-- And The Beat Goes On --

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

A couple of the skeptics out there enjoy blanketly stating that all who claim to see Ivory-bills are "stringers" --- of course, if John Terres, John Dennis, Herbert Stoddard, and Tim Gallagher are stringers than I s'pose 90% of the ABA membership are stringers as well, and possibly listers with undocumented and exaggerated lifelists. A more common and reasonable refrain from the skeptical side is simply that "birders make mistakes," as if that simple truism is adequate to explain away all Ivory-bill reports over the decades. Birders mistake one gull for another, one flycatcher for another, one fall or female warbler for another, but how often do experienced birders claim to see a supposedly extinct bird, realizing the magnitude of such a claim? How often do they report Bachman's Warblers, Passenger Pigeons, Carolina Parakeets, Eskimo Curlews, or even simply out-of-range birds (in fact a great many out-of-range birds are probably missed because of most birders' nervous reluctance to report such)? Everyone has their own story of some terrible bird mis-identification they know of or took part in --- but what makes it a story worth telling is precisely the fact that such mis-IDs are NOT the norm... except apparently among IBWO observers.

People do make mistakes, a common one being to prematurely dismiss that which conflicts with one's own preconceived notions. If an Ivory-bill flies through a forest canopy, but no one captures it on film, then apparently it didn't happen, because afterall IBWOs went extinct 60 years ago. (...and trees don't make sounds when they fall in the forest with no one there to hear.)
The most fervent preconceptions at work in the Ivory-bill saga are not those of believers and agnostics, but those of certain skeptics, self-assured that the story ended in the 1940s, unwilling or able to let patience and persistence run their full course searching out needles in haystacks. Any evidence that does arise immediately falls victim to those preconceptions, rather than the full range of possibilities. Anyone who thinks the search for Ivory-bills is a waste of time and money is free to spend THEIR time and money elsewhere. Why certain skeptics continue to debate the same points ad nauseum, I'm not sure --- let the searchers do their job (and your legwork) and they will bolster your case given enough time... if in fact you have a case to bolster.

In related matters, Bobby Harrison's Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation website is slowly taking on more form here:

http://www.ibwfound.org/Index.html

And hey, to all the searchers out there I'll end with the simple words quoted by "Fangsheath" on another forum recently:
"Be the bird".... ; - )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- As the Bumper Sticker Says --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're NOT outraged, you're NOT paying attention!"

No... I'm not talking about the skeptics' view of this blog; I'm talking about the festering catastrophe that is the current Administration in Washington. More bumper stickers available here:

http://www.cafepress.com/beatbushgear/364595

(sorry, skeptics, no 'Impeach Cyberthrush' stickers available yet --- but as for impeaching Dick Cheney, go here and here.)

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

-- More This and That --

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

A recent post by Bill Pulliam inspires me to reiterate what I've said multiple times before. What is most important for Ivory-bill debaters to consider is NOT the likelihood of being right, but rather the consequences of being wrong. If one believes the Ivory-bill persists and you are wrong than a lot of time, energy, and money is being spent in one direction that maybe could've gone in some other more productive direction (although a lot of that energy and $$$ simply wouldn't have existed without the original Ivory-bill announcement). But if you believe the Ivory-bill is extinct and you are wrong than inaction will almost assuredly cost this species its life at long last... not something to be proud of, especially for anyone claiming concern for birds or conservation. I'm willing to take a chance of making that first error, but unwilling to take a chance of making the second without a lot more data... in fact, why anyone would deliberately chance making the second error when sightings continue and time may be of the essence, is a bit baffling, except they apparently have faith in a level of scientific certainty which is illusory. There seems to be blind faith that because mistaken identifications occur on occasion (and many IBWO claims are known to be just that), apparently all such instances across decades and locations and observers, can automatically be generalized as such without specific, solid evidence for doing so. I wish skeptics would at least be consistent and give 10's of 1000's of unverified, undocumented, unscientific bird count reports the same scrutiny, instead of a free pass, but that would involve having their own reports examined...

Fred Virrazzi posts this mini-summary of last search season on the New Jersey listserv:

http://littlebirdiehome.com/A070707_Ivory-billed_Update.htm

At least a couple of purported sightings, which may or may not be included in final reports, go unmentioned here. The Florida video release Fred mentions will occur at the August AOU meeting in Wyoming, about a month from now. I doubt it will be released any earlier, and likely won't be on the Web, since that requires compression, which makes it fuzzier than it already is at full resolution.

