Ends and Means (or So it’s come to this?)
I search some of that stuff out though. I occassionally read Mike Collins inane ramblings (High-larious send-up by Birding is *NOT* a Crime here) and the never ending BirdForum IBWO thread continuing to never end, where currently a fellow called Russ Jones is posting ad hominim attacks and sarcastic snipes whilst complaining that the discussion is all ad hominim attacks and sarcastic snipes (I suppose you have to admire the balls of such statements). Same old same old really. But I like to immerse myself in the Ivory-bill debate separate from birding stuff, as it’s not really birding, so it was with a sigh of despair I saw the argument posted to BirdChat recently by a Mr. Fred Virrazzi that shoved the debate back up in our faces and touched upon my greatest concerns about the whole woodpecker debacle. I will now address these concerns in response to the relevant parts of the BirdChat posting, ya dig? I edited it a tad for brevity’s sake…
[The point was] the squandered opportunity to unite and call for increased funding for all ESA bird Recovery Plans rather than blame the IBWO Recovery Plan for the low funding… That we all missed an opportunity to advocate for increased ESA funding. All of us… I did ask for those invoking the misleading premise that the IBWO RP money is the cause of the funding problems, relate the true root problem…..systemic ESA under funding. The ESA has many enemies and we (birders, conservationists, researchers) are fragmented in the face of what was an historical(sic) opportunity.
There it is reader(s), this is where those who argue for the $27 million Ivory-bill recovery plan change the subject to arguing for all recovery plans. Did you see it? Suddenly, we’re all to blame because we didn’t advocate for increased funding of the Endangered Species Act, conveniently ignoring the fact that increased ESA funding has been a platform of conservation groups since the act was introduced. It’s so simple really, why didn’t any of us get it? It just can’t be the fault of those who want to spend money on a recovery plan for an extinct bird, it’s really the fault of those who missed the opportunity (when was this opportunity again?) to line up behind intentionally exaggerated and misleading evidence in order to increase conservation funds. Ends, consider all your means justified.
Even if conservation funds were limitless, it would still be wrong to parse them out based on shoddy evidence, and as they are extremely not limitless this argument is passing the buck in the extreme and setting up those skeptical about the “rediscovery” as enemies of conservation. What’s most disturbing is that this is the exact same rhetorical model the Bush Administration used when the argument for WMDs in Iraq began to fall apart. Just replace, “Are you against Iraqi freedom or not?” with Mr Virrazzi’s own quote, “Are you against increased ESA funding or not?” Congratulations Mr Virrazzi, you find yourself in rare company.
$27 million dollars is prepared to be spent over 5 years on Ivory-bill “recovery” when no one can find a single Ivory-billed Woodpecker, let alone recover a population. Does Mr Virrazzi really believe that the taxpaying public and their representatives in Congress are going to apportion more money to conservation when it’s clear that that money was misappropriated for an extinct bird? Does he really think they’re going to say, “Oh, it’s ok we were mislead, at least the habitat was saved!” It’s hard enough to convince the government that habitat conservation and preservation are important enough to justify spending money on. That’s why it’s so important that the science behind such studies is on the up and up. It’s all about credibility, folks. $27 million may go towards Ivory-billed Woodpecker “recovery”, but it won’t bring one Ivory-bill back from extinction and I’d be willing to bet that if the plan is approved it will be a whole lot harder to get money for conservation of other birds in the future. That’s the real tragedy and the irony of those who continue to support the IBWO recovery plan because they say that they love birds.
You can do something about it if it bugs you though. The Fish and Wildlife Service is receiving public reviews and comments until Oct 22, 2007. If you believe that habitat conservation should be based on sound science and not on misdirection let the FWS know. I already did and I absolutely encourage all who care about endangered bird populations to do so as well. Put your name on record. Contrary to what Mr Virrazzi will have you believe with his bullying “with us or with the terrorists” rhetoric you can support habitat preservation and oppose this plan. You may scarcely find anyone more adamant about either than me. I’m all for preservation of the areas where Ivory-bills have supposedly been located, but such habitat should be protected for its own sake, not with smoke, mirrors, and lies.
Have a birdy weekend!
