-- 2nd Annual IBWO Gala in February --

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

The invitation/registration for Bobby Harrison's 2nd annual Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation Gala on Saturday, Feb, 23, 2008, in Huntsville, Alabama, is up on the Web through this link (pdf form). Schedule of events/speakers is included, with Jerry Jackson giving the keynote address. Tickets range from $35 to $250. [NOTE: I assume they'll get it corrected, but the date for the Gala is currently erroneously given as "Feb. 28" on the linked page.]
..........................................................

In the meanwhile you may wish to email John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee that you would very much like him to move forward promptly with Dennis Kucinich's resolution for the impeachment of Vice-President Dick Cheney. It's the least we can do for our exasperated allies around the globe who increasingly recognize this particular Administration as perilously incompetent and a significant threat to world stability.

john.conyers@mail.house.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- In Praise of.... --

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

....the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, perhaps...

The folks over at "10,000 Birds" blog have a contest running to win free copies of the handsome, new, well-reviewed volume, "Bird: The Definitive Visual Guide" from DK Publishing (retail value - $50). Contest entry involves writing an essay (250-750 words) about a single favorite North American bird species of your choice entitled, "In Praise of _________." Entries need to be submitted to 10,000 Birds blog by Nov. 30 and will be published there in December prior to selection of winners. See further details at their site.

Have at it....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More Harrison --

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

New book is out from The Explorer's Club entitled "They Lived to Tell the Tale," including, among its 41 entries, a chapter by Bobby Harrison on his Ivory-bill encounters.

....on a sidenote, almost any great scientist will tell you that intuition, and not logic or reason, is really what underlies most good science --- a topic I suspect worth a post of its own at a certain point in the future....
("It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover." -- J. H. Poincare)
........................................................................................

Elsewhere on the Web:

The Wisconsin Green-breasted Mango (hummingbird), mentioned here previously, has been captured and taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center for now, not due to any injury or health problem, but on the supposition that it could not survive oncoming cold temps, nor have time to reach a warmer clime. I'm not sure I agree with this action, which is stirring a lot of debate, but IF it is a correct decision it is probably because my original surmise that the bird arrived in WI. via false passage in the trailer of a freight truck and not under its own direction is correct. A truly vagrant hummingbird, following its instincts, would likely have left the area ahead of a cold front in enough time to reach warmer temps; whereas a confused and possibly weakened hummer (that may have spent 24 hrs. in a tractor trailer), might not do so and in fact be in need of assistance. But either way, this is a rather unusual and controversial development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Wattensaw Redux --

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

Reminder-time again: Noel Snyder's new monograph, "An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's Decline," ($25) is available here :

http://www.wfvz.org/html/pub_prog.html
................................................................................

Over the years, living in several different states, and associated with different birding groups, I've regularly run into birders (long before the current IBWO interest) who related stories about seeing possible Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the 60's or 70's, or knowing other people they trusted who thought they may have seen one. These were all encounters that were never officially turned in to anyone, due to lack of documentation or simple fear of ridicule. It is difficult to know how many such possible claims went unreported prior to the Cornell announcement, but probably in the 100's across the entire Southeast over decades.

Anyway, in that vein, "MMinNY" over at IBWO Searchers Forum has found this simple, pertinent entry (which I'd never seen before) from a Jan. 2002 hunting forum thread (discussing the 1999 Kulivan IBWO sighting), from one "ncboman" --- interesting because it makes reference to Wattensaw (Arkansas) 30+ years before Wattensaw became a sudden center of attention with several sightings claims:

"I still think I may have seen 3 ivory bills in 1973 at a place in Arkansas called Wattensaw? I was over 100 yds. away and could not make a positive ID. Being new to the area, I wasn't sure what was there but I had already seen good numbers of Pileated woodpeckers and I know these birds were different.
Being young and stupid, I didn't go to them, preferring to stay in my stand. I wish I had checked them out more closely now. "

(the actual thread is archived here, with the above post at bottom of page)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 'nother Claim Detailed --

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

News story on another IBWO claimant, biologist Richard Robert Anderson (auditory and sighting encounters), here.

