----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following up from where I left off yesterday, one of my alert readers (...as Dave Barry would say) passed along a week-old article on the recent discovery of the Sumatran Rhino, which includes this passage:
"This sighting and rare photos and video documenting the Sumatran rhino in its natural habitat is indeed very exciting. We have been tracking these animals here in Sabah for almost ten years now, and although we have seen tracks and signs of these rhinos, this is the first actual sighting of the endangered animal," said Dr M.S Thayaparan, the Program Officer for SOS Rhino Borneo, in a press conference here Wednesday. [italics added]
10 years to find a rhino on the island of Sumatra... and heck, the varmints can't even fly!!!
Several years ago (shortly after the Kulivan sighting) I asked a renowned birder and field guide author at a booksigning what he thought of the chances of Ivory-bills existing. He responded that he didn't think it was possible, and gave the old mantra (or should I say crock-of- ....) that he didn't believe a bird that big could escape detection for so long. At that point I realized that folks who write field guides may know how to paint, or recognize field marks, but they don't necessarily fathom the habits, behavior, or cognition of wild animals. Too often they are relating to creatures as mere 'objects,' not as thinking, reacting, motivated, purposeful, living beings. And so it goes....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting story here about a striking new bird species discovered recently in northeast India. Who'd have thought that after almost 60 YEARS!!!! since the last new species was found in India there could still be more unseen ones to uncover!!!!! Oh myyyy! ; - ) The editor of the journal 'Indian Birds' said "it's nothing short of miraculous" --- when will humans learn they not only don't know everything there is to know about the natural world, they know precious little about it. The more vigilantly one looks, the more 'miracles' one will see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you like mucking around in dank water? Think mud is invigorating, and camo is your favorite fashion? Rugged surroundings at little pay doesn't phase you? And your idea of fun includes bugs, cold nights, and days without deodorant, nail polish, or catching "Desperate Housewives" on TV?
--- Have I gotta deal for you!!
Seriously, Cornell is soliciting for Ivory-bill searchers in Arkansas and South Carolina for the coming winter search season; if interested take a gander at their site (application is online); --- and I can still take a few more names to pass along to a different, non-Cornell, group for their forthcoming study in another southern state, as well, if anymore takers. Some local academic and/or FWS folks will be exploring certain areas of other southern states this winter as well. So, if you have the abillity, equipment, desire, and time to look seriously for Ivory-bills this is probably the winter to do it, in terms of opportunities to link up with others.
Some key highlights of the Cornell solicitation (for the AR. locale) are as follows:
These are "volunteer" positions, assisting full-time staff, and a Cornell "Volunteer Agreement Form" must be signed
Arkansas search period January 3 - April 21, 2007
minimum 2-week stints, with 7 possible start dates
strong birding and boating skills required, and ability to work in adverse field conditions (possibly spending 10-12 hrs/day in a canoe or blind with little movement); ability to use or quickly learn necessary digital and computer technology
lodging and major field equipment provided (including canoe, life jackets, GPS, videocam, cell phone); more basic field equipment, food, and travel expenses responsibility of each volunteer
...also helpful if you have a particularly thick skin against critter-bites... and cynics ; - )
see the Cornell site for further details and the Agreement Form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick plug: If there's a better nature writer in America today than Julie Zickefoose I'm not sure who it is, and she has just produced her first full length book (actually a volume of essays/stories), "Letters From Eden: A Year at Home, In the Woods," due in bookstores in early October (or you can check her website about directly ordering from her).
I've always kinda hoped that Julie would put her word talents (I happen to think she's even a better painter with words than with brushes!) to work writing a full length volume on the Ivory-bill -- she has said that she didn't think she had a book-length manuscript on the topic in her (one of the most wonderful, compelling IBWO essays around is by her, and linked to below), but maybe this first manuscript success will give her the wherewithal to tackle such a project. No doubt Jerry Jackson will continue to put out updated versions of his volume, maybe Tim Gallagher also, or others from Cornell; possibly Phil Hoose or Christopher Cokinos will have future volumes... and the principal investigator of the news to be released in October will have his own volume out, and possibly still others as well. But these will all be mostly academic, historical, reference, even ecological sorts of works, certainly with some adventure and feelings included, but largely cerebral. I envision an effort by Julie though would tap into a whole different realm of our psyche and emotions on this subject, conveying the beauty, the ardor, the hope/despair, the magic, the mystery, and the mysticism associated with the Ivory-bill, as maybe only she can do. Well there's my pitch... do with it what you will, Julie, I know your plate is pretty full!!
