1) Reports of IBWOs have been made on and off, fairly persistently, since the species was named.
2) To throw out any sighting for no other reason than that it is "Inconceivable!" to see a particular bird in a particular location is unscientific.
3) A shocking and still-growing number of species that have been declared extinct turned out to still be hanging in there.
4) Sight records provide scientific data that serve as the fundamental underpinnings of our knowledge of bird distribution, timing of migration, and other critical ornithological information.
5) The criteria for accepting a particular report for any area--local, county, state, region, country, etc.--should be rigorous.
6) Most records committee decisions, both for accepted and rejected reports, are not unanimous. In every one of these cases, knowledgeable and respected birders and/or ornithologists have voted either in support of an erroneous report or against an accurate report.
7) If I were on the Arkansas or ABA records committee, at this point based on the evidence I'm aware of, I would probably vote against the IBWO reports. But I may not have all the evidence.
8) It is not only possible but happens regularly that birders really do see and/or hear birds and identify them correctly, but their reports are rejected by Records Committees.
9) It happens regularly that birders misidentify birds.
10) It also happens regularly that Records Committees misjudge records.
11) It is not only rude and unfair but exceptionally unscientific to ridicule and resort to name-calling when one disagrees with any bird report.
12) When a bird sighting is rejected by a committee, it is not the end of the world.
13) It is virtually always impossible to know the hour or the day or the year or even the decade when a wild species becomes extinct. When a species is lost forever, that IS the end of an important part of the world.
14) Better birders than I have reported that they've seen and/or heard an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
15) I don't have any good reason to not believe them.
16) Mean-spirited people who don't spend enough time birding spend way too much time belly-aching about other birders.
17) I really really hope Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are still hanging in there.
18) I really really hope someone gets a good photo or, better yet, a great video of a family of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers very very soon.
19) I'm rooting for Cornell and the Auburn team.
20) I'm sick of people ridiculing brilliant and decent human beings who have accomplished a huge and wonderful body of work for ornithology and bird conservation, and institutions that have achieved genuine greatness in ornithology and bird conservation and education. Sick at heart, and sick to my stomach.
3 comments:
Terrific post! I agree with your points of view.
Damn straight. A lot of birders seem embarrassed by their reaction to the original announcement, as though it was a shameful moment of weakness. "Won't get fooled again" is their motto now. They've stopped evaluating the sightings on their own merits and have adopted a programmatic disbelief. Did someone report an IBWO flying overhead? "It was really a Pileated!" they say. "They just wanted to see an Ivory-bill!" Did someone see an IBWO from twenty feet away and miss a photo only because the camera malfunctioned? "No, it was a Pileated!" They're not thinking any more, they're just protecting themselves or their reputations; they don't want anyone to think they've gone soft. Obviously the IBWO hasn't been confirmed, but what's more likely: that a couple dozen IBWO sightings by experienced birders and ornithologists who have no trouble identifying Pileated Woodpeckers have all been Pileateds nonetheless, or that they've been Ivory-billeds? I think the latter. If I'm proven wrong, well, I'll have been wrong. What a catastrophe. But right now the existence of the Ivory-billed in Arkansas and Florida seems probable to me.
Well, hear! hear! I couldn't agree more!
Post a Comment