likely spent more hours in the front seat of a car on dusty, bumpy rural roads of the 1930's South than he did trampling through any actual Ivory-bill habitat outside of La.).
Tanner claimed he visited 45 locales in that time (actually, some of them were adjacent to one another, so it's debatable if they could justly be called separate locales), but only spent a week or more in about 5 of them; the rest usually got only a 1-to-4 day visit, hardly enough time for adequate exploration of large forest tracts. In the end he only observed birds at the Singer Tract (thanks to a guide who led him to them) -- statistically, not only was it a wholly inadequate sample size, it was not a random sample of IBWOs either, and of course it was never replicated -- these are rather minimal scientific requirements. While Tanner gathered some other anecdotal and occasionally more empirically-based information along the way to throw into his mix, still there was little solid basis for the generalizations and conclusions that would follow his work. As I've often said, his is a wonderful, fascinating, and astute study of a handful of birds, but a largely inadequate and incomplete study of an entire species.
It is somewhat revealing that people will try so hard to tear down the work of Cornell University in the Big Woods of Arkansas with wholly-unproven and debatable arguments, yet blithely accept the narrow findings of a single lowly grad student from 60+ years ago, and moreover assume those findings still hold today if they ever did. If searchers ever thoroughly explore all of the appropriate habitat out there no telling what they may find, while cynics busy themselves with their pre-formulated armchair analysis. In their typical manner many of them are already deriding (pre-deriding?) the evidence to be announced in Veracruz without having seen it (more good empirical technique -- this applies to some, of course not all, the skeptics). It has reached a point that some of them must quietly hope and wish that the Ivory-bill is extinct in order to save face (their claims to the contrary are disingenuous and whenever IBWOs are confirmed, it will be fun to watch their faux excitement). It is a point, needless to say, we ought never have reached.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone in the LSU area next week, Jon Andrew, chair of the Steering Committee of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team, will be giving a talk entitled simply, "Ivory-billed Woodpecker Update" on Wed., Sept. 20, for the Baton Rouge Audubon Society at LSU's Hilltop Arboretum. General public welcome.
I presume this will be an "update" specifically on Cornell's efforts (previous and upcoming), and not include much if any of the information that will be announced at the October AOU meeting, which is spearheaded by a different academic team altogether (although Cornell knows of it). If any reader in attendance thinks something new or interesting is discussed, though, feel free to send it along to me for blog inclusion.
Quite a bit farther off, Cornell's Ken Rosenberg will be the keynote speaker on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker for North Carolina's "Wings Over Water" Festival at Nags Head, NC. on Nov. 10, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following up from where I left off yesterday, one of my alert readers (...as Dave Barry would say) passed along a week-old article on the recent discovery of the Sumatran Rhino, which includes this passage:
"This sighting and rare photos and video documenting the Sumatran rhino in its natural habitat is indeed very exciting. We have been tracking these animals here in Sabah for almost ten years now, and although we have seen tracks and signs of these rhinos, this is the first actual sighting of the endangered animal," said Dr M.S Thayaparan, the Program Officer for SOS Rhino Borneo, in a press conference here Wednesday. [italics added]
10 years to find a rhino on the island of Sumatra... and heck, the varmints can't even fly!!!
Several years ago (shortly after the Kulivan sighting) I asked a renowned birder and field guide author at a booksigning what he thought of the chances of Ivory-bills existing. He responded that he didn't think it was possible, and gave the old mantra (or should I say crock-of- ....) that he didn't believe a bird that big could escape detection for so long. At that point I realized that folks who write field guides may know how to paint, or recognize field marks, but they don't necessarily fathom the habits, behavior, or cognition of wild animals. Too often they are relating to creatures as mere 'objects,' not as thinking, reacting, motivated, purposeful, living beings. And so it goes....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting story here about a striking new bird species discovered recently in northeast India. Who'd have thought that after almost 60 YEARS!!!! since the last new species was found in India there could still be more unseen ones to uncover!!!!! Oh myyyy! ; - ) The editor of the journal 'Indian Birds' said "it's nothing short of miraculous" --- when will humans learn they not only don't know everything there is to know about the natural world, they know precious little about it. The more vigilantly one looks, the more 'miracles' one will see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you like mucking around in dank water? Think mud is invigorating, and camo is your favorite fashion? Rugged surroundings at little pay doesn't phase you? And your idea of fun includes bugs, cold nights, and days without deodorant, nail polish, or catching "Desperate Housewives" on TV?
--- Have I gotta deal for you!!