http://www.juliezickefoose.com/writing/ibw.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, I've repeatedly made the argument that EVEN IF I believed the Ivory-bill was extinct I would STILL operate on the assumption that it survives --- because the potentiial consequences of assuming it extinct only to find out later one is wrong, are far worse than the consequences of assuming it is alive, only to find out later it has been gone for decades. It is the same reason our legal system assumes people are innocent until proven guilty, lest innocents suffer undeserved punishment. Some biologists call this "the Romeo error" (after Shakespeare's Romeo poisoning himself upon believing, incorrectly, that Juliet has died), and it ought to be avoided whenever possible; this is why anyone serious about bird life should be encouraging (not discouraging or derisive of) IBWO searchers in their efforts. Indeed, why anyone serious about birds would do otherwise is beyond me... other than possibly trying to prop up the slender skeptical scaffold upon which they have sequestered themselves.
BTW, Jim Fitzpatrick (John's brother) spoke at the New Jersey Meadowlands yesterday on "the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker" --- if anyone heard the talk I'd be interested to know if he happened to indicate when Cornell's final summary report for last season would be out, or had anything new to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose I were to tell you that recently discovered papers from James Tanner's attic detailed how he travelled to the south with funds from Cornell and spent his days hanging out in the backwoods drinking moonshine with some good ol' boys, while fabricating data and buying a few photos from Cuba to concoct his 3-year "study" of Ivory-bills --- in short, suppose I told you his entire study was an elaborate hoax! Could you prove me wrong?? Could you provide evidence that I couldn't offer an alternative 'faked' or 'conspiratorial' explanation for, forcing you back into the archives in search of counter-evidence???
Of course there are NO SUCH PAPERS, but the fact remains that I personally have no direct knowledge that James Tanner ever existed, let alone that he actually spent any time in La. doing what he claims he did --- what I have is a faith or belief in the truth and accuracy of books/writers that have transmitted that information to me. I don't even have direct evidence that the earth is round or revolves around the sun --- rather, I simply have faith in the scientists who say it is so and the integrity of the evidence they provide for such conclusions --- in short, MOST of what any of us believe 'scientifically' is based upon faith and trust in other people, and in measurements we've never taken, data we've never collected, observations we've never made, but nonetheless accept without question, unless a determined skeptic shakes our faith therein. This is what the average-Joe doesn't realize about their scientific beliefs --- they are usually based not on logic or reason, but faith and trust --- even the scientists doing the hands-on work base their conclusions upon a faith in their senses or the machines/instruments that substitute for their senses. (And a long history of practical successes utilizing such methods, gives us faith that such methods will work now and in the future, though we can never know it for sure.) The point is, that it is a very simple matter to cast doubt on a scientific claim, if one so chooses, by tossing out questions, concerns, 'what-ifs,' and alternative hypotheses as roadblocks along the way, as skeptics, and anti-evolutionists for that matter, do with ease. It is far more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a given claim is true. And so it is in Ivory-bill land, where any claim is immediately met with doubts and alternative explanations, and cynicism sewn. At some point though faith or trust has to kick in, and thusly I am willing to believe that James Tanner did most of what he claimed to do, even though I can't prove it (and I believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun too!). At some point we will reach that threshold with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; the scientific bickering, which technically can go on forever, will stop and, despite how easy (fun???) it is to create doubt, the trust will take hold... let's hope by then it's not too late.
P.S. --- I was pleasantly surprised that a handful of people, all with excellent resumes, did send in their names, as prospective candidates to spend several of the winter months in Southern swamp-muck at fairly minimal pay, to participate in an upcoming IBWO project! --- your names/info have all been forwarded to the principal investigator --- GOOD LUCK!, at what literally may be an unparallelled once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBWO searcher Jesse Gilsdorf reports that according to George Lamb's monograph The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba, "crows are major predators of IBWO including egg robbing and nestling predation." This is interesting to hear since Tanner's small study concluded that the IBWO had no major predators, only mentioning that various hawks might have possible negative effects on IBWO behavior. The well-documented mobbing and predatory nature of crows, their ubiquitousness throughout the IBWO range, and the ease with which they could enter nest cavities, would thus offer yet another intriguing NON-habitat-loss factor in the decline of the species.
