-- Happy Anniversaries --

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

The end of this month marks at least two anniversaries:

1. the 3rd anniversary of the birth of this blog, little knowing what controversy was to follow :-))) and,

2. the 12th anniversary of the death of Roger Tory Peterson :-(((((

One of the above is pretty trifling so I'll only address the other: Roger Tory Peterson was clearly a hero to many in the birding and conservation communities, including folks at opposite poles of the IBWO controversy. I love Roger's art and field guides, but mostly I love his thoughtful approach to nature, and to sharing that knowledge and experience with others. Roger was always open to possibilities, and to new knowledge and understanding; he understood inherently, how easily what passes for human logic can be defied by Nature; how tenuous and subject-to-change our knowledge is. When others were dropping the Ivory-bill from their field guides, or relegating it to some special back section, he was still including it among the woodpeckers, perhaps signaling a narrow hope he held out. And he was among the last individuals to see Ivory-bills at Louisiana's Singer Tract back in the 1940's; his most thrilling birding moment. Next month, BTW, Houghton-Mifflin is issuing a newly-designed edition of his field guide which sounds great (here and here), so make room on your shelf for yet another.

Too bad Roger isn't alive today to witness the effort finally being put forth on behalf of this species, and add his two cents (more like ten dollars worth!). I could very well be wrong, but I like to think he's looking down from above, a blank canvas before him, paint-brush at-the-ready, waiting, watching over the searchers.... and smiling.


....for today's entertainment, a clip that isn't so much funny, as simply UNbelievable (this guy's a trained professional, or... insane; DON'T you kids try this at home):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiq6V0Shs_s
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- August Upcoming --

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

August is a month when Ivory-bills may be out-and-about, cruising the forest in family groups in search of food, and possibly dropping feathers along the way (Mike Collins reminds us, in a recent post, that August is a primary month for feather-molting in Ivory-bills)... and ironically, it is a month few searchers are ever in the field looking for them.
Mike ponders returning to the Pearl in August and keeping an eye out for feathers in prior hot zones, though finding a feather from an extremely rare bird is probably even more of a needle in a haystack than finding the bird itself (the only advantage being that feathers don't fly away or take evasive action upon approach) --- and getting such a feather DNA-tested, without good advance evidence that it is from an Ivory-bill may also prove difficult --- very few feathers (or other material for that matter) from 3 years of searching have been DNA-tested to this point, so far as I'm aware.
DNA-evidence would generate some excitement, but like other evidence would also be debated. For good or for ill, skeptics have firmly established the position of the bar for Ivory-bill evidence: either a carcass or a clear photo/video must be attained; all else is just grist for continued debate. A carcass, a photo or video, and essentially one more season to achieve it.


....for today's humor, a short clip from one of Britain's finest exports ;-), Benny Hill!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib6k3M30lus

and you may want to put yourself in the proper mood by viewing this even shorter bird clip first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ZtI5CDrrg&feature=related
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Cornell Non-update --

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

Cornell's Mobile Team posts final (non-informative?) updates to their travel log for the season here.

Not sure why it's being posted this late --- their last previous post was April 10, and these posts merely fill out the month of April, telling where they made cursory stops, but lacking any Ivory-bill info or speculation at all. More significant for how little it has to say, than anything it does report.


....comic installment today, one of the favorite clips (out of sooooo many) from 'Seinfeld':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeHG-8rfqKM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Digitized Evidence --

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

Believe-it-or-not Ripley, the Luneau film clip continues to be analyzed --- new computer-derived evidence (from Cornell) for the Luneau bird here (using computer graphics to argue that David's bird matches an Ivory-bill --- I can already hear the grumbling and arguments commencing ;-)).


....and for today's comedy relief, some pure Woody Allen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0yuqpk00Ts&NR=1

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

-- Population Stasis --

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

Summer re-run --- a repeat of thoughts covered here before:

The lack of a definitive Ivory-bill photo from somewhere by now is troubling but points no more to Ivory-bill extinction than it does simply to Ivory-bill scarcity. (Only the ubiquity of photography in today's society and field studies, a relatively new phenomena, makes it seem more convincing to many.)