A few emailers have asked what I think of the Birding Magazine photo quiz: I don't happen to believe the birds in question are Ivory-bills, but won't say what my own best guess would be, since it's no better (and actually worse) than other guesses will be (...and am surprised there haven't already been more online guesses voiced). I do hope some expertise may exist out there for making measurements of the wing/body ratios of these birds to aid in eliminating certain possibilities, but don't know if the resolution is good enough to do so with enough accuracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Prestidigitation --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Bevier has finally posted a personal website dealing with the Luneau video beginning here (and including 4 separate sections):

http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/iWeb/ivorybilled/Overview.html

Maybe the most comprehensive single source yet for the skeptical view of the Luneau bird (that it is a normal Pileated). The first section ("Overview") is rather non-substantive so be sure to look at the other 3 sections that are the 'meat' of the website.
Most of this information was already available elsewhere (and remains debatable), but it is pulled together well here, and some of the numbers and details may be new to folks; further there is new discussion of wingbeat data. Moreover, Bevier may add to the site as he sees fit for clarification, correction, or in response to comments. Of course he still says nothing that convinces me 100% that the bird in question is even a woodpecker ; - )))

But once again, here's the thing: In magic, the art of "distraction" is one of the most frequent tools the illusionist employs. 'Look over here, look at my right hand, pay no attention to what my left hand is doing'. Skeptics keep pulling the focus back to the Luneau video, acting as if only they just debunk it, it puts the case for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to rest. Don't look at 50 years worth of sightings; don't look at signs or sounds; just look at this single piece of evidence... ohhh, and by the way only look at it the way I do. They're like a rottweiler with a ragdoll, shaking it back-and-forth, unable to let go. As possibly the most quantifiable piece of evidence thus far, I s'pose nothing will deter folks from pouring over this one item of accidental evidence with a false sense of accomplishment or certainty. Again, the Ivory-bill debate stretches across 50+ years of which the Big Woods and Choctawhatchee stories are just current blips on the screen. In opting to analyze-to-death 4 seconds of blurry pixels people are missing the big picture, but so be it. In all likelihood, there will eventually be other videos and images.

In the meantime, the latest issue of Birding Magazine has as their monthly photo quiz (for readers to try ID'ing) an automatic Reconyx photo of 3 birds from the Choctawhatchee (taken last November):

http://americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/archives/vol39no4p96.pdf

(I'm pretty sure it's 3 Rufous Hummingbirds on steroids ;-), but Louis may disagree --- and depending on your computer screen, you may get a slightly sharper view from the magazine itself than from the above pdf.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- North Carolina --

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

If you don't follow the Ivory-bill Researchers Forum you may have missed the 2-page thread on IBWO searching in N. Carolina. A small group of independent folks is focusing on specific areas within the Green Swamp region (southeast NC.), where a claimed pair sighting occurred in 2004. The thread begins here (if you happen to be interested in being involved contact people are given here as well):

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29

Although not historically a main area of focus, North Carolina becomes more intriguing with its adjacency to S. Carolina and the increased interest arising there (the notable lack of prior intense searching in N.C. may be a plus as well --- neither Tanner nor anyone since has given the state much serious consideration since Ivory-bills were thought extirpated therein by the mid-19th century). Just one more area to add to the dozen-or-so others that still need a good look-see.

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

-- Catching Up A Bit --

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

Dan Mennill is back in his home lab and posted this update regarding processing of Auburn's acoustic data:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/dmennill/IBWO/IBWO07News.html

FWIW, a reader sends me a note they received from the ACONE folks in the Big Woods (in charge of the automatic sky viewing camera) saying they are still sorting through a huge volume of data and will have a new update to their findings in the "next couple of months."

This article on the Texas search for Ivory-bills leads to a speculative piece (pdf) on the IBWO's persistence:

http://www.houstonaudubon.org/screenprint.cfm?newsletterid=799

a reader sends in this depressing link to the destruction of cypress forest in Louisiana:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=3166801

(...as if I weren't already depressed enough!!)