On a different note, I received a longish plea from Mike Hendrickson essentially asking me to say more about the upcoming new evidence/claims for Ivory-bills, which I'm simply not at liberty to do, and which would only generate more unproductive chatter on the Web ahead of the full case being laid out. The AOU meeting is less than 25 days away. Some of the evidence that will be announced is already over 16 mos. old, so another 25 days is not much to ask (if there is no news release prior), to let the principals announce their information in the form they choose (there will be a website where all can equally access the full evidence at that time). I suspect yet additional evidence will come in from other locales through the wintertime, but that's nothing more than a hunch.
If any of you with good birding and backwoods skills are in a position to devote 3+ months this winter to a rugged southern swamp area studying IBWOs, and genuinely interested in being considered for such a project, you can send your name and email address along to me with some indication of your credentials and I can pass that info along to the principals who are seeking field workers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... and today's rant: For those who don't already know it a brief recounting of Mason Spencer's story from the 1930's --- First, realize that around 1900 the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was already thought extinct by many, only to be found again. By 1920 it was again presumed extinct, and again by 1930. All the while individuals (non-ornithologists) who actually spent significant time in Ivory-bill habitat (oooh, clever idea) were seeing the bird on occasion and knew of its survival.
So in 1932 when Louisianian Mason Spencer told a State Wildlife Director, that he regularly saw IBWOs in Madison Parish, the all-knowing director, in frustration issued him a special permit to shoot one and bring it in, so he could prove Mason wrong. The director was stunned when Spencer did just that, delivering a freshly-killed male Ivory-bill to the office, and thus initiating Cornell University's belated interest in the Singer Tract.
The point is, that in 1932, skepticism is what brought us to the point of killing a bird to prove it existed!! 70+ years later the means have changed, but not entirely the close-minded mentality. We no longer have to shoot birds with guns, now that we can shoot them with film, but the insistence on this level of evidence, just as in 1932, still carries risks -- spurring people into the swamps with electronic and mechanical gadgetry that may have unforeseen collateral effects, and at the very least potentially delaying any action on behalf of the Ivory-bill while awaiting procurement of such overwhelming evidence. Do note, that in the historical instance above, Mason Spencer is NOT the villain -- the bad guy is the wildlife director, the skeptic (or scoffer), who nonchalantly issues the permit to kill. Today's skeptics, with their efforts to prove false any claims that come in, are essentially issuing permits to let the Ivory-bill die out --- they will vehemently deny it, but the consequence of their discouraging and often derisive chatter is exactly this.
As I've said before, THERE HAS BEEN NO SOLID EVIDENCE IN THE LAST 60 YEARS SUPPORTING THE NOTION OF THIS SPECIES' EXTINCTION -- NONE... WHATSOEVER!! (just mere speculation, amidst ongoing hints of its likely survival) -- anyone who thinks otherwise DOES NOT UNDERSTAND scientific empiricism, the nature of evidence, nor the complexity of the natural world. Period.
It is fine to be skeptical of individual IBWO reports --- I've been skeptical, initially, of every report I've seen in the last 40 years, but each new report must be adjudged independently and the totality of evidence (of 100s of reports, across decades) weighed, at which point the probability of IBWO existence is formidable --- even if but one Ivory-bill was left today, then the bird was not extinct in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 2005, and no evidence precludes such current existence, except for an apparent belief, on the part of many, that ALL habitat has been searched and that human searchers are infallible: 'waaahlll, since Tom, Dick, and Harry and Ezmarelda went out lookin' and couldn't find or film the durn thing then I reckon it must not exist, 'cuz them folks is gooo--oood, huhhhh' (--- that's the essential level of the so-called evidence!).
When this whole situation is finally resolved apologies or wonderment from skeptics/scoffers will be worthless and useless --- what one would like from them is an iron-clad promise that they will never again so ineptly write-off an entire species in such short order and upon such skimpy evidence --- yet that is a promise that won't be forthcoming, for it is inherent within some skeptics' mindset to continue making the same misjudgments over and over and over again.