Assuming IBWO scarcity then, the more difficult issue to grapple with is how such a scarce species could even manage to hang on throughout decades. What such long-term rarity implies is the existence of small populations in near enough proximity to one another that dispersing offspring could relocate and find mates (and as a powerful flyer the 'proximity' needn't be as close for Ivory-bills as for many other species). Creatures in low densities with limited habitat and resources can reach population stasis, or steady-state numbers, that may be successfully maintained over lengthy periods with fair ease. For Ivory-bills, all that is required are a few bottomland or riverine corridors connecting small populations and the birds might maintain themselves at low numbers over long periods, very occasionally being seen and heard, and difficult to get a clear irrefutable photo of --- not unlike, need I say it, the situation at hand (...or at least as plausible an explanation as writing off 100's of claims over years to 'mistakes').

Make some conservative assumptions: Ivory-bill life-expectancy of 10 years (most say it is longer); no breeding during the first 3 or last 3 years of their lives, leaving just 4 breeding years (again, wholly unlikely); out of 3-5 eggs laid, on average only 1 hatchling survives.
Given these assumptions, a single pair of ivory-bills, on average, produces 4 offspring in their lifetime (i.e., 4 birds produced to replace 2) --- if half those birds go on to find mates and continue the process, stasis is maintained. To the degree that some of these conservative numbers increase, IBWO population may even increase slowly over time.
If habitat itself is in a somewhat steady-state situation (some good habitat growing, while other habitat diminishing), not much may change; only to the degree that habitat is improving for the species, might population markedly grow and encounters with the species increase to a point of easier detection and confirmation.
Of course the point of organized, large-scale searches is to increase the number and likelihood of such encounters. Whether they have done so or not is a whole 'nuther debate.

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

-- Nothing Better To Do --

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

Got nuthin' better to do so I'll just list my current obligatory baker's dozen list of states in order of most-to-least likely to harbor any Ivory-bills at this point:

1. Florida
2. Louisiana
3. Mississippi
4. Arkansas
5. Tennessee
6. Alabama
7. Illinois
8. Georgia
9. South Carolina
10. North Carolina
11. Kentucky
12. Missouri
13. Texas

I'd settle for Ivory-bills being found in just half of these ;-)) ...but, seriously,... awhile back, Bill Pulliam noted to me that he had called attention to Alabama's Mobile Delta region, recently mentioned favorably in Cornell's summary report, over two years ago on his blog when he surveyed (via computer) the Southeast for possible IBWO habitat:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/03/alabama.html

It's been a long time since any credible reports of Ivory-bills emanated from this area (although a few unconfirmed reports have come from other parts of Alabama), and Tanner reported the delta region as totally cut over when he reviewed it in the 30's, but The Nature Conservancy is actively trying to preserve much of it today. The area falls nicely between the Florida Panhandle and the Pascagoula region of Mississippi if one cares to think in terms of a Gulf corridor for the species (which can stretch on to Louisiana's Pearl, and of course eastward to Florida's Apalachicola/Chipola).


....and here, classic comedy interlude for all those who have kids in summer camp this year... or... ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3vW6q5uebU
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Have a Happy Independence Day --

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

.... unless you're one of my British readers.

Mini-movie-review of sorts of George Butler's "Lord God Bird" film here:

http://river2sea72.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/rare-bird/

And the Arkansas irrigation project, previously-stalled by attention to Ivory-bills, now awaits another judicial decision here.


