--------------------------------------------------------------
For those who don't understand my issues with the Saluda, SC story here is a verbatim copy of the questions (in no particular order) I have sent along to John Williams. Clarification on these matters may well yet come forth, I just don't know at this point:
1) You mention that one USFWS official knows the name of the SC observer… has she met him/talked to him, been to the site, or merely knows a name that has been given to her? And is she the only USFWS official who knows his name or are there others? and how many, if any, outside yourself and USFWS know his supposed name?
2) You report a lot of measurements the observer made and sent along to you, but has any other independent person verified any of those measurements, or you just have his word to go by?
3) A 24-year old female IBWO is referenced as being known by “its markings” — any idea what those markings were that stayed consistent for 24 years?
4) The observer talks of the IBWO nest as “burrows” with various passageways… how does he know that? did he climb the trees to investigate the cavities?
He also talks of the birds returning to the same nestholes many years… while that could be the case (there is variability), woodpeckers often build new holes every year as part of the re-bonding ritual each new breeding season; even if they return to old holes, those holes usually get worked on and enlarged (the hole shown isn’t very large for having been used several years).
5) the observer states that 80-90% of trees in IBWO feeding range should be hollow and 70-90 ft. high — seems a pretty absurd statement… and he talks of “water oaks and willow that have rotten cores” as IBWO preferences while at same time talking of the importance of “alive trees”. My point simply being that I don’t think he’s all that consistent in his note-taking and observations, only a small sample of which we’re even seeing.
6) At one point there is a list of other birds in IBWO territory and the Bachman’s Warbler is included (another likely extinct species) — if one was merely talking historically that might be OK, but it sounds like he is talking about the present or even about his own property? (in which case not OK to include Bachman’s Warbler). Or is it perhaps s’posed to say Bachman’s Sparrow, which would make more sense?
7) You have from the start simply assumed that the nesthole moving object is a bird bill — that is a subjective presumption that you never validate or consider other options.
8) What verification do you have that this individual is whoever he says he is? Any actual authentication that he ever attended college? What is his current profession (if any)? It sounds like as a full adult he is still living at home with mother or family; is that the case? Does he have any criminal or mental health record? In short, there’s nothing significant here that lends this anonymous, unknown person any credibility for me. (and if I can’t establish credibility I can’t take for granted much of what he says).
9) Have you met him and visited the site? Has ANYone relevant met him or visited the site? If not, why not? or has ALL communication been done online?
10) He speaks of the birds returning to the same site for decades, but then also mentions observing a female “for the first time in nearly a decade” in 2016… does that mean he generally didn’t see IBWOs from 2006 to 2016, or only that he didn’t see any females those years (including I guess the 24-yr-old female that fledged in 1998)? Again, consistency???
11) At one point he talks of “The God Good Bird” — is that a misprint or is that the actual phrase he used; just seems odd (there are a lot of common terms for the IBWO, but that’s not a phrasing I’m familiar with).
12) He tells of seeing an “all black female” IBWO in his youth, but of course females are not all black; they have the same prominent white saddle as males.
13) You/he say there are additional photos/videos, but I assume we are being shown the best available, or are you claiming there are even better ones being withheld for some reason?
14) The observer claims to have previously “reached out” to “professional entities” in SC about the birds earlier on and gotten no response… have any of them been re-contacted since then and shown any interest?
15) And yes, it would be nice to have a real understanding of why the observer demands so much privacy but loves telling these fine tall tales that can’t be confirmed, and has failed over so many years to gain better evidence or pics, or searched the hole for DNA? Does he have any real understanding of the importance of documenting these birds? It’s nice and convenient to talk about privacy and conservation concerns and respect for the species… but it’s also a lack of transparency that can be earmarks of… well, something much worse.
16) Is any professional, academic/university (PhD.) ornithologist actively exploring this story and/or visiting the site?
17) Are the birds currently out of the area (not being seen), but expected to return in the winter months, and if that were the case is any preparation being made to document them for real? Or, are they being seen right now?
18) You write of the validity and logic of the storyline, but there is NO real validity established; just a quirky off-the-charts narrative (and the usual blurry photos, interpreted in a preferred manner) from a lone unknown individual with a largely unknown or sketchy background.
Just some final comments: The tree is described as “large,” yet doesn’t appear from the photos exceedingly large (especially girth-wise) compared to known IBWO nest trees of the past. Nor does the hole appear (though hard to tell) to have the shape historically typical for IBWOs. Nor does the habitat/surroundings appear at all typical for IBWO either. None of these things are too important by themselves, but the fact that there are so many oddities/implausibilities to the story does not yield much confidence in it. And again, I get no real sense of the knowledge-level, experience, or motivations of the observer from the few actions and conversation on tape.
This is obviously a controversial topic, making it all the more important to solidly establish ahead of time the knowledge and credibility of any individual making such incredible claims — that hasn’t been done here for the readers; indeed, it’s been evaded.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, in other news, I've taken at least a brief look at most of the 3 final "comments" sent in to USFWS (8/10) and will be perusing some of it further. If you've been closely following this saga, most of it (not all) is previous material being re-packaged/presented (be aware that some of it is ill-organized and some is choppy, and a few entries took over 30 mins. to simply download on my system). None of it meets the USFWS request for video that multiple observers can easily automatically agree upon. The one main new, and interesting piece (but still, no slam dunk) that I recommend readers look at is Mark Michaels' narration of drone footage (especially the slo-mo version) of a flying bird from their studies. But we are truly near a saturation-point for footage of this sort that serious birders will even tolerate spending time on. On the one hand I'm all for putting out on the table ALL evidence that might aid/support the case of the IBWO; on the other hand I also realize that continuing with this level of ambiguous evidence simply turns more and more people off to the entire subject, while left shaking their heads. :(
ADDENDUM 8/11:
There is yet another new comment posted today from Mark Graham on the USFWS site:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0211
(I'm not clear if all these 'late' comments actually came in by the deadline and just took awhile to post, or if USFWS did not have a hard-and-fast deadline?)
BTW, the Mark Michaels' posting I mentioned above is now also available at their own Project Principalis site here (again, worth a look):
Also, today I sleuthed around the internet to discover the identity of the Saluda "observer"(obviously won't give out his name), and at least from initial indications he seems to be a perfectly reasonable, potentially credible individual; still leaves lots of questions, but off to a good start.
1 comment:
note: a prior commenter requested that his comments be removed from this post, so I have done that and removed my response therefore as well.
Post a Comment