------------------------------------------
Am very pleased to present an interview with long-time birder and IBWO searcher, Erik Hendrickson, who was a volunteer with Project Principalis (in La.) from 2007 through 2023. He notes that he grew up around various national parks, studied engineering (Georgia Tech, Colorado State); worked as a research engineer at the National Bureau of Standards, and project engineer with both the Department of State and the National Park Service. In between jobs, he volunteered at the Pueblo Colorado Raptor Center, and some of his other birding history is mentioned along the way below.
I originally proposed to interview Erik as an “Anonymous” searcher, because I didn’t honestly expect he could divulge his identity (a lot of official searches have various non-disclosure agreements involved), so I want to thank Steve Latta for being gracious enough to approve Erik’s full participation. I mention this in part too because had I known in advance that Erik could be interviewed as a former active member with Project Principalis I might’ve had a few more or differently-worded questions!! — but am still VERY pleased with how this turned out, and Erik's willingness to give such extended takes on matters.
My questions (& followup comments) in BOLD, the rest is Erik; without further adieu:
*************************
1) Let’s first cut to the chase, how certain do you feel that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still exist?
I am certain that ivorybills persist, because I observed one in Arkansas in 2005, and one in Louisiana in 2020. I understand how a statement like that, from an unknown like me is not convincing or even useful to others who might be interested in the ivorybill story, and my observation reports are just bits of data in the decades long compilation of data assembled by the real scientists who track this species. So, there’s no correlation between my certainty and the scientific consensus on what the status of the species is, or ought to be.
More generally, the dedicated, professional people I know who have searched and are searching for ivorybills know the broader community of ornithologists, birders, and interested public are rightfully skeptical of sighting claims. If I had not seen an ivorybill in Arkansas, I’m pretty sure I would not have done any further searching, and I would be as perplexed as most people are: how can there be these periodic reports, and yet no one has captured a clear image? When I put myself in their shoes – I totally get it.
So, I think it’s within most people’s life experiences to (a) understand why some of us are certain the species persists, and (b) understand why many others are waiting for better evidence. All the searchers I know accept that, and they keep plugging away, trying to get that better photo or video.
2) How confident are you that the species may be documented to most everyone’s satisfaction, say within the next 2-3 years?
I’m not confident. Not because the species doesn’t exist, I’m sure it does. But I’ve spent much time in the field, sometimes by myself, sometimes as part of a team, and I’m pretty immersed in ivorybill literature, and I try to keep up with what’s going on, and feel the behavior of this bird makes it particularly difficult to detect and observe. All search efforts have a very low encounter rate. I think we’ve learned much about ivorybill behavior, in particular how they react when ivorybill and searcher encounter each other in the field. Often, searcher and ivorybill encounter each other unexpectedly, when the ivorybill is on the ground (possibly the bird’s vision is obscured by ground vegetation allowing the searcher to approach more closely). The bird immediately reacts, either flying to the back side of a trunk or branch and then launching into escape flight, or launching into escape flight immediately.
There are also “fly-bys”, and the rare times when a human is concealed, and an ivorybill flies into their line of sight. But there’s nothing in these encounters that – to my mind — reveals a pattern by which we might improve our encounter rate. So searchers are still trying different things, and going into the woods, hoping for an encounter that allows a photo to be captured, or hoping to find a roost or nest. I don’t see a pattern of continuous improvement that would make me think documentation is predictable in the near future.
However, I’m very impressed with what Don Scheifler has been able to accomplish with drones. It’s possible the ivorybill story could change overnight with drone technology and with a dedicated searcher like Don. Note that Don has high quality (expensive) drones, and he has refined his skills over several years. Searching by drones is still demanding, difficult, and time consuming. But Don, or someone with similar equipment and similar skills, could capture images that would be widely accepted.
3) IF they persist, how many states do you think they may reside in?