Seriously, Cornell is soliciting for Ivory-bill searchers in Arkansas and South Carolina for the coming winter search season; if interested take a gander at their site (application is online); --- and I can still take a few more names to pass along to a different, non-Cornell, group for their forthcoming study in another southern state, as well, if anymore takers. Some local academic and/or FWS folks will be exploring certain areas of other southern states this winter as well. So, if you have the abillity, equipment, desire, and time to look seriously for Ivory-bills this is probably the winter to do it, in terms of opportunities to link up with others.
Some key highlights of the Cornell solicitation (for the AR. locale) are as follows:
These are "volunteer" positions, assisting full-time staff, and a Cornell "Volunteer Agreement Form" must be signed
Arkansas search period January 3 - April 21, 2007
minimum 2-week stints, with 7 possible start dates
strong birding and boating skills required, and ability to work in adverse field conditions (possibly spending 10-12 hrs/day in a canoe or blind with little movement); ability to use or quickly learn necessary digital and computer technology
lodging and major field equipment provided (including canoe, life jackets, GPS, videocam, cell phone); more basic field equipment, food, and travel expenses responsibility of each volunteer
...also helpful if you have a particularly thick skin against critter-bites... and cynics ; - )
see the Cornell site for further details and the Agreement Form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick plug: If there's a better nature writer in America today than Julie Zickefoose I'm not sure who it is, and she has just produced her first full length book (actually a volume of essays/stories), "Letters From Eden: A Year at Home, In the Woods," due in bookstores in early October (or you can check her website about directly ordering from her).
I've always kinda hoped that Julie would put her word talents (I happen to think she's even a better painter with words than with brushes!) to work writing a full length volume on the Ivory-bill -- she has said that she didn't think she had a book-length manuscript on the topic in her (one of the most wonderful, compelling IBWO essays around is by her, and linked to below), but maybe this first manuscript success will give her the wherewithal to tackle such a project. No doubt Jerry Jackson will continue to put out updated versions of his volume, maybe Tim Gallagher also, or others from Cornell; possibly Phil Hoose or Christopher Cokinos will have future volumes... and the principal investigator of the news to be released in October will have his own volume out, and possibly still others as well. But these will all be mostly academic, historical, reference, even ecological sorts of works, certainly with some adventure and feelings included, but largely cerebral. I envision an effort by Julie though would tap into a whole different realm of our psyche and emotions on this subject, conveying the beauty, the ardor, the hope/despair, the magic, the mystery, and the mysticism associated with the Ivory-bill, as maybe only she can do. Well there's my pitch... do with it what you will, Julie, I know your plate is pretty full!!
http://www.juliezickefoose.com/writing/ibw.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, I've repeatedly made the argument that EVEN IF I believed the Ivory-bill was extinct I would STILL operate on the assumption that it survives --- because the potentiial consequences of assuming it extinct only to find out later one is wrong, are far worse than the consequences of assuming it is alive, only to find out later it has been gone for decades. It is the same reason our legal system assumes people are innocent until proven guilty, lest innocents suffer undeserved punishment. Some biologists call this "the Romeo error" (after Shakespeare's Romeo poisoning himself upon believing, incorrectly, that Juliet has died), and it ought to be avoided whenever possible; this is why anyone serious about bird life should be encouraging (not discouraging or derisive of) IBWO searchers in their efforts. Indeed, why anyone serious about birds would do otherwise is beyond me... other than possibly trying to prop up the slender skeptical scaffold upon which they have sequestered themselves.
BTW, Jim Fitzpatrick (John's brother) spoke at the New Jersey Meadowlands yesterday on "the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker" --- if anyone heard the talk I'd be interested to know if he happened to indicate when Cornell's final summary report for last season would be out, or had anything new to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose I were to tell you that recently discovered papers from James Tanner's attic detailed how he travelled to the south with funds from Cornell and spent his days hanging out in the backwoods drinking moonshine with some good ol' boys, while fabricating data and buying a few photos from Cuba to concoct his 3-year "study" of Ivory-bills --- in short, suppose I told you his entire study was an elaborate hoax! Could you prove me wrong?? Could you provide evidence that I couldn't offer an alternative 'faked' or 'conspiratorial' explanation for, forcing you back into the archives in search of counter-evidence???