And British birders may want to take note that Dr. Dan Mennill, associated with the Auburn Ivory-billed Woodpecker search in the Florida panhandle, as chief sound analyst, is speaking Nov. 16 at the McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London Conservation Awards Banquet. 'NOTHER CORRECTION: myyyyyyy bad; this is in London, ONTARIO (Canada), not Britain!! (...I'll try to get more sleep in the future).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Of Mangos and Dead Horses --

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

For those who don't already know, Green-breasted Mangos are large flashy hummingbirds of Central America, occasionally documented in the US. One was recently confirmed in Georgia, an interesting find to be sure. Most that have ventured into the US over the years though, have been found in Texas (16 or more), not a far cry out of their range, and thusly not so difficult to account for. But in the past, one such bird was documented in western North Carolina and, 7 years later, another in Wisconsin. The probability of a Mango, by its own volition, making it as far north as WI., or even NC. (when they've not been seen anywhere north of Texas) I believe is vanishingly small, and so have always presumed these two individuals likely got trapped in the back of carrier trucks (possibly hauling tropical plants, as there are many trucks moving south to north doing such) and released when the sliding back door opened upon destination arrival. 'Little brown jobs' (sparrows and wrens) get trapped in the back of large trucks with some regularity and there's no particular reason it couldn't have happened twice (or more) to Mangos in 7 years --- in fact, I think it far more probabilistic than any other explanation. Thus, I find it interesting that David Sibley actually believes it more likely these two birds are true vagrants, which I would term "wishful thinking" ;-) pretty much unsupported by any evidence (such as intervening sightings between Texas and farther north). But of course neither of us can know for sure...

But it got me to thinking... what would it take to convince me there really were vagrant Mangos traveling so far north? --- It would take 'numbers;' i.e. not 1 or 2 isolated cases, but a half-dozen of them, in a more condensed time-frame, showing up in northerly locales --- that might begin to be persuasive that something really is going on here other than the randomness of the long haul freight industry.
AND AGAIN, (you knew I was headed somewhere with this ;-) THAT is what we have with Ivory-billed Woodpeckers --- numbers --- 1 or 3 or 5 or even a dozen sightings over the many years might easily be written off as mistakes, but not so likely for the dozens of claims piled up over that elapsed time (NOT all of which are brief, or undetailed, or from non-credible sources, or coming in the middle of IBWO frenzy, despite what some will say).

I'm beating a dead horse here with those who disagree, but I'll repeat it nonetheless: UNTIL there are adequately thorough searches of a majority of pertinent habitat areas, and while sightings continue to infrequently occur, there is NO SOLID EVIDENCE for the extinction of this species (just solid evidence of rarity). Invoking the fact that birders make mistakes as a blanket explanation for so many varied claims across time, is almost insultingly simplistic; a catchall explanation that can be used for anything. And again, if skeptics truly believe that 'brief' identifications are so regularly UNreliable, than I challenge them to come out foursquare against the inclusion of brief sightings on any-and-all official bird counts --- such reports should have no place in databases if their unreliability is as commonplace as painted (funny thing, that brief sightings are accepted so routinely on count days; brief looks of Pileateds are apparently never subject to error, and brief looks of IBWO are 100% subject to error).

If several more years of significant searching result in no documentation for Ivory-bills I'll have no problem saying it looks as though the species may be extinct afterall (though I'll still have no idea in which decade the extinction occurred). And some of us can then say with a clear conscience that we gave it our all, and erred on the side of the bird. But if in that time the species is confirmed what will skeptics have to say...? "geee, sorry, my baaaad," or will some of them be sooo busy packing their bags for a swing by the swamp to get a look just so they can check it off their (unvalidated) lifelists, to bother saying anything at all --- and I'll just bet, by that point, in their estimation, a 2-second look will have magically become plenty sufficient time for putting it on that lifelist, and recounting their wonderful story 100 times over when they return home....

P.S.... in all of this, I don't mean to sound overly harsh with David S.; he's easily one of the most civil and well-spoken folks in these whole proceedings... but this doesn't mean, as I'm sure he'd admit, that he might not be 'mistaken' about both the Green-breasted Mango and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- A Little Bedtime Reading --

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

'Fangsheath' over at IBWO Researchers Forum has added a thread to that forum compiling in one spot much of the major published material relating to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker:

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3209#post3209

Several of the pieces are directly accessible on the Web by given links. I've added a link to this thread on the left of my blog, right above the 'IBWO Resources' link, which also comes from IBWO Researchers Forum (there is some content overlap between the two links).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Old Quotes Revisited --

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

Not much news, so I'll just repeat a couple of old 1930's quotes from T. Gilbert Pearson, one of the premier American naturalists/ornithologists of the 20th century :

"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."

