A critique of evidence for the recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings in Arkansas was finally published in the January 2006 volume of The Auk (available online at: http://www.aou.org/persp1231.pdf ). The article is by Jerome A.Jackson, Whitaker Eminent Scholar and Professor at Florida Gulf Coast University, past-President of the Wilson Ornithological Society, not to mention author of In Search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (2004). Dr. Jackson has been involved in Ivory-billed Woodpecker studies since at least the mid-80's. He's spent time looking for Ivory-bills, "[has] long believed that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers could have survived into the late 20th and early 21st centuries..." and has served on the National Advisory Committees associated with the status and conservation of the species. If he has doubts about the revelations that came out of the Big Woods in Arkansas, they're probably worth listening to.
And it's worth qualifying his doubts upfront. He does not doubt the sincerity, integrity or qualifications of the many people who were associated with the reports. He doesn't even doubt that at least some of the claims presented represent sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. He simply doesn't believe that the claims are supported by good science and the that the evidence does not rise to the level of "proof" as claimed by the media and many of the participant observers.
He is not the only person to argue that the video released to the public does not sufficiently exclude Pileated Woodpecker. Several prominent ornithologist pointed this out shortly after the original announcement. Various raps and call note recordings were later released which forestalled the publication of a critique in PLOS, the open source online science journal. Dr. Jackson points out in his article that Blue Jays and White-breasted Nuthatches make similar call notes. People looking for Ivory-bills often rap on trees or imitate woodpeckers using clarinet mouth pieces. The point he's making here is an important one. None of the evidence presented in April rises above the level of evidence presented in previous claimed encounters. The only real difference lies in the caliber of the credentials of those reporting. Credentials alone do not constitute evidence and independent of these credentials there is no substantial evidence for proof of existence, only of hypothetical existence. Hypothetical evidence is not proof, but it is certainly good enough to justify further scientific inquirery. Unfortunately, most people operate at a level of evidentiary acceptance that would not qualify from a scientific perspective and the media has spun this story (arguably with the help of some of the principal investigators) to a level of credibility that it may not merit scientifically. It is, perhaps, too subtle a distinction for some, but it is the distinction that keeps science honest.
To quote Dr. Jackson:
Endangered species recovery efforts can fail because of information control and acceptance of specific interpretations of data. Clark and Cragun (1994:11), without reference to a particular species, describe this as “’intelligence failure ’, in which high-quality, accurate, and reliable data …[are] simply dismissed …when the data [run] counter to …preferred policy.”Sound familiar?
Granted most environmental policy over the last four or five years has been driven by forces opposed to any kind of protection and inclined to dismiss solid data that supports things like salmon and Marbled Murrelet declines... human caused global climate change.... stuff like that, in favor of short-term economic gains for their corporate "sponsors", but Dr. Jackson's observation is valid largely through cause and effect.
Again quoting from his article:
Announcement of the report of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Arkansas came with the spectacular news that $10.2 million had been allocated by the federal government for the recovery effort,$5 million from the Department of the Interior and $5.2 million from the Department of Agriculture (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). Then reality set in. Proposed expenditures for land acquisition and habitat protection are mostly a continuation of efforts under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and by The Nature Conservancy that were already in progress when the presence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was reported (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b; Allan Mueller, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.comm.). In addition, the funding was not a new appropriation, but a reallocation of funds from other budgeted projects, including ongoing efforts on behalf of other endangered species (Dalton 2005), resulting in cutbacks to those projects.Further along:
The stage has been lit by the spotlight on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; but in the wings, the Endangered Species Act is in danger of being weakened (e.g.Beier 2005), and the NWR system that has protected the habitat where the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was reported has a backlog of maintenance projects and faces serious cuts. Funding was cut for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that would add land to the Cache River NWR, and funds for the Farm Bill’s Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program that would support creation and protection of habitat for endangered species on private lands (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 2005c) are threatened by budget cuts (Blockstein 2005, Defenders of Wildlife 2005).I think we can all understand the importance of the possible rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but ultimately these revelations will have no meaning if we continue to see things at the individual species level rather than a larger systemic scale. Why does it take a species that, from an evidentiary point of view, barely rises above the level of Sasquatch, to motivate people toward habitat protection? Why must a species become a ghost before it is worthy of protection? Environmental policy put forth by our current administration justifies cutting loose safeguards for a species like Marbled Murrelet because it's apparently not yet sufficiently endangered in all parts of its range. The state of Oregon and the federal government have decided to defer federal listing of Coho Salmon, not because the state of Oregon is doing a good job of protecting the species or because salmon don't need protections, but because Oregon is afraid federal protections will adversely affect Oregon's ability to generate revenue from timber and development.
We have become a society of crisis managers, blind to possibilty of a train wreck until it makes the evening news.
It's rained 10.6 inches since January 1 here on the Columbia River Estuary, the average is 3.8 inches. And being at the end of the line for one of the largest river systems in North America means we also eventually see most of the water dropped elsewhere in the region. We've got water to spare. Dikes are failing, roads are sliding, every cow pasture is full of water.
Yeah, it's an inconvenience. It does some interesting things to the wildlife, as well.
First and foremost, water in the cow pastures motivates the ducks and shorebirds to move out of the estuary and up into these temporary ponds. It's not surprising that the dabblers and grazers would move. The combination of pond-like protection and delicious greenery would be too good to pass up. But even diving species like Bufflehead and Hooded Mergansers move into the ponds, presumably to eat earthworms and insect larvae driven out of the ground by the high water. An angry ocean surf has driven Western Grebes, Harlequin Duck and Oldsquaw up into the Necanicum River.
