Fairly recently, a researcher with loose morals and a taste for fame wrote the Cornell bird study with some highly questionable figures.  Of course, wildlife charities of poor character fell over themselves to agree with the study. I’m not even going to name them. Like any crackpot theory relegated to the burn pile, dishonesty in science deserves the same regard.

<Record needle scratch>

WHAT?

We have been publishing habitat conservation and management articles for the past 3 years now.  In that time, we have read and reviewed EVERY habitat project undertaken in the last 15 years to measure outcomes stated against actual conditions.  Our findings are based on empirical data.  It’s hard to say something doesn’t exist when I can show it in abundance with a single photo.

In all fairness, I read the study.  It read like a cross between a fantasy novel and an environmental activist adventure series for young readers.  I couldn’t contain my laughter when a the oriole was given an imaginary regional distinction.  I swear I almost wet myself laughing when I read about the baseball team being declared a bird species.

That bit of dishonest research methodology aside, we KNOW all biological systems are at least partially connected.  Improving water quality to save a rare snail doesn’t just improve conditions for the snail.  Every creature in that habitat improves as well.  We know this and it’s as proven as Darwin’s Law Of Evolution.  The same is true of birds.

Our nation has been restoring wetlands, marshes, and forest habitat for the last 30 years on a steady clip.  We’re not going to debate this point as site records and employment data confirm it.  During this work waterfowl have been restored to dozens of states.  It would be the definition of ignorance to blindly accept that no other bird species benefited from a typically 800+ acre wetland restoration multiplied by approximately 1000 project areas.

That’s just wetland restoration.  I haven’t even started to discuss prairie restoration, or specific species stands which also number in the thousands of projects.  The only major species project that isn’t working out is the Sage Grouse.  We’ve been pouring billions into planting habitat with a negative results at every turn.  The species was selected for extinction long before we came around. 

The California Condor and American Bald Eagle have made astounding recoveries and are repopulating native ranges as far east as Maine.  To accept a massive bird loss is to accept a tortured set of half ass assumptions to the point one suspends belief in reality.  Very clearly, every other species benefited from environmental and conservation rule making.

Peregrine falcons and hawk species have returned to the rural urban interface thanks to public information and education initiatives in every US state.  Millions of school children witness the rebound of these species every year through nest box cameras on taller local buildings of some reputation to cement the recovery work in your memory.  Class trips are scheduled in the lower 48 to witness raptor conservation and progress as a part of science curriculum.  Are these hard working biologists liars too?

In that time, hundreds of environmentally damaging products were removed from the market improving conditions as each one was mitigated.  This too, according to the Cornell Bird Study was completely meaningless.  Somehow, all of these species recovered, and your local backyard birds increasing don’t seemingly count in this imaginary scenario where birds are supposedly dying in the millions but only the Cornell Bird Study and their crackhead team of logic warriors can see it.

The Kirtlands Warbler just came up for Endangered Species De-listing. The American Goldfinch experienced an astounding recovery that was celebrated by those who contributed data to the Cornell Bird study.  Those are just 2 of the HUNDREDS of species of birds that have been restored or introduced to new habitats.  Let’s remember it was Audubon research that coined the American Goldfinch as the “mine canary” of adaptability in bird species.

Is all of that work a lie?  If you blindly accept the Cornell Study as accurate and legitimate, you must also commit to publicly stating that ALL 50 states, Canada, and Mexico told lies about every scrap of habitat work done. Again we come back to interconnected system improvements.

Now we know none of you are going to call your state wildlife agency a liar.  Especially if you are one of the MILLIONS of citizens who have personally exerted effort to rebound a species.   We know this because you’ve seen species recovery with your own eyes.  The primary tool of scientific research.  Since you aren’t going to call your local agency a liar and you’re not a liar, that leaves us with, the Cornell Bird Study lied.

The Cornell Bird Study leans heavily on data from several private sector groups that can best be described as donation funded advocacy groups.  I’m not trying to take anything away from the Audubon Society, but by their own admission and numerous requests for volunteer bird counters, that their data is incomplete and has only recently begun to realize greater accuracy from improvements in technology and social media for volunteer recruitment.

At the same time, the desperate acceptance of untrained volunteers hardly qualifies as a solid foundation for any data provided.  A giant grain of salt must be given to data generated from these counting events.  A raw number set as a hard number is derived from a subjective species guess at a distance by a lay person.  Then that data is averaged with data from several hundred other subjective guesses.  Finally, a percentage of error is applied to arrive at a hard number.

By that logic we need to get Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster on the Endangered Species List right away.  There are a few million of those subjective guesses.  Application of the Cornell Bird Study methodology to these cryptids would not only suggest a population, but an increase in mythical creatures.  Obviously we don’t really have any of these creatures, but it demonstrates how a fervent belief in a tangential topic, mythology, or climate change, can effect how data is perceived. Especially when that data relies on subjective guess sightings.

I get it that it’s possible to get caught up in the hysteria that is all things environment.  That’s WHY science exists.  Science exists to provide a crucible to burn off all but fact.  Our emotion and ego mean nothing in the face of fact.  Sadly,  researchers have been increasingly taught that characterizing data and substituting it to make a case is somehow ethical.

Feel free to read the Cornell Bird Study