Update: For those still interested in the Ivory-bill saga or even if you’re not, check out David Sibley’s take here. In my opinion he freaking nails it right. on. the. head.
Comments are closed.
The Drinking Bird 
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I’ll have to read up before I make up my mind, but you have a really good point.
Of course you are perfectly right that ESA funding ought to be based on sound science and not misdirection.
However, the “other side” (developers, oil prospectors etc.) almost never works with sound science but always with lies and misdirection (I know, I work for them). That way, nature conservation always loses the game through honesty.
I am aware that the ESA is thoroughly underfinanced and feel that – as long as there is no scientific proof of the IBWO – the money is better spent in other, more threatened ecological regions of the US.
But frankly, if it actually was about getting MORE government money for nature conservation, I wouldn’t care if this was achieved through sound science or manipulation.
Jochen, glad to have you back!
I think we all can agree that increased funding for things like the ESA and the EPA, not to mention Clean Air and Water, is the ultimate goal. Environmental safeguards have been systematically dismantled since Nixon (of all people) signed them into law. It’s a real tragedy and one that, in theory, can be rectified by civic involvement and activism. Write your representative and work actively for change if that’s your prerogative, more power to you. I write mine and they often ignore me, but I still keep writing.
I don’t think that that’s the case here, at least, it’s not really my point. There are people, like Fitz at Cornell, who are actively discrediting the FWS by continuing to push the recovery plan, and saying that it’s for the good of conservation everywhere. They’re changing the subject from the IBWO to this bigger conservation issue in an attempt to bully woodpecker skeptics into getting behind them. It’s disingenuous, because they’re actively ruining the credibility of the organizations who need to petition the government for funds down the road in order to get their funds right now. In my view, nothing could be worse for conservation efforts. If they were advocating for increased funding for conservation as a whole it would be different, as it is, they’re only advocating for funding for themselves.
When this is done the
list of credible observations of IBWOs is greatly increased……some
recent unpublished sightings are robust. The USFWS is privy to more sightings than any of us are.
This fits right in with your WMD analogy. “Trust them. They know things you don’t know.” We see how well that attitude has worked out in the WOT.
Fred V reporting in for that high calling in life…. responding to Blog brilliance. Ahhh what an invention these blogs, no barrier to entry, no breathalizer gizmo to stop the turning of the key…just a key on a kite string and some lightning, clean, dirty or no underwear for sitting, and your off to literary and scientific heights unseen pre-chip.
So whats your rules here?..or do you make em up as you go along?
Seriously how bad are you going to edit my comments when they seem to shred some skeptical points….or pointless words to little kid blocks of one letter? And will you actually answer the questions posed in a civil manner…I will of course reciprocate. And I am not presently available to talk about Iraq.
And why don’t we take it outside…to Birdchat, NJ chat where clandestine editing and censorship is not available to any potential side that will need it to slither away with a forked tongue???
good birdin’
fv
(see the good birdin proves its me unless your a skeptic, then you would just believe its a all a coincidence, or perhaps two duck wings banging on the key board, or deer bleating or crows landing to type it out.)
So whats your rules here?..or do you make em up as you go along?
None really. I write on my thoughts on birding stuff. People are welcome to respond.
Seriously how bad are you going to edit my comments when they seem to shred some skeptical points… And will you actually answer the questions posed in a civil manner…
I didn’t edit them much, just copied and pasted actually. You’re more than welcome to point out where. I even linked to the original post if any wanted to follow. The only point I wanted to respond to was the comment that the problem is lack of ESA funding, which is of course a problem, but not the problem. In your BirdChat post you attempt to imply that legitimate skepticism about the IBWO plan equals lack of concern about conservation funding as a whole. I think that’s a grossly unfair portrayal of the IBWO skeptic viewpoint and a strawman argument besides. I mean, you even say “Are you against increased ESA funding or not?” You’re not fighting fair.
And why don’t we take it outside…to Birdchat, NJ chat where clandestine editing and censorship is not available to any potential side that will need it to slither away with a forked tongue???
I’d rather not, but not because of my “forked tongue”. I personally get tired of all the IBWO convos on BirdChat and especially my state listserve, I know alot of other birders that do too. I don’t think that’s what they exist for, and most comments these days are trolling for arguments anyway. I’d rather keep my argument trolling where people can avoid it if they don’t want it. Blogs are good for that.