For the Ivory-billed Woodpecker aficionado who has (almost) everything, a toilet seat offered on eBay here :-)))

--- If anything like last summer, could be quite awhile (Oct./Nov.???) before we get a final report from Cornell on their latest AR. search efforts (hey kids, can you spell "S-L-O-W"?). And there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the South Carolina folks will release their final search report to the public or not. Auburn may be the first out of the gate with some sort of summary if they don't wait for all acoustic data to be processed. Skeptics continue to run with whatever limited tidbits pop up on the Web, but really a lot of watching and waiting yet to do, prior to next season's search and the efforts of independents. The same old arguments keep getting rehashed, settling nothing. Search the pertinent areas, evaluate sighting reports, and collect/assess peripheral evidence --- plenty of all that left to do (science can be tedious).

...and from one of the great naturalists of 20th century America, T. Gilbert Pearson, this quote (April 1933, National Geographic Magazine):

"The supreme moment of my life as a bird student came in May, 1932, when in a great primeval forest in northern Louisiana, I saw, for the first time, a living ivory-billed woodpecker... The ivory-bill is decidedly larger than the pileated, and this difference in size is very apparent, as we had ample opportunity to observe, when by chance birds of both species fed at the same time on a tall decayed stump within 80 feet of our hiding place."

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

-- Bye Ol' Bud' --

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

You brought cheer into this world far out of proportion to your pint-size body, and you'll be missed....

A beloved pet passed away early this morning and I'll likely take a few more days off from posting than usual.

So a Happy Independence Day, July 4, to all in the event I'm not back online before then (well, all except for my British readers that is ;-)))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Nelson Retires! ;-) --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission report for June 27:

"LITTLE ROCK (AP) _ As the outgoing chairman of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Sheffield Nelson has seen everything from wildlife management areas grow in numbers to the first of the Arkansas Youth Shooting Sports Program state championships.
The Little Rock lawyer's term ends June 30. Nelson was appointed by Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000...
During Nelson's tenure, the state received international attention when, in 2004, the ivory-billed woodpecker was found not to be extinct, but living in Arkansas.The several sightings in Arkansas have been mostly in an area north of Brinkley near the Cache River and Bayou DeView."

Meanwhile, as we patiently await final report summaries for the prior search season, including full disclosure of all sightings and acoustic data, and automatic camera data continues to be monitored/processed, some skeptics are rushing to declare the searches forever done... in a manner more reminiscent of 17th century witch hunts than 21st century science, many continue to operate from wholly unproven (and unprovable) assumptions (about IBWO habits/behavior/needs) misleadingly offered up as facts. Here's a likely FACT: Most Ivory-billed Woodpeckers had feathers and two eyes! Skeptics' presumptions aren't even in the same ball park as true facts. For myself, I'll stick with the presumption that at least one of the sightings from the last few years is authentic, simple as that.

Russell and Whitehead spent a couple hundred pages proving that 1 + 1 = 2, as part of their effort (1000's of pages) to demonstrate that mathematics was a complete and internally consistent system of logic (...in the end they failed, once it was shown that unprovable assumptions always lurk behind the scenes). Unrecognized, deceptive notions underly all scientific debate, from truly rigorous fields like mathematics to the mushy likes of field biology... in the end, sometimes such assumptions turn out to be true; the problem is they can never be assumed so ahead of time while the debate rages; and yet that is exactly what many choose to do, rather than waiting for all evidence to be gathered.

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

-- Pulliam's Take --

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

Many know that Bill Pulliam has commented off-and-on for the last couple years on the Ivory-billed saga (I think with a reasonable amount of respect from both sides), so folks may be interested in his latest take on the subject here:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2007/06/ivorybills-26-months-later.html

I would simply add the following to Bill's thoughts, regarding why after 2+ years of scrutiny we still lack an agreed-upon, clearcut photo of a living Ivory-bill (and I've said all this before):

this is a bird that likely spends most of its time high in the canopies, where it will be difficult to see or clearly identify, let alone photograph. Another chunk of time is spent inside tree cavities where it is literally invisible to human eyes. And so, not surprisingly, most sightings occur when it is in flight, which means quite naturally these are relatively brief encounters as so often experienced (and these birds can cover a lot of ground). Yes, one would hope to find the bird at a nesthole or a low foraging site --- indeed such is almost required to readily obtain the desired photograph --- but if the bird is exceedingly scarce in numbers in a given locale this too can prove keenly difficult... I see nothing extreme or outrageous in putting forth such an argument. IF, by now but a few Ivory-bills hang on in a few disparate locales, the pattern and type of occasional sightings claimed likely mimic what one might expect. Of course one hopes that somewhere there remains an ever-so-slightly more significant population, or else we may indeed be facing functional extinction, but in any event results thus far, while disappointing, are not that difficult to explain.

