
In all likelihood, the Eskimo Curlew is extinct. However, a controversy regarding a
particular image of this species, credited to Don Bleitz, lives on. For my part, I thought this
issue concluded nearly six years ago. Apparently, it's still very much alive in the minds of a few ABA bloggers. The controversy in question stems over a manipulated image of an Eskimo Curlew (see Fig. 5 Photomontage on page 30 of the September 2011 issue of ABA's Birding magazine - Vol. 43 No. 5).
If you don't have the magazine,
here's what I noticed back in 2006. The original website with the color image is now offline, but you can still view it
here. However, the Fig. 5 photomontage in Birding shows
two Eskimo Curlews, which is new to me; I had only ever seen the cropped version showing a single bird. Anyway, I don't believe I stated or inferred that Don Bleitz intended to deceive the birding public regarding the validity of his entire series of Eskimo Curlew images. In fact, in
my second of two blog posts about it, I wrote:
"I believe the top three photographs are authentic, but I’m convinced the 4th shot (bottom picture) was assembled/manipulated from the top image."As far as I can tell, everyone seems to agree on this, but it didn't stop Martin Collinson from writing the following in his September Birding article
Setting the Record Straight:
"Furthermore, other observers have noticed the apparent discrepancies between the photos, and have suggested an attempt to deceive. In this regard, see the recent online commentary by M. McDowell (tinyurl). This has led to a discussion on internet-based forums and media that there is something suspicious about the photographs..." [emphasis added].Oh really?
Where?
On the ABA blog,
Ted Floyd asks a poignant question, "Why publish an article on the field identification of an extinct bird?" He answers:
"And there's another reason. It's deeper. It's more important. It is relevant to our everyday affairs as bird lovers. At the end of his article, Collinson defends the legacy of one Donald Bleitz, who was the first—and as far as we know the only—person to publish photos of Eskimo Curlews in the wild. The authenticity of Bleitz's work has been questioned, but Collinson 'dispel[s] any lingering rumors that the birds were mounts and not the original birds observed in 1962...'"Who did such a thing!?
Who tried to tarnish the legacy of Bleitz's work?
Who questioned the authenticity of his work? Well, there was
one anonymous rant on
my second blog post, signed only with "Michael." He wrote:
"This is a very intriguing subject. I now think that the Eskimo Curlew could have been extinct long before 1962. After reading the posts on this site, I downloaded the five photos of the Curlew and used my computer to manipulate them so I could see the details much better. It now appears to me that the bird is a mounted specimen."I hope Martin and Ted didn't confuse this anonymous 'Michael' with me
. Anyway, I
never once thought Donald Bleitz used a mount of an Eskimo Curlew for any of the birds in his series of photographs.
What concerns me is the way my name appears in Collinson's article. How many people who read the magazine article will bother to visit the link to my blog to see what I wrote? Also, why the attention on this at this moment? This conversation occurred online almost 6 years ago. Has it really "led to discussion on internet-based forums and media that there is something suspicious going on about the photographs"? If it's there, I haven't been able to locate it.
I asked this question on
the pertinent ABA blog post whether or not my blog posts were used as the singular source regarding Collinson's article, but there was no reply. I googled the subject and found nothing other than my own blog posts. Whatever sources were used to make assertions of accused deceit and tarnished legacy, I'm not too thrilled with the way my name appears in Collinson's article; it makes it seem like I was the
one accusing Bleitz. To really set the record straight, it is simply untrue. Unless I can be shown additional online conversations on this particular topic, it would be more accurate for Collinson to say:
"Furthermore, at least one observer noticed the apparent discrepancies between the photos, and suggested an attempt to deceive. In this regard, see the Feb. 2006 online discussion at Mike McDowell's birding blog (URL)."