Hello N8: N says >>In your BirdChat post you attempt to imply that legitimate skepticism about the IBWO plan equals lack of concern about conservation funding as a whole.<<< You greatly broadened out my words and besides who cares about “concern” its about the actual funding level and its stagnation that counts. Concern’s been around for ever….it needs to be converted into action. I attempted to parse out those skeptics that use the premise that IBWO funding will greatly alter ESA funding as a valid reason to kill IBWO funding. This premise I find blatantly mis-leading, worrisome and should lead all of us to wonder how many skeptics and proponents were more worried about an unbiased analysis of All the data rather than their own research projects and any potential consequences for them. Selfishness is pervasive even in science. A selfish RP member is equally able to influence unbiased skeptics into erroneous beliefs. Several of us are especially curious of Gary Graves being on a RP committee when he clearly is skeptical of the birds existence. I will assume for now that he recused himself from the committee when he was no longer aligned or in agreement with the prerequisite decision by the USFWS that the species is extant. This would explain some of his comments on AR Chat where he clearly either feigned ignorance or was somehow actually ignorant that only a few million dollars were in play each year of ~ 23 million dollars that could still be spent via RP mechanisms. He was then chastised publicly by the USFWS SE IBWO coordinator for repeatedly missing official statements that the great majority of the unspent 24KK would not be spent unless there were populations to be studied. N8 you then repeat the misleading $27KK number despite admitting reading in my Bird Chat post the comments of the USFWS coordinator. Q Is this an example of my stated fears that a Graves-like persona should stay off the RP. N8 why did you use the $27KK figure? You also continue a misinterpretation of the nuances to the obvious points in my Chat posts. The community is fragmented but even after a vicious hockey series you shake hands and wish the other side some luck and maybe a helping pointer or two. The USFWS has spoken — The IBWO is extant. AR BRC has spoken the bird exists. The skeptics had some burden of proof also in the face of the pro-IBWO data. Its time to pull together and if some do not want to raise additional funds for the IBWO thats fine. However its not time to cry sour grapes over a few million dollars that will be spent via surveys. There are several robust sighting of something that is either the bird or a darn close resemblance. Hundreds of tapes also…is there no intellectual or scientific demand to get these darn deer, ducks and supercharged PIWOs on video….se we do not spend another 1.5 KK in 2010, haha?
It was the time and still is for us to hit the ESA funding problem with new strength and vigor. It was a lost opportunity but there is still time to renew our common goal of increased ESA funding.
I did not criticize our concern or the communities never ending concern over ESA…..my comments were more focused on results or lack off.
Its results that count……..are you satisfied with our effort and the results of the ESA funding over the last few years?
If not what are you going to do about it? I’ll be with you.
F virrazzi
I’m shortening the comments a bit to prevent this from being really long, hope that’s ok.
who cares about “concern” its about the actual funding level and its stagnation that counts. Concern’s been around for ever….it needs to be converted into action.
I absolutely agree, but that’s broadening the argument to include all ESA recovery plans when the issue is a very specific and ill-considered recovery plan. That’s not the point and it muddles the issue.
I attempted to parse out those skeptics that use the premise that IBWO funding will greatly alter ESA funding as a valid reason to kill IBWO funding.
I don’t think that’s the primary reason to kill the funding, (that should be because no one has been able to verify the original sightings in a way that would satisfy a rare bird committee) but it is a very real concern. If we’re going to stand up and fight for increased ESA funding (and we should) it shouldn’t be behind a species that can be legitimately thrown back in our faces as extinct. The fact that the argument can even be made should be a red flag. It ultimately weakens the credibility of the FWS and the ESA. Denying that doesn’t make it less true.
should lead all of us to wonder how many skeptics and proponents were more worried about an unbiased analysis of All the data rather than their own research projects and any potential consequences for them.
Potential consequences for research projects directly relate to potential consequences for the T&E species they study. Are you saying that such species will persevere without the help of federal $ but the IBWO won’t? I’m not involved in any T&E research, but I’d be ticked off if my funds for a species I had in my hand were lessened for a species that noone can find.
