-- The 'Jizz' of a Bird --

-------------------------------------------------------------
As most readers likely know there is in birding a notion of the "jizz" of a bird -- an overall impression (gut reaction, or 'gestalt' as some would say) one gets in even a brief view of a bird -- based on fleeting features of perceived color, shape, size, and movement, in some combination. It may result in a specific ID, or simply ruling out various IDs.
Unlike many optimists, I don't find Cornell's acoustic evidence for Ivory-bills in the Big Woods compelling. And the Luneau film clip remains rightly very controversial. Upon first viewing it, the "jizz" of that bird said to me "melanistic white ibis!" -- I STILL haven't ruled that out!!! (Cornell claims the bird must be a woodpecker, because it is perched on the side of a tree at beginning of clip, BUT it is on the OPPOSITE side of the tree and thus not entirely clear whether it is grasping the tree's trunk OR perched atop a possible branch nub, though I tend to accept the Lab's analysis). Even without knowing of Cornell's calculated measurements for the bird, it appears, to my eyes, (pretty clearly) TOO large for a Pileated, but this admittedly, is subjective. Moreover, on BOTH the up and down wing strokes the bird seems to reveal far TOO MUCH white for a Pileated -- indeed, I'm amazed at those who now argue the bird could actually be a NORMAL Pileated, and need not even be leucistic!!?? In the end, one can only play probabilities, and given a hesitant acceptance of Cornell's measurement techniques/results and this bird's 'jizz,' I feel the probability is WELL over 50% for Luneau's speciman being an Ivory-bill.
BUT... the video isn't even important to me. The MOST compelling evidence, for me, remains the 7-15 sightings by experienced birders who were immediately struck by the NON-Pileated "jizz" of the bird-in-question. It's size/bulk, amount and pattern of white, and in some instances flight style, all shouted out 'something different!' -- 'like a Pileated, but NOT a Pileated!' This consensus is weighty, especially when combined with all the other evidence over decades for the bird's survival.
When David Kulivan reported 2 Ivory-bills at Pearl River in 1999, doubters clamored for multiple, or more credible, witnesses. Now, in AR. they have THAT, but once more the bar has been raised. I fear, some skeptics won't be convinced unless, as in 1932, another Mason Spencer-like figure comes forth to plop a dead, warm Ivory-bill carcass on the desk at the AR. Game and Fish Commission and declare, "hey fellas, here's that dang bird ya' all been lookin' fer." Deja vu, anyone?!
---------------------------------------------------------

- How To Do a Good IBWO Search -

-----------------------------------------------------
One of the most frequent questions posed by skeptics is, "How could such a large bird have escaped detection for 60 years?"

First off, they are simply WRONG: the bird has been credibly reported (just never confirmed) dozens of times through the years; and undoubtedly there are dozens more sightings never officially turned in. But I'll put all that aside for the moment.
Let's instead start with a few assumptions:

1) this bird resides in remote, dense, difficult-to-access areas
2) this bird knows every crook-and-cranny of its forest habitat (and has a decided advantage over the typical human entering such habitat)
3) this bird is wary of people and upon seeing/sensing their presence from 100-400 yards away will either:
a. duck inside a tree-hole, becoming INVISIBLE to all who pass, or
b. simply fly off in an opposite direction from the human activity.

(not everyone will accept these assumptions, but I think them safe, or at least reasonable)

So how do you conduct an adequate search for such a creature? SIMPLE:
You totally encircle the area in question with trained observers, with synchronized watches, who at an agreed time, begin tracking inward (of course some habitat parts will be impassable...) so that whichever direction a shy IBWO flies off in, to escape one set of searchers, it comes into view of a different group (if it simply dives into a roost-hole, of course, you're still out--of-luck!). Simple, but of course IMPOSSIBLE! -- how many observers would be required to encircle even an area of 25,000 acres let alone regions like the Atchafalaya in LA., Appalachicola in FL., or Big Woods of AR. (100,000s of acres)? In short, the searches done to this point are inherently inadequate to the task-at-hand. What IS remarkable is not the lack of sightings over 60 years, but truly the number of repeated reports over those years by sheer chance and incredible luck of single observers!! -- And equally remarkable, the lack of seriousness applied to those sightings by so many birders/writers.
Nobody ever said that finding/confirming Ivory-bills would be easy -- and yet "easy" is exactly what so many skeptics seem to imply it ought be. Go figure???
------------------------------------------------------------