"Ecstasy. Sublime." Indeed! Connection; wild; merging of worlds, and some nice pics (Pileated) here:

http://robinresearch.blogspot.com/2008/07/pileated-high-apogee-of-happiness.html


....Comedy offering of the day from 'wild and crazy guy' Steve Martin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GBEaiOfkxs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- The Natives Are Restless --

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

Been getting a few emails from folks essentially 'throwing in the towel' on the IBWO. I'll try to buffer some of that despair:

What some of us long wanted was a serious, organized, systematic, large-scale, scientific search for the Ivory-bill --- the closest thing to that has now been underway for a couple years --- not completely thorough or perfect by a longshot but at least an honest effort put forth. Interest in the Big Woods and Choctawhatchee only arose in the last few years. Whether Ivory-bills exist there is almost secondary --- the question is do they exist ANYwhere across the Southeast, in areas of far longer interest and rumor than Arkansas or the Florida Panhandle; at last many of those areas are getting significant, coordinated attention.

Realize, again, this is a powerful bird capable of rapid long distance flight; a bird that spends much of its time inside tree cavities or obscured high-up in tree canopies, and likely wary of human encroachment. Almost certainly it is, at best, sparse and scattered in its numbers (conceivably even the rarest bird in the world). Finding and photographing it ought not be easy, and 2-3 years of searching vast habitat with what continues to be small groups of people, remains less than ideal. Results thus far are disappointing, but far from conclusive. The evidence for extinction is certainly no more conclusive than the evidence for persistence.

Even if absolutely nothing of interest had resulted from these particular searches it would not be solid evidence of Ivory-bill extinction --- but in fact the efforts have produced a succession of possible sounds, signs, and sightings of the species (and NO, not all such searches for rare critters, produce such results). By themselves the sounds and signs are suspect --- other explanations are always possible --- but coming in conjunction with the occasional sightings from knowledgeable individuals who express no doubt or hesitation of what they've seen, they take on more meaning (the sightings themselves would also be far more questionable if there were no associated sounds or signs detected, but with all these elements reverberating together they do carry some weight).

It is almost odd how quickly some people repeatedly gravitate to alternative ad hoc explanations for any piece of data collected, over any possibility of an Ivory-bill connection. All for lack of a photograph. Odd as well, how heavily everything now hinges on irrefutable photographic evidence. A single photo can change everything, while 100 more sightings may change nothing at this point --- from the skeptics' viewpoint, a few sightings are meaningless, and 100 sightings without a photo are yet additional evidence (circularly) of how unreal those sightings must be. We have entered an Alice-in-Wonderland (or Through-the-looking-glass) world, in which each piece of evidence can be defined or scrutinized out-of-existence, making it easier to do the same then to the next piece of evidence. Planting doubt is equivalent to denying.

At least a couple of locales will be getting intensified looks next year, and Mike Collins continues his independent efforts to attain evidence that will persuade everyone of his claims for the Pearl River region. Others make equally certain claims for other sites. More time, patience, and effort, is all that can resolve these discrepant viewpoints.

In short, it's not over, 'til it's over... which it ain't yet --- not idle musing, but a reflection of how scientific investigation proceeds. And it shall proceed for at least one more season. The probability of success dims with each season without a photo; but for now the question remains whether that probability is a reflection of the Ivory-bill's disappearance, or more a reflection of flawed human field techniques. If the species is ever conclusively documented after all that has transpired, what should've been seen as a simple scientific accomplishment, will now have to be viewed in some quarters, as, a miracle.


--- But so much for the Ivory-bill; for your comic relief of the day... if you're too young to remember Rip Taylor than, hey, you can get to know him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO_EGrYmJ0Q&NR=1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Chillin' Out --

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

New book of possible interest here:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300116397

Baby storks soon to be leaving nest here:

http://www.stadtpark-mannheim.de/webcam/cam33.htm

Comedy interlude for today --- specifically, for any inveterate Seinfeld fans out there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4_kf4hJ7I&feature=related

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

-- What Next? --

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

With the posting of Cornell's latest summary report the summer may proceed with little Ivory-bill news of note (...no telling what I might employ to fill up post-space from week to week 8-\ --- other bird stuff, cognitive science, politics, quantum chromodynamics, pictures of nude wombats... or, all of the above...?) Oddly, the past couple years there has actually been MORE IBWO internet chatter during the summer months than during the winter search season when things are more hush-hush, despite more going on. Doubtful that will be the case this summer.