Selfishness is pervasive even in science.
Maybe it’s selfishness, maybe it’s legitimate concern about extant T&E species. Tarring them all with the same brush is insincere.
Several of us are especially curious of Gary Graves being on a RP committee when he clearly is skeptical of the birds existence.
I didn’t know this but I think it’s a good thing. Someone who shares the view of the majority of birders and ornithologists should be there to keep those folks in line.
N8 why did you use the $27KK figure?
It’s in the recovery plan. It’s widely available.
The community is fragmented… The USFWS has spoken — The IBWO is extant. AR BRC has spoken the bird exists. The skeptics had some burden of proof also in the face of the pro-IBWO data.
The FWS is wrong. The Ar BRC committee has been largely ridiculed for their decision (I suspect they wouldn’t make it again). The burden of proof lies directly on those claiming the IBWO exists as it has from the beginning. There still remains no pro-IBWO data. The FWS should not have made the decision as they did. It will come back to haunt them, and that is the real tragedy.
There are several robust sighting of something that is either the bird or a darn close resemblance.
Like a Pileated Woodpecker as seen by a self-proclaimed non-birder, as is the case with the original sighting of all the big searches of the past 10 years (Kullivan, Sparling, Rolek). Followed invariably by Pileated Woodpeckers poorly seen by people who really really really want to see an IBWO.
It was the time and still is for us to hit the ESA funding problem with new strength and vigor. ….are you satisfied with our effort and the results of the ESA funding over the last few years?
Absolutely not, but exaggerated and misleading evidence is not how to remedy the situation.
Dear Nate,
There have been several more robust sightings than u list including 2 in AR, Everett, followed immediately by more sightings/aural putative IBWO.
Kulivan’s sighting of a pair for minutes was closely reviewed by Remsen; he has heard it all for 20 years. Interrogation included a review of field marks known only to a few. Some in that mix have seen IBWOs; they assist Remsen. Conclusion: it was the most convincing sighting in 20 years. Good evidence to start. Collins video was said to be a Campephilus right on chat…by a skeptic.
Its useful that Kulivan’s father gave him that name…its always been a mine canary to show various strengths and habits of contributors on pivotal historical details as they dig their shaft/hole. You said >>(Kullivan, Sparling<<<<. Its been two lls for 8 years and counting. I asked >>N8 why did you use the $27KK figure?<< You said
It’s in the recovery plan. It’s widely available.
Nate the obvious point was its an erroneous and misleading figure and its an error that Graves, Sibley and you are using as often as possible.
Please get the facts and/or stop treating us like fools…otherwise we will suspect an intent to deceive and exaggerate the fiscal impact of the IBWO RP funding. NBC/blogs evidently seek the lowest level of reporting accuracy. NBC didn’t bother to call anyone at the FWS either; You’re on your way to the big time.
FW has already publicly scolded Graves who somehow forgot he knew this. Only a small fraction of the remaining ~24 KK will be spent UNLESS a POPULATION is found to study. This is the third time you have now seen this assuming you did not read the RP.
>>The FWS is wrong. The Ar BRC committee has been largely ridiculed for their decision (I suspect they wouldn’t make it again).<<< These entities have some excellent scientists on the problem. Their has been no retreat or reversal of decisions despite what suspicions/edicts you bloggers promulgate in silispace. The entities that dwarf the collective skeptics in resources, convenient access to all sightings, open minds, field knowledge, professionalism, etc. have made a ruling. The decision to do some more surveys fits the data perfectly if not the RP wording; all parties admit no population has yet to be found; addtionally surveys shouldn’t cause fear. The skeptics act as if they have somehow surveyed the entire SE; I guess from their arse via aerial photos. 2 former skeptics, seriously looked and found the bird, Guthrie and CLO member. The problem needs a few $KK to do the surveys. You can continue to stay home; as you have done. By the way do you/group actually have any negative field trip reports? QQ Will you admit that several good areas have not been seriously searched yet or will you obfuscate or deny? Birds are universally accepted as being in puny Cuba ‘87, yet you want to pull the plug in a relatively huge area that is having a pattern of sightings/behavior consistent with a low density population of birds that was hunted and poached for hundreds of years with a take surely in the thousands and more importantly than absolute numbers is the huge % of the pop taken from ’80 to 1924 (Allens birds); 1932 (Mason) with guns. Ethological changes can occur after one event in animals, norms of reaction. >>>The burden of proof lies directly on those claiming the IBWO exists as it has from the beginning. There still remains no pro-IBWO data. <<< No pro-data………, please cut it out. There are several recent papers with pro-data and there are pages of known and lesser known sightings. The USFWS is able to read this data, evidently its all unaccepted by your clan. Is it acceptable conservation and ethical to ignore the summation of tens of thousands of hours of field work? This blogosphere has too much CO2 perhaps! By the way did you know that Cruishank, Terres, Stevenson, Stoddard, had FL sightings, pretty damn good birders. >> The FWS should not have made the decision as they did. It will come back to haunt them, and that is the real tragedy.<<< The wrong trout just received tens of millions of dollars and people are going to scream
about a few million to do some field surveys for IBWOs that are needed and approved by the USFWS, CLO, AU, TNC many NGOs and under a republican administration ???