-- The Ivory-bill In Song --

------------------------------------------
On a more light and lilting note... this is somewhat old news, but in case you missed it back in July, singer-songwriter Sufjan Stevens put out a ballad entitled simply "The Lord God Bird." If your thing is 'heavy metal' or 'rap,' uh-h-hh, you can probably pass on this, but otherwise give his haunting piece a listen. Downloadable at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4721675

(likely available at many other sites as well)
------------------------------------------

-- AOU Summation --

-------------------------------------------
One of "Birder's World Magazine's" web forums today has a concise summary of Cornell's Ron Rohrbaugh's answers to some of the AR. IBWO skepticism at:

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1317

...I would add one further thought as follows: Do the skeptics truly realize what they're asking people to believe? -- according to them, an oddball leucistic Pileated inhabits the Big Woods forest; yet in 20,000+ man-hours of searching over a 14-month period, NOT a single birder (many very experienced) EVER, EVER reported seeing such an oversized, symmetrically-plumaged bird; but we are told to believe that it WAS in fact spotted 15 or more times (from different angles, heights, distances, times-of-day) and in EVERY single instance mistaken for an Ivory-bill. What are the chances...?
-------------------------------------------

- A Technical Note, of sorts -

-------------------------------------------
Much of the modern IBWO literature describes the Ivory-bill 'kent' call as a loud version of a White-breasted Nuthatch -- I've often used this comparison myself. Yet in re-reading parts of Tanner recently I realized he actually compared the call most favorably to the RED-BREASTED Nuthatch, not it's cousin! Upon playing tapes of both calls I concur the quality of the IBWO 'kent' is closer to the 'toot' of the latter bird than the 'yank' of the former. Thus far, Cornell has only mentioned sonographically comparing their AR. recordings to the WB; another comparison may be in order.
-------------------------------------------

-- Revelation --

---------------------------------------------------------
There are many reasons to believe in the Ivory-bill's existence, but I've said for several years, that if I had to pick out just one reason it would be the VERY SAME one most birders use to argue for the bird's demise: HABITAT! Most folks claim there is no suitable habitat remaining for this species. To the contrary, the number of remote, little-accessed, dense Southern forest patches available that could sustain 1-2 pairs of IBWOs (not to mention non-breeding juveniles) has long been SIGNIFICANT and growing. In the current Smithsonian magazine (Aug. 2005), top-notch birder Scott Weidensaul says this:

"And there is another, far more potent reason for hope. I've birded all over the country, but the Big Woods area was a revelation to me -- a vast, beautiful chunk of wild land." (italics added).

If this area was a "revelation" to someone as knowledgeable and experienced as Scott, than how much other habitat has been ignored by the country's birders? Jerry Jackson argued for years that revised forestry practices have allowed possible adequate IBWO habitat to INCREASE substantially over the decades, NOT decrease, as people blindly presume.

A lot of headlines in ensuing months will go understandably to the Cornell guys (and gals), but truly MUCH recognition ought to also be directed to David Luneau, Bob Russell, Mary Scott, and others unsung who, in the presence of deaf ears, have been telling us for years that the habitat IS OUT THERE, and who specifically honed-in on the Arkansas region. THANKS guys, for leading the way when others, with their words... or their silence, failed to do so....
------------------------------------------------------------

- For What It's Worth... -

------------------------------------------
As reported in the current "North American Birds" (Winter season, west of Mississippi), Tim Spahr, a Harvard astrophysicist and IBWO searcher, who specializes in "the calculation of rare events," has developed an algorithm based largely on Tanner's old Singer Tract data, which concludes that a single Ivory-bill occupying the Cache River bayou area could avoid detection by 20 observers indefinitely!! -- Luckily, for us, I have no doubt there is far more than one bird in the area...
-----------------------------------------