"The reduction in abundance in 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."

...........................................................................................

Elsewhere on the Web:

Most folks in the east have taken down their hummingbird feeders by now, assuming the Ruby-throats have made their way south, but as many know, more and more western hummingbirds are almost routinely showing up in the east each winter in regular, if sparse, occurrences. So put that feeder back up, keep it filled with fresh sugar water (and try to keep from freezing), and watch what shows up. Moreover, many people around are intently studying the phenomena/movement of winter hummers in the east, so If you're actually lucky enough to get one, try finding an appropriate person in your area, or on the Web, to report it to. More info here (and there is a LOT of other info on the Web):

http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/Late_hummingbirds.html

And here's a beaut of an example from current news! (a Green-breasted Mango banded in Georgia recently):

http://www.narba.org/index.cfm/MenuItemID/144.htm

(hmmmm.... hummingbirds in winter.... gotta wonder how long they'd been coming before skeptics accepted it....?)

-- Extinct in 1931 --

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

fer shuuuuur....

A poster on the Arkansas listserv writes about an old book find from 1931 already referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as extinct, well before the Singer Tract study:

http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/ARKS.html#1193619323

Of course this species was thought extinct in many minds by 1900, then again by 1920, then by 1930, and then again by 1950, only to be followed by more decades of reports. It's entire history is that of a species prematurely declared gone by the impatient and short-sighted, based upon little solid evidence. Evidence for 'rarity' is one thing, and not so difficult to document; evidence for 'extinction' is quite another, and exceedingly difficult to establish. One ought tread carefully.

....and one last time (well, may do another reminder in a week), Noel Snyder's monograph on Ivory-billed Woodpecker decline available here. It has a limited initial printing so may want to get any orders in early, although if enough demand, could get a second printing.
..............................................................................

Web Grab Bag offering: The new biography of Roger Tory Peterson by Douglas Carlson is now out. I prefer folks support their local bookstores if practical, but nonetheless here is the Amazon link.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Hill Article --

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

A couple of folks emailed me saying they thought I'd given Geoff Hill's latest article short shrift on the blog. That wasn't my intention, even if it seemed so because I only linked to it as a short "Addendum" to a longer post (and maybe some folks missed it entirely). So again, here is the link for Dr. Hill's latest perspective on things (while we still await the actual 2007 summary reports from both Auburn and Cornell) :

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=1018

Dr. Hill argues among other things above that, even without a clear photo, the totality of their Choctawhatchee evidence is difficult to explain away as anything other than Ivory-bill presence.

And another reminder that Noel Snyder's new IBWO monograph is available here:

http://www.wfvz.org/html/pub_prog.html

.........................................................................................

....on the lighter side of things, from the Web Grab Bag, this story of turkeys in Massachusetts acting badly:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/23/turkeys_take_to_cities_towns/

and lastly, here one poor humiliated Screech Owl (what pray tell will his relatives think?!) ;-)

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

-- Mistakes --

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

===> First, excuse the redundancy, but for a few posts I'm going to repeat the site to order Noel Snyder's new monograph, "An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Decline," because I think it so important (despite the high price, $25) (see prior Oct. 26 post if you missed it) :

http://www.wfvz.org/html/pub_prog.html
...............................................................................