Please stop the melodramatic twist. The public will accept or sleep through it when its reported that only 4 KK was spent and no bird was found or 4KK was spent and the bird was found.
The problem with the ESA funding is not the IBWO.. its with insufficent results via fragmentation to overcome the “Wise Use” crowd.
It’s a no brainer if the canary has recovered.
good birdin’
f virrazzi
Please get the facts and/or stop treating us like fools
I’ll stop when you stop acting like fools. You’re moving the goalposts here. $27 million over 5 years is up for grabs. 3% of the ESA funds each year. You say the rest won’t be spent unless they find a population, but they’re spending it now without a population, what’s to stop them in a year?
These entities have some excellent scientists on the problem.
Excellent scientists can also be wrong sometimes. They are in this case.
QQ Will you admit that several good areas have not been seriously searched yet or will you obfuscate or deny?
It’s not denial to say that the birds are extinct. People have been birding in “several good areas” for years without IBWO sightings. There’s no reason to think that will change when the searching is “serious”. People haven’t found the woodpecker in the “hot zones”, why do you think they’ll find it in cold zones?
No pro-data………, please cut it out. There are several recent papers with pro-data and there are pages of known and lesser known sightings.
If you want to rehash old arguments go somewhere else. The bottom line is that if the sighting was by a non-birder, or it lasted a few seconds, or if the photo has to be taken down to individual pixels than it’s not even close to good enough. This is something rediscovery folks have a hard time understanding.
Kullivan is (was) a self-described non-birder. Sparling had to be convinced what he saw was an IBWO. Rolek was described by Hill as having the least experience in the group. All saw the “IBWO” first. I do not trust the sighting of someone who is not a birder. It goes without saying that someone who makes a hobby or profession of studying the field marks of birds will be better at recognizing the field marks of birds. All sightings after that are subject to observer expectation bias. End of story.
The wrong trout just received tens of millions of dollars and people are going to scream
about a few million to do some field surveys for IBWOs that are needed and approved by the USFWS, CLO, AU, TNC many NGOs and under a republican administration ???
That’s wrong, they’re both wrong, this isn’t an either/or thing. But off the top of my head the wrong trout isn’t on TV, isn’t being pushed as a masthead for Endangered Species recovery, and perhaps most importantly, isn’t EXTINCT.
Please stop the melodramatic twist. The public will accept or sleep through it when its reported that only 4 KK was spent and no bird was found or 4KK was spent and the bird was found.
Please stop with the poor little blogger routine. It’s been 3 years since the original Ar thing, 8 years since the Kullivan “sighting”, and 63 years since the last really credible sighting. It’s all over but the screaming.
Hello Nate,
>>>>You’re moving the goalposts here. $27 million over 5 years is up for grabs. 3% of the ESA funds each year. You say the rest won’t be spent unless they find a population, but they’re spending it now without a population, what’s to stop them in a year?<<< Those pensive enough to prioritize realize we are talking about investigating a keystone species seen by many, many dedicated people that are able to ID empies to Picidae. Although it is crass and defeatist to put dollars on saving the fantastic biodiversity of the world
rather than measuring the preservation of a species in hours of collective effort it must be recognized that bean counters and their morals or lack of will permeate those opportunists that rarely talk economics unless it is to win and argument.