- Erickson's Review -

-------------------------------------------
Once again I'll just refer readers to Laura Erickson's update on the AOU meeting proceedings (haven't run across any other writer/birder on the web doing regular postings from the convention scene???). Essentially, nothing much seems to have changed -- the doubters continue to doubt; the believers continue to believe the intransigent doubters are off their ever-lovin' perversely-stubborn, obstructionist, termite-infested rockers (just kidding,... I think?).
For the record, I personally still believe the newly-released audio data is actually the weakest evidence in Cornell's arsenal (strong acoustic evidence in a large forest expanse will always be difficult to come by, unless by sheer chance the bird is positioned right above or near the automatic recording device). There are some hints that still more sighting or video evidence may be in current preparation for release as well... or else we will just have to wait and hope that winter brings forth the debate-quashing, jaw-dropping pics everyone yearns for.
------------------------------------------

- Acoustic Evidence???... NYET!! -

------------------------------------------------------
Cornell released some of their acoustic evidence earlier today -- possible IBWO 'double knocks' and 'kent' calls recorded by automatic recording devices in the AR. Big Woods. You can go to their site and work through 'latest updates' to download the samples -- I would give a more direct link to it EXCEPT frankly I'm not sure it's worth it! Despite reading several favorable, positive comments about the recordings on internet chat groups (and possibly there's some problem with my machine or sound system or the way it downloaded), from what I glean off the tapes I DON'T believe these are recordings of IBWO double raps (the rhythm/timbre/sharpness is NOT right -- it was not right from the get-go for the recording made at Pearl River 3 years ago either, and I was always surprised Cornell spent so much effort before concluding that). The 'kent' sounds are more ambiguous, but for the moment I'm doubtful that they originate from Ivory-bills either (...are these the SAME recordings that Prum/Robbins heard prompting their sudden retraction!??)
Of course, I hope I'm wrong and that a better, different download will convince me otherwise, but for now I fear these released recordings only serve to muddy the waters yet further, and stand no chance of bringing resolution between differing viewpoints. It will be interesting to learn what folks actually attending the AOU meeting thought of the recordings (and accompanying talk) vs. those of us hearing only an internet version.
----------------------------------------------------

-- More Speculation --

------------------------------------------------------
Probabilistically, the most likely places to find Ivory-bills besides Arkansas (according to many accounts), may be Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and South Carolina. While paltry few areas in these states have ever been subject to thorough, large-scale, adequately-organized searches over the years, many individuals on their own have spent time perusing some of the best habitat in these states. However, as intimated in a previous post, given the more northerly location of the Arkansas sightings, nearby areas that have been largely ignored over the decades suddenly become much more intriguing to consider -- in particular, bottomland areas around the Mississippi River in southeastern Missouri, western Tennessee, and northwestern Mississippi are within comfortable range of the Cache River activity, even if less historically-pertinent.
I would be interested to hear from anyone seriously-involved in current or upcoming efforts to explore such areas (cyberthrush@wildmail.com). Which direction the AR. birds originally came from (many folks assume, unnecessarily, that they are remnants of the old Singer Tract population), and in which direction they might have dispersed young birds, if any, remain open questions. We are dealing here with a species that has demonstrated over time a habit of defying common assumptions.
------------------------------------------------------------

- L. Erickson's Report -

-----------------------------------------------------------
Writer/birder Laura Erickson's first report from Santa Barbara (AOU meeting) is now available at her site:
http://birdwatching.birderblog.com/

Nothing specific yet from the meeting itself, just her detailed overview of controversy surrounding the AR. findings and why she's a believer.
-----------------------------------------------------------