"Birders make mistakes"... comes the constant, polite, catchall refrain from Sibley et.al. And how true it is... all birders make mistakes, ID'ing one gull for another, one sparrow for another, one fall warbler for another, a Northern Cardinal as a Summer Tanager, and on and on. BUUUUT... how many of us, in an entire lifetime of birding, will EVER walk in from the outside and say we just saw an extinct, or nearly extinct bird? or, in a more qualified version, even say we 'think' we may have seen such a bird? Very, verrry, verrrrrry paltry few of us I suspect, because, if wrong, we recognize the magnitude of such an error. Most experienced birders will only voice such a sighting if they have a very heightened level of certainty. In fact, given the cautionary nature of experienced birders there might well be far more actual rare birds going UNreported, due to fear of ridicule or inability to validate, than those getting reported inaccurately. But, of course not all IBWO reports come from "experienced birders," so lets start there:

Over the years, probably 75+% of the IBWO reports I've heard/read appeared NON-credible from the get-go with but a few questions asked and little investigation; mostly mistaken identifications, and a few outright hoaxes. The vast majority of the 75% are NOT from experienced birders, and often from people with limited, if any, experience with Pileated Woodpeckers. Those are the easy cases. And these are folks who honestly do 'make mistakes' in the Sibley sense; having read or heard something about the Ivory-bill and jumping to sincere but erroneous conclusions upon seeing a Pileated --- and they make mistakes BECAUSE their competency level for such identifications is low. But one CANNOT generalize from those 70 or 80 or even 90% of cases to ALL cases (no matter how tempting it is to do so) --- each case requires separate, individual review. I fully agree that the vast majority of IBWO claims reflect mistaken identifications; the problem is that 100% of them MUST BE such for the IBWO to be extinct, and that is not so likely. Only a small percentage of claims fall into the seriously credible category from knowledgeable, capable people (who are familiar with PIWOs and IBWO field marks), in suitable circumstances with details that fit and no obvious flaw; and finally, the remaining 20+% of claims (I hear) fall into the amorphous, possibly-credible-but-not-as-fully-credible-as-I'd-like category, in need of further information and checking.

Ideally, one wants to hear an IBWO report from an active, knowledgeable birder with plenty of experience in the woods with Pileateds. If such an individual (who recognizes the significance of their claim) says they are confident they saw an Ivory-bill, even briefly, you are now beyond the arena of simple errors. It may qualify as a mere "mistake" when someone having no full recognition of the import or gravity of such a claim inaccurately reports an Ivory-bill, but it borders on foolishness or incompetency to do so when you are fully aware of that gravity. Saying you saw a bird that 'might have been' or 'looked kinda like' an Ivory-bill is one thing and reasonable. But to say "I know I saw an Ivory-bill" or "I'm virtually certain I saw an Ivory-bill" is quite another, and if it comes from someone with a previous history of seemingly accurate, knowledgeable, accepted reports then it becomes the BURDEN of skeptics, to not just blythely write-off the claims as "mistaken ID," but truly demonstrate that the specific sighter is either NOT knowledgeable, NOT competent, NOT experienced, NOT honest, or has a previous DEMONSTRABLE pattern/tendency toward hasty or wish-driven IDs. Without such an explanation how is one to account for a lifetime of reasonable bird claims that have been routinely accepted, followed by a sudden, lone report of this magnitude that is dismissively labeled "mistake" merely because it falls outside some PRECONCEIVED boundary of expectations? --- Questioning an ID that is unaccompanied by a photograph, and that clashes with preconceptions, is just tooooooo incredibly easy. And going on to assume that conjectured alternative explanations must automatically be true just compounds the problem. This does not mean that we tear down birders' reputations, it means simply that we try to review their individual tendencies and competencies better if we are going to pass harsh judgment on their claims, rather than simply assuming that Person A is in error based on our own prejudiced expectations, or on Person's B, C, or D's flawed history.

Yes, it is always 'possible' that every single birder with experience and knowledge, who report Ivorybills are 'mistaken' in their bold claims, JUST AS it's similarly possible that some of the 1000's of Pileateds reported on bird counts every year are in actuality Ivory-bills, MIS-identified during brief looks (...and no I'm not kidding). Nor do I buy the notion that under all circumstances the Ivory-billed and Pileated (let alone other species) are easily confused in brief views; they are markedly different birds, not as easily/automatically confused by a birder well experienced with normal Pileateds as endlessly implied. Moreover, skeptics continue to work circularly from the unvalidated assumption that IBWOs are extinct, through alternative concocted explanations and overgeneralizations (from a few specifics to ALL), back to their initial assumption; how convenient. Throw out the initial assumption and all considerations change.

