-- Just Another List --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Nine Things NOT likely to happen in 2007... and One That Might :


1. Sacha Baron Cohen releases his latest film entitled "Borat Wanders the American Southern Swampland In Search of that Very Most Elusive Ivory-beaked Woodpecker, For the Benefit of Mankind."

2. David Sibley claims to see an Ivory-bill in Arkansas but nobody believes him, when the bird in his only photograph appears to be an Imperial.

3. By a sheer random drawing, Geoff Hill and John Fitzpatrick are picked to compete against one another on "Wheel of Fortune."

4. The great great grandson of Mason Spencer walks into Van Remsen's LSU office one Friday afternoon and plunks down a freshly-shot Ivory-bill, inquiring, "So is this the dang thing you fellas been lookin' fer???"

5. Bobby Harrison's Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation receives $2.5 million from George Soros (...and boy, is the Big Woods Conservation Partnership pissed).

6. Following the double impeachment of Bush/Cheney, President Pelosi and Vice-President Kerry are sworn into office.

7. Peace on Earth

8. Bigfoot is captured in the Minnesota woods and discovered lo-and-behold to be a well-known internet skeptic.

9. Jennifer Aniston marries Cyberthrush.

10. A photograph taken in Florida shows a large black-and-white woodpecker that everyone agrees is NOT a Pileated.

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

-- Ripples --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As predicted earlier, 2 conservation groups as well as a local pilots' group are now suing the government over plans to construct a new $300+ million airport in a remote area of the Fl. Panhandle near the Choctawhatchee River (potential home of Ivory-bills):

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/1114-05.htm

Whenever, wherever IBWOs are found there will be ripple effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- And From S.C., This --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/16006134.htm

or,

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/9063.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Louisiana Searchin' --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding is being sought for aerial flyovers of appropriate habitat in parts of (east, west and central) Louisiana in the search for Ivory-bills:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/4626651.html

This is likely a response to many rumored IBWO sightings in La. over the last year --- although Fla. probably has the largest IBWO population, La. may well have had more actual rumors the last couple yrs. stemming from different parties, and both states have much excellent, but difficult to access habitat.

I am personally doubtful that IBWOs remain in either Texas or S. Carolina (though many think so, and I'm glad to see serious searches being conducted there), but should IBWOs be located in both La. and Fl. I believe it will say much about prospects for the entire Fl.-Ga.-Al.-Ms.-La.-corridor that the bird could easily have moved along and remained hidden in for the last 60 years. The Arkansas find opened up the potential for a more northerly (and even less explored) corridor as well: Mo.-IL.-Ar.-Tn. Or, it is always possible we are dealing with separate and isolated populations, though this seems more doubtful given the risk of genetic bottlenecks over time.

It's amazing that so many individuals who claim to be interested in and concerned about endangered species have given up so quickly on this species with so many reports afloat, just because the initial spot-checks done to date (and they're not much more than that) have failed to confirm. Some people are putting tremendous (and unwarranted) faith in human knowledge which is neither perfect or all-encompassing, while greatly (and routinely) underestimating nature, the 'will to live,' and the drive to reproduce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- The Question of Cameras --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the points made in Auburn's update of their winter search plans is their decision to employ digital SLR cameras rather than videocams while searching --- based on the premise of higher quality/resolution for any pictures attained, at a reasonable cost. People may have varying opinions about this depending on their personal photography experience, and notions about photographic evidence as well as any trade-offs involved. I'm sure the Auburn group already has access to excellent opinions on the subject, but if any readers have thoughts they want to contribute on the matter (or want to recommend brands or pertinent features/specifications) send them along as a comment for posting (...the Auburn group reads the blog) --- do keep in mind that the team has budgetary constraints, so there's no point in recommending the most high quality, failsafe, precision-operated equipment you can imagine...

I'm curious myself if any of the growing number of binocular -digital camera-all-in-one combinations that are now on the market are yet of sufficient quality to be of much use on IBWO searches (have not heard of them being used)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Auburn Update... & Common Question --

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

First, this update on the Auburn group's plans for the coming search season:

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/Updates.html


Secondly, John Trapp of Birdstuff blog recently sent me a question I hear a lot:

"I'm curious, cyberthrush. What would you consider to be compelling evidence for extinction" of the IBWO (or any other creature for that matter)?"