And what some perceive as an obsession with a single species on some of our parts, is actually much broader than that --- it is a focussed concern for endangered species, and the loose criteria by which they are written off, thusly shortchanging conservation. The Ivory-bill represents a lesson to be learned once-and-for-all!... except that, when all the celebration upon its return is over, that lesson will no doubt be totally lost on those still-befuddled skeptics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm putting off a planned rant at skeptics for a day to clarify just who these rants refer to: Many say that skepticism is in the highest tradition of science, and I agree: I AM a skeptic -- I am skeptical of Christmas counts, of journal articles, of the classification of species, of lifelists, of field guides, of PhDs, of published data, of NCAA basketball ratings, and yes of Ivory-bill reports -- of anything and everything where human certainty or 100% accuracy might be implied, but I still view and remain open to any and all possibilities, despite the skepticism. To draw a distinction therefore from the brand of skeptics I am criticizing, maybe a better, more precise term would be "scoffers." These individuals allow their skepticism to swell into scoffing at new and old evidence, forfeiting the objectivity and open-mindedness required of science. They scoff at Cornell while giving David Sibley's piece a free ride. They scoff at David Kulivan and Gallagher and Bobby Harrison, but never critique Tanner. They scoffed at Jerry Jackson when he argued for 20 years that Ivory-bills might yet survive, then embraced him when he was critical of the most recent evidence. They scoff at anything that doesn't conform to their preconceived notions, and blindly follow, without scientific analysis, anything that does conform. They are following not scientific methodology, but mere bias and pretend-science. They are upset that Cornell spoke with such certainty of finding the IBWO in AR., yet they now speak with their own unsupportable certainty that Cornell did not find it.
Those who are skeptical but open-minded, who are doubtful but aiding the searches, who are unconvinced but looking afresh at every new lead, I have few qualms with --- you are essentially agnostics and that is a perfectly respectable scientific position. But to the Ivory-bill atheists out there, who have made up their minds that the species no longer exists and that any evidence to the contrary must be explained away by alternative hypotheses, and who thus let preconceptions immediately shape their response to any new claims, you are not engaging in science and truly you ought to stop kidding yourselves (...and others) that you are.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dabble in some humor and break all the pent-up tension out there!... At the risk (hope???) of encouraging even more of these amateurish offerings I've listed below a couple of links to "youtube" website attempts at Ivory-bill humor -- these are okay for first tries, but come on folks, I think some creative soul out there can do far better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78AFGvhLiIE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7d6vCwrXc&mode=related&search=
There's also a parody of Steve Irwin looking for the Ivory-bill on the 'youtube' site which, in deference to his sudden tragic death, I won't link to, but you may hunt for if you so choose (there are many parodies of the beloved Irwin on "youtube," obviously made in respect and gratitude for him well prior to the recent tragedy).
Finally, and completely NON-IBWO-related, if you're already over at the "youtube" site anyway, and you've not yet seen this pepped-up version of Pachelbel's Canon on electric guitar, check it out (somewhat awesome, and I think highly fun/entertaining -- there are actually several renditions at 'youtube'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8
....and enjoy this sidelight while you can, because tomorrow I may be ranting about skepticism once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Tanner was the typical grad student working on a dissertation, appropriately humble and hesitant in his findings when he wrote his Ivory-billed Woodpecker monograph. Yet, once published, he was raised to an authoritative pedestal to which all who were interested in the species pretty much came and knelt before. As time proceeded his statements and views took on more dogmatic and less open-minded tones as an inevitable consequence of this commanding position that was thrust upon him. Still, I think some of the most important words he ever wrote, came at the end of the "Introduction" to his original study, before that dogmatism set in, and they deserve repeated citation:
"The chief difficulty of the study has been that of drawing conclusions from relatively few observations, necessary because of the extreme scarcity of the bird. My own observations of the birds have been entirely confined to a few individuals in one part of Louisiana... the conclusions drawn from them will not necessarily apply to the species as it once was nor to individuals living in other areas. The difficulty of finding the birds, even when their whereabouts was known, also limited the number of observations. Especially was this true in the non-breeding season. With these considerations in mind, one must draw conclusions carefully and with reservations." [all italics added]
On this, at least, I believe Tanner got it 100% right (I wish he and others since had adhered to it)...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writer/birder/Audubon President John Terres saw two Ivory-bills in the 1950s but didn't report it for 30 years because he saw no good that could come of it, even in the unlikely event that people believed him. Ornithologist John Dennis (with a Master's Degree) went to his grave believing that PhDs. looked down on him in not accepting some of his Ivory-bill reports of the 60s. And famously, ornithologist George Lowery came to regret ever publicly disclosing the Fielding Lewis Ivory-bill photos of the 70s which he believed were authentic (but others thought not), due to the tarnishing that it brought his reputation. These were just 3 of the more prominent people who were affected by overbearing Ivory-bill skepticism.