Of course there are NO SUCH PAPERS, but the fact remains that I personally have no direct knowledge that James Tanner ever existed, let alone that he actually spent any time in La. doing what he claims he did --- what I have is a faith or belief in the truth and accuracy of books/writers that have transmitted that information to me. I don't even have direct evidence that the earth is round or revolves around the sun --- rather, I simply have faith in the scientists who say it is so and the integrity of the evidence they provide for such conclusions --- in short, MOST of what any of us believe 'scientifically' is based upon faith and trust in other people, and in measurements we've never taken, data we've never collected, observations we've never made, but nonetheless accept without question, unless a determined skeptic shakes our faith therein. This is what the average-Joe doesn't realize about their scientific beliefs --- they are usually based not on logic or reason, but faith and trust --- even the scientists doing the hands-on work base their conclusions upon a faith in their senses or the machines/instruments that substitute for their senses. (And a long history of practical successes utilizing such methods, gives us faith that such methods will work now and in the future, though we can never know it for sure.) The point is, that it is a very simple matter to cast doubt on a scientific claim, if one so chooses, by tossing out questions, concerns, 'what-ifs,' and alternative hypotheses as roadblocks along the way, as skeptics, and anti-evolutionists for that matter, do with ease. It is far more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a given claim is true. And so it is in Ivory-bill land, where any claim is immediately met with doubts and alternative explanations, and cynicism sewn. At some point though faith or trust has to kick in, and thusly I am willing to believe that James Tanner did most of what he claimed to do, even though I can't prove it (and I believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun too!). At some point we will reach that threshold with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; the scientific bickering, which technically can go on forever, will stop and, despite how easy (fun???) it is to create doubt, the trust will take hold... let's hope by then it's not too late.
P.S. --- I was pleasantly surprised that a handful of people, all with excellent resumes, did send in their names, as prospective candidates to spend several of the winter months in Southern swamp-muck at fairly minimal pay, to participate in an upcoming IBWO project! --- your names/info have all been forwarded to the principal investigator --- GOOD LUCK!, at what literally may be an unparallelled once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBWO searcher Jesse Gilsdorf reports that according to George Lamb's monograph The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba, "crows are major predators of IBWO including egg robbing and nestling predation." This is interesting to hear since Tanner's small study concluded that the IBWO had no major predators, only mentioning that various hawks might have possible negative effects on IBWO behavior. The well-documented mobbing and predatory nature of crows, their ubiquitousness throughout the IBWO range, and the ease with which they could enter nest cavities, would thus offer yet another intriguing NON-habitat-loss factor in the decline of the species.
On a different note, I received a longish plea from Mike Hendrickson essentially asking me to say more about the upcoming new evidence/claims for Ivory-bills, which I'm simply not at liberty to do, and which would only generate more unproductive chatter on the Web ahead of the full case being laid out. The AOU meeting is less than 25 days away. Some of the evidence that will be announced is already over 16 mos. old, so another 25 days is not much to ask (if there is no news release prior), to let the principals announce their information in the form they choose (there will be a website where all can equally access the full evidence at that time). I suspect yet additional evidence will come in from other locales through the wintertime, but that's nothing more than a hunch.
If any of you with good birding and backwoods skills are in a position to devote 3+ months this winter to a rugged southern swamp area studying IBWOs, and genuinely interested in being considered for such a project, you can send your name and email address along to me with some indication of your credentials and I can pass that info along to the principals who are seeking field workers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... and today's rant: For those who don't already know it a brief recounting of Mason Spencer's story from the 1930's --- First, realize that around 1900 the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was already thought extinct by many, only to be found again. By 1920 it was again presumed extinct, and again by 1930. All the while individuals (non-ornithologists) who actually spent significant time in Ivory-bill habitat (oooh, clever idea) were seeing the bird on occasion and knew of its survival.
So in 1932 when Louisianian Mason Spencer told a State Wildlife Director, that he regularly saw IBWOs in Madison Parish, the all-knowing director, in frustration issued him a special permit to shoot one and bring it in, so he could prove Mason wrong. The director was stunned when Spencer did just that, delivering a freshly-killed male Ivory-bill to the office, and thus initiating Cornell University's belated interest in the Singer Tract.
The point is, that in 1932, skepticism is what brought us to the point of killing a bird to prove it existed!! 70+ years later the means have changed, but not entirely the close-minded mentality. We no longer have to shoot birds with guns, now that we can shoot them with film, but the insistence on this level of evidence, just as in 1932, still carries risks -- spurring people into the swamps with electronic and mechanical gadgetry that may have unforeseen collateral effects, and at the very least potentially delaying any action on behalf of the Ivory-bill while awaiting procurement of such overwhelming evidence. Do note, that in the historical instance above, Mason Spencer is NOT the villain -- the bad guy is the wildlife director, the skeptic (or scoffer), who nonchalantly issues the permit to kill. Today's skeptics, with their efforts to prove false any claims that come in, are essentially issuing permits to let the Ivory-bill die out --- they will vehemently deny it, but the consequence of their discouraging and often derisive chatter is exactly this.