Needless to say, for a variety of reasons, I remain hugely optimistic that the species not only exists but does so in multiple locales; but the far-more-significant $10,000 question is, will they ever be documented well enough to persuade all cynics? I suspect my answer to that is also a resounding (if slightly more hesitant) yes... but I also suspect by that time, it may be too late to matter... and that is when certain skeptics, not the believers, will have an incredible amount of explaining to do.

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

-- Birders World Redux --

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

Might be a good time to review again some of the past Ivory-billed sightings of merit (there are 100's more claims, but these are a few of the more credible reports over the last several decades), as noted in this old Birders World article:

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471

I believe #13 is in error, or at least Jackson was not the observer so far as I'm aware. [edit: it IS correct as noted in comments below] What is important to recognize is the full range of territory these sightings cover (and none of the past reports from South Carolina are even included here, despite now being a hub of interest), and the implications that even this very limited survey has for how much searching may yet be called for.

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

-- Bollocks --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very disappointing to see British researcher Martin Collinson post as "FACTS" on his blog, statements that are at best oversimplifications and at worst simply rubbish (don't know if he was merely trying to be provocative --- I've been known to say things on occasion just to stir the pot a bit ;-) --- or if he actually believes these falsehoods):

"FACT - IBWOs were never that difficult to see. FACT - their calls were incessant and carried over half a mile. FACT - their calls do NOT carry over 60 years echoing round the woods since the last ones died!"

Although there are some reports in a few distant historical locales of easy to find/see Ivory-bills this was not generally the case, and by Tanner's day (let alone decades later) they were quite difficult. Though convinced the species persisted in both South Carolina and Florida Tanner was unable to ever find them himself. Even in the Singer Tract he found them only with the aid of a guide who had essentially lived amongst them and knew where to find their nestholes; even then Tanner reports the birds were generally heard first and only later seen. Moreover, no one can say with any certainty whether the habits/behavior of tiny samples of birds residing in pre-1945 Louisiana can even be predictive of the behavior of any remnant population persisting today in various states.

The nature of their calls is also in wide dispute; while they could be noisy on occasion, when in pairs, it certainly is wrong to imply that calling 'incessantly' was the norm or even commonplace, nor did their calls routinely extend "over half a mile" by most accounts, and in any event this would clearly be dependent on habitat, terrain, and other factors. Finally, even if you believe them extinct, nobody knows when the last one died (60 yrs. ago, 30 yrs. ago, 10 yrs. ago, 22 days ago???), certainly not someone cloistered in Britain in 2007.

And still the skeptics think that just because alternative explanations of data are offered, those alternatives MUST automatically be opted for. What a wonderful world it would be if we all just got to pick our own alternative explanations for anything we chose, but that ain't science. If skeptics don't like the Arkansas and Choctawhatchee data then throw it out; ignore it; forget it ever appeared in print; it need be paid no attention. The sightings of this species in multiple states pre-2000 are alone enough to warrant extensive ongoing searches. What part of the full history of the Ivory-bill don't skeptics understand, that causes them to think its existence hinges on one blurry videotape or 2 locales out of the entire southeast.
Martin is right about one thing however, this issue will most likely eventually live or die "by empiricism".... now if only skeptics will permit empiricism to go forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Paradigm Shifts, Sightings, Field Marks, Oh My --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a restful 3 days off from blogging turned into 6 --- anyway, loooong post... mostly stuff covered in the past:

Can't say I've ever been a huge fan of Thomas Kuhn's work, but I would acknowledge that in a squishy, philosophical way, his idea of "paradigm shifts" does apply to some aspects of science history. If the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is eventually documented to everyone's satisfaction maybe what we'll need is a sort of paradigm shift in ornithology. Initially, there will be amazement voiced at the IBWO's persistence; words like "incredible," "unbelievable," and "miracle" being carelessly tossed about, especially by prior skeptics attempting to cover their own posteriors on the subject. BUUUUT again... there is nothing amazing in a creature adapted to remote swampland hanging on for 60 years in small numbers under the radar of Man's lackluster attention; though scientific hubris may make it seem so; nothing 'amazing' in recognizing that our knowledge and abilities are imperfect, and that needles in haystacks can be hard to find (let alone photograph).