This is just my opinion, but I would think the species is extant in all states of its former range: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina. I would question how often they show up in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, and as a practical matter, it makes sense for searchers to focus on locations where the species might be present in greater numbers. Again, this is just my opinion, and my comment is based on my personal certainty that the species exists, and a general sense that “life finds a way”, “nature abhors a vacuum”, and everything that we learn about the wonder of the natural world in school and by experience.
[…that’s certainly an optimistic take! though interesting to see you place Arkansas below some other states — I’d have it there with La., Ms., and Fla., as my own top 4]
4) There have been several major publicized searches in the last 2 decades, Cornell/USFWS, Auburn, Mike Collins, Project Principalis, and any number of individual searchers in the Congaree, Florida, Big Thicket, and on and on…. Out of all that what results/evidence do you find most convincing (if any) for the persistence of this species?
Off the top of my head, I’ll try to do this is order:
(1) The 2/23/21 Project Principalis (PP) drone video. Very few people have analyzed that video in a scientific manner. My sense is most people watch the video on their smart phones or an ordinary laptop/desktop, and see the “swoop-up”, and maybe run the video a few times, and conclude “that’s intriguing”. But I spent days/weeks on that video, using software that allows one to step frame by frame forwards and backwards, and to zoom in (I can press the zoom button 80 times). At maximum zoom, and when the view of the bird is optimal, I think the proper conclusion is that the bird is an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
(2) Geoff Hill’s video of Brian Rolek watching a bird fly across in front of their kayaks, and Rolek identifying the bird, thrusting his arm out, and calling out “ivorybill!”.
(3) Geoff Hill’s account of Tyler Hicks’s sighting around Christmastime, when Hicks saw a female, at eye level, clinging to a trunk, at a distance of about 40 feet. Pace off 40 feet from a license plate, and see how much detail you can see. I’m confident Hicks could differentiate between a Georgia and Florida license plate with his skills at that distance.
(4) Bobby Harrison and Tim Gallagher seeing the bird on Bayou DeView: two people, seeing a bird together and both instantly recognizing it. Tim Gallagher was captain of Cornell’s competitive birding team; Bobby Harrison has since seen the bird about 20 times. I understand people who want to see a photograph, but I don’t understand people who insist unequivocally that Gallagher and Harris are wrong because they are certain the species is extinct.
(5) The Luneau Video. I should probably rank this higher. I suspect a lot of birders would say the GISS of the Luneau video bird is not a Pileated Woodpecker, but GISS isn’t the last word on identification. But the flap rate is 8.6 flaps per second, AND, the flap cadence is 7 frames per flap, 7 frames per flap, 7 frames per flap, 7 frames per flap, and so on – like a metronome. Pileated Woodpeckers don’t fly like that. PIWO flaps vary in duration, fast, slow, back to fast and back to slow. In context with the rock solid personal observations the Cornell team had in that area, I feel a reasonable person could consider Pileated Woodpecker as a possible ID, but a stronger case, and the proper conclusion, is that it’s an ivorybill.
(6) Jim Fitzpatrick’s sighting at Bayou DeView. I don’t recall off the top of my head all of the biographical thumbnail provided by Cornell for Jim Fitzpatrick – he was Director of a nature center in Minnesota (I think), and I don’t remember much of his sighting except that he was in a canoe and observed an ivorybill fly-by. But I think of my relationship with my brother, and if I ever had a chance to meet Dr. John Fitzpatrick of the Cornell Lab, I would like to ask him about his brother’s sighting. I’m not sure I can explain why I feel this is so important, but if my brother told me he’d seen Bigfoot, I’d know he was kidding, and if he told me he’d seen an ivorybill, I’d know it was true.
There are other data and I immediately regret not mentioning: other sightings, like those by Melanie Driscoll and Geoff Hill, the flyunder video by Michael Collins, sightings by PP team members, sighting reports that flew under the radar and which have appeared only once or twice in obscure places, like the old Ivorybill Searchers Forum. But the data points above are ones I often recall.
