|
Woodpecker Racket?
Thursday, February 02, 2006
By Steven Milloy
Last years reported sighting in eastern Arkansas of an
Ivory-billed
Woodpecker, long thought to be extinct, raised the hopes of
bird-watchers everywhere.
But now a prominent bird expert has cast serious doubt on
the report, characterizing it as faith-based ornithology and
a disservice to science.
Writing in the ornithology journal
The Auk (January
2006), Florida Gulf Coast University ornithologist Jerome A. Jackson criticized
the evidence put forth to support the conclusion that the
Woodpecker wasnt extinct after all including a four-second video
of an alleged sighting which garnered widespread media attention; several other
anecdotal sightings; and acoustic signals purported to be vocalization and raps
from the Woodpecker.
News of the alleged Woodpecker sighting caught on video was
first released in late-April 2005 in ScienceExpress, an online component of
Science magazine. The full report subsequently appeared in the June 3
issue of Science.
While the world rejoiced, my elation turned to
disbelief, wrote Jackson. I had seen the confirming
video in the news releases and recognized its poor quality, but I had believed
[anyway], he continued.
Then I saw [a still image] and seriously doubted that
this evidence was confirmation of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Even a cursory
comparison of this figure with [photographs and illustrations of real
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers] shows that the white on the wing of the bird
is
too extensive to be that of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Jackson wrote.
Jackson dismissed the other unverified sightings with,
I do not question the sincerity, integrity or passion of these observers
[but] we simply cannot know what they saw. The researchers who claimed to
video the Ivory-billed Woodpecker later admitted that the acoustic information
while interesting, does not reach the level we require for proof.
Jackson went on to conclude that, My opinion is that
the bird in the [video] is a normal Pileated Woodpecker
Others have
independently come to the same conclusion, and publication of independent
analyses may be forthcoming.
Jackson isnt some inveterate or knee-jerk skeptic with
respect to the possibility of the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers existence. In
fact, in 1986 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Serviceconvened a panel to officially declare the
Woodpecker extinct, Jackson argued that it was unreasonable to declare
the species extinct without making a serious effort to find it.
Only time will tell whether the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is,
in fact, extinct, but one thing is certain the fanfare announcing these
now-suspect sightings was way overblown. And its worth noting that the
beneficiaries of all this hoopla were also the ones behind it.
The search to find the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
was organized, supported and launched by the Nature Conservancy. The subsequent
find was announced and widely publicized by the Nature Conservancy.
Now, according to Jacksons article, it seems the Nature Conservancy also
stands to benefit substantially from its own discovery, possibly to
the tune of $10.2 million federal dollars and hundreds of thousands of acres in
Arkansas.
To Jacksons dismay, this money, which had originally
been designated for other ongoing endangered species projects, has now been
diverted into a recovery effort for the apparently-still-extinct
Ivory-billed Woodpecker involving none other than the Nature
Conservancy, a private nonprofit group that uses land acquisition
to advance its self-proclaimed conservation agenda.
But a series of Washington Post articles in May 2003
exposed the Nature Conservancy, the worlds richest environmental group
with $3 billion in assets, as more than just a land bank. In the
past it has also acted as a broker of too-sweet-to-be-true land and business
deals for wealthy insiders and corporate supporters, often at taxpayer expense.
In one scheme reported by the Post,
the
Conservancy bought raw land, attached development restrictions and then resold
the land to state trustees and other supporters at greatly reduced prices.
Buyers then voluntarily gave the Conservancy charitable contributions roughly
equivalent to the discounts, sums that were written off from the buyers'
federal income taxes. The deals generally allowed the buyers to build homes on
the land.
Whats all this got to do with the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker?
The Nature Conservancy says on its web site that it
has helped protect more than 120,000 acres of [eastern Arkansas forests],
and is now aiming to conserve and restore an additional 200,000 acres of forest
vital habitat for the ivory-billed woodpecker
Given that the land acquisition is made possible with
taxpayer dollars and tax breaks for who knows what ultimate purposes -
you can almost hear the Nature Conservancy laughing like that other fictional
woodpecker, Woody Woodpecker, all the way to the bank.
A final note on this saga concerns the reported sightings
that were rushed to publication by the journal Science the same
journal that rushed to publication last years faked South Korean stem
cell studies, and a faked 1997 Tulane University study on environmental
chemicals.
While theres no evidence that the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker study was faked, Jacksons characterization of the report as
wishful-thinking certainly doesnt say much for Sciences peer
review process intended as a safeguard against the publication of
unsubstantiated scientific claims and junk science.
Science has enjoyed the reputation of a preeminent
journal. But over the last decade, it seems to have developed the
print-first-ask-questions-later tendencies usually associated with tabloid
publications.
It would be terrific if the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
werent extinct but well need better evidence than just four
seconds of blurry video hawked by special interests.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, and is an adjunct scholar at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Copyright 2006 FOX News Network,
LLC. All rights reserved.
www.foxnews.com
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |