Why woodpeckers matter
I’ve been sitting on this post for a couple weeks, wondering if it was worth commenting on as it relates tangentially to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker search and its continued failure, and especially the relatively recent allocation of upwards of $28 million (over several years) in federal money from the Fish and Wildlife Service to those doing the searching. To the extent that the ongoing critique of the evidence of extant Ivory-bills was done in order to prevent that federal money from going towards the protection of a bird that many feel is far past needing protection, that all is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. Those advocating the search have “won”. No amount of parsing videos and questioning sightings and sitting baffled at the ineptness of some of these searches, something I am certainly guilty of, changes that essential fact.
An argument has been made by those who support the funded search that such money is a drop in the bucket when compared to the whole of the budget of the United States. This is, of course, true. $8 million per year is nothing when you look at the tragedy of the Iraq War, the bailout of sub-prime mortgage lenders, the asinine “border wall”, or even the whole of the budget of the Department of the Interior, who oversees the FWS.
To make this argument is to miss the point, however. It assumes that the budget from which funds for the study and protection of endangered species is substantial enough to allow for such a proportion to go towards Ivory-bills. It assumes that the monies from the government earmarked for that specific species is independent from that apportioned to other endangered species. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Money used to continue the searches in Arkansas and Florida (and Tennessee and Georgia) among other places comes from an increasingly shrinking pool from which all endangered species must compete for funds. “Protection” of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker comes at the expense of other endangered species. This is not news.
There are those who are willing to make the argument that this money is well-intentioned, and the protection of a charismatic species such as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker will eventually go a long way towards action for all endangered species in the form of increased awareness of their plights and motivation for their protection. This is a fair argument, but until recently the ramifications of such a decision have not been made so clear. Now they have.
I submit to you an article recently published in the Washington Post regarding the state of the Endangered Species Act. John at DC Birding Blog breaks it down well, here’s the breakdown of that breakdown. The current administration has been predictably poor at listing endangered species so that they get the protection that the ESA accords. In fact, two species have even gone extinct in North America since 2001, the the Lake Sammamish Kokanee, an species of inland salmon, and the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit.
I repeat. Two species have gone extinct in the United States of America because the FWS would not list them.
So in front of us we have these two facts. Fact 1: The Ivory-billed Woodpecker, a listed endangered species is currently the recipient of $28 million over seven years from the FWS for “recovery”. You can see where this money is going in a recently released Accomplishment Report (.pdf).
Fact 2: Two species of unlisted endangered species have gone extinct, kaput, never coming back, in the United States (I don’t know if I can stress that enough) because the FWS refused to list them, citing budgetary concerns as the reason for lack of action. In fact, the current administration’s 2009 budget cuts the Department of the Interior’s budget by $410 million. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
So here it is, laid out before you, the ramifications of the continued search for a bird that no one can seem to find. I’m not going to say that the money that is going to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker search is the reason for the extinction of the Lake Sammamish Kokanee and the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit, those species were probably circling the drain long before the money for ARUs and video cameras came around. But there are other species, species we birders are acutely aware of; the Red Knot, the Cerulean Warbler, the Rusty Blackbird, whose populations have crashed and yet, stay unlisted. Would $28 million help any of them? Would $28,000? I think we all know that answer to that. The effects are very real.
So every time a species desperately needs ESA listing but doesn’t get it because the money isn’t there, think about Mobile Search Teams.
Every time the administration of either party makes budget cuts to Endangered Species protection, think about helicopter searches.
And when another species winks out in the 21st Century in the United States of America, think about how the continued denial of one species’ extinction may end up dooming others to the same fate.
Comments are closed.
The problem might be that an administrative body enlists the species. In theory, only the status of a species should be the deciding factor for listing or de-listing, but theory has nothing to do with the reality of politics.
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not – yet – New Zeland’s Takahe!
Absolutely, but we have to work within the system we have. And if that system is preventing the listing of legitimately endangered species because of one that cannot be found, then that’s a problem. And in my view, those that continue to advocate for, and especially have some influence on, federal funds for the Ivory-bill, hold some responsibility for that failure.
IF (big if) IBWO is the USAs Takahe, then yes, federal funds should be enlisted, but not until we have the evidence we have for the Takahe (ie, birds practically in the hand).
I frankly never quite understood the concept of having a “mobile search team” and thought the helicopter search was a nice adventure for those involved period.
n8,
I have generally agreed with you on IBWO matters in the past, but have to disagree this time. The USFWS has been not listing endangered species due to lack of funding for so long that “warranted but precluded” is pretty much the expected outcome for any proposed listing today. Even without this whole IBWO mess, things would still be the way they are now, just like they were before it happened. This country has plenty of money for T&E species, we have just made a political decision not to spend it on them. The solution isn’t to rag on the people involved with the IBWO search over a measly $28 mil, most of which has not even been spent and may never be spent on IBWOs, the solution is to get the government to fork over an additional $28 mil (or $280 mil). That is much more difficult however.
AB-
I certainly agree with your solution. I guess what I’m saying is it doesn’t help, and with the woodpecker money this administration can state that it’s put aside “money for conservation” when it’s nothing of the sort. If it is as you say (and I admit, I don’t know as much about the bureaucracy as maybe I should), the political decision to fail to spend the plenty of money on T&E species is likely foreshadowing the attempt to justify slashed funding for the DoI in general. Which is too bad.
It’s likely I’m too cynical about the whole thing, but I think the continued search will ultimately have a detrimental effect on wildlife funding in the long run, if for no other reason then it casts doubts on the legitimacy of wildlife studies to those enemies of conservation. And if that means less funding for conservation down the line then that’s enough for me to be against it.
Thanks for commenting.
Excellent points, all well articulated, N8. Terrific blog, by the way. I would like to see some way forward on this issue, and highlighting the potential risk to other species is an effective way. For proponents of the “search at any cost” persuasion, I think there is an element of selfish infatuation that drives them (their woodpecker “icon”). It is all well meaning, and I agree the bird would be worth saving, is glorious and all that. Ultimately, though, this ends up being a misguided and narrow view of the world. Too few really care about snails, bugs, and inconspicuous plants, among other organisms that don’t have icon status.
Arguments about the allocation of funds are, as you say, irrelevant now. The money is committed and the likelihood of increased funding probably less than zero. So what lessons will we learn from this? To me, the flawed process by which priorities have been set is near the top. Allocation of funds to threatened and endangered species isn’t the only issue. Your post highlights the need to devote resources to basic survey work still lacking for so many species that warrant protection. In some ways, spending money to learn more about species on the verge of serious risk, or already there and we don’t know it, offers a better return on investment because trying to save them when it’s too late is more costly. The Center for Biological Diversity has been one group committed to pressuring our government to list several candidate species, some of which merely lack basic searches and surveys to establish baselines (we know they have collapsed in many cases, such as amphibians). Some have said that we protect what we love. Unfortunately, we tend to love what is big and fancy or sold in marketing campaigns. There needs to be some objective way to decide what habitats are most worth protection. They might be western wetlands with snails and plants that most will never see. What strategies offer the most effective protections? Thus, the bottomlands of the South and the habitats that once (at least that) held Ivory-bills need to be evaluated in light of a broader perspective. Needless to say, I think this all got started with good intentions and reports that seemed good at the time but have now been shown most likely to be in error. The time for reevaluation is long past due.
Hi Louis-
Hear hear to all you’ve said. Saving the IBWO is a noble goal, if about 100 years too late. I hope we don’t lose sight of what’s at stake in a futile attempt to right past wrongs.
Thanks for stopping by, I’m a fan of your work.
Well, I won’t persuade anyone here, but will offer a different take anyway, because all that’s involved is some sort of cost-benefit analysis. IF the species IS documented I think most will agree (especially after all this controversy) it will represent the greatest find in the history of American conservation. The boon to conservation and habitat preservation, both in interest and funding, will likely be tremendous. Most of you think the probability of that find (and benefit) is so miniscule, that it is far outweighed by the cost to other projects, despite any potential upside. But, while critics are very vocal in cyberspace, the fact remains that an awful lot of people (including competent ornithologists) who are closer to the raw data than most of us, find the overall evidence compelling enough to believe the chance of success greater than that being depicted by skeptics, and thus worth the cost. At this point, unfortunately, nothing can resolve these differences of perception, and it’s really quite amazing that a matter this serious has essentially come down to the presence or lack of a photograph.
Seems it all boils down to this:
The financial efford is comparable to a risky investment. We may win a lot or lose quite a bit and the question if the potential benefit is worth the risk is a matter each and everyone involved will see differently.
The people of New Zealand had it easier: the rediscovery of the Takahe happened “just like that”, without having to invest millions in the search first, and was an immense boost to the nation’s interest in nature conservation.
Cyberthrush – I think it’s more than just a photo, though that would obviously clear this up. It’s the continued selling of clearly poor evidence that simply does not meet requirements for rare bird documentation by the parties involved that’s frankly insulting to those attempting to do real research on T&E species. Even the regular somewhat experienced birder in the rabble (like me) can see that it fails to meet the criteria, that’s part of the reason why it’s so maddening.
The parties involved have nothing to lose by making public all the evidence they have, and I think they have done that. If they had anything better it would go a long way towards having some sort of confidence in the search. I think they know that, which is why they’ve, at least, been forthcoming with their terrible evidence.
Jochen – A nice sum-up.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here but… it really is about a photograph. No other bird (that I’m aware of) has had anywhere close to the number of sightings claimed for the IBWO over yrs., and YET been presumed extinct by so many. It is the lack of a photograph accompanying those many sightings that is at play here. Yes, the quality of other evidence is judged poor by many (subtly, I’d be more comfortable with the term “weak,” not “poor,” and weak evidence is actually quite common in science).
As I’ve said before, when someone turns in a Xmas bird count sheet no one verifies that the individual ever left their home, or went to the correct assigned area, or saw 12 cardinals instead of seeing 6 cardinals twice, or even has the competency to ID birds… it’s essentially done on trust, and yet these compiled results, hugely devoid of scientific rigor and undoubtedly with plenty of errors, still seem to turn out to be useful and valuable. It troubles me that for 99% of birding trust works fine, and then for 1% pertaining to rare species it can so routinely be tossed aside, as meaningless. I just believe there’s a grayer area in-between that isn’t being regarded here in folks’ rush to judgment.
BTW, it is certainly the case that not “all the evidence” has been publicly released, nor should be, as yet, and even if definitive evidence were to arise today it takes time to work it through all the proper channels now to get released.
Ok, weak then. But obviously there’s going to be more scrutiny for rare birds then common ones, that’s not unusual. We assume that people can make those easy IDs because the birds are common or easily identifiable. And if someone reports a White-crowned Eleania or a Sage Thrasher in North Carolina then, well, we’re gonna need some evidence. That would come in the form of pictures (not yet obtained for IBWO) or a detailed account (which hasn’t been obtained for IBWO either).
If I reported a Sage Thrasher in my backyard and was only able to give a split second account in which I observed only one field mark, which under some conditions is easily confused with Brown Thrasher, then that report would be thrown out, and rightly so, no matter what my reputation was as a birder. The good birders don’t report such sightings because they realize that it won’t cut it and they’ll save themselves the trouble. The IBWO searchers have not figured this out. That’s a problem.
So yeah, we trust 99% of sightings because 99% of sightings are common birds. But anything unusual is subject to scrutiny, and that’s the way things have always been. There’s no reason to change it now.
I can’t just let that go N8: the difference is that with the IBWO 100s of claims over yrs. are involved from different areas at different times, many from people who are very familiar with PIWOs.
In terms of your analogy, s’pose you report that Sage Thrasher, but so does someone else a couple blocks away, and at a different time of day someone else elsewhere, and maybe even a fourth. As unlikely as it may seem, at some point it becomes a whole lot more interesting and difficult to just blow away as mistaken ID, even though it may still be just that. It doesn’t mean it gets accepted, but it does get taken more seriously than a lone sighting.
Ok, rolling with the SATH analogy. So several people report them, it’s still not indicative of any one sighting. Say one report is from someone who only started birding last week, but another is from who has fond memories of SATHs and wants to see one really bad, and a third is from someone known to be an experienced birder.
The sightings have to be taken as individuals. So we can essentially write off the first one as a mistake, tough but fair under the circumstances. We’ll ask the second some questions to see if they know what they’re talking about, maybe they do, maybe they don’t. The third we’ll look at closely, maybe even head out to the house to see if he’s right, but the bird never ever shows up, and given the nature of the sighting, gets rejected by the RBC.
By all accounts the IBWO should be re-findable. I simply don’t buy the excuses that it’s not. We’ve spent 5 years hanging out at the house waiting for the bird to show up again but all we’ve got are some disembodied calls, some “interesting” cavities, and some sketchy sight records that indicative of nothing.