[…good point that most folks simply don’t have the video equipment (or patience) to study videos, like some of the drone work, with the level of examination needed. Looking on a smartphone is hopeless folks!
I would place the Luneau video (still controversial) higher myself, and yes, sightings have to be considered one-by-one on individual merits, not just lumped (and discounted) together with some generalization, as people often do.]
5) I would guess that Louisiana, Florida, and Arkansas remain the states of greatest general interest, but leaving those out, which if any other states (or even specific areas?) do you think also deserve more attention?
Going back a couple of questions, I think all the southeast states have the potential for ivorybills, and the birds are likely to be present in all of them. In trying to document the species it makes sense to search in areas where the numbers of ivorybills are likely to be highest – mature bottomland hardwood forest with mixed aged trees and lots of dying and recently dead trees in areas that were historically the “heart” of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker range. Another important factor is “persistence”; I think there is still much unknown about the life history of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, and whether they are routinely nomadic, or might occupy one area for a year or two or three, or if – under the right circumstances – they might persist in one area for many years.
In thinking about where to search, there have been many places discussed, familiar names (Atchafalaya, Big Thicket, Apalachicola, Congaree, Choctawhatchee), and, big picture, the larger the area, and the more remote, the better. Size and remoteness are factors that help ivorybills avoid humans, and I think a key element of ivorybill behavior and life history is avoiding humans. So searchers should go where it is hard to go.
Equally important factors affecting where we search are logistics, funding, and manpower. Geoff Hill did an excellent job of describing the practical reality of putting together an ivorybill search effort. You need funding, you need permission, you need people, you need time. It’s not like going out for a couple hours on a Sunday morning and looking for birds at a local hotspot. There are lots of places to search: I think generally they are going to be public lands (for access), bottomland hardwood forest, big trees, very few people. The hard part is time, money, people.
6) As skeptics would note, this is a large, striking, sometimes loud species, that, if it persists, must be foraging, traveling, using roost or nest holes daily, and at least fairly successfully breeding…. How do you account for the difficulty of finding or encountering it repeatedly after being seen in an area once, let alone the difficulty of getting a single clear piece of photographic evidence over decades of time?
I disagree that the birds are vocal or loud, I don’t think that’s been the experience of any of the sustained search efforts. When I first went to Arkansas, I was fortunate to meet Martjan Lammertink, and he commented on something that’s always stuck with me: Great Slaty Woodpeckers were vocal where there was a critical mass of individuals; but on an island where he searched for them and they were rare, there were, in effect, few other birds to talk to, they were largely silent.
Once, I was with a younger member of the PP team, a fellow with excellent hearing, and he picked up on soft contact calls as we were deploying ARUs. I captured a recording (several minutes), and they don’t sound like the 1937 Cornell recording to my ear (or when we analyzed them with software). I imagined an adult flying about, foraging, with a juvenile, and the adult would softly kent “where are you”; and the juvenile responded “over here”, and 30 seconds later the adult again “where are you”, and the juvenile “over here”. Over and over, “where are you”, and then “still here”; and then “just checking” and a response “jeesh – I’m still here”. That’s all my imagination, and at one point several of us (including me) concluded they weren’t ivorybill calls at all (probably squirrel), but then later, I thought they were ivorybill. And in the end, there’s just no scientific way to say what made the noises we heard that day in the forest. Which is part of my larger comment on why listening for some bird species is an effective way to survey for them, but listening for ivorybills doesn’t seem, to me, to be particularly effective. (Except that while doing boots-on-the-ground searching, it’s always important to listen while searching, for the possibility of encountering birds that are vocalizing.)
