>Folks --
>
>The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has long been a
>preemiment institution. Raptorphiles are aware that
>Professor Tom Cade, one of the world's great
>ornithologists and raptor biologists was at Cornell
>when he founded the Peregrine Fund and got the
>restoration program for peregrine falcons underway
>there, back in the late 1970's if I recall correctly.
>
>And by the middle 1990's it became apparent to many
>that the peregrine falcon had recovered from threat of
>extinction in the wild and serious talk was taking
>place about delisting the peregrine falcon from the
>federal Endangered Species Act provisions. And a
>small movement of endangered species biologists began
>to oppose the concept of delisting the peregrine,
>claiming that the scientific data used to determine
>the status of the species was of imperfect quality.
>And, the fact was that, if one had an agenda of
>wanting to keep the peregrine falcon on the endangered
>species list, one could make arguments from scientific
>data that might appear to be "science-based" while
>also missing the larger truth. I recall a debate that
>appeared after publication of a paper in Conservation
>Biology urging the downlisting of peregrines instead
>of delisting, and I recall comments made at that time
>by Dr. Cade, who strongly favored delisting of
>peregrine. Dr. Cade derided the "scientism" used by
>opponents of peregrine delisting; that is, the
>reliance on data misrepresented or taken out of
>appropriate context to create an impression of good
>science while completely missing the larger truth.
>And I believe Dr. Cade was correct and subsequent
>history has proved he was correct; the peregrine
>falcon was delisted and the population has continued a
>spectacular recolonization of North America contrary
>to the fears of the opponents who believed that
>delisting would jeopardize the recovery of peregrines
>by removing human support of their recovery.
>
>Dr. Tom Cade is long gone from Cornell, but the
>Laboratory of Ornithology is still in existence and
>still prominent. A fascinating new situation
>regarding a species that was not only endangered, but
>presumed extinct is in progress, and now it appears
>that Cornell is taking a scientistic approach rather
>than a scientific one, in my opinion.
>
>The data that suggests the ivory-billed woodpecker
>exists is not only scanty, but of dubious quality.
>But Cornell is insisting that the science is of
>adequate quality to establish that the bird used in
>their arguments (Luneau video argument) is not only
>possibly an ivory-billed woodpecker, but could not be
>any other species!
>
>I see a inverse parallel between the "science" used to
>determine that peregrine falcons were not endangered
>versus the arguments used by some to "prove" that the
>(extinct) ivory-billed woodpecker exists. Peregrine
>data were extensive, but imperfect. Ivory-bill data
>are scanty and very poor ("imperfect" would be far too
>generous to describe the Luneau video and even the
>scientific methodologies used to analyze the Luneau
>video).
>
>What is at stake here? Certainly some professional
>reputations are at stake, perhaps including the
>reputation of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology itself.
>But that is hardly the most important issue in my
>view. A larger issue that extends far past the
>species involved is that of quality of science used in
>population analysis, avoidance of misuse of
>conservation science to fulfill organizational agendas
>and even freeness of speech within the scientific
>community to disagree with conclusions reached by
>questionable methodologies.
>
>Some have questioned the propriety of the publication
>of conclusions reached by Cornell in a prestigious,
>international peer-reviewed publication. Some wonder
>how the editors of any major scientific publication
>could allow publication of such weak arguments based
>on scanty evidence, unproved methodologies, and lack
>of availability of bona fide experts with direct
>personal experience that could shed real light on the
>area of controversy.
>
>Tom Cade has long been an expert on peregrine falcons
>and his testimony on the status of the species carried
>a lot of weight. There is no Tom Cade of ivory-billed
>woodpeckers; no one who has spent a life in close
>association with them, studying them and interacting
>with other researchers on a regular and ongoing basis.
>Essentially all analyses of ivory-billed woodpeckers
>are based on interpretations of the data collected and
>reported by others decades ago.
>
>Bird lovers and conservationists around the world were
>excited to hear of plausible resightings of
>ivory-billed woodpeckers within the past year or more.
> We hope and wish and dream for incontrovertible
>evidence of the existence, persistence, and plausible
>positive future prospects for the continued existence
>of these "grail birds". It would have been no less
>thrilling to hear all the evidence presented to date
>within the context of a determination that the species
>MAY persist. To be told that ivory-billed woodpeckers
>were confirmed to exist based on the scanty evidence
>presented to date of such dubious quality is
>disappointing and may be harmful to the ultimate cause
>of ivory-bill and other rare species conservation.
>
>Lessons need to be learned from these experiences.
>Even if a nest or a series of nests is discovered in
>the foreseeable future, which would cause elation to
>bird lovers around the world, it still behooves us to
>consider the "quality of science used in publication"
>issues at stake here.
>
>This world is headed for significant changes, and much
>biodiversity is at stake from coming changes in global
>climate. New species or previously thought extinct
>species could be located. We need to do better at
>proving things with high quality science, and we need
>to invest in the best monitoring schemes that our
>brightest minds can conceive.
>
>
>Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