Skeptics are fond of noting the many false manias, fads, and hysterias, that have dotted the landscape of science, while failing to note the other many instances of 'unconventional' individuals and views which, given enough time, became standard (a fellow named Einstein for one), once the intransigency of the dominant paradigm gave way to further evidence --- happens all the time in the history of science.

In the past, a few folks speculated that James Tanner was harsh with John Dennis and other claimants because at some subconscious level Tanner wanted to go to his grave as the last person to have closely studied Ivory-bills. I'm doubtful that's true, but I do recognize that many current skeptics have painted themselves into very tight corners now, not only presuming the Ivory-bill extinct, but proclaiming it gone for 60+ years. The more forcefully they state these positions the greater stake they have, for the sake of their own reputation/credibility, in NOT having the species confirmed, and disparaging any evidence toward such confirmation (I'm sorry, but I DO NOT believe the refrain that every birder would be delighted to have this species documented at this point; some, a small group to be sure, will be ashamed and embarrassed).

The Ivory-bill debate has long ceased being just the story of a bird, and become a story of scientific process and thought; and if the debate is ever resolved, we may yet see who most mis-construed the science. So yes, it is certainly true that people make mistakes, and I'd even venture that, overall, biologists make MORE mistakes than any other scientific group, and just maybe, in the current prevailing IBWO orthodoxy, they've made a real doozy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Snyder Hypothesis, plus --

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

Gary Graves posted the following review of Noel Snyder's latest monograph on Ivory-billed Woodpecker decline on the Arkansas listserv today (the monograph argues that hunting/collecting, NOT forest ecology, may have been the greatest cause of IBWO decline) :

"Noel Snyder (a retired USFWS biologist and the chief architect of the successful California Condor recovery program) has just published a 57 page monograph entitled, "An alternative hypothesis for the cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's decline." Snyder's persuasive monograph counters the prevailing wisdom on Ivory-bill ecology (largely derived from Tanner's work with the remnant population in the Singer Tract in the late 30's and early 40's) and the underlying causes for the species' apparent extinction in the United States. In-depth research of historical archives and letters suggests that Ivory-bill population densities in the 19th century were much greater than currently believed (perhaps nearly as common as Pileated Woodpeckers), that Ivory-bills were not foraging specialists on recently dead trees in virgin forest, and that population declines were not related so much to habitat destruction as to direct human depredations: (1) subsistence hunting (yes, people used to eat large woodpeckers); (2) sport and curiosity hunting, and (3) the zealous activities of commercial collectors who procured Ivory-bills for private collectors and museums. This later activity was mostly restricted to Florida populations between 1880 and 1910 (only five museum specimens are known from Arkansas-collected from 1844 to 1884). The impact of sport and curiosity hunting alone was probably enough to account for the extirpation of Ivory-bills in the Singer Tract (Louisiana) and many other locations within its historic range. Snyder draws parallels between the plight of the Ivory-bill and the California Condor and Whooping Crane (both of which were nearly exterminated by curiosity hunting). Snyder also emphasizes the fact that there was little evidence that a shortage of food or selective logging was responsible for the Ivory-bill's decline. Cuban Ivory-bills, for example, persisted for over 50 years in a heavily cutover region. Although severe logging (clear-cutting) is undoubtedly detrimental to woodpecker populations, Ivory-bills in the United States disappeared from many locations decades before the virgin timber was cut. Snyder hypothesizes that the most detrimental affect of logging was to facilitate the entry of humans (with guns) into formerly remote and inaccessible areas. There are several explicit and implicit messages in Snyder's synthesis. Perhaps the most poignant is that pure human curiosity (the desire to examine the magnificent bird in the hand) might have led to the extinction of the Ivory-bill. The list price ($25) of Snyder's monograph is rather steep but it is a must read for ARBIRDERs with a strong interest in Ivory-bills. The monograph can be obtained from the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology: http://www.wfvz.org ."


I began making this very same argument over 6 years ago privately to people, as well as including it in a post at this blog over two years ago here. (In saying that, I'm NOT at all inferring that Noel stole my idea, but rather that it is interesting that two individuals, stepping back from the orthodox IBWO gospel, and looking freshly and open-mindedly at the evidence, ended up approaching the same hypothesis.)