In this case one side states emphatically “the species is extinct” the other to “investigate further”. One side is morally and scientifically right. Dependant on a birders selection of economics versus eternal extinction will decide the individuals actual precedents that led to this important decision.
The one that chooses to deny further investigation will surely proceed this with false but placating premises that funding of other species will be affected and we cannot possibly discuss a collective effort to try and raise the small disputed amount so all funding can remain nominal.
A solution to unite us all and give the scientific process its due time is to work a bit harder on increased ESA funding.
Our gracious host Nate has let me, a stange stranger intrude, all with a decent attitude.
I thank him and all, and good birdin’
Fred Virrazzi
Those pensive enough to prioritize realize we are talking about investigating a keystone species seen by many, many dedicated people that are able to ID empies to Picidae.
I disagree that it’s a keystone species. A flamboyant species, sure. The kind of species that people could rally around is it were alive, absolutely. But indications are that it is extinct.
A solution to unite us all and give the scientific process its due time is to work a bit harder on increased ESA funding.
I dont know that the IBWO searchers could work a lot harder then they have been. They followed up the initial sightings and couldn’t find anything. It’s been nearly 4 years, one would expect something by now.
I agree that the ultimate goal is increased ESA funding, but I fear that ultimately this IBWO search will impede that goal far more than we can see now.
I think in the end, this view will be seen as correct.
Thanks for coming by, Fred.
Hello Nate, someone said I was asked something here but I don’t see anything but the keystone comment, I was asked by someone else on that also.
Many woodpeckers are stated keystone species including even the small sapsucker who makes accessible different layers of a tree with its work.
I hypothesize that in pre-colonial natural conditions a climax/late seral forest will have been greatly influenced in both invertebrate and vertebrate faunal ecology and community composition by the IBWO.
To forest ecology the acceleration of the outflow rate of absolute tons/area of standing dead wood was greatly accelerated by IBWO exposing pulpwood prior to other wooodpeckers being capable to/inclined to scale. Pulpwood after exposure was then attacked earlier than if there were no IBWOs.
They also influenced input of dead wood by attacking dying but not dead trees.
Being a large seed omnivore with a large range, a conditional nomad, strong flyer, visiting burns, makes then an interesting seed disperser into early successional and other microhabitats.
IBWOs accelerated the death of diseased trees perhaps more than any Picidae with their early attack on these still living trees.
Under controlled conditions two patches of habitat, one with IBWOs one w/o, would be quite different in many important ways.
IBWO affects other species by exposing pulpwood to accelerated attack and useage by invertebrates and vertebrates earlier in the dead wood decomposition cycle.
Granted due to the lack of any Critical Habitat designation via the ESA ruling of 1970 and perhaps again now in 2008, we have no areas managed to attract and support IBWOs thereby triggering senescence.
Instead we have done nothing and the woodpecker has expanded its home range due to sub-optimal habitat as other Picidae have been documented to do and then we wonder why we cannot find it in the same hot zone it was the prior year.
Failure breeds failure…the ESA has good mechanisms applicable to this species; they should be implemented.
Perhaps your type of view (not a key species)is integral to yours and the publics lack of appreciation or recognition as valid some of the Auburn data sets on bark. Have you looked at that and the control and if so how do you explain the data?
thanks Fred
I disagree with the premise that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is any more impactful as a facilitator of tree decay in forest ecosystems than any other species of woodpecker. What you’re suggesting is more a characteristic of woodpeckers in general rather than any particular species.
Other Picidae are common in “hot zones” and foraging sign previously thought to be exclusive to IBWO has been documented in Pileated and other woodpeckers.
My view of whether or not the IBWO is a key species is about as relevant as the bark-scaling “evidence”, not very. The only thing that will prove the birds existence is a photo, it doesn’t even have to be a good one, just one that doesn’t have to be argued down to the individual pixels. Nothing else matters.
Nate I am amazed at how many scientific inaccuracies combined with public and blatant disregard for research and collegiate respect can be crammed into short posts.