This is a simple, basic matter. "Extinction" is a very significant (maybe even extraordinary) claim and thusly requires very strong evidence. Theoretically, one should thoroughly search all likely potential habitat and find no sign of a creature in order to declare it extinct (is that so hard to comprehend?) This is occasionally possible for creatures residing on islands or very limited geography, but for most creatures, including the IBWO it is not very practical and is never fully accomplished. Thus, we usually accept some passage of time without reports as adequate. But too many creatures have been "re-discovered" after 50-60 years' absence. ~100 years with few or no credible reports is a far safer, scientifically-sounder criteria. If the Ivory-bill had truly gone even 60 years with no credible reports it would be discouraging, but it hasn't. There have been credible reports of Ivory-bills throughout its history --- since the 30's the species has probably never gone even five years without a credible report, i.e. a report that couldn't be quickly dismissed upon interrogation (though most of these reports aren't well publicized or written about unless there was significant follow-up). The fact that IBWOs, if extant, likely reside in difficult and sparsely (if ever) birded areas means even more caution is necessary in passing judgment.

As indicated in the previous post, if serious searches continue in several areas for the next few years, and 50 years pass with no credible reports from elsewhere, then I would find that, combined with the previous history, compelling evidence for the likelihood (much greater than 50/50 chance) of IBWO extinction. It's really pretty simple: to presume something extinct, look for it thoroughly, extensively, and without success, and/or let a truly significant amount of time pass --- I think that's a pretty minimal requirement, both scientifically and common-sensically. A declaration of "extinction" is essentially a declaration of (species) "death" --- how many of you would feel fine being declared dead and nailed inside a coffin based on the sorts of evidence (basically differences of opinion) thus far presented....

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

-- Of Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and IBWOs, Oh My --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprisng how often and loosely skeptics are using analogies to the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot in their ill-formed arguments. For starters, no one knows whether either Nessie or Bigfoot truly exists or not; these are not wholly mythical creatures like the unicorn as they seem to imply; there IS evidence for them. But let's assume these creatures never really existed, then the analogy is useless since everyone agrees the Ivory-bill did exist as recently as 60 years ago. You can't compare the IBWO predicament to something never existent. However, if either of these creatures did exist then the analogy is perfect, as yet another example of a large creature evading confirmed detection over a lengthy period of time --- either way, the analogy in no way degrades the arguments for IBWO existence (it is either useless or supportive); it remains just further sophistry amidst the striking paucity of evidence for extinction.

On-the-other-hand... skeptics, by focussing on various uncertainties in the Ivory-bill evidence and offering alternative, wholly speculative explanations for other presented evidence of IBWOs, are using the very same commonplace techniques (for raising doubts) employed by those who argue against evolution with it's gaps and alternative explanations --- that analogy, to the intelligent design folks (who claim life is too complex, i.e. "extraordinary", to be explained by the simple mechanisms of evolution) is much more to the point of what is going on here. Ivory-bills, seen in New York's Central Park, or 30 at a time flocking in Texas' Big Thicket... now, those would be "extraordinary" claims. An occasional IBWO glimpsed in appropriate (and sparsely-birded) southeast bottomland habitats... nothing extraordinary here folks, move along, move along.

Real science often requires patience --- it's taken over 50 years just to get us to a point where serious searching is finally underway in some locales (albeit, still on a small scale); if photography/videotape is now suddenly the new standard of evidence we can wait another decade for that, if necessary. Or... if 50 years pass with no additional credible sightings, I'm willing to say on the basis of that evidence that, probabilistically, the species has likely gone extinct... except that, probabilistically, in 2056 I won't be around to say it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Happy Days --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happier Days are here again (...for all life on the planet), Americans choosing to take Congress, democracy, and the Constitution, back --- neither scaremongering, dirty tricks, Rovian shenanigans, nor questionable voting machines could sway enough folks to side with the dark inept forces of the Cheney Administration this time around. What next... an Ivory-bill photo???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Skeptics' View --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics look at evolution:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3191

....and at the supposed moon landings:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

....because afterall (according to some), extraordinary claims/beliefs require 'extraordinary proof,' not mere theoretical evidence.