A lot of folks today talk and act as if the IBWO controversy began in 2005 with Cornell's Big Woods' announcement, but this controversy was already 60 years old at that point. Even though Tanner himself believed Ivory-bills existed in S.C. and Florida, somehow in the 40s the Singer Tract population became largely regarded as the last specimens in the Southeast and nobody even knows in what direction they moved once that Tract was cut over. At that point a baseless assumption of extinction was allowed to set in, resulting in a stigma attached to those sighting reports that did come in -- and because most IBWO claims turned in were erroneous, a jaded birding community simply presumed all were.
In turn this stigma meant that:
1. fewer individuals seriously searched for the birds than would otherwise have been the case, let alone any large-scale, organized, meaningful searches being done
2. individuals who did report the bird, unless they had major credentials, were rarely taken seriously
3. many, if not most, who believed they saw the bird, chose not to officially report it at all, rather than face potential doubts and ridicule
4. the few individuals (hunters/trappers/fishermen, NOT birders) who routinely entered likely Ivory-bill environs were never given any incentive to report the species if encountered
In short, prevailing skepticism over Ivory-bills fashioned a cynical atmosphere entirely NON-conducive to finding or saving the species, and long after the loggers and hunters were gone, this pernicious atmosphere is what truly worked against remaining Ivory-bills of the 50s and 60s when they most needed a human assist. Whether enough remain now to yet bring their numbers back time will tell, but skeptics cannot just blithely escape their negative role in the last 50 years and the 'waste-of-time' feeling that they promoted. This sort of hasty, cavalier dismissal of an entire species based on misguided faith in the thoroughness of human logic or study ought never occur. Thus my contention that skeptics are more responsible than anyone else for the failure to find and save this species 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Even the likes of Tanner and Les Short, who should've known better, worked against Jerry Jackson's pleading in the 80's for more searching and study. WHAAAT were they thinking? (...or utterly failing to think).
I'm not speaking here of all the Johnny-come-lately, leap-on-the-bandwagon skeptics who barely even know all the issues involved and were putty in the hands of others, but of the prominent ones who over time set the agenda, preached extinction, and prejudiced the birding majority. If IBWOs are confirmed, those skeptics, after years of obstructively smirking at the foolishness of IBWO believers, will suddenly glob on to say, 'ohhh this is wonderful, finally the evidence we sooo wished for; how great they are indeed still around, yada, yada, yada, yada...' It will be at this point that I hope most of you will fully understand and excuse me if I saunter off to be alone somewhere where I can less-than-merrily stand over a white porcelain commode with my extended index finger firmly planted oh-so-precisely down my ever-luvin' throat!! ....OR..., if IBWOs aren't confirmed, well, then, as Miss Emily Latila would've said, n-n-n-n-n-n-nevermind!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBWO searcher Jesse Gilsdorf is trying to get a copy of an article by George R. Lamb on the Cuban Ivory-bill ("The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba") , and I'm letting this blog assist him. The article exists at the Smithsonian in D.C. if it is convenient for anyone to make a copy of it there to send to Jesse (or obviously if someone has a private copy they can xerox that would be even easier). He will reimburse for any copying/mailing expenses. Information on the Smithsonian copy is copied below. If you can be of assistance, contact Jesse at: gilsdorf@adams.net
If people occasionally want to network with one another about information or other sorts of assistance through this blog, email me regarding such requests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The publication you are interested in is owned by the Birds Library, which
> is a specialized collection within the Smithsonian Institition's National
> Museum of Natural History's Natural and Physical Sciences Department.
>
> Author: Lamb, George R.
> Title: The ivory-billed woodpecker in Cuba / / G.R. Lamb.