I don’t think there’s any big mystery about why we don’t encounter ivorybills more often. In my opinion, it’s simple: (1) there are only a very few birds, (2) occupying a very large area, and (3) a key part of their behavior is to avoid humans. (And maybe, their behavior is to avoid upright animals that walk on two legs and sometimes carry a stick on their shoulder and sometimes point the stick at a squirrel or duck and the stick makes a loud noise and kills the squirrel.) I’ve heard others say – and this sounds right to me – that ivorybills are usually in the tree canopy, and usually see us long before we have a chance to see them. I think they are hardwired to avoid humans, and can easily do so simply by clinging to the backside of a branch until we move on.
Another big misunderstanding I see on social media and even in published papers is that “there’s a lot of people out there searching” and “there’s a lot of birders out there”. I’ve searched in 4 states, and have never, ever, seen any birders while searching. And while there have been a few organized searches, they were only able to survey a limited area, for a limited amount of time. Entire vast areas of suitable habitat have never been searched, or never been searched a second time. To use the parlance of social media vitriolic discourse: truthers should acknowledge a better photo/video is needed, and skeptics should acknowledge we’re barely scratching the surface on coverage.
[…yup, can’t stress enough what a myth it is that somehow the 100s of thousands inhospitable acres of potential IBWO habitat have ever been fully searched or are routinely trafficked by humans, let alone birders. As someone once wrote, you’re not just looking for a needle in a remote haystack, but a moving needle (a strong bird that can fly long distances quickly).]
Also, what do you think is the strongest argument or point that skeptics make; the one that is the most difficult to counter?
Without a doubt, that no one has captured a clear, unambiguous photo or video. That’s a fair point. There are photographs of wary birds, like antpittas, and Black Rail and Yellow Rail, and of birds that are nocturnal. There are photographs of very rare birds that have only shown up a few times in North America (there are only a few records of Eurasian Siskin in North America, but one showed up at Unalaska when I had a chance to go there, and it was not too difficult to get a photo).
I was one of those high school students who was skeptical of the binomial theorem; that if a roulette wheel yielded 8 red numbers in a row, then (I thought) betting on black would be a better than even bet. I flipped thousands of coins and recorded the results – and I vaguely recall getting 15 heads in a row. I was amazed. So here we are in the midst of the ivorybill saga, and... what are the chances:
Fielding Lewis’s Kodak photos are just ambiguous enough to seed doubt;
Wright’s ivorybill photos on VIREO are difficult to explain;
David Kullivan thoughtfully didn’t reach for his camera for fear of flushing the birds;
Luneau video camera focused on bow of the canoe instead of further out;
Melanie Driscoll had just put her camera away because of light rain;
Tyler Hicks’s camera was set to autofocus;
After I flushed a bird to a tree trunk, I readied my binoculars instead of my camera;
Drone technology right on the cusp of producing clear images in 2021.
In the last few decades, there have been lots of chances to get a photo, and each time the coin got flipped, the result was no clear photo. One of these times, I’m hopeful fortunes will be reversed. But for right now – people are correct in assessing that we’ve been in a long streak with no good outcome.
[this is one place we somewhat disagree! -- I DON'T think the inability of HUMANS to get a clear photo is a good argument at all (without finding a nest or roosthole, that difficulty ought be expected!). But I think skeptics do have 2 strong arguments: (a) very disappointing that no automatic camera focused on a potential IBWO cavity or foraging site has captured the species (despite millions of frames shot). Automatic cameras have their own problems BUT not the problems of hand-held cameras & human foibles, and if they can't capture an IBWO then either the birds don't exist or we are quite clueless at IDing active IBWO tree-work (despite significant man-hours attempting to over the decades). (b) the mathematical problem of overcoming whatever genetic bottleneck the species may have faced decades ago, especially if Tanner's estimate of less than 2 dozen birds in the entire Southeast at his time was anywhere close to correct (we pretty much have to assume he was waaay off-base on that one, for birds to persist today). These, I think, are the toughest challenges for believers, and not addressed enough! -- there are responses but you have to walk a bit of a tightrope!]