If one cannot form/recognize accurate premises at an extremely high frequency, attaining or approaching 100%, and is faced with arguments that each need several correct premises or an ever higher number of valid premises to derive a true conclusion one will fail to obtain the TRUTH or at least a reasonable hypothesis.
To claim an IBWO is extinct/extant will require one to gather all the evidence, examine it, collate/ convert it into correct premises and induct the conclusion.
Although I admire people that can come to correct conclusions in seconds it has an opposite result to observers/participants in the communication process if erroneous conclusions are reached rapidly…one of carelessness and worse.
1) although I independently or uniquely may be the first person to say explicitly that an IBWO is/was a keystone species it is fairly well known that many large woodpeckers are key. Many abstracts exist,see below. To assume one of greatest scalers of highly adherent bark is not key is assumed counterintuitive to almost all natural science enthusiasts. Almost needed because of perhaps only you and any fly in the ointment types.
I would assume if YOU looked you could find the black backs treated similarly in the literature although an IBWO has more impact, pun intended.
subject:
We propose that the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is a keystone habitat modifier
in the Pacific Northwest. It is the largest woodpecker in this region and the only species that
forages primarily by excavating; only pileateds are capable of creating large cavities in hard
snags and decadent live trees. A wide array of species, including many that are of
management concern in the Pacific Northwest, use old pileated nest and roost cavities. In
addition, pileateds provide foraging opportunities for other species, accelerate decay
processes and nutrient cycling, and may facilitate inoculation by heart-rot fungi and mediate
insect outbreaks. Because of the potential keystone role of pileated woodpeckers in Pacific
Northwest forests, it may be appropriate to give special attention to their habitat needs in
forest management plans and monitoring activities.
2. The USFWS does not require a picture as proof that a species exists, not knowing this is why you and others can’t process the fact that they have reviewed ALL the species evidence and found it compelling hence the RP. I am not saying they do not accept the Luneau tape as part of the presence data, just that the remaining data they have woudl probably stand on its own in its eye and many others.
By the way some of the Auburn sound in themselves are compelling when the DATA is looked at in spatial temporal and behaviorally contextual manner as it should. Sorry to hear you do not recognize species specific sounds as indicative of species presence…your day lists or big day records must be depaupered to non-existent or if any records, lies in your own mind.
3. >>>The only thing that will prove the birds existence is a photo, it doesn’t even have to be a good one, just one that doesn’t have to be argued down to the individual pixels. Nothing else matters.<<<< Pictures/vidos are out there and some meet your criteria but since they are not equivocal to a percentage of people some subset of these with perhaps unreasonable demands (for example Jackson has inferred he needs minutes of video!!) they are often filed away or withdrawn by owners. Have you seen the VIREO pixs which is a small part of the “buried” pix data. Several others most beteter than Vireo exist,,,and perhaps scores. A large subset of the skeptics are not the only group of people that do not want the bird found and accepted in the public realm. Some with knowledge and evidence are not forth coming with it because of a myriad of reasons, one being some skeptics heavy handed treatment. Admitingly some persons with valid pixs are a bit eccentric. perhasp that the key in getting the pix….or kulivan like luck combined with preparation. I will not respond to any more of your responses in all likelihood so I will say in advance I disagree and am sketical of most of your upcoming points….if you cant beat those that come to conclusions w/o much data join’em.!! Anyway it been enlightening to get into the mind of a skeptic, a bit frightening and sad also. Sad because pessimism and the presumption of certainty prevails and that can can be very counter-productive in conservation of birds. good birdin…. and have a good winter…i am hoping for Pine Grosbeak in NJ, I am stating PIGR will be extant in NJ this year, must be a tough modern bird to have on your list in NC. Fred Virrazzi
If there were pictures in which the IBWO were identifiable we would not be having this argument. All pictures taken so far are only conclusive in the minds of people who desparately want to see the IBWO. They’re rorschach tests.
Regarding Auburn’s data, species specific sounds are only species specific if the species is question is observed making the sounds. Until that happens, that data is inconclusive at best and wrong at worse. Such is the nature of science.
I suggest that if you truly want to get in the mind of a skeptic, you should post your thoughts on Sibley’s blog, though I doubt such backhanded compliments will go over well there either.