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.
Posted by mbalame at January 22, 2006 6:11 PM