Raptors shift around as well. Red-tailed Hawk numbers were unusually high during the relatively dry early part of December, but are now below normal probably because their rodent prey base has been adversely affected by the high water in all the pastures. Bald Eagles, on the other hand, focus on ducks and carrion in the winter and are staying at normal numbers. Snowy Owls at the South Jetty were focusing on Black Rats early on, then shifted to Red Phalaropes during the storm driven wreck of that species. The phalaropes appear to have moved on and it looks like a couple of the south jetty owls moved on, too. The others are apparently making a dietary shift to Bufflehead.
More difficult to explain, but quite possibly weather related is the behavioral shift in Townsend's Warblers. In most years, this species moves around with the large feeding flocks of chickadees and kinglets, way up in the tree canopy. There are a couple places where one can find high densities and nearly pure flocks of Townsend's Warblers in winter, but this year the unusually high numbers are coming to local feeders, particularly suet feeders. I saw a flock of 12 (plus a single Orange-crowned Warbler) coming to a feeder in Astoria that has not, historically, attracted this kind of action. Perhaps the warblers found the feeders during the cold snap of mid-December and figured - why leave? Perhaps the heavy rains have made foraging in conifer canopies less productive. It's a mystery.
A study published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2003 Birding in the United States: a demographic and economic analysis claimed that there were 46 million birders in the US. This works out to something near 20% of the population which by anyone's calculus is a lot of birdwatchers. There was a surprising reaction from a subset of the American birding population which was: No there isn't.
A flat-out, unapologetic denial.
Why? you might ask.
Well, it turns out that this group does not agree with the USFWS definition of what a "birder" is which was "...an individual [who has] either taken a trip a mile or more from home for the primary purpose of observing birds and/or closely observed or tried to identify bird around the home." This is a very broad definition, to say the least, but it's not necessarily a bad definition.
The basic problem bubbles up regularly in birder chat groups usually in disguise. Most recently the topic popped up on ID-frontiers, a newgroup usually devoted to discussions of thorny ID questions (usually revolving around larids), under the subject heading "Birding Skills" and eventually degenerated into a slug-fest as people impuned each others ability in the attempt to define what a birder is.
"Birders" parted company with "bird-watchers" back in the late-60's and early-70's. Mostly this new breed was looking to disassociate themselves from the oft-stereotyped, tweedy eccentrics and little old ladies most people associated with the hobby of bird-watching. Birders were serious students of bird identification who traveled the world looking for birds. Nuance was valued. Skill was measured by depth of knowledge of arcane plumage variations, feather details and structural subtlties. But most birders weren't ornithologists in the academic sense. The goal was to identify birds, not necessarily to understand them. Special focus was placed on rarities, vagrants and the hopelessly lost species that accidently turn up. From an academic point of view there's not much value in a vagrant out of its ecological context. From a birder's perspective a vagrant is one more tick for the lifelist (state list, county list , yard list, etc) and especially cool if others don't have it. Birding was meant to be competetive.
Beginning in the 1980's, folks began watching birds (often coming to the hobby later in life) for reasons less focused on rigorous ID based traditional birding. Lists were still kept, but not with the same kind of rabid furvor. Many of these new folk were perfectly content to have others do the identifying for them on field trips. They were interested in being outside, hanging out with others whoo appreciated open spaces. Environmentalists began showing up at local Audubon and Natural History Society meeting calling themselves birders and occasionally suggesting that other birders were too often environmentally insensitive when pursuing those ticks. Even the American Birding Association made a big swing toward the birders-as-conservationists demographic in the mid-90's. It made perfect business sense, but there was a hew and cry, much gnashing of teeth, many cancelled memberships.
To a rabid, ID-focused few, opening up the definition of what a birder is has diluted the very essence of birding. It's difficult to compare one's prowess with others if one can't tell the difference between the folks who "earned" their list through hard work and those who bought all their ticks by going on birding tours and having someone point stuff out.
So, there's the truth of it. Some birders are elitist snobs. Is anybody really surprised?
Maybe it's time to invent a new name for this elite core of birders, because they aren't going to be able to take "birder" back and it's time to get over it. I started out in the early 1970's. I am ID-focused. I have a respectible lifelist. I can hold my own in a pissing contest. But I'm also a big tent kind of guy. Sure, I get frustrated by folks who can't tell House Finches from Purple Finches or insist they saw a flock of 20 Yellow-billed Loons in a place where one bird would require rare bird documentation (and then refuse to write any kind of documentation). There is strength in numbers. If calling 20% of the American population birders creates the kind of leverage that helps to ensure that there will still be places for me to bird with my daughter in 20 years, then I guess I'm a birder-conservationist. And I can live with the heaping piles of abuse I will no doubt have to take from all the other elitist snobs.
December was a rather schizophrenic month, starting out very dry with temperatures below normal, and finishing up with a storm series that has brought severe flooding to most of the region.
High water and storms blew in an impressive number of RED PHALAROPES which are still pretty easy to find in flooded cow pastures around the Columbia River Estuary.
There are still at least 4, more often 5 SNOWY OWLS still being seen at the South Jetty of the Columbia. They have been feeding quite happily on the bountious BLACK RAT population as well as taking advantage of the recent phalarope boon.
An EMPEROR GOOSE is winter at Hammond Boat Basin. It can be tricky to find, as it cruises the river front often disappearing behind the jetties. A LONG-TAILED DUCK is wintering on the Necanicum River in Seaside. A HERMIT WARBLER and a BULLOCK'S ORIOLE are still frequenting a feeder in Astoria. A WILSON'S WARBLER was found on the Wahkiakum CBC, in Brownsmead and an OVENBIRD has been hanging out at a feeder on PUGET ISLAND.