As I've said before, THERE HAS BEEN NO SOLID EVIDENCE IN THE LAST 60 YEARS SUPPORTING THE NOTION OF THIS SPECIES' EXTINCTION -- NONE... WHATSOEVER!! (just mere speculation, amidst ongoing hints of its likely survival) -- anyone who thinks otherwise DOES NOT UNDERSTAND scientific empiricism, the nature of evidence, nor the complexity of the natural world. Period.
It is fine to be skeptical of individual IBWO reports --- I've been skeptical, initially, of every report I've seen in the last 40 years, but each new report must be adjudged independently and the totality of evidence (of 100s of reports, across decades) weighed, at which point the probability of IBWO existence is formidable --- even if but one Ivory-bill was left today, then the bird was not extinct in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 2005, and no evidence precludes such current existence, except for an apparent belief, on the part of many, that ALL habitat has been searched and that human searchers are infallible: 'waaahlll, since Tom, Dick, and Harry and Ezmarelda went out lookin' and couldn't find or film the durn thing then I reckon it must not exist, 'cuz them folks is gooo--oood, huhhhh' (--- that's the essential level of the so-called evidence!).
When this whole situation is finally resolved apologies or wonderment from skeptics/scoffers will be worthless and useless --- what one would like from them is an iron-clad promise that they will never again so ineptly write-off an entire species in such short order and upon such skimpy evidence --- yet that is a promise that won't be forthcoming, for it is inherent within some skeptics' mindset to continue making the same misjudgments over and over and over again.
And what some perceive as an obsession with a single species on some of our parts, is actually much broader than that --- it is a focussed concern for endangered species, and the loose criteria by which they are written off, thusly shortchanging conservation. The Ivory-bill represents a lesson to be learned once-and-for-all!... except that, when all the celebration upon its return is over, that lesson will no doubt be totally lost on those still-befuddled skeptics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm putting off a planned rant at skeptics for a day to clarify just who these rants refer to: Many say that skepticism is in the highest tradition of science, and I agree: I AM a skeptic -- I am skeptical of Christmas counts, of journal articles, of the classification of species, of lifelists, of field guides, of PhDs, of published data, of NCAA basketball ratings, and yes of Ivory-bill reports -- of anything and everything where human certainty or 100% accuracy might be implied, but I still view and remain open to any and all possibilities, despite the skepticism. To draw a distinction therefore from the brand of skeptics I am criticizing, maybe a better, more precise term would be "scoffers." These individuals allow their skepticism to swell into scoffing at new and old evidence, forfeiting the objectivity and open-mindedness required of science. They scoff at Cornell while giving David Sibley's piece a free ride. They scoff at David Kulivan and Gallagher and Bobby Harrison, but never critique Tanner. They scoffed at Jerry Jackson when he argued for 20 years that Ivory-bills might yet survive, then embraced him when he was critical of the most recent evidence. They scoff at anything that doesn't conform to their preconceived notions, and blindly follow, without scientific analysis, anything that does conform. They are following not scientific methodology, but mere bias and pretend-science. They are upset that Cornell spoke with such certainty of finding the IBWO in AR., yet they now speak with their own unsupportable certainty that Cornell did not find it.
Those who are skeptical but open-minded, who are doubtful but aiding the searches, who are unconvinced but looking afresh at every new lead, I have few qualms with --- you are essentially agnostics and that is a perfectly respectable scientific position. But to the Ivory-bill atheists out there, who have made up their minds that the species no longer exists and that any evidence to the contrary must be explained away by alternative hypotheses, and who thus let preconceptions immediately shape their response to any new claims, you are not engaging in science and truly you ought to stop kidding yourselves (...and others) that you are.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dabble in some humor and break all the pent-up tension out there!... At the risk (hope???) of encouraging even more of these amateurish offerings I've listed below a couple of links to "youtube" website attempts at Ivory-bill humor -- these are okay for first tries, but come on folks, I think some creative soul out there can do far better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78AFGvhLiIE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7d6vCwrXc&mode=related&search=
There's also a parody of Steve Irwin looking for the Ivory-bill on the 'youtube' site which, in deference to his sudden tragic death, I won't link to, but you may hunt for if you so choose (there are many parodies of the beloved Irwin on "youtube," obviously made in respect and gratitude for him well prior to the recent tragedy).