I think Louis is right, the initial response was done in good faith, and you maybe could have made an argument for the money back then. But not after 5 years of nothing masquerading as something.
Okay, I am also going to give the dead horse one more good kick…
Cyberthrush compares the evaluation of IBWO sightings to Christmas bird counts.
Well, there is a simple yet fundamental difference between the two: the impact a faulty sighting has on our understanding of the species.
The CBC collects a huge amount of data, so any mistake (and we can safely presume that the vast majority of participants know their birds) is not likely to significantly change our picture of the birds’ abundance, distribution etc.
Take the Sage Thrasher example:
Surely, if a Sage Thrasher was to occur in NC and N8 mistakenly identified it as a Brown Thrasher, that mistake would not significantly change our understanding of Brown Thrasher occurence in the state.
On the other hand, if N8 tried to determine the true status of the Sage Thrasher in the Eastern US, a single Brown Thrasher mistakenly IDed as a Sage would seriously change our picture because there are probably only very few records for that area. As a natural consequence, someone claiming a Sage Thrasher from NC will have to provide much more detail than someone reporting a Brown Thrasher from the same place.
The consequences for science are just far too different for us to tread both cases in the same way.
Wether IBWOs are extant or not has a huge impact on nature conservation, fundings etc.
A record of 12 Cardinals at one CBC when really there had been only 6 has not quite the same consequences.
Thank you, Jochen, for illustrating my point in a much more clear and concise way than I was able to to with my semantic thrashing about.
You’re welcome.
I must say however that I tend to agree with Cyberthrush on a few issues:
a) The large number of records is too remarkable to be ignored.
b) Whereas most of the sightings are fleeting glimpses of birds in flight, there are some which are remarkable, lasting for several minutes etc., sometimes even by two observers. These cannot be explained by expectations, misinterpretations etc. These were either genuine IBWOs or the observers have lied.
So clearly, I feel a thorough search is a good idea and I’d likely join if it was possible for me, if only for the fun of being out in these fascinating swamps.
However, I don’t think it is appropriate at the moment to spend tax money on the search and conduct specific management plans for the species. That should only be done on the basis of sound scientific proof which is still lacking. I think the American birding community is large (and wealthy) enough to do this in an organized and scientific way all by themselves, without the help of public money or state agencies/ universities.
This is the way it works over much of Europe, so why not in the US?
Your point is well taken. but I disagree on a couple small things.
a) I tend to think the large number of sightings is a function of the IBWO’s oversized impact on birding lore in this country. Birders want to see it so they “see” it. Non-birders are impressed by Pileateds and want to believe they’ve seen something more impressive. How many are legit is questionable.
b)I dunno, I would ask how many of these people are experienced birders. Kulivan says he saw them well, but he’s an admitted non-birder. Seems like good birders never see the bird, and those that do, there are some questions surrounding the sighting. Reasonable people, of course, may disagree.
I certainly would not begrudge someone their own time and money to go look, but they have to know what they’re getting into. The sighting has to be something special to make it public.
Agree absolutely about federal money. In fact, that’s by far my main issue with the whole thing. The effect on conservation funding now and in the future.
Excellent post and series of comments. I would like to remind folks of the phenomenon of the “field guide effect” for Ivory-bill sightings. This species was illustrated in the most popular field guides, starting in the 1960′s with Robbins’, Field Guide to Birds of North America, and none of the other presumed extinct species (Great Auk, Passenger Pigeon, et al.) I think this accounts for a lot of sightings by inexperienced birders. (See my earlier post on the subject here).
Also, again, the failure to get a recognizable photograph, despite huge numbers of searchers with cameras, and so many “near misses”, is completely damning. This has happened dozens of times, stretching the limits of credulity–see my comments on The Birdchaser.
So the USFWS has decided to flush $28 million down the drain. Nuthatch said it best (here)–asinine.
Time for Congress to investigate–what a crock!
Your comments are dead on. I think the “field guide” effect is very real. Non-birders see a Pileated (of course an impressive bird) and are impressed by its size, read the field guide and see that the IBWO, not the PIWO, is the largest woodpecker in NA, and because what they saw was just so big and impressive, decide they’ve seen an IBWO.
It’s too easy to do for someone with little experience. We all have stories about beginners seeing an vulture and calling it an eagle and on and on and on. I wonder how many of these sightings are like that.
As was mentioned before, it’s all meant well but it’s a terrible thing to base $28 million of hard to come by conservation money on.