7) What recommendations do you have for any adventuresome person preparing to explore some potential habitat for IBWOs (or for anyone already out there with boots-on-the-ground)?
(1) Just do it. I’ve been trying to complete construction of a house, and get my father moved in, and I almost didn’t get out into the field this winter. The carpenter who built my house asked about my plans, and when I waffled, he knew it was important to me and he encouraged me to go. I needed that push.
(2) Plan in advance, especially lodging if you’re traveling to the southeast. I always regret I don’t do more training ahead of my field trips – just getting out and walking a few miles 3 or 4 times a week would help. Research big expenses like binoculars, cameras, kayaks (if you need a boat), boots (higher is better; insulated or not, or both; durable). Anticipate mosquitoes, snakes, sunburn and heat rash. A good gps app is essential, and I always had spare batteries in my backpack AND a compass (because gps goes squirrely sometimes and it would be very easy to lose a smartphone). Small things that are helpful like good wool/wicking socks, a boot jack, and something comfortable to sit on.
(3) For boots on the ground, start early (carry headlamps because often we’re hiking through upland woods a bit before reaching the bottomland); alternate walking with “sits”; choose places to sit that have a good line of sight along a creek or clearing; move slowly; use gps tracks to follow different lines to view different trees and opposite sides of trees for possible cavities; have a camera ready and practice using it; keep daily notes; find out which cell phone towers work in your search area. Be prepared: I and my search partners have had bad falls, near misses with snakes, got wet and uncomfortably cold, exhausted and uncomfortably hot. After forgetting something a couple of mornings the first week, I’ll make a checklist, and run down it before heading out.
(4) Re-read Tanner (especially the sections on nest/roost characteristics, cavity dimensions, nest tree species and size); and read web pages, articles, books by Cornell, Auburn and Project Principalis. Searching is usually pretty enjoyable: we’re in beautiful forests, in a fascinating habitat full of plants, animals and fungi, moving at a fairly slow pace, looking and listening, and with lots of time to think. Maybe even to try to “think like an ivorybill” and imagine what they might be doing, and how that might give you an advantage in trying to find a nest or a roost.
(5) Consider searching by drone. It’s a significant expense, requires researching the technology available for consumer purchase, and requires learning FAA rules and probably obtaining permission (drones aren’t allowed at national parks, other federal or state public land agencies have different regulations). As much as I enjoy spending days in the woods (“living the bio-tech dream”), I can’t help but think drone technology is likely to be more effective.
(6) With an unlimited budget and manpower, I’ve dreamed of setting up cameras about 200 ft to 400 ft from a tree crown, and zoomed in to capture just the crown. I’d program the camera to record a photo every 5 to 10 seconds (or record a video if computers in the next step could handle it). And then use AI to scan the photos (or video) for ivorybills. My understanding is that AI is not quite there yet (I could be wrong), so the alternative would be to crowdsource people willing to review the photos looking for ivorybills.
8) Over the years searchers have tried a lot of search ideas: Mike Collins’ ‘paddle cam’ and tree-climbing to bird from the canopy, using playback tapes or generating double-knocks to attract the birds, setting out ARUs & remote automatic cameras, more recently employing drone-operated cameras, of course cataloging cavities & bark-stripping for likelihood of IBWO activity, etc. etc. Do you have an opinion on what might be the very best ideas to try, or any ideas that are NOT good to try (for example some have argued that focusing automatic motion-detection cameras on cavities may only scare the birds off)?
Great question – my wheels are spinning. And... “no” I don’t know what works and what doesn’t work, because – basically – no one has figured that out yet. Various teams and individuals have had ivorybill sightings, but I don’t know of any specific strategy that has resulted in greater success, or that has lessened the possibility of an encounter. Encounters are rare – other than some basic principles: be in suitable habitat, start as early in the morning as possible, spend as much time in the field as possible, stay alert and keep your head up rather than just watching your feet (even though falls are a problem and we all get tired in the afternoon), the potential for an encounter is chance. Listening is important; even though my search partners and I were sometimes talking just before encountering an ivorybill, I’m guilty of sometimes lapsing into an old anecdote instead of listening for kents. We were always excited and full of energy every morning; it’s important to stay focused, and maintain discipline in the afternoon. Heads up; look; focus; concentrate.
