The book is a quick read, very entertaining, and remarkably up-to-date (March 2005). It's also disturbing. There's a -- how should I phrase it so I don't start an off-topic flame thread? -- a strong, anti-science element in the USA, and within or adjacent to that "element," there is also a substantial number of people who, though somewhat accepting of science (particularly science that leads to high-tech weapons for the military), are skeptical of scientists' motives and objectivity. In their view, scientists stupidly ignore or -- worse -- "cover up" reports of UFOs, alien abductions, life on Mars, cold fusion, free energy from hydrogen peroxide, undescribed monsters in Loch Ness, etc. In other forums I have defended scientists against some of these claims (and another I'll not discuss here; I don't want to divert the thread). In my view, over the long term, ideas with proper evidence will prevail, and ideas without proper evidence will die. That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway. But an anti-science type reading The Grail Bird will have their skepticism about scientists confirmed. We read about a refusal at the highest levels of science to entertain anything contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy (i.e., that the Ivory-bill is extinct), and even the most distinguished scientists were not immune to having their reputations smeared by giving some credence to sightings and even photographs of Ivory-bills. It sounds like something out of the Stalinist USSR or, closer to home, the McCarthy Era in the US.
In addition, I tend to agree with Mary Scott's views, to the extent that they are presented accurately in the book. I see little good coming from the announcement of the rediscovery of the Ivory-bill. The only "good" comes from the protection of additional acres of bottomland forest. If that's all that happens, then perhaps the birds have a chance. But inevitably, the rediscovery will also bring hordes of twitchers and -- worse -- an activist viewpoint that demands that we "do something" to help the Ivory-bill recover. The suggestion that birds be captured for breeding falls into this category. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker may be surviving by the slimest of threads, but that slim thread is a direct and fortuitous byproduct of the official disdain that prevailed over the last 60 years. I'm saying that the birds' prospect of survival would be better if it had continued to be "undiscovered" -- the various sightings relegated to UFO and bigfoot lunacy -- than in the new world where conservationists and public officials will insist that "something be done." It's very depressing.