While much habitat remains to search, one presumes that a lot of the best habitat has by now been covered adequately enough that more good, credible sightings (if not even an irrefutable photo) ought to have been attained. The science is being worked through; science that had never previously been carried out for this species. Points of hope and intrigue remain, while overall probabilities and optimism dim.
All Ivory-bill reports from knowledgeable, experienced observers need to be evaluated seriously, on a case-by-case basis (not lumped together in some sort of generality). Should no conclusive photographic evidence be obtained in the next year, the worst result will be the lack of seriousness (even derision) which future IBWO claims will suffer in many quarters. That would be the most unfortunate legacy of another year of fuzzy or no evidence, as we head straight back to the days of Mason Spencer.

An emailer asks about details of the "randomized" search protocol referred to previously. I haven't read the actual protocol, but my understanding is that it involves assigning searchers on any given day to randomized blocks within a search grid, without regard for which blocks may actually have the best habitat or the most sightings, sounds, or signs associated with them; i.e. within a given search region all areas are treated equally, instead of concentrating efforts and manpower in the most promising blocks. (If anyone wishes to clarify the protocol more fully, in either a positive or negative light, feel free to write.)

Ohhhh... and here's a picture of a nude wombat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Heeeeeeeere's Cornell --

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

Hmmmm... deja vu... all over again. . . .

Cornell's preliminary summary of 2007-8 search season now up here.

As anticipated, nothing much to hang one's hat on in the way of Ivory-bill evidence. A few things to note by way of summary:

1. Only five possible auditory detections in Ark. for entire season.

2. No sightings apparently deemed worthy enough to mention in detail.

3. Weather extremes hindered search through portion of season.

4. The Mobile Delta of Alabama, an area not much previously referenced, is one of the locales the mobile team thought most worthy of further study. Otherwise, their fave areas for possible IBWO habitat were some of the usual places: Pascagoula (MS.), and Chipola/Apalachicola and Big Cypress of FL. No mention made of the Atchafalaya or Pearl regions in La.

5. Preliminary plans call for another active mobile search team next year, re-visiting sites of note from this season, but probably no full-time team in Ark. (unless newer developments warrant it).

6. No mention of results from the South Carolina search, nor any other state searches, nor the time the Ark. team spent in Tenn. Nor any mention of any areas along a Missouri-Illinois-Tenn.-Kentucky corridor as being of interest. Indeed there is only mention of "small strategic searches in areas that fall within the ivory-bill's historic range" being organized. The report is focused on the Ark. search alone. No mention of any results from the ACONE remote camera system either, or how much downtime it had (they do mention that 2.5 million images from automatic Reconyx cameras were reviewed to no avail --- this isn't as significant as it sounds since the cameras are continually snapping pics on a timed basis regardless of any subject in front of them).

Lots of specifics are missing from the report that will no doubt be included in some later USFW document on the season. And there is no specific discussion of the new "randomized" search protocol that was employed for this season, though some have privately expressed the view that the protocol "tied their hands" and limited the quality of the search.
(Begin broken record) there are still places left across the Southeast to explore more thoroughly (...end broken record), and clearly next season will be the last chance for Gov't.-sponsored searchers to do just that, unless at long last, evidence that all can agree on is attained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Whatevuh --

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

Good piece here at Birder's World blog on (long overdue) re-evaluation of bird classification based upon mitochondrial nuclear DNA studies, basically reiterating that the concept of "species" is, as it always has been, imprecise (especially so in birds) --- this is one reason why listers should always quote their totals by saying "+ or - 10%" ;-)
(The post is actually referencing an article about to appear in the journal Science, the focus of which may be more on genera and above than species, but similar earlier work had already suggested much possible "lumping" and "splitting" of species.) [ Addendum: the article is getting a lot of play across the 'net'; another good overview from "Grrlscientist" here.]
The DNA evidence itself will likely be debatable over time, but at least is headed in the right direction, even if not as definitive as some think. A lot more work in the area is needed and will be stimulated --- our understanding of DNA changes and their relationship to evolution still being quite primitive.
(BTW, just 'nuther new bird species discovered in China here.)