I’ve tried double knocks, and using a sax mouthpiece to simulate kent calls, and I was just about to say that I don’t think they are effective, and should be avoided because we don’t really know what their effect on an ivorybill might be, if one was present. But I assisted a friend on a Cornell Citizen Science project many years ago, and playbacks were amazingly effective for the species he was surveying for. So, I don’t have the knowledge or expertise to say how effective double knocks or calls might be (and that’s a good reason for me to avoid them).
Here’s some quick takes: read Mark Michaels’s blog, especially the sections on bark scaling; Mark has really clarified what to look for, and what details are important; I think he understands this sign better than anyone. Setting out trail cameras could work; and I maintain swapping out batteries and SD cards gets you out into the woods, where you have a chance for an encounter. Running a camera continuously might work (it did for Luneau, Hill, Collins and Harrison) but it’s hard work. Tending a camera every hour you’re in the woods requires frequent monitoring of equipment and battery swapping (technology can make that easier). But there are entire search seasons that go by and you may not have any encounters – so for me, that makes it difficult to justify tending equipment that never produces results. I haven’t seen much discussion about whether to wear camo recently, we don’t do that on regular birding outings, but it’s considered standard practice in ivorybill searching (which is kind of humorous – but maybe it will help in the right circumstance). In general, searchers should try and do things that suit them, as long as it doesn’t pose any risks to the birds or the environment in general.
9) Critics will say that most IBWO sightings are brief and distant, and therefore prone to mistakes or ‘wishful thinking’ even by experienced birders…. the counterargument is that the size/bulk, flight style, main field marks, and just overall GISS or ‘jizz’ of the IBWO is distinctive enough to allow for accurate identification by an experienced birder even in brief encounters — I just put that out there for any comment you might have?
I think this topic is way overdone on Facebook pages devoted to the ivorybill. I mentioned some notable ivorybill sightings above, and there are others over the past decades, and more recent sightings, vetted by scientists using a process of review, evaluation, consensus, and logic to weed out the very large number of (usually) Pileated Woodpeckers mistaken for ivorybills, so that what’s left are a very few valid sightings. I think it was Gallagher that included a section in his book about the approach Lowery used at LSU (or was it Van Remsen ?), since they would receive a large number of reports. They had a mimeographed form with blanks such as Dear _____; we received your report dated _____. Based on your description, we believe the bird you saw was a _______, because ______.
If I think about it, I can respect the enthusiasm everyone shows for birds, for nature, and the excitement they feel when they think they’ve seen something extraordinary. On Facebook, many reports are of Pileated Woodpeckers, and many readers figure it out, and form a consensus, and politely explain to the original poster what they’ve actually seen, and share their excitement – because it’s all good. But I’m human, so – yeah, sometimes it gets a bit old when someone reports yet another Pileated after having apparently made no effort with a field guide or the internet to review their own observation. But the proper thing to do, we all know, what our parents taught us, what Cornell and LSU and Auburn invariably did, was to remain polite and helpful, even if sometimes a bit succinct.
The added problem on Facebook is that some people apparently conclude that because there are so many misidentifications by well-meaning but inexperienced birders, then all personal observations are in error, including those by Harrison and Gallagher, Hill, Hicks, Latta and others with excellent field skills and impeccable credentials. That’s just illogical. I’ll emphasize again that, had I not observed an ivorybill myself, I wouldn’t know what to make of the published results by Cornell, Auburn and Project Principalis. I wouldn’t say they’re clearly wrong, but the absence of a clear photograph means I wouldn’t say they’re clearly right. I’d be intrigued, and confused, and think “well, that’s interesting” and I’d wait as the years go by to see if any more light could be shed on the existence of ivorybills.
