I have to disagree with Dave's comments below, and will use a recent personal experience to emphasize my point.
I live in Sonoma County, California, where in 2000 an expert birder reported seeing a common black hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) in the immediate area where I live (I was unaware of the sighting report at the time). The 2000 sighting report would have only been the second or third case history of a common black hawk sighting in California history. and it was reported to the state rare bird committee. This is a species that is not on any endangered species list, but has not been known to occur in California. The California rare bird committee rejected the claimed sighting report, and one reason for the rejection was that the expert birder saw the black hawk eating a meadowlark, which would be definitely an atypical prey for this species, which normally feeds on aquatic life, such as fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, etc. The rare bird committee felt that the claim of this sighting was not credible and did not officially recognize it. Flash forward to last year -- another local citizen saw a common black hawk, and reported it. I heard of the sighting from ornithologist friends, and this time the sighting was confirmed by many birders, primarily because the black hawk was in courtship mode and did a lot of soaring, where it was visible and conspicuous and even vocalized repeatedly. The bird could be detected from a mile away while in a soar. But the bird was foraging and roosting on private property with no good access. I managed to determine exactly where the bird was roosting and foraging and I managed to obtain permission from private property owners to access that area. I was able to get high-quality photos of the bird. I brought in a great birder to the property, with the permission of the property owner, and my friend videoed the bird and his video also recorded sound vocalizations of the bird. Later, I found a molted secondary feather of the black hawk and donated it to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley. This bird was hard to access, though eyesight reports could be obtained from even a mile away. But I got hard evidence. I photographed the bird in a variety of settings, foraging, soaring with turkey vultures and local red-shouldered hawks, even finding a molted feather. The photos were unmistakable. One photo I took of the Sonoma County Common Black Hawk will appear in the next issue of North American Birds, I am told. But the interesting story continues... the local property owner is not a birder and does not have much expertise on bird identification in general. But, he became very familiar with the common black hawk because it roosted on his property, was very vocal, and it attracted the attention of a breeding pair of red-shouldered hawks that nested right next to his house. The property owner did not know that the common black hawk was a California rarity, but he did know it was present. And he told me that he felt the bird had been present, at least intermittently on his property for five or six years, perhaps seasonally during the breeding season. I shared this information with the Calilfornia rare bird records committee representative, along with some information from the Birds of North American species account for the species, demonstrating that common black hawks have been documented eating rare prey, including a meadowlark in Utah. Utah is at the extremity of the known breeding range of this species, and when I spoke with the author of that account, he expressed the view that a common black hawk that moves outside of the normal range of the species may be very well influenced by hunger and local conditions to feed on atypical prey, such as songbirds if they are available for capture. As a result of all of this evidence, I understand that the Calilfornia rare bird committee is reconsidering the rejection of the 2000 record, and may very well accept it in retrospect. The original reporter of the 2000 sighting is pleased. My polint in all of this is that there is a level of evidence required to confirm a rare sighting. We know that in the past several years there have been confirmations of the existence of several species worldwide that were thought to be extinct, but whose persistence have been adequately documented in convincing fashion. I disagree with Dave that it is virtually impossible to document occurances of rare species in field conditions, even very difficult ones. I believe it is done fairly routinely with far less total human effort than has been used to date in the search for the ivory-billed woodpecker. Enormous amounts of effort have been used subsequent to the "reidiscovery" of the "ivory-billed woodpecker" with no confirmation, but more suggestive evidence. I agree with those experts who place the burden of proof of the existence of a species thought to be extinct with those claiming its existence. The level of proof must be high in such extraordinary claims. I will conclude by stating that I do hope the extraordinary level of current effort continues, and I hope that the persistence of this species is documented. I hope that there is a thriving population of difficult-to-detect birds. Now is the time to continue this effort -- public interest is on the side of the effort and funds and manpower are available to thoroughly research this matter, and in a variety of locales within the historic range of the species. I am happy for Cornell to lead this effort. I believe that the pressure on Cornell to provide the needed documentation is immense, and wish them success in completing this awesome task. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: opinion: Cornell confuses technology analysis with the >scientific method >Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:34:52 -0500 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by >bay0-mc12-f17.