Finally, and completely NON-IBWO-related, if you're already over at the "youtube" site anyway, and you've not yet seen this pepped-up version of Pachelbel's Canon on electric guitar, check it out (somewhat awesome, and I think highly fun/entertaining -- there are actually several renditions at 'youtube'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8
....and enjoy this sidelight while you can, because tomorrow I may be ranting about skepticism once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Tanner was the typical grad student working on a dissertation, appropriately humble and hesitant in his findings when he wrote his Ivory-billed Woodpecker monograph. Yet, once published, he was raised to an authoritative pedestal to which all who were interested in the species pretty much came and knelt before. As time proceeded his statements and views took on more dogmatic and less open-minded tones as an inevitable consequence of this commanding position that was thrust upon him. Still, I think some of the most important words he ever wrote, came at the end of the "Introduction" to his original study, before that dogmatism set in, and they deserve repeated citation:
"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]
On this, at least, I believe Tanner got it 100% right (I wish he and others since had adhered to it)...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writer/birder/Audubon President John Terres saw two Ivory-bills in the 1950s but didn't report it for 30 years because he saw no good that could come of it, even in the unlikely event that people believed him. Ornithologist John Dennis (with a Master's Degree) went to his grave believing that PhDs. looked down on him in not accepting some of his Ivory-bill reports of the 60s. And famously, ornithologist George Lowery came to regret ever publicly disclosing the Fielding Lewis Ivory-bill photos of the 70s which he believed were authentic (but others thought not), due to the tarnishing that it brought his reputation. These were just 3 of the more prominent people who were affected by overbearing Ivory-bill skepticism.
A lot of folks today talk and act as if the IBWO controversy began in 2005 with Cornell's Big Woods' announcement, but this controversy was already 60 years old at that point. Even though Tanner himself believed Ivory-bills existed in S.C. and Florida, somehow in the 40s the Singer Tract population became largely regarded as the last specimens in the Southeast and nobody even knows in what direction they moved once that Tract was cut over. At that point a baseless assumption of extinction was allowed to set in, resulting in a stigma attached to those sighting reports that did come in -- and because most IBWO claims turned in were erroneous, a jaded birding community simply presumed all were.
In turn this stigma meant that:
1. fewer individuals seriously searched for the birds than would otherwise have been the case, let alone any large-scale, organized, meaningful searches being done
2. individuals who did report the bird, unless they had major credentials, were rarely taken seriously
3. many, if not most, who believed they saw the bird, chose not to officially report it at all, rather than face potential doubts and ridicule
4. the few individuals (hunters/trappers/fishermen, NOT birders) who routinely entered likely Ivory-bill environs were never given any incentive to report the species if encountered
In short, prevailing skepticism over Ivory-bills fashioned a cynical atmosphere entirely NON-conducive to finding or saving the species, and long after the loggers and hunters were gone, this pernicious atmosphere is what truly worked against remaining Ivory-bills of the 50s and 60s when they most needed a human assist. Whether enough remain now to yet bring their numbers back time will tell, but skeptics cannot just blithely escape their negative role in the last 50 years and the 'waste-of-time' feeling that they promoted. This sort of hasty, cavalier dismissal of an entire species based on misguided faith in the thoroughness of human logic or study ought never occur. Thus my contention that skeptics are more responsible than anyone else for the failure to find and save this species 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Even the likes of Tanner and Les Short, who should've known better, worked against Jerry Jackson's pleading in the 80's for more searching and study. WHAAAT were they thinking? (...or utterly failing to think).
I'm not speaking here of all the Johnny-come-lately, leap-on-the-bandwagon skeptics who barely even know all the issues involved and were putty in the hands of others, but of the prominent ones who over time set the agenda, preached extinction, and prejudiced the birding majority. If IBWOs are confirmed, those skeptics, after years of obstructively smirking at the foolishness of IBWO believers, will suddenly glob on to say, 'ohhh this is wonderful, finally the evidence we sooo wished for; how great they are indeed still around, yada, yada, yada, yada...' It will be at this point that I hope most of you will fully understand and excuse me if I saunter off to be alone somewhere where I can less-than-merrily stand over a white porcelain commode with my extended index finger firmly planted oh-so-precisely down my ever-luvin' throat!! ....OR..., if IBWOs aren't confirmed, well, then, as Miss Emily Latila would've said, n-n-n-n-n-n-nevermind!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