DNA evidence for the Ivory-bill would also not be conclusive of its current existence (unless it came in direct conjunction with a specific sighting); sightings and photography remain key.
Am beginning to think that normal physical approaches to this bird may be doomed to fail, and that what is needed are stationary (not-easily-bored) searchers, posted at key positions, scanning the forest distances, 100+ yds. away, for the species with binoculars and birdscopes (for hours on end), and ready to digiscope a shot when needed (forget close views and hand-held video) --- some of this has been done. Still chagrined that there have not already been more long-distance sightings publicly reported by now. A lengthy close view may only follow finding a nesthole; easier wished than done.

In the end, maybe it's all just math anyway; the entire universe(s) that is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Comic Relief --

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

In memoriam, some classic George Carlin here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac&feature=related

...and while we're at it, some standard Steven Wright here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIHZDo9NBMk&feature=related

(Is it my imagination, or could Steven Wright actually be scholar Steven Pinker, after a few beers, working a night job...???)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Thangs That Be a Buggin' Me --

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

Heyyyyy Bunky, you say your mother-in-law came to visit last Christmas and by Memorial Day had taken over half the upstairs... and your wife's 5 children from her previous 3 marriages continue calling you "Blubberbutt" instead of Dad, whenever they're requesting a raise in their weekly beer allowance... and your mostly incontinent, semi-blind (but still with good aim), dog Rex consistently mistakes your leg for a fire hydrant.... is THAT what's buggin' YOU!?..... Well, here be a couple a things buggin' me at this stage of the Ivory-bill saga:

1. Specifically in regard to the Big Woods search (where the story began), the failure of the ACONE automatic camera system to detect an IBWO by now is disappointing and troubling. In the next USFW summary report I'd like to see,

a) an account of how many total birds have been captured in flight by the system, and how many of those were Pileated Woodpeckers, and

b) an accounting of how many -- if any -- birds captured on ACONE film have been unidentifiable, to the point that IBWO could neither be ruled in or out.

2. More generally, while I have little concern over the lack of photographic evidence from elsewhere, I am troubled by the paucity of sightings year-to-year given the number of man-hours spent in the habitat. One might expect the number of fleeting, but good sightings, to be much higher by now, and the paltry few encounters indicate a species so sparse that little can likely be done on its behalf (ideally we ought preserve as much habitat as possible and keep humans out, but, that won't happen).

For obvious reasons, sightings ought be notably up with more people in the field. Skeptics too expect sighting reports to increase, but only due to 'anticipation bias' and 'groupthink' factors with more people out looking (heck, conceivably one could argue that the remarkable lack of increase in sightings demonstrates how inoperative the skeptics' notions are, giving possibly yet more credence to those few sightings that have been recorded... or maybe by now only reports meeting stricter filtering criteria are even being presented publicly)....

Increasingly, it appears there may be little of significance reported out from this past search season, but enough to hone in on limited areas in 2009, with small search crews, for one last official search season for the 'Ghost Bird.' If that effort too bears little new or conclusive evidence, it may be left to a few determined independents out there to try and accomplish what organized, funded academic teams could not, and obtain the centerfold pic required... if indeed there remains a bird to pose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- News Piece --

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

http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/579412.html

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

-- Just Some Political Babble --

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

Off-topic -- too much sheer political phun to pass up:

This has likely been the most interesting Presidential electoral season of my lifetime, and the choice of running mates for the presumptive nominees continues to fascinate.
The Democratic and Republican conventions are only a week apart this year (Dems. coming first at the end of August), and almost certainly both nominees will choose running mates well before then, to put out to the press and public. In the meantime though they may play a game of political chicken to see who names their pick first --- selection of person X, Y, or Z by one candidate could influence the decision of the other candidate trying to decide between persons A, B, and C, so it will be interesting to see who pops their name first. If McCain chooses a woman or a general does that alter Obama's strategy (or vice-versa for Obama's choice)? Or if one chooses a running mate from Florida or Ohio (two very key states) does that suddenly alter the formula for the other? Or what if one were to name potential Cabinet choices ahead of time (unheard of in American politics), would the other be forced to as well? The rumor mill should heat up considerably next month as the various permutations of 'if this choice, then this selection, and if this... then this...' play out with pundits and advisors.