"Extinction" is an extraordinary event, and IT requires extraordinary evidence, above-and-beyond conjecture. Never again should the passing of 60 years without a photo constitute evidence for extinction of a species known to use such poorly-traversed habitat. Skeptics continue to knitpick the weakest data out there (sounds, foraging sign, cavities...), because it is easy to do, and I s'pose the more vocally critical they are the more untenable they think the IBWO's existence sounds (like focussing intensely on all the weak points/gaps/uncertainties in evolution in order to conclude that evolutionary theory is unsustainable). But what we have across all the decades are sightings, sightings, SIGHTINGS by individuals who are very familiar with Pileated Woodpeckers, yet who say they've seen Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. And sightings are the essence of birding.

A recent, widely-cited Audubon study reports huge declines in several US bird species over the last 40 years, yet it is based largely on BRIEF, UNDOCUMENTED, UNVALIDATED, NONREPLICATED sightings (from count reports), comparing data that is four decades apart!! The variables are immense and hugely uncontrolled. Scientifically speaking, one might make the case that this data is simply "crap," despite all the statistical manipulation they've done to it (...still impossible to weed out lies and mistakes from true and accurate sightings in count datapoints) --- but in truth, looked at broadly enough and with enough caution, count data over time often turns out to be quite good data, accurately reflecting identifications in the field, since, in general, birders are not liars! So a study that could be taken to task by knitpickers, will not be, and need not be, especially since it jives with what common sense, personal experience, and intuitions already told most birders beforehand. Unfortunately, in the Ivory-bill arena, common sense, personal experience, and intuition, lead different people to completely opposing conclusions.

Despite the emphasis often placed on "field marks" MOST bird identification is the result of 'jizz' or gestalt appearance, and always has been. Field marks came along as a nifty way to introduce birding to greater numbers of people and are certainly useful in cases of difficult IDs, but the typical bird identification in the field does not include running through a checklist of field marks --- and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker IS NOT a difficult ID for an experienced birder in any event. I would advise those who believe that "brief" sightings are soooo unacceptable to please eliminate them from your future count reports (since clearly you believe other possibilities cannot be ruled out under such circumstances) --- and this will greatly help out count compilers too, by eliminating probably 50+% of all reports they must sort through : - ). Here's a thought experiment:

You walk into a room of 30 people and scanning faces quickly locate your best friend; pretty easily done. But could you now write a description of that person's face good enough to allow a total stranger to walk into the same room, and by scanning faces alone, also pick out your friend? Assuming no defining characteristic (6" scar on left cheek, patch over right eye, 4 inch purple nose ring), I doubt it. In writing a "description" of your friend you are in essence writing "field marks" for identification, but your own recognition of the friend is based on a 'gestalt' recognition of that individual's appearance. What you can do in a moment by 'jizz' as it were, a stranger will have great difficulty doing using your 'field marks' and likely end up with several possible choices (because field marks are often LESS-defining than 'jizz' in many instances). Some recent bird volumes have re-focussed attention on the overriding importance of gestalt features in bird identification, because field marks, while crucial on occasion and wonderful as an initial learning tool, are, in the grand scheme of things vastly overrated and only occasionally employed in bird identification --- some might argue that they ARE routinely employed, but at a less than conscious level, but that merely reduces them to further gestalt qualities when they operate below consciousness.
Or some will counter that it doesn't matter if field marks are rarely used in bird identification because they ARE used in cases of rare or unusual sightings. But here's the rub: experienced birders usually know (or can look up) the key field marks for an unusual sighting. You either do or don't trust a fellow birder --- when they report such key field marks after-the-fact they can easily lie (or simply be the victim of false memory) --- IF you believe such a recitation, then you might just as well believe their ID'ing of the bird in the first place without the recitation; the case of the IBWO is illustrative: those reporting Ivory-bills but noting few field marks are told their sighting isn't valid, and those who report field marks are told they must be mistaken or lying, so tautological are the skeptics' biases (...essentially, boiled down, 'you couldn't have seen an IBWO because it is extinct, and we know it's extinct because no one has seen one').