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

-- The Jizz of Birding --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several recent bird volumes have focussed on the importance of the 'jizz' of a bird in field identification (or if you prefer, the 'giss,' general impression of size and shape). While the emphasis on this gestalt aspect of bird identification is somewhat new, it is in fact the way most experienced birders have always ID'd the vast majority of birds seen in the field.
Next month 10's of thousands of birds will be turned in on Christmas counts with no videotape, no photographs, no field notes, no verification or validation of any kind (if you want to sign up for a Christmas count, but choose instead to watch football, drink beer, eat popcorn, and turn in a totally bogus list of counted birds, hey easy enough to do). Most of these bird IDs will occur in a matter of seconds (or less). In fact upon seeing a bird in the field, only a fraction of a second is usually needed to rule out 99+% of all known birds --- see a little brown bird hop from one bush to the next --- great blue heron, goshawk, blue jay, herring gull, sulphur-crested cockatoo, and thousands of other birds are immediately ruled out without any deep thought --- upon a second brief glance you may have it pinned down to one of 3 birds, or maybe specifically to winter wren, such is our ability to use a few glanced cues to pinpoint a species. In fact after ID'ing a bird, if asked what field marks were seen, one must often pause to bring to cognition whatever marks were involved in forming the identification, the process is so quick and unconscious for long-time birders.

Yet, in the case of the Ivory-bill, we are told experienced birders are not to be trusted. Multiple field marks must be seen and recorded, and photographs or videotape required... though it doesn't apply to 99.99% of all other birding where 'jizz' is the routine modus operandi, and is even more powerful when there are only two likely candidates for a sighting. Yes, mistakes happen, especially among novice and less experienced birders who play a significant role in Xmas counts where the data gathered is truly questionable. But do I believe that the likes of John Terres, John Dennis, Tim Gallagher, Geoff Hill, and a couple dozen others were all mistaken over the years in their claims of seeing something missing the 'jizz' of a Pileated Woodpecker, leaving but one possibility --- No. Seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not nearly as extraordinary as adamently and repeatedly discounting the observations of so many credible observers over decades is --- a kind of egocentrism or jealousy seems involved in so persistently placing one's own personal biases and speculation ahead of multiple others' onsite observations. Birds can, and most often are, ID'd by gestalt at a glance. Still, one ought not trust the accuracy of Xmas counts or lifelists, especially given that the notion of "species" itself is imprecise, somewhat arbitrary, and in flux. These are worthy of skepticism, as are most all field studies which purport to make generalizations about birds based upon inadequately small and non-random sample sizes, poor controls, ill-defined variables, and often without any replication. There is PLENTY to be skeptical of in the so-called science of ornithology. But do I accept the likelihood that some birders in the last 3 years have seen a certain single species, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, and that still to this day the majority of potential habitat has been inadequately, indeed barely, searched? Yes, indubitably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More of Same --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A current news story (mostly re-hash) from Brinkley, AR. centered largely on David Luneau and some video he took ; - )

http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=5627065

BTW, David has some updated info on remote camera systems under development at his website:

http://www.ibwo.org/

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

-- Cornell Report Near Completion --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell's summary report of last year's Big Woods' search season is virtually complete and apparently close to 50 pgs. long (don't know when they'll have it linked to on the Web or if they will only put a condensed version online). Other than the massive amount of audio data they've had to analyze, not sure why the long delay in bringing to completion. But as I've said for decades the name of the game in Ivory-bill circles is 'patience, patience' and that continues to hold, especially as there are almost always things going on in the background which aren't well publicized (...and rightly so, as they may lead nowhere).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Another Article --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October article from a Toronto newspaper (pdf format) on the Florida find:

http://www.kirtlandbirdclub.org/pdf/Ivory-billed_woodpecker_toronto_star_09262006.pdf

(also, note list of rediscovered "extinct" species along right-hand margin)

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

-- Friday Miscellany --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest issue of "Birder's World" Magazine has a Top 20 listing of the most sought-after N. American birds. Not surprisingly the Ivory-billed Woodpecker tops the list. Picks 2 thru 20 however, are a little more debatable:

1. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
2. Painted Bunting
3. Snowy Owl
4. California Condor
5. Whooping Crane
6. Great Gray Owl
7. Atlantic Puffin
8. Elf Owl
9. Violet-crowned Hummingbird
10. Magnificent Hummingbird
11. Elegant Trogon
12. Gyrfalcon
13. Bohemian Waxwing
14. Arctic Loon
15. Horned Puffin
16. Red-cockaded Woodpecker
17. Kirtland's Warbler
18. Harlequin Duck
19. Northern Hawk Owl
20. Blue-throated Hummingbird
...........................................................................

