Friends -- Over the past few decades, there has been a history of claimed sightings of ivory-billed woodpeckers, and until the past couple of years, the sightings for the most part have not been accepted as scientifically certain. This changed, for better or worse, with the publication in the journal Science of a claim that recent sightings and sound recordings and videography of one or more of these birds in Arkansas prove the persistence of a species long thought to be extinct. In my view, the editors of Science take responsibility for publication of those claims, and if further field work does not provide more or better evidence that the species actually persists, I place more responsibility on the journal than the authors of the paper claiming persistence. Peer review is supposed to separate the scientific wheat from the chaff.
That being said, I would also state that the sightings of lone birds of this species does not constitute evidence of a viable population or meta-population, though it is suggestive that such exists. It would seem extremely improbable that the rare sightings of members of a nearly-extinct species would be the very last surviving members of those species. The mathematical odds against such a happenstance would seem formidable, if not astronomical. And clearly, some very talented birders and ornithologists are convinced with certainty that the birds they have seen in recent years cannot be anything other than ivory-billed woodpeckers. So, we have two persistence issues in play now, and they have an interplay. For species persistence to be assumed and validated, we need to find more than single birds -- we need to find breeders, pairs, and hopefully some sign of local populations of these birds. This is self-evident. This means that the efforts to survey for ivory-billed woodpeckers must persist and must occur in all places where suitable habitat remains. Certainly there is room for skepticism about the persistence of this species, but it seems time to refocus from skepticism to gritty determination to get at the truth of this matter. Scientific skepticism is appropriate as a means of getting to the truth, but when it expands into personality conflicts or impedes the ability to find answers to difficult questions it becomes counterproductive. Some of the skeptics have actually spent personal time and resources in the field seeking data. Surely that is the best approach. If the ivory--billed woodpecker, indeed, was lost long ago, we have nothing to lose by doing a thorough job of searching for it. And if we conserve habitat for an extinct species, we will benefit biodiversity that remains there, and that is a positive result of this process. It is my view that we should encourage and support an all-out effort at this time to survey intensively for ivory-billed woodpeckers. Recent events have caused the mobilization of resources for this purpose that may never be available again. It is the time now to persist in the necessary work that can validate the view that this species persists, and perhaps even play a role in enhancing the ability of the species to persist. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