Lots of articles/opinions about the VP possibilities already out there, but seen nothing that significantly alters my original 3 choices (blogged on June 13) for each candidate --- but again, I've never guessed right on VP choices in my life. Above all else, Obama needs someone with, as they say, "g-r-a-v-i-t-a-s," difficult to find among the touted Dems, but filled admirably by Colin Powell, if he is willing to take on a national campaign (and his other pluses are too numerous to mention). McCain needs someone bright and energetic (to contrast with his 'about-to-keel-over-at-any-given-moment' facade ;-)), and probably with stronger conservative credentials as well --- his friend and colleague Lindsey Graham fits that profile, if he's willing to risk an otherwise bright political future by possibly going down in flames with McCain. Or, maybe just as likely, Obama will select Stephen Colbert, and McCain will counter with say, Ann Coulter....

When all is said and done, no doubt each candidate will announce that they've chosen the best person they could find for the job, or to take over the Presidency should need be... there will be no mention of any political/social/tactical considerations influencing the decision. Often in politics, and even in science, some things go left unsaid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Anecdote/Antidote --

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

boring post ahead...

S'pose John Q. Birder is assigned section 3 of the Smithville spring bird count circle. He records, among other things, 1 barred owl, 2 pileated woodpeckers, 5 wood thrushes, 7 house wrens, 16 cardinals, 38 starlings, 90 cedar waxwings, 200 chimney swifts, and a partridge in a pear tree (...okay, scratch that last entry). Of course, this is pure anecdotal data, barely worth the paper it's recorded on according to some folks' criteria. So s'pose the next day, to confirm these shaky findings, a team is sent out running transects of the same area, but only recording as REAL scientific data those birds that are captured on film. Would the second 'scientific' study bear the same results of John's initial count data or differ markedly? It certainly could differ very markedly --- resulting in much lower bird counts (for several species) if only photographic/physical evidence is accepted, and all other sightings/auditory detections discarded. DUHHH!!

This is part of the problem with a study (of anecdotal evidence) from last month making the rounds. It employs subtle tautological reasoning sometimes typical of field ecology and even medicine, the authors having essentially assumed in advance the truth of assumptions (that anecdotal evidence is weak) employed to reach their conclusions (that anecdotal evidence is weak). No doubt these same authors (like everyone else) accept anecdotal evidence in innumerable circumstances when it suits their purposes, but in the case of rarities the double-standard rears its head, and things change ostensibly for the sake of 'science.'
The accuracy and correctness of 'scientific' analyses (which can be fallible) is presumed over the fuzziness of anecdotal data (though it can be spot-on). If anecdotal evidence were automatically weak and imprecise, and 'scientific' findings empirical and accurate, then when the two differ, one would naturally accept and act upon the scientific analysis. The problem is that LOTS of 'scientific' analysis IS also remarkably weak, biased, incomplete, and/or methodologically flawed, while anecdotal reports (which must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis) can on occasion be quite accurate. "The illusion of reality" the authors refer to can stem as easily from supposed 'science' as from anecdotal reports. (And heaven forbid if anecdotal and 'scientific' evidence are ever in general agreement with one another --- I s'pose then the scientific data must come under great suspicion ;-)

In regards to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker the question is not whether-or-not 100's of anecdotal reports over decades accurately reflect the range and population of the species. The critical scientific question remaining open is more basic: are there 0 Ivory-bills, or 1+ Ivory-bills, in existence at the present moment (and have doubters been wrong for 60+ years)? The authors offer no evidence pertaining to that question. The way to get that evidence is to do the searches now underway (which cost money), which have never been done before and are a part of science. Moreover, somehow the authors fear that as a species grows rarer, it is guaranteed to generate continual (even increasing) false reports... in which case I s'pose by now we should be inundated with false reports of pterodactyls, or at least passenger pigeons and Eskimo curlews.