- Did Man Ever Walk On the Moon? -

--------------------------------------------------------------
Am beginning to wonder if IBWO skeptics believe that American moon landings were mere Hollywood smoke-and-mirror stunts!? Talk about an extraordinary event! -- Every aspect of the astronaut moon landings can be given an alternative explanation if one is bound-and-determined to do so and deny they ever happened. We believe in such events ONLY out of blind trust in the reports of people who in large part we don't even know.
IBWO skepticism stems from a flawed notion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," as if such a thing as indisputable "proof" even exists. Most birders would be hard-pressed to truly "prove" ANY OF THE SIGHTINGS on their life-list, especially in a day when even photographic and video evidence can be readily faked. Yet 'extraordinary' standards have been set for this one species (...in some instances possibly by individuals whose reputation/credibility have a stake in the bird NOT being found). Like everyone, I too would love to see the definitive photograph or video happen, but we ought to err on the side of protecting this bird, not denying it. Declaring (or assuming) a species extinct (and that assumption is behind most of the skepticism) is itself an extraordinary (and dangerous) claim!... which should ONLY be taken when evidence indicates it BEYOND a reasonable doubt -- in the case of the Ivory-bill, and it's many potential sightings across decades, that threshold has NEVER even been close to met. Jerry Jackson made the rational case for the bird's existence back in the '80s, and the decades since have only improved the potential for IBWO survival. In short, better that we assume a species exists and act accordingly, only to find out 50 years later that it was extinct all along, than to assume it extinct and find out 50 years later that it's been hanging on by a thread with no help from us.
The numbers of animal species that go decades without ever being seen only to be "rediscovered" continues to grow (not to mention totally NEW species discovered each year); only Man's entrenched arrogance allows some scientists to believe that 'dumb' creatures can't possibly elude our superior capabilities for years on end.
Just maybe Cornell will be releasing the evidence needed, at this week's AOU meeting, to bring everyone into fuller accord and focus, so that the absolutely crucial work ahead, may proceed in earnest and with some unanimity. Or so one can hope....
---------------------------------------------

-- Homage --

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord God Bird


I shan't forget that fateful day
In April of '05
When word emerged from Arkansas
'The Grail' was still alive!

Visage, ghost, forest phantom
Skulking through the dank and deep
Milieu of moss-laden swampland
Of that Arkansas retreat.

Grown men wept, o'ercome by joy
As cheers spread 'cross the land
The bird knew not, the bliss it brought
From that bottomland.

Regal, bold, majestic, saintly
Prehistoric silhouette
Shy, elusive, ever-wary
Thus surviving Man's neglect.

Can we save thee, so our children
Might in days still to come
Gaze upon thee, and behold thee
Perched above, against the sun?

And revel in that lordly presence
So long absent, so long gone
Now returned, as Phoenix rising
Carry on... CARRY ON!!

© 2005 Cyberthrush, ivorybills.blogspot.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- AOU Meeting Upcoming --

-----------------------------
The American Ornithologists' Union's annual meeting begins Aug 23rd (through 27th) in Santa Barbara, CA. Scattered among the multitude of presentations, surprise(!), surprise(!), will be several on the Ivory-bill : - ))) I shan't be there, but readers attending are welcome to send along any bits of interest they deem newsworthy to me (cyberthrush@wildmail.com) for possible inclusion in the blog.

thanks... and happy schmooozing!
-----------------------------

-- Question, Put To Rest --

---------------------------------------
Several folks responded quickly to the previous post-query (if you haven't already seen it you may want to jump down to read that post first), and artist/birder Julie Zickefoose's explanation was as good and thorough as any of them:

"Here's what's happening in that photo, and in life:
The famous (and only good) Arthur Allen photo of the flying ivory-bill was taken from beneath, with bright overhead lighting. As such, the white secondaries and inner primaries are illuminated and clearly read as white. The white lining of the underwing, which includes the underwing coverts and feathering along the ventral surface of the patagium, does not appear white in this photo because it is in shadow, and the light is not shining through it. If you look at any photo of a flying bird, taken from below and brightly lit from above, light is able to pass only through the flight feathers along the trailing edge of the wing, since there's only one layer of feathers there. Light really can't pass through a patagium, since it's heavily feathered, and there's skin and bone to further block that light. So, confusingly, this "wing lining" appears dark in the photo. But rest assured that Roger Peterson and other careful bird painters did get it right. And field guide plates emphasize local color rather than artifacts of light, because their mission is to show what color the bird actually is, rather than the color it may appear to be.
I invite everyone to look at my comparison plates of pileated and ivory-billed woodpeckers in the latest issue of Bird Watcher's Digest, just hitting the mailboxes and newsstands."

