>Bird lovers and conservationists probably know by now
>that the brand new issue of the magazine "Science"
>contains a new article on the recently claimed
>"rediscovery" of the ivory-billed woodpecker in
>Arkansas. The lead author of the new paper is
>renowned bird artist and author David Sibley, plus
>three co-authors with their own high credentials to
>write such a paper. The gyst of the new paper is that
>the video evidence and other evidence used by the
>Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology to "prove" the
>existence of the ivory-bill is not definitive. A very
>strong argument is made by the authors that the bird
>in the video was a normal pileated woodpecker, and
>that the mistake of the Cornell team was in
>understanding the posture of the bird as it was
>videoed.
>
>Cornell chose to submit a rebuttal to the Sibley et
>al., paper, arguing that Cornell's original analysis
>was correct and that the Sibley team was mistaken.
>
>I would like to make a couple of general comments on
>this issue, and then state specific concerns about
>what I perceive to be unwarranted certainty by
>Cornell.
>
>If recent claimed sightings were not considered, then
>it can be reasonably be said that no living
>birdwatcher has ever seen a living ivory-billed
>woodpecker. There is only a relatively small body of
>information on the details of the behaviors of this
>bird, and the conditions under which these birds were
>seen during the brief period of intensive study may
>have been different from any likely conditions the
>bird might live under if it were present today.
>Sample sizes of data on wingbeat and vocalizations and
>rapping noises are limited. There is plenty of room
>for scientific uncertainty about how a living
>ivory-billed woodpecker would behave in today's
>habitats and with life experiences of a bird that may
>have somehow survived secretly. Uncertainty should be
>the rule in evaluating claims of seeing any extinct
>bird or other taxa. Proof of the existence of an
>animal thought to be extinct should be of a high
>level, even more so than of a rare bird sighting. But
>rare bird sightings require a high level of
>certification by state rare bird record committees.
>How much more so should the certification of an
>extinct bird's existence/presence be!
>
>One characteristic I have come to admire about bird
>artists, is their necessarily intimately detailed
>knowledge of the structure, movements, colors,
>patterns, and behaviors of birds. To accurately draw
>birds requires a high level of detailed understanding
>of such matters. David Sibley is one of the world's
>most accomplished bird artists. I trust his
>intuitions when he analyses grainy videos that are not
>definitive, but there is always room for some
>uncertainty. In the case of deep uncertainty
>regarding issues of extinction or even sightings of
>extremely rare birds, the benefit of the doubt should
>go to the doubter.
>
>It is also useful to examine motive, including
>subconscious motives in issues of controversy
>dependent on disputed evidence. The Cornell team and
>its individual members have much to gain from a
>position of certainty regarding the ivory-billed
>woodpecker's rediscovery. A book was written, funds
>have been raised, publicity generated, excitement
>fomented, and reputations put on the line. The good
>of the species has been identified as a major concern
>of the Cornell team, and the desire to protect habitat
>has been a major focus. But the expert ornithologists
>who doubt the certainty and definitive nature of the
>Cornell evidence also have voiced deep concerns for
>protecting potential habitat for ivory-billed
>woodpeckers, even without certainty of the evidence in
>question. Sibley and Jerome Jackson and others have
>equal concern for habitat preservation as the Cornell
>team, even if ivory-bills are not proved present,
>because other taxa benefit from such preservation and
>the habitat is thus worth protecting for its own sake.
>
>So, we have a situation in which a dispute over
>scientific evidence is being played out before the
>whole world. The question remains, is the Cornell
>evidence definitive? What is the possibility of error
>in Cornell's analysis?
>
>My view is that Cornell has seriously damaged its
>credibility by insisting on the definitive nature of
>it analysis. Cornell is showing far too much
>certainty in relation to the quality of its evidence.
>Cornell would have done far better to have admitted to
>uncertainty, retracted its position regarding the
>"definitive" nature of its evidence, and continued
>working this case as a hypothesis regarding the
>existence of an ivory-billed woodpecker in that
>locale.
>
>As it turns out, now Cornell is relying on uncertainty
>because of its failure to adequately confirm the
>presence of an ivory-billed woodpecker in the area in
>question by saying "We know that at least one bird was
>present back then, but it may no longer be in the
>area." Now Cornell relies on uncertainty, but rejects
>the more significant uncertainty regarding its
>original analysis.
>
>The heart of good science is to question and to
>hypothesize. Jerome Jackson, a recognized
>ivory-billed woodpecker expert (and pileated
>woodpecker expert) has expressed concern over the use
>of "faith-based science" in this case. Amazingly, at
>least one of Cornell's collaborators has recently
>stated that his level of certainty has INCREASED over
>time!
>
>Expression of uncertainty is a sign of maturity in the
>practice of science. It is understandable that
>Cornell was enthused and excited about the prospect of
>the rediscovery of a charasmatic species that was
>recently thought to be extinct.
>
>I am sad to say that, in my view, Cornell's
>intransigence is costing Cornell precious credibility.
>The ivory-billed woodpecker has damaged credibility of
>previous claimed viewers, but apparently the deep
>lessons of the past remain unlearned. This dispute
>cannot be resolved with existing evidence. And
>prolonged, intensive searching has not produced
>additional, definitive evidence.
>
>The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has benefited to
>date by its investment in ivory-billed woodpecker
>publicity and surveying, but the final price of its
>lack of appropriate uncertainty may be very steep in
>the long term.
>
>
>Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