The authors' primary concern, once again, is actually the allocation of funds, and I don't even have great qualms overall with the position they advance... but to the extent that the paper purports to report real scientific knowledge about circumstances for the 3 species reviewed (wolverine, fisher, IBWO) I do have concerns about that depiction of certainty.
Finally, in their last paragraph they bring up the "precautionary principle" in conservation, more-or-less admitting it is prudent and good (to act upon possibilities while awaiting further scientific data), but dismissing it as "policy" and not "science." The reason it is prudent though, is precisely because ecological science can be weak and sloppy (THAT is, in part, what makes the precautionary principle "prudent"). In the instance of the Ivory-bill, anecdotal evidence is so widespread, across so many years, and circumstances, and individuals, that 'prudency' should take sway until stronger, more complete science is gathered (the delusion is that such science was gathered in the past when it is only just now being done).
In short, prudency ought precede science, not the other way around (...i.e., in the global warming controversy, it is prudent to make changes now without waiting for the science debate to definitively conclude, by which time it may already be too late). And for those who feel the IBWO efforts are playing out at the expense of other worthy projects, well frankly, that is how virtually ALL Government expenditure works (doesn't make it right, but means the IBWO situation is not exceptional --- every Gov't. expense could, in someone's mind, be better spent on something else).

No doubt funding for the IBWO endeavor is already diminishing even as we await a summary of sightings claims from the previous season (and again, I'd contend it is sightings, and not sounds, signs, nor other analysis that is paramount here). Despite the many man-hours spent, the number of credible sightings actually seems to be declining, or at best staying level as time goes on --- this is not a good sign given the amount of time and number of people involved, but at least it runs counter to the skeptics' assumption that further time and effort in the field automatically guarantees more sightings (false positives). Only a few individuals have reported more than one visual encounter with the birds, and the sparseness of sightings (and difficulty of finding/photographing) largely meets with expectations for a very rare flying creature over expansive habitat. As a practical matter though that sparseness (and lack of photography) after a couple years will lead to the reduction of funding ahead as patience wanes. Science is working as it should. What would not be adequate science is sending a lone graduate student into the wild to gather this same info and assume his conclusions either thorough or definitive.

Speaking of birds....

Three guys died in an accident and went to heaven. When they got there, St. Peter said, "We only have one rule in heaven. Don't step on the ducks!"
So they enter heaven and sure enough, there are millions of ducks all over the place. It was almost impossible not to step on a duck and though they tried their best to avoid them, the first guy accidentally stepped on one.
Along came St. Peter with the ugliest woman the man had ever seen. St. Peter chained them together and said, "Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to spend eternity chained to this ugly woman".

The next day, the second guy stepped accidentally on a duck and along came St. Peter, with another extremely ugly woman. He chained them together with the same admonishment as the first.

The third guy observing all this and not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly woman, was very careful where he stepped. He managed to go for months without stepping on any ducks. Then one day, St. Peter came up to him with the most gorgeous woman he'd ever laid eyes on and chained them together without saying a word.

Grinning, the guy remarked, "I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all eternity?"

She replied, "I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck!"

....yes, assumptions are what it's all about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Will There Be Any Good News? --

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

Helen Snyder, reports over at BirdForum, that her husband Noel, back from the latest USFW Ivory-bill conference in La. implies a mood of doom and gloom for IBWO search at season's end; probably accounts for the time being taken by Cornell to put out some sort of preliminary season summary, as they choose their words carefully. Habitat and food supply don't appear to be an overwhelming hindrance to the species if it existed, but may be too little too late, as money, hope, motivation, fades for search effort...

Meanwhile over at a BirdChat thread nominating 'rarest bird in the world,' NY birder Rich Guthrie, who claimed an Ark. IBWO sighting in spring 2007, casts his vote for, of course, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------