Thanks for the quick response Julie (and all others as well).
------------------------------------------

-- Interesting Question! --

The following question was posed today by a trained ornithologist on the Carolina bird listserv. The photo referred to is the same one used to in-line Phil Hoose's book, thus has had wide distribution, yet I've never heard this obvious question raised. Maybe it simply involves a trick of lighting, or does someone have other explanations...
----------------------

"Greetings all, I just received my copy of North American Birds with the IBWO coverage and Dave Sibley's paintings. Very consistent with all the other artistic renditions of IBWO in flight, it raises a most interesting question. In AC Bent's Life Histories of NA Woodpeckers, is a nice series of IBWO photos by AA Allen in April 1935. One of the photos shows a bird in flight almost directly overhead. All the paintings of the underwing illustrate two bars of white; one on the leading edge and one on the trailing edge with a narrow strip of black in the middle. However, in the photo, the underwing pattern appears to be very different and more like the upperwing pattern (unless the photographed bird is flying upside down) as follows: Leading edge of the wing and about 40% of the underwing from the leading edge are black. The 60% of the wing including the trailing edge to the outermost primaries are pure white. Again, based on what I can discern in the photo, the underwing appears to be two-toned, not three-toned as is painted. Best I can tell, there are one of two possibilities: 1) the photo is somehow not showing the underwing pattern correctly. 2) RT Peterson (first to paint it) got it wrong and every artist since has copied him. I'd love some input on this (but please look at the photo before commenting)."

------------------------------

-- What If... --

----------------------------------------
In his seminal Ivory-bill study, James Tanner concluded that the two most significant factors in the species' demise were habitat loss and hunting... and the latter ran a distant second. However, in actuality, habitat loss does not itself kill birds, it simply leads to other factors that cause birds to die over time (increased predation, starvation, competition, exposure, failure to thrive or reproduce). Hunting on-the-other-hand kills birds immediately (even the wounded are generally doomed, as well as any progeny that would have arisen therefrom). Put another, more stark way, creatures have some opportunity to adapt to habitat loss (as MOST all species sharing the Ivory-bill's habitat DID!); they don't however generally adapt to bullet wounds!
Through the 19th and early 20th centuries hunting, for food, recreation, and commerce, was a routine part of every male's life (especially throughout the south). We probably forget today just HOW ROUTINE! I believe the impact of hunting on this species' population could be vastly underestimated (not to diminish the importance of habitat loss, but to say it was not so singular in its role, and that its impact was quite different from hunting).
When sharing any area traversed by Man, the Ivory-bill was likely one of the most large, conspicuous, and TEMPTING avian targets in the woodland. It would have been extremely vulnerable (as well as its eggs, in a day of widespread "oology" or egg-collecting), returning predictably again and again to the same feeding, roosting, and nesting trees. In fact, one could imagine that virtually EVERY single Ivory-bill EVER crossing paths with an armed human in earlier days may have been shot at for food or recreation, so alluring a target it would've been. The impact of such victimization on the entire species is impossible to measure, but given the birds' relative scarcity, conceivably may have been devastating (the Pileated, having a much greater population and range to begin with, could have suffered even higher losses, with little impact on that species as a whole).
Some may wonder what difference it makes today, how the bird became so rare; all that matters is that it is rare. But it matters greatly. If hunting's impact has been hugely underestimated then the removal of hunting pressure (illegalization) on the species around Tanner's time, could have afforded any remaining population an immediate opportunity for stabilization. Tanner estimated there were less than 30 Ivory-bills left in the entire South at the time of his study, but others believed the number was closer to 200, or even more. For Ivory-bills to persist at all today, the latter estimates were likely closer to the truth. With increases in 2nd/3rd growth forest across the decades (and new forest management practices), potential IBWO habitat has slowly grown over time lending any survivors a chance to hang on. But to whatever degree hunting's impact was major, its abolishment 60+ years ago will have boosted that chance MULTI-FOLD.
---------------------------------------------

-- Skilled IBWO Searchers Sought --

-------------------------------------------
For anyone interested (...and who's got vacation time saved up!), the following message from James Van Remsen, who headed up the Pearl River search in 2002, was posted on the Louisiana Bird listserv on Wed. :

--> FYI - We have announced 15 job openings for 4 positions to staff the Cornell Lab of Ornith.
search for IBWO from 31 Oct 2005 - 31 April 2006 in AR.
Please encourage anyone with excellent field skills (especially birding) to apply!

These are posted on:
http://www.ohr.cornell.edu/jobs/

Will be on (today or tomorrow):
http://wildweb.tamu.edu/jobs/job_view.cfm
http://conbio.net/jobs/
http://www.osnabirds.org/on/ornjobs.htm
-----------------------------------------

(...shine up those resumes!!)