Personally, I'm immediately suspicious of past IBWO sighting claims that include a litany of 'field marks' (as are many IBWO investigators) --- it is too easy to regurgitate these from a field guide or other source after-the-fact; so easy that such recitation becomes almost meaningless; yet in today's atmosphere just such a recitation is required, especially of any novice birder. No, what impresses me more (in general) are sightings by experienced birders, who say they saw an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and they knew it in a flash (before they even thought about field marks), because THAT is what the reality would almost certainly be, given the uniqueness of this species. THAT is the norm in bird identification. The 'jizz' and total context is primary; field marks secondary.

And it is not enough for skeptics to say that "everyone makes mistakes from time to time." Any scientific claim can be challenged in such a loose manner. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe, maybe... of course alternative explanations are always possible, but they too must be given credence, not hoisted out of thin air. Believers are told they must produce a photograph for their case, but skeptics too then must demonstrate that experienced birders who make Ivory-bill claims either have a history of lying or pattern of rash, mistaken claims; skeptics can't be allowed to simply conveniently write off these lone instances as ad hoc "mistakes" (occurring over and over) if there is no history or pattern of such for a given individual.

So keep your eye on the ball --- sightings --- and don't get distracted by incessant blather over sounds, signs, blurry video, and other peripheral, even extraneous subject matter. Keep in mind too, that only a single sighting need be real for the Ivory-bill to be extant; whereas 100% of all sightings must be false, for the skeptics' case to hold forth (I like those odds :-). In the meantime there's a lot of habitat to check out (might even take more than a couple of weekends to do it), and waaaaay too early to throw in the towel in yet another rush to judgment on this species, thought extinct and re-found at least twice before in its history. IF the bird is indeed extinct searchers will simply keep building the case for skeptics (who should be eternally thankful for the assistance :-)).

I think I'll close with these famous words from Donald Rumsfeld, just for-what-it's-worth:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

....here's hoping for a long, restful summer, and maybe a paradigm shift sometime next year. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- YouTube Offering --

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

More Ivory-bill reporting from Discovery News available on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOqNJP8y7Ek&NR=1

Nothing new of course (except getting to hear Martin Collinson's fine British accent : - ), and solely focussed on Arkansas and the Luneau video yet again, but worth a look if you enjoy video.

--- All of which reminds me, that Cornell originally said they'd be replying to Collinson's analysis (Pileated vs. Ivory-bill flight comparison), but as yet I've not seen it --- if their rejoinder is indeed out there somewhere and I've missed it, someone please point me in its direction...

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

-- Article On a Searcher --

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

Article on searcher and grad student Chris Saker:

http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=8643

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

-- Congaree Info --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina was one of the last places James Tanner believed the Ivory-bill persisted 60 years ago, and the rumors/claims have never completely dwindled. Since it's looking like a lot of attention may get paid to S.C.'s Congaree Swamp next IBWO search season, might be worth reviewing the area a bit. Here's what USFWS employee Bob Russell previously wrote about the Congaree over a year ago at BirdingAmerica:

"The finest bottomland forest in the east, only 5,000 acres of the 20,000+ acres have been adequately explored botanically (let along for birds!) according to rangers in the park. Knowledgeable birders who enter the visitor’s center will be startled to see James Tanner’s photo prominently displayed. Tanner was greatly instrumental in helping set up this former national monument—did he know something we don’t or did he have suspicions that IBWO were in the area? We’ll never know but presumably he knew IBWO habitat when he saw it and this is the only existing site that rivals the Tensas swamp of old. Don’t bother with the boardwalk and developed trails but strike out on your own by kayak, canoe, or hiking (open understory, relatively easy to walk under the climax overstory) and check out remote areas of the park. Shouldn’t take you more than 2-5 years of your life.
Be sure to purchase John Cely's excellent park habitat map at the Visitor Center to hone in on some of the better old-growth stands. Use caution when approaching the too abundant wild pigs that forage throughout the park as some of the old boars are humongous and able to inflict real pain. Birders working this area in March through June should always be aware of the very slight potential for Bachman's Warbler in areas of native cane and swampy blackberry and greenbriar thickets."