To elaborate further on why I think it’s possible for, say, USFWS scientists and other searchers to evaluate sighting reports, I’ll note it’s a common occurrence and we have lots of opportunities to address it. Unlike actual sightings of ivorybills, we have gained a lot of experience with purported sightings, and can detect patterns that usually allow one to evaluate and reach a conclusion. The birds are superficially similar, especially in size, structure, and with white and black as the prominent colors. Also, a close encounter with a fly-by PIWO often presents a very different appearance to the observer than our usual views of PIWO at a respectable distance.
There’s a significant difference in valid reports made by searchers who have the knowledge and experience to identify ivorybills, and well meaning novices who have confused the two species. In the field, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker isn’t anything at all like a Pileated Woodpecker. The superficial similarity is on the field guide plate. The two species move in ways that are so distinctly different, I’m confident nearly all birders would catch on to the difference in seconds.
A Pileated Woodpecker is large, quicker and faster than humans, indifferent to people, and flashy. An Ivory-billed Woodpecker is ballistic, seemingly an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than PIWOs, and does its utmost to avoid humans. In the first milliseconds upon seeing a Pileated Woodpecker, our minds are processing the image and considering the possibilities, but, before a full second has elapsed, experienced birders aren’t going to confuse the two – it’s not even close.
An analogy is the difference between Ruby-crowned Kinglet and Hutton’s Vireo. They look very, very similar on the field guide plate. But for birders who see these species in the field – they move in completely different ways. (So much so that birders often joke a RCKI looks like HUVI on drugs, and/or HUVI looks like RCKI on drugs.)
[…yeah, unfortunately I think the constant stream of Pileated photos/videos now showing up on the Web mislabeled as Ivory-bills (even by well-meaning folks), has become a huge problem in leading to the overgeneralization that therefore all such reports must be bogus :( ]
10) You’re a long-time birder; within today’s birding community the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is almost a taboo subject in many quarters, with only a small percentage of active birders probably believing the species persists. So just curious, with your own birding friends do you enjoy discussing the subject, or do you find it best to avoid it?
I tried to get a couple of my birding friends interested in the search, and purchased books for them (my favorites: Gallagher, Hill, Jackson). But – if I put myself in their shoes – I get it. We all have too much stuff going on in our lives, and limited time to do it. Ivorybill searching is my priority, it’s not theirs. They have open minds, but just aren’t focused on the subject as I do; they patiently wait to see if any more light will be shed on the existence of ivorybills over the coming years.
One of my birding friends was very patient with me, and allowed me to update her whenever we were out birding on what was going on. I finally figured out she was just more polite than my other birding friends, and tolerated me more than the others. It’s not that the subject is taboo, I’d say instead that other birders just aren’t anywhere near as interested as me in the topic.
I even tried an informal experiment by participating in our annual state birding convention a couple of years, and when there was a lull in birding, I’d ask my new friends what they’d heard about ivorybills and if they had thoughts about persistence vs. extinction. There were no strong feelings one way or another, people were polite, and sometimes asked a few questions, were open minded, and willing to wait as many years as necessary to see if any more light would be shed on the topic. There was none of the strident debate sometimes evident on Facebook.
The Facebook ivorybill pages can be fun, entertaining, sometimes with interesting or useful information (I always enjoying seeing different and various ivorybill artwork), but it’s not representative, I think, of what most birders or most ornithologists think about the issue. Moreover, the people that might have the most to contribute in any discussion on ivorybills – the folks from Cornell, Auburn, and Project Principalis – generally don’t engage on Facebook. I think it’s self evident that professional researchers can find little of value in much of what’s posted. Although there are many good people engaging on Facebook in good faith, the nature of social media makes it impossible for most searchers to participate. There are notable exceptions, Chuck Hunter and David Martin are two of the most knowledgeable ivorybill experts; I read and re-read everything they post.