> Publisher: New York, N.Y. : Pan-American Section, International Committee
> for Bird Preservation, [1957]
> Description: 17 leaves : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
> Series: Research report / Pan-American Section, International Committee
> for Bird Preservation ; -- no. 1
> Research report (International Committee for Bird Preservation. Pan
> American Section) no. 1.
> Catalog Source No.: (OCoLC)ocm30055916
> The call number for this publication is: QL696.P56 L36 1992
> Richmond Memorial Library
> Division of Birds
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries
> 10th and Constitution Ave, N. W.
> ROOM E609
> Washington, D.C. 20560
> reference telephone: (202) 633-1693
> <http://www.sil.si.edu/libraries/vz/index.htm#BIRDS
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In response to ongoing emails seeking specifics about "rumors" afoot in IBWO-land, I'll just re-cap what I've essentially already reported here (many in the ornithology community already know more of the details than what follows):
[Multiple] IBWOs have been found in a non-Arkansas state (found quite awhile ago actually) by credible observers; actions are underway for the future study and conservation of these birds (and these things take time). An official announcement will probably follow within 5 weeks-or-so detailing the find, at which point all may assess the evidence. Whether all skeptics will be convinced I can't predict (although I believe some major skeptics of the Cornell evidence are already persuaded). From my personal standpoint there is little that is overly remarkable about this find, but I expect most others will find it quite stunning. To date, those involved have done a remarkable job of keeping the lid on things. There also remain other rumors in other locales, and only time will tell of their status. Now let's try, somehow, to talk about other things while awaiting official word -- it could be a long boring month ahead in the interim! (Lest anyone be concerned about leaks, the information in this post was okayed for disclosure ahead of time by those involved in the find, and there are many individuals out there who already know far more of the specifics than divulged here.)
...Ivory-bills live, as they always have; whether Man has the insight, ability, and will to safeguard their survival well into the future is another question entirely; the acute damage already done by skeptics, over decades, in impeding the process does not bode well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Collins is preparing to return to the Stennis Space Center/Pearl River area to continue his study of Ivory-bills there. One of his recent posts at Birdforum ran as follows:
"Last year, I publicly guaranteed that I would find ivorybills. That mission was easy enough. This year's guarantee is that I'll get a good image."
From what I've heard I believe Mike may find more company than last year searching the Pearl; also more folks involved in searches of S.C. and Texas and at least one other locale (actually, probably several locales). On the other hand, Arkansas' Big Woods area will likely experience scaled-back numbers of searchers from last winter's Cornell effort, as focus shifts elsewhere.
....tomorrow: a brief re-cap of the main IBWO rumor afloat -- NOTHING new, just a capsule review (because of the ongoing email inquiries I'm getting) of stuff I've mostly already posted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like a good time perhaps to re-visit some prior quotes --
First, this famous one from John James Audubon describing Ivory-billed country:
"I wish, kind reader, it were in my power to present to your mind’s eye the favourite resort of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Would I could describe the extent of those deep morasses, overshadowed by millions of gigantic dark cypresses, spreading their sturdy moss-covered branchses, as if to admonish intruding man to pause and reflect on the many difficulties which he must encounter, should he persist in venturing farther into their almost inaccessible recesses, extending for miles before him, where he should be interrupted by huge projecting branches, here and there the mossy trunk of a fallen and decaying tree, and thousands of creeping and twining plants of numberless species! Would that I could represent to you the dangerous nature of the ground, its oozing, spongy, and miry disposition, although covered with a beautiful but treacheous carpeting, composed of the richest mosses, flags, and water lilies, no sooner receiving the pressure of the foot than it yields and endangers the very life of the adventurer, whilst here and there, as he approaches an opening, that proves merely a lake of black muddy water, his ear is assailed by the dismal croaking of innumerable frogs, the hissing of serpents, or the bellowing of alligators! Would that I could give you an idea of the sultry pestiferous atmosphere that nearly suffocates the intruder during the meridian heat of our dogdays, in those gloomy and horrible swamps! But the attempt to picture these scenes would be in vain. Nothing short of ocular demonstration can impress any adequate idea of them."
And then this, from another weblog from October last year:"The reappearance of the [ivory-billed] woodpecker seems like a second chance -- a chance to expand its habitat, to get it right this time. Maybe that's what links the big surprises of 2005, this sense that there can be another unexpected round, the tenth inning in which the outcome could be different; that failure and devastation are not always final...
