Re: Ultimate Ticks and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers

Subject: Re: Ultimate Ticks and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
From: "Paul Coddington" <>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:38:28 +0000

However, remember that these people are attracting, and hope to attract more, big conservation funds on the basis of a second or two of footage of a distant bird as it flew off through a fairly dense forest - a bird which closely resembles another, which is not uncommon in those same woods. All this was shot out of the corner of a lens from a wobbling canoe by a pretty basic camera. These people also have absolutely no other acceptable evidence of the birds' continued
In my books, the evidence doesn't yet justify the funnelling of too much money away from very pressing conservation issues elsewhere and conservation funding is very scant under the current administration in the US.

I agree with you that the video evidence probably falls (just) short of being absolutely conclusive proof that the woodpecker still exists. But I completely disagree that there is not
enough evidence to warrant spending money on conservation projects.

As well as the video, there are also audio recordings, and sightings by several people in the search team - "These people" are ornithologists from the best ornithological research group in the US. I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. There's enough evidence to be almost certain the bird exists, even if it's short of definite proof.

So what would you want the govt to do? Say we're not 100% sure because we don't have a photo, so we'll sit on our hands and do nothing until we get one? By that reasoning we should say that we don't have definite proof that Lloyd Nielsen, Tim O'Reilly et al really saw or heard Coxen's Fig-Parrot so we shouldn't bother spending money on a recovery program until we get a good photo or video of one.

In any case, I don't think the money to conserve that area is going to waste - there are plenty of other critters living in that swamp.

The amusing thing about all this kerfuffle is that if a group of well-credentialled ornithologists had done a bird survey somewhere and said they'd seen a rare bird, no-one would disbelieve them. But because this rare bird has not been photographed for 70 years (even though there have been many credible sightings) there's a huge bunfight!

What these folk have put up online is not a properly referenced, refereed or published set of data and therefore has no further substance or authority than either yours or my maunderings on the subject here on Birding-Aus.

It certainly has a lot more substance than my maunderings! I see a lot of references in the paper - what is improper about them? :-)

I think your comments are more suited to the naysayers - there has yet to be a published, peer-reviewed article explaining in detail why the Cornell analysis (which was published in Science) is wrong. The Auk article refers to such a paper but it has been withdrawn. I suspect that is the
reason for the recent online article by Cornell - anticipatory retaliation!

Given the poor quality of the available data (which is not unusual in science!), I think the Cornell guys have done a very good job analysing it and their analysis seems very convincing. I am yet to see an analysis anywhere near as convincing from the skeptics.

Paul Coddington
Adelaide, South Australia

Birding-Aus is on the Web at
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
'unsubscribe birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU