I have to respectfully disagree. I have been doing personal research on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker for almost a year now, and I have found an amazing amount of evidence for the persistence of the IBWO, from both professional searches as well as amateurs. The current persistence of the Ivory-bill is what I am researching now, but their persistence up to 2010 is almost guaranteed in my mind. I am just saying that why can’t a species be protected if there is no amazing evidence of this species. If they do somehow persist, then they should be protected until the possible population can recover to the point of detection.
It’s not the first big bird that was thought to be extinct, luckily there’re still remote forests where they still can breed and not be noticed by humans as places are inaccessible.
I’ve still got a T-shirt in my closet from about 2005 that celebrates the rediscovery of the IBWO. (It’s right next to the T-shirt that celebrates the Buffalo Bills winning the Super Bowl.)
Added note: the Bills never won a Super Bowl.
Still no clear answer as to why a species currently obscured needs to be de-obscured.
I can’t think of a reason a species should be auto-obscured unless under threat from poaching or disturbance, which most of the currently auto-obscured species aren’t. It causes issues for researchers who want to know are studying these species, which can be especially devastating as many of these species are in decline.