The woodpecker was a spectacular thing unto itself, but also a message that we don't really know what's out there, even in the forests of the not-very-wild southeast, let alone the ocean depths from which previously uncatalogued creatures regularly emerge. Late last month, University of Alaska marine biologists reported seven new species found during an expedition under the arctic ice that uncovered a much richer habitat with far more fauna than anticipated...
The woodpecker is a small story; the big environmental story of our time is about extinctions and endangerments, about creatures and habitats moving toward the very brink this bird came back from; but this small story suggests that there are still grounds to hope -- to doubt that we truly know exactly what is out there and what is possible. Hope is not history's Barcalounger, as is often thought: it requires you get back out there and protect that habitat or stop that war. It is not the same as optimism, the belief that everything will probably turn out all right despite your inactivity, the same kind of inactivity that despair begets. Hope involves a sense of possibility, but with it comes responsibility." ( -- Rebecca Solnit)
....Amen
......................................................
p.s. -- if you haven't taken Floyd Hayes Ivory-bill survey yet (see post for Aug. 25), just a reminder to do so, especially if you're a goil : - ) Some days back Floyd wrote at another website, "So far so good: 66 responses in 3 hours. The only surprise so far is the highly skewed ratio of men to women." (a couple days later he was approaching 300 respondents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Apologies to BirdForum readers who've already seen me discuss this...)
I've argued for several years that hunting may have been a more important factor, and habitat loss a less important factor, in the Ivory-bill's demise than the standard literature portrays (at least I can find no evidence to refute the possibility), but I thought I was the only one making such a case. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised when one of my readers sent along a 1933 article on the IBWO by no less than T. Gilbert Pearson which ends with this conclusion:
"The reduction in abundance of this species is due most probably to persecution by man, as the species has been shot relentlessly without particular cause except curiosity and a desire for the feathers or beaks." (National Geographic Magazine, April 1933)
This is written almost a decade before Tanner published his conclusions which would become unchallenged gospel. The point once again is that most everything we commonly believe today about Ivory-bills stems from one man's study. If he got it 100% right, there'd be no problem... but what are the chances of that. There's simply too much we don't and can't know with certainty. Or putting it a different way, it's not even what we don't know that creates the biggest problems, it's what we think we DO know that's simply wrong that generates the greatest errors. The point is, birds DIE when they are shot; they DON'T die when their habitat is destroyed -- they fly off looking for new habitat -- they may die later or fail to reproduce due to lack of habitat, but there is NO IMMEDIATE effect as there is with hunting; the effect of habitat loss is drawn out and indirect; still very powerful in the long term, but very different from hunting/collecting in the shorter term.
To whatever degree hunting played a major role in the IBWO's decline, its cessation gave the remaining IBWOs the opportunity to stabilize and recover their population -- I can't stress this point enough. Even Tanner concluded that in many specific locales after habitat loss had its effect, it was hunting/collecting that really drove the final nails into the IBWO's coffin. It is also possible that other factors of disease, in-breeding, and predation, could have played greater roles in the decline of certain IBWO populations than realized. In short, the incessant chant of "habitat-loss, habitat-loss, habitat-loss" may be convenient, but way too simplistic (although I don't want this in any way taken as belittling the overall drastic consequences of habitat destruction around the globe today).
--- As a sidenote I just recently learned that writer/ornithologist Noel F.R. Snyder is currently completing a paper on this very subject of the causes of the Ivory-bill's demise. Something to look forward to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Hayes requests that I link to an IBWO survey (college project I presume) asking for reader participation (please direct any questions/comments to Floyd, not to me):
....................................................................................................
A simple survey designed to assess opinions on the
currently available evidence for the existence of the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker is posted at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=211781934539
If you would be willing to spend a few minutes
answering the fifteen questions, I would be grateful.
All responses are anonymous. At some point in the
future I will make the results of the survey public.
If others can forward this message to pertinent
listserves or blogs I would be most grateful.
Floyd E. Hayes
Department of Biology
Pacific Union College
Angwin, CA 94508, USA
..........................................................................................
...my guess is, that if the sample size is large enough (it may not be) the survey results will be strewn across the categories much more widely than some might anticipate (i.e., not just two polarized camps of 'believers' and 'skeptics').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