ADDENDUM: a timely new article by Geoff Hill (actually written last May) is now online in the latest edition of Birders World Magazine:

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=1018

ADDENDUM II: Well lo-and-behold!, now someone over at BirdForum has found a link to an old August 1997 BirdChat post by Mike Collins also alluding to the possibly overlooked and underappreciated effects of hunting/collecting on the Ivory-bill (he's got me and Noel beat by a longshot):

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9708D&L=BIRDCHAT&P=R8303&D=1&H=0&I=-3&O=D&T=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Sibley et.al. --

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

First, as a sidebar, please take note that David Luneau has published a few corrections to a prior (skeptical) Science article at his website here:

http://www.ibwo.org/science_errors.html


In a long, passionate (or some might argue dispassionate) post at his blog David Sibley summarizes the skeptical view of Ivory-bill persistence and the dollars requested by the Federal Draft Recovery Plan:

http://sibleyguides.blogspot.com/2007/10/ivory-billed-woodpecker-status-review.html

Obviously, I disagree with several things he says, but there is nothing new here (though it is a fine summation) and it would be redundant to respond yet again to every single point of disagreement. But a few things... The bottom line as I've said before, has to do with which error one is most willing to risk making: looking for a bird that turns out to be long gone, or giving up on a bird that turns out to be hanging by a thread. David thinks evidence for the Ivory-bill's existence is inconclusive (and so do I), and settles on the default conclusion that it is extinct. I think evidence for extinction is itself hugely inconclusive, and remains so until a thorough, systematic, coordinated search of Southeastern habitat is concluded (David thinks it's been largely done already; I don't view it as even close to accomplished).

In the early 1900's it was the Mason Spencers of the time who said Ivory-bills existed and the David Sibleys of that time who persistently said 'no, you're mistaken.' 100 years later, deja vu. David fails to recognize that those in his kind of position (who routinely review a lot of mis-identifications) can themselves develop a natural or jaded bias against unusual reports, just as strong and prejudicial as the 'wishful thinking' bias others may have favoring such reports. David is willing to discount all sight records that are brief, and risk throwing in the IBWO towel early --- I do wish skeptics would at least be consistent and request that ALL "brief" sightings, if they are deemed so UNreliable, be disallowed from yearly bird counts and reports --- you can't have it both ways, routinely accepting thousands of such reports for more common birds, assuming them accurate and including them in databases, and then just as routinely dismissing any such IBWO reports based on brevity.)

The sightings and sounds continue, few and far between, just as would be expected of a rare species, but, for lack of a photograph naysayers choose to give up on a creature that can fly on a whim, perch in dense canopies, or invisibly reside inside cavities. Hubris, not science, sustains the belief that such a creature could never have eluded cameras for this length of time. In the skeptical view, repeated sightings over decades are all highly fallible, but human camera skills over time apparently are deemed infallible.
We are still awaiting the Cornell and Auburn summaries from last season, further study in South Carolina, and hopefully organized exploration of other key areas, but David and others cast the game as over, based upon current limited evidence. They see the last few years as conclusive; I see it as a beginning. Nor do I accept that "millions" of people have somehow spent significant time in Ivory-bill habitat looking for this bird over 60 years. In my own 40 years of off-and-on birding I've only known a small handful of birders who ever spent any significant elapsed time in the heart of IBWO-like habitat; adjacent or peripheral areas sometimes, but not the real core habitat (and many of them weren't specifically looking for IBWOs).

Loggers, hunters, collectors of the 20th century drove the Ivory-bill toward extinction with their actions, but they were merely doing their jobs as defined by the times. Those who really began pounding the final nails in the IBWO's coffin, were the ornithologists/birders of the day who failed early-on to work toward saving the species, as only they might've been expected to do (there were good reasons they failed, but they failed nonetheless). David and others, I fear, are continuing in that tradition, and right or wrong, I wouldn't risk joining them, until more, much more, is known, and sightings abate (or actual evidence of lying, pathology, or lack of competency of each of the sighters is demonstrated --- I may talk about competency in an upcoming post, since David dances around it --- there is no way to doubt ALL IBWO claims without doubting the competency of those making the claims; to simply say 'birders make mistakes' is courteously glib and timid). The belief in extinction rests upon a scaffold of conjecture about the species' needs, behavior, and habitat; a scaffold that could turn out to be solid, but also that a single photo could bring down.