If you haven't already seen it, this page highlights the various research interests of Auburn's Dr. Geoff Hill, now of course highlighted by the search for the Ivory-bill:

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/hill/research.html#Ivorybills


... and finally on a different note, "Ivory Bill Jones" continues his misadventures in search of IBWO here:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2782856

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

-- Auburn Group's Blog --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "volunteer" group (who are operating out of the Nokuse Plantation) of Geoff Hill's 3 Choctawhatchee Ivory-bill search teams now have a blog up-and-running. Looks very promising, though there will no doubt be certain matters they can't say too much about:

http://ibwo.blogspot.com/

A welcome addition to the blog and IBWO communities!...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Bobby Harrison Foundation --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Harrison has apparently begun the fledgling stages of a non-profit foundation for the pursuit of the Ivory-bill:

http://www.bobbyharrison.com/SiteNews.aspx

Also, another related story here:

http://www.islandpacket.com/editorial/col/thatsthat/story/6182599p-5406149c.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Reviewing the Assumptions... again --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To believe that Ivory-bills survive today one must make one underlying assumption; namely that SOME of the 100's of people to report IBWOs in the last 60 years were right. Conversely, a belief that IBWOs went extinct in the 40's requires an assumption that ALL of those 100's of claimants (eliminating the few outright hoaxes) have been mistaken, no matter how credible or knowledgeable the observer; i.e. none of the claimants are to be believed, but the judgments of all who followed these folks into the woods and failed to confirm the species ARE automatically adjudged meaningful. What are the chances?

Further, to argue for extinction one must presume that all pertinent areas of habitat have been adequately searched over time by enough competent observers, to rule out any likelihood of existence. Talk about "faith-based ornithology" --- the extinctionist stance rests completely on an unwarranted faith in the ability of scientists to have adequately searched all appropriate areas of the southeast US over the last 60 years... with cameras in hand no less, despite extensive searches being few and far between.

The Ivory-bill is not a mythical creature as some others may be (Loch Ness, Bigfoot, Martians?); everyone accepts that it existed in the 1940s (indeed, Tanner thought it existed in three dispersed locales, La., Fl., and S.C., even though he was unable to find the majority of them). For it to be alive today it needed only what all creatures need, a will to live, an impulse to breed, and a place to do both safely (as every other southeastern woodpecker succeeded in doing). Extinctionists have brought forth a pittance of evidence that it lacked any of this and yet on the basis of that pittance all-knowingly presume the species gone forever (largely for lack of a photograph).

The Ivory-bill was known to reside variously in bottomland mixed hardwoods, upland pine forest, and cypress swamps, and yet been pigeon-holed as a 'specialist' species requiring old growth habitat for survival (the fact that the last few individuals studied were in old growth forest, and that such habitat may have been favored when present is in no way an indication that it was a requirement for survival... anymore than observing college students eat pizza three days a week is an indication that pizza is a requirement for student survival). Indeed, few other birds of the American Southeast showed such specialist tendencies. (The very notion of 'specialist' versus 'generalist' is a somewhat arbitrary concoction of the human mind since all creatures have certain specialist tendencies.)

The Ivory-bill once existed; it is no longer hunted; it's potential habitat has only grown over the last several decades and is searched on but rare occasions; and other southeastern woodpecker populations have grown over that time. What is really more likely then, that there are zero left and (extraordinarily) every single reported sighting over that time is a mistake, or that some percentage of those reports are true? Given the typical creature's 'will to live' and adaptability, the typical scientists' 'rush to judgment' and overgeneralization, and the misunderstood short span of ecological time involved (60 years), and this creature's specific use of remote dense canopies, tree cavities, and rapid flight, you already know my answer to that question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- John Dennis Book --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book that may be of interest to up-and-coming Ivory-bill searchers (recently recommended by a Birdforum poster) is John Dennis's old, but still informative, volume "The Great Cypress Swamps," available through Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cypress-Swamps-John-Dennis/dp/0807115010

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