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, >20 Mar 2006 09:48:52 -0800 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id >k2KCJoCM006712;Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:48:51 -0500 (EST) >X-Message-Info: KE55Q7881Qc+hFmhgkUsR258goPwqiJTqfhFx8cChDA= >Precedence: list >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2006 17:48:52.0636 (UTC) >FILETIME=[8D2965C0:01C64C46] > >Your null hypothesis is flawed, not Cornell's. Scientists -- including >Cornell scientists -- have been tracking down alleged Ivory Bill sightings >in Arkansas, Lousiana, even Cuba, for decades since the last sighting in >the >Tensas in the 1940s. The potential importance of any sighting (is the >species extinct or not) has been the same since the 1940s. > >What you are asking the rest of us to believe is that Cornell scientists >suddenly got much more biased than they were a couple of years ago when >they >tried to track it down in a swamp near Baton Rouge (when they did not >report >seeing an Ivory Bill). How do you explain a sudden spike in bias among the >same research team in a year or so? > >You are also confusing observations with hypothesis tests. I challenge >anyone to come up with a truly objective hypothesis test for our own >existence, much less that of the Ivory Bill. How can we be sure we are >nothing more than an illusion, since we are clearly biased observers in >this >case? > >On the other hand, to argue that there is insufficient evidence for our own >existence defies common sense. > >The nature of fieldwork generally precludes the collection of ideal data. >Maps are inaccurate, compass readings fluctuate, DBH tapes are misaligned >or >at the wrong height, sampling equipment may get contaminated, and almost no >one can obtain a truly random sample in a natural environment. Photos are >improperly exposed, or slightly out of focus. People fall in water, and >fragile equipment in their hands gets damaged as a result. > >So what if the video evidence of the Ivory Bill is less than ideal? You >can't set up a video camera with a suitable lens on a tripod in a canoe >without capsizing the boat. The emphasis on obtaining high-quality images >defies logic -- experienced photographers and videographers struggle >sometimes for years to get an ideal shot. > >Lets suppose the Ivory Bill was last seen in 1902, then spotted by a >research team in 1965. The observations by the Cornell team would not have >aroused the same level of controversy. We've become spoiled by technology, >expecting it to replace the human element of scientific observation. Data >obtained by better technology would be nice, but ultimately there is no >substitute for our own observational and interpretive skills. > >Dave > > >------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com >------------------------------------------------------ > >"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > >"No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore >Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: opinion: Cornell confuses technology analysis with the scientific >method > >In extraordinary cases of bird identification, such as where a bird long >thought extinct is "rediscovered" (ex. ivory-billed woodpecker), a very >high >standard of proof is required. Eyesight records do not rise to that level >of proof for several reasons (has Michael Jackson been sited in YOUR >neighborhood lately?) > >The Cornell team of collaboratos and employees have used techology-oriented >data to build their case for the detection of this species, claiming that >their review of the sound and video recording data proves their case, even >though the quality of the raw data is very poor. The Cornell team admits >the audio data were dubious, and then retreated back to the video data. >But >the video data are so hard to interpret that experts and teams of experts >disagree by 180 degrees as to what those data prove. > >Does generating a null hypothesis by a team invested in the outcome of an >inquiry constitute the beginnings of an appropriate use of the scientific >method? How objective could such a team be in their interpretation of the >results of that inquiry when so much was on the line? Obviously trained >scientists were involved in this situation, who knew that they should be >unbiased, but in a case with such publicitity ramifications, such financial >ramifications, and such conservation ramifications, what is the likelihood >of the bias of self-interest affecting the very ability of a party to make >a >truly unbiased analysis that would then be used to justify many sorts of >actions involving the self-interest of the decision makers? > >I do not believe Cornell's team is dishonest, but I fear they are biased >and >have been since the beginning of their investigation of the presence and >the >rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas. Human nature is >part of the scientific process, for better or for worse in cases such as >this. > >And hindsight is always clearer than real-time vision. There appeared to >be >a knee jerk reacation to the pending premature announcement of the >ivory-bill rediscovery. A near panic facilitated the rush to print of the >original article in Science by Fitzpatrick et al. But was this reaction >really necessary for the sake of the species, long thought to be extinct, >but the subject of previous sighting claims, including within the previous >few years? Why exactly was it necessary for a flurry of action, including >publication of a scientific paper, purchase of conservation lands, etc.? >Had not other sightings been made public within prior months? What was the >"emergency" reason to rush to publication, etc.? > >It seems hard to believe that this knee-jerk reaction was entirely >justified >by the interest of a bird presumed to be extinct. Surely the bird would >survive another flurry of publicity. The fact that a scientific >publication >was rushed into publication should raise a warning flag regarding the >quality of science involved, especially with such non-definitive data of >extremely low quality. > >Hindsight tells us it would have been far more scientifically credible for >Cornell and for Science to proceed in one of two ways. First, it would >have >been possible to take the video and sound evidende for addiitional >interpretation by unbiased reviewers who did not have input from Cornell as >to the meaning of the evidence, particularly the video evidence. The video >should have been provided to experts without labeling and asked for >analysis >of what the video represented. If a clear consensus could not be agreed >on, >the video should have been treated as suggestive, but not definitive and >the > >paper not published at all. Or, the Cornell team could have taken the >independent analysis of experts and acknowledged the uncertainty of the >data >and stated in clear terms that it may prove the existence of this species, >that Cornell believes the video was adequately definitive, while >acknowledging the uncertainty of others, and thus stating that the >ivory-bill may exist in the wild. > >But I believe that the bias of the Cornell team drove a different and >flawed >route to an opinion and publication. Science was complicit. The >evaluation >by Sibley and others should have been required prior to the original >publication, and the opinions of the Sibley team included in the original >publication, with a different tone in the original conclusion. Now as they >say, Cornell is "in a pickle". >Their "backs are up". Careers are completely committed to stated >irreversible positions because personal certainty has completely overridden >the need for unbiased, objective scientific analysis. >I would not be surprised if careers end prematurely over this situation, >which is rooted in well-meaning bias, but bias nonetheless. And >intransigent bias is even less appropriate in scientific inquiry. > > >Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
