Remember that thing about the ivory-billed woodpecker -- alive in the swamps of Arkansas -- not extinct after all? Well, maybe not so much.
In a new article in the journal Science, renowned bird expert David Allen Sibley says the evidence is insufficient and the famous video of the bird is actually the rather common pileated woodpecker. Sibley joins Kenn Kaufman and a number of other bird experts in his assessment. In the surprisingly fractious world of birders, I'm sure the debate is far from over, but I'm ready to conclude that the ivory-billed has gone the way of the dodo.
When I blogged about the rediscovery last spring, I quoted a NYT article on the importance of bread-and-butter conservation. The author argued, "The reason for the astonishing re-emergence of a mysterious bird is as mundane as can be. It is habitat preservation, achieved by hard, tedious work, like lobbying, legislating and fund-raising."
That point is worth remembering. Habitat preservation is not usually the sexiest environmental work. There's no technological silver bullet that promises to save the day. And it's aligned against some of the most powerful forces of our times, like road-building and suburban sprawl. But when we don't do it -- when we don't put safety first in our land-use decisions -- we rob ourselves (and our children) of the natural beauty and diversity we inherited.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 9:45 am
16 Mar 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Andy Slabaugh Posted 10:03 am
16 Mar 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:43 pm
16 Mar 2006
Anyway ... Sibley's authority in the birding world is pontifical. And Kaufman is the Dalai Lama. But I strongly dislike the way this story is being played. The Cornell ornithologists are not low-church slouches, after all. They invested a lot of time and effort into researching the original claims; they did not jump irresponsibly and rashly to claim that the i-b wp had been sighted; they knew that they had a terrificly heavy burden of proof to bear.
In that light, my feeling is that Eric de Place has perhaps not fairly characterized the statements of Sibley and Kaufman. Eric may be right; I have not read those statements yet. What I suspect they say, though, is to the effect that the evidence that they have seen and heard does not confirm a sighting of an i-b wp, and would be unremarkable for a sighting of a pileated wp. That is quite different from saying that the video "is actually" a record of a sighting of a pileated wp.
Eric points to an interesting ethical question regarding the preservation of habitat: Should Sibley and Kaufman have kept quiet about their doubts, in the hopes that the belief that the i-b wp exists, precariously, will help preserve the eastern Arkansas wetlands? Or should environmentalists always tell the truth, as they see it, even if the truth can be used by "the enemy" (to use an expression of Puer Avialis) against an environmentalist cause?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:01 pm
16 Mar 2006
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 2:28 am
17 Mar 2006
By "sexy" environmental work, I don't mean a work that functions as an eco singles bar. I'm referring to stuff like, say, alternative energy. That's the kind of stuff that's constantly making headlines, where the research is conducted in multimillion dollar uber-hip centers nestled in the Rockies, where new and exciting technological developments promise to save the earth without demanding a fundamental reorganization of our priorities. (For the record: that stuff is critically important. I'm just pointing out that it's a lot "sexier" right now than old-school conservation like preserving wetlands.)
Re: Sibley's characterization. I slightly overstated the case. He says that the videotaped bird is "almost certainly" the pileated (not "is actually" the pileated).
The Cornell ornithologists are obviously not slouches, but even good scientists are sometimes wrong. To my mind, that Sibley, Kaufman (and many other lesser-known authorities) are skeptical is enough to make the epistemically justified position one of skepticism pending further evidence. The telling argument for me is that the Big Woods area has been swarming with extremely skilled birders -- and no one has yet produced definitive evidence for the i-b's existence, not even circumstantial evidence such as drill-holes.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:26 am
17 Mar 2006
Also, I withdraw my suggestion that you mischaracterized Sibley's statement. I still have not read the article in Science, but from a quote in the AP article, he sounds pretty convinced: the bird in the video, he says, exhibits features (whether of appearance or behavior or both, I am not sure) that are characteristic of pileated wps and are not consistent with i-b wps. That is a lot stronger than what was evidently his initial reaction, which was that the bird in the video could be either one, we cannot tell, so on balance it is probably a pileated.
This is really turning out to be a bad day: no more i-b wps, then the anti-ANWR 51-49 vote, and here in NYC Saint Patrick's Day turns out more truly than ever to deserve being re-named Homophobia Day.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 9:20 am
17 Mar 2006
This is a strategy question for me, not a moral one. Even though I always try to be as honest as possible, I'd rather support a lie that's good for the Earth than a truth that causes harm. In personal matters there's no excuse for lying, but there's far more at stake here.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:23 am
18 Mar 2006
It was devilish of me, I know, to raise the subject in the first place. I think all I was thinking was that maybe Sibley should have not gone public with his conclusion about the wp video, but who knows, perhaps in an evil mood I was thinking that he should say he believes the bird is an i-b wp.
Anyway, he is more aware than I that his pronouncement may eliminate a safeguard for the eastern Arkansas wetlands, and he has thankfully insisted that they do indeed need to be preserved, for the sake of a number of species of which he gave a few examples.
As for the Arkansas wetlands, if I may return to Eric's last message, his argument that "the Big Woods area has been swarming with extremely skilled birders," who have found neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of an i-b wp, will possibly be thought of little importance by Fitzgerald and the believers. "Swarming" will need to be quantified, of course; and anyway, they will say that it is very difficult to move in that environment, and to gain access to a satisfactorily representative number of areas.
Granted that that observation is true, it seems at least as important that the dog was not heard to bark in the night; that is, that the bird's vocalizations have not been detected. They are typical of i-b wps, according to well documented memories of them; and surely they would carry over an area much larger than where the researchers could easily move. In the issue of Audubon last year in which the Cornell people tell their story, I vaguely recall a suggestion that this alleged Arkansas "sub-species" may have in fact evolved to reduce its vocalizations, so as to avoid detection by predators. That is certainly possible; but it is hardly something to build a case on.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:53 am
18 Mar 2006
What other lengths will you go to in order to further your extremist goals?
I'm gonna shut up now <G>
8^X
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:35 am
18 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:43 am
18 Mar 2006
You impugn the motives of other members of our community in almost every single comment you leave. Cut it out.
www.grist.org
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 8:12 am
18 Mar 2006
Good bye to everyone. With most, it's been interesting and provacative, even where we disagree. My final words are, "Earth First! Humans, quit acting like a cancerous tumor on the planet or get the hell off!
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:39 am
18 Mar 2006
I remember the first time I went to a recently saved wetlands and saw an educational center on the edge of it with walkways and lots of cool information. It was full of excited kids and their families learning about the environment and having a great time. THAT was sexy!
patrick
Permalink