[…yeah, sorry to sound so negative, but I do find that social media, especially on any controversial topic, has a tendency to oversimplify and dumb it down, which is a shame since the internet has SOOO much potential for educating people, but it takes a lot of effort. I no longer take much offense at the mocking and derision we “believers” get from skeptics, because too often we bring it on ourselves :( ]
11) Lastly, anything else in general you would want to either say to searchers, or just say about this whole 80+ year saga?
I think the vast majority of birders, ornithologists, nature enthusiasts and the general public have the proper attitude with regards ivorybills: they are not certain, at present, either way on persistence or extinction, they are interested in new developments, have an open mind, and will pay close attention if and when new developments are announced.
Searching for ivorybills is a blast, and to me and other searchers, it’s important. I know that there’s a grave risk we could lose ivorybills, and a whole host of other species. The people who read your blog are, I’m sure, environmentalists at heart, and wish that our communities, our nation and other nations would cooperate more to preserve the nature and the planet that sustains us. It’s important in ways that our national heroes like Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson wrote about; I can’t come anywhere close to expressing the importance of conservation as they have.
The problem of confirming that ivorybills persist is, I think, one of the most challenging in science. I’ve read in the past how rare it is to discover new species in phylum Chordata. The idea that a large woodpecker, present in collection trays across the nation, still exists, and can’t be documented is – profound. My field was engineering and project management, I don’t know how ornithologists would characterize this gap in knowledge, but to me, it’s a gigantic and fascinating question. For very complex reasons, it hasn’t yet yielded to standard scientific/biological methods of investigation.
I mentioned above that Hill did an excellent job of explaining the practical limitations of launching an academically sponsored search effort. Funding, permission, manpower, logistics – they are huge hurdles. And there is risk: how many professionals can devote a couple of years or more (based on past searches) to an effort with a high probability of failure?
I’m pretty good with physics and mathematics, and have college level knowledge of chemistry and some biology, but I have very little knowledge of the science of psychology. I’m speculating, but I think many birders and ornithologists, including me, learned early on from our mentors (or maybe a publication) that “alas, my beloved Ivorybill is extinct.” I imagine an elder James Tanner said that to his students, and they in turn said it to their students, and so on, and the idea that “alas, my beloved Ivorybill is extinct” became a part of birding orthodoxy. Just like many of us were admonished by our Third Grade teachers that we can’t begin a sentence with a contraction. But of course we can (and when I was coauthor on a scientific paper at the Bureau of Standards, and tasked with addressing review questions, the most difficult problem to resolve was a sentence written by the senior author that began with “And...” which violated the mandate handed down by the reviewer’s Third Grade teacher). We humans have a hard time reconsidering the orthodoxy of what we learned early on: “Alas, my beloved Ivorybill is extinct.”
I’m biased towards people like me, who maybe flipped a few thousand coins in high school to see the results, and who can sit hunched over a computer for hours and days on end reviewing grainy video of putative Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. I think an interview like this, with a subject like me who has played a minor role in searching for ivorybills should be somewhat boring – I think perhaps I’ve succeeded. But if there’s someone out there that wants to do something more, something hard, I’d point to the 2/23/2021 Project Principalis drone video. Dig into that. Study each individual frame. If you get to the point where you can calculate the bird’s flap rate, I think you’ll have figured it out.
[...I'm biased towards people like you as well, Erik ;) and a big believer that all we can do is play probabilities (which unfortunately, cynics and optimists view quite differently), until more certainty arrives; THANKS again for taking the time to do this!]
*************************
IF there are other IBWO searchers/researchers (or, skeptical sorts!) out there interested in "submitting" to an interview feel free to contact me (especially if you feel you have a deep take or different take on this subject): cyberthrush[AT]gmail.com -- I already have a list of names, but can always add more; the problem at my end is just finding adequate time to do these!
--------------------------------------------
