---------------------------------------------
Almost 20 years ago a British birder accused those of us keeping the Ivory-bill story alive of being “stringers” — basically, folks who keep posting things about the IBWO (because there’s plenty of stuff available for posting!) to keep ’stringing’ the gullible along…. and now almost 20 years later, as I watch the redundant, repetitive, speculative, often non-credible or unscientific nature of so much of what comes along pertaining to the IBWO (not to mention misinformation and mis-labelled pics), that charge of stringing folks along stings more than it did back in the day of high hopes. Thus, my reluctance (previously mentioned) to keep posting material that does anything less than offer fresh and credible evidence for the Ivory-bill’s persistence.
BUT, after some hemming-and-hawing, I’ll make an exception for this Facebook post from Chuck Hunter because of it’s length and substance — very nice historical piece, but which I’ll still caution has uncertain pertinence to where (if anywhere) IBWOs are today, let alone their current habits, behavior, numbers, etc.:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14u2tt7UMt/
I assume (don’t know) that Chuck is actively writing a volume that will eventually have all this info included, but until then we at least get a sneak peak via the internet. Again, it’s all historical, but certainly more detailed than you'll find elsewhere (and interesting in its own right).
The one tiny aspect I might’ve liked to have seen him expand a bit more on is the Ivory-bill’s sheer power of flight (he briefly mentions) — more than most woodpeckers IBWOs likely could cover long distances in a short manner of time. I don’t recall specifics but there are estimates in the literature of how far an Ivory-bill could travel in a single typical day. While early IBWOs were probably NOT nomadic, a nomadic lifestyle may have been adopted out of sheer necessity as habitat destruction became widespread. Indeed, it’s almost impossible for me to imagine IBWOs remaining today except by utilizing frequent (almost routine) riverine paths from one locale to another as needed — locations good enough for mere day-to-day survival were probably not difficult to find; the question is could they find locales good enough repeatedly for successful breeding and raising young, a more resource-intensive enterprise.
Anyway, enjoy Chuck’s narrative…. ohhh, and, it’s a bit of a stretch this year… but, try having a Happy Thanksgiving!
UPDATE 12/9: Chuck has now put an expanded (loooong) version of this post on his own Facebook page (where he usually avoids the IBWO controversy), here:
https://www.facebook.com/chuck.hunter.353250/posts/1107380317464862?rdid=QLsOXITaTKT8PHKm
(it includes more of his own personal background, going back to his youth, with the whole IBWO subject)
---------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM 11/30:
I may as well toss in here that a critical article by Pawel Michalak has now gone public:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/74/11/740/7808594?login=false
It combines in one place most all of the standard arguments against IBWO evidence (some arguments better than others). The one smidgen of something newish is his mention of a rare “squawk” call by Great Horned Owls (primarily agitated females, that he admits wouldn’t normally be calling during the day) as yet another candidate (among many) as a sound-alike for Ivory-bill ‘kents.’ I can't recall if I've ever heard mention of this among the many woodland sounds that can sound kent-like.