some basic Congaree info here:

http://www.columbiasouthcarolina.com/congaree.html

... the page posted seeking volunteers prior to last season's S.C. IBWO search:

http://www.friendsofcongaree.org/ivorybilled/

maps/brochures for the Congaree available here:

http://www.nps.gov/cong/planyourvisit/maps.htm

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

-- More of Same From Cornell --

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

Updates from Cornell have long taken on a tendency of divulging little new or encouraging information that was not already previously released. And such is unfortunately true of their preliminary report for the '06-07 season. Other than saying they will search further next year, very little in the way of encouragement here. Nothing positive to report thus far from all of the automatic cameras currently in place. A lot of emphasis continues to be put on the acoustic data ('kents' and double-knocks) --- as I've previously said, interesting but weak data upon which to build a case; certainly worth following up on, but, by itself, never diagnostic. Meanwhile, quite oddly, not a single team member sighting for the season is even mentioned in the report (do they regard none as credible?). Only the early season IBWO encounter claimed by a hunter in Wattensaw is briefly referenced. I assume their final report, whenever issued, will include several more details, but no greater weight of evidence.

Clearly, in addition to Arkansas' Big Woods, Cornell does find much habitat of interest and worth further study. Key searcher Martjan Lammertink concludes, “We are encouraged by the good habitat we have found. I’d like to spend more time in the Atchafalaya basin, in the Pascagoula in Mississippi, parts of South Carolina, and in the Escambia, Apalachicola, and other rivers of the Florida Panhandle” (all, places already known to be of interest). Lammertink mentions being "impressed with the sheer size of the Atchafalaya basin in Louisiana," and being "awed by the quality of the habitat" in the Congaree (S.C.) --- frankly, it's a bit disconcerting that Lammertink, who virtually proclaimed the Ivory-bill extinct in the 1990's and is considered an expert on the species, suddenly is impressed with habitats that were there all along and referenced frequently in the past for their IBWO potential. Where's he (and a lot of other folks) been all this time, and if his judgment was faulty in the 90's might it still be wrong? How many locales of interest were totally bypassed given his mobile team's limited time in the field? There continues to be no mention of central or south Florida, nor several other areas that may be worth a serious look-see. Instead, just continued emphasis on the Congaree, where I suspect Cornell/FWS may shift much of their attention next year.

Long ago I wrote I'd be amazed if an independent searcher accomplished what institution-based searchers, with their money, resources, and numbers, have failed to do (and document the Ivory-bill)... but... I'm beginning to wonder... In the meantime, other summary reports should be forthcoming through the summer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New Postings from Cornell --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell's preliminary summary of their 2006-7 search season has been posted (with the promise of more searching next season):

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/latest/0607summary/document_view

and updated Cornell analysis of auditory data here:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/multimedia/sounds/newsoundpages/index_html/document_view

(may have more to say about all this later, or may just wait 'til the other summary reports are released)

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

-- Watchin' and Waitin' --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and waitin'... and waitin'...

Another search season ends with stiiiill NO evidence for the extinction of the Ivory-bill :-))) .... just further sightings claims and/or auditory encounters in at least 3 or more disparate locales. But for lack of a photograph many will choose to contend IBWOs must be extinct, not merely rare. Such contentions are easy to make, but when involving an entire species, rash indeed, while reports continue trickling in.

As I've said before (regarding false positives and false negatives, or, type I and type II errors), the most ill-consequential possibility in this situation is not in assuming a species lives only to realize later that it is extinct, but in assuming it's been extinct for 60 years only to then discover that it persists; a hugely serious blunder indeed.


... here, another photo of an Ivory-bill museum specimen I hadn't previously noticed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67388199@N00/397882868/ see ADDENDUM first!

ADDENDUM: THANKS!! (the internet is great) In case it wasn't clear to all, the reason I linked to this particular above photo was because of the peculiar lack of dorsal striping on this specimen --- didn't know if this could possibly result from the specific preparation techniques used, or if female IBWOs could be so variable as to not always clearly exhibit the dorsal striping, but thought someone seeing it might comment. Sure enough, the answer (which I didn't anticipate), sent in by a half dozen different folks so far, is that this is NOT an Ivory-billed Woodpecker afterall, but a MIS-labelled female Imperial Woodpecker. The incredible size of bill and feet probably could've been a tip off.
.................................................................................

from Web Grab Bag....

...not exactly breaking news but, American bird species are on significant decline:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070608/pl_usnw/analysis_reveals_startling_decline_of_america_s_common_birds

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