No doubt David has thought about it much, sincerely believes what he writes, and thinks he is siding with the best scientific judgment. He sounds like the voice of reason, but he also sounds like the voice of Arthur Allen (a premier ornithologist of his day) who repeatedly thought the IBWO extinct until taken to them. David is an artist and field birder, not a scientist (not that scientists don't make plenty of errors themselves), and he professed his belief in IBWO extinction long before the Cornell announcement, so he does not enter the fray necessarily as a neutral source, but views matters through his own prism of belief. Yet if he is rushing to judgment, he will, by force of his reputation, drag others with him. David's contributions to birding and his general civility are enormous, and I wish on that basis alone, I could have more faith in his judgment here. But again, I'll risk erring on the side of the Ivory-bill and its numerous reports, before I'll risk erring on the side of any given individual, until due diligence is done.

It is somewhat ironic that shortly prior to his Ivory-bill post David had another post which links to an odd story of the unlikely, and purportedly first-time ever, link-up of two Greater Flamingos in Louisiana --- do such rare events in nature only happen when they are captured on film by humans, or would this improbable story have still been believable and reportable if the sightings had been brief and unaccompanied by photos???
Similarly, some say that if a tree falls in the forest, and there are no humans present, the tree makes no sound --- it seems fairer to say the tree does make a sound (heard by other creatures), but humans can't be in all places at all times, and thus can't always hear trees... nor photograph Ivory-billed Woodpeckers when they would like. How long we try or how much money we spend in the process remains for now a point upon which many of us can only agree to disagree....


...Ohhh, and speaking of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, this current solicitation from Cornell :

-- Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Team Leader --

"The Cornell Lab of Ornithology is seeking an experienced and motivated team leader to guide Ivory-billed Woodpecker surveys in Arkansas from 11/19/2007 – 4/30/2008. The work will involve applying avian survey techniques while camping in remote areas of the Cache and White River basins. Most excursions will include 2-5 days of camping while surveying for the presence of IBWOs and other bottomland birds. Lodging and transportation will be provided between camping surveys. Leader will direct 4-6 field biologists. Required Qualifications: excellent organizational skills; strong (proven) leaderships skills; ability to design day-to-day search strategies and make decisions; past field experience conducting bird surveys; good bird identification skills; technical experience with computers including Word, Excel, and some familiarity with ArcGIS and GPS downloading is preferred; previous camping experience and ability to withstand difficult field/living conditions; good communications skills and ability to occasionally represent Cornell at meetings with agencies/partners (TNC, USFWS, Arkansas Game & Fish, and others). Position includes $1,400 semimonthly ($2,800/month) and benefits.

To apply please send cover letter and resume with 3 references to: Martin Piorkowski (E-mail: mp362@cornell.edu) 159 Sapsucker Wood Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. Email submission of applications is preferred. Apply ASAP."

ADDENDUM: just discovered this additional Cornell solicitation for field techs on another listserv:

Arkansas Field Biologist, Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Team:

Arkansas  Duration: 12/1/2007 - 4/30/2008; Required Qualifications:
Excellent bird identification and observational skills; Must have good
working knowledge of general field biology techniques and data
collection methods; Good work ethic; Willingness to tent camp in remote
locations for up to 5 days; Ability to hike through difficult terrain in
flooded, bottomland hardwood forests; Ability to follow directions and
survey protocols.  Other Qualifications:  Good paddling and canoeing
skills are preferred; Ability to use and understand GPS unit and
navigation skills; General knowledge of camcorders and cameras (however
specific details will be taught).  This position will be contracted at
approximately $2000/month.

If you are interested, please e-mail your resume and contact information
for 3 references to cwrideout AT agfc.state.ar.us or by mail to:

Catherine Rideout
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
2 Natural Resources Drive
Little, Rock, AR 72205
501-978-7329
cwrideout AT agfc.state.ar.us

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

-- Snyder Monograph & More Ghost Birds --

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

Noel. F.R. Snyder's monograph, "An Alternative Hypothesis For the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's Decline" is finally available here ($25):

http://www.wfvz.org/html/pub_prog.html

(anything Snyder writes is usually good).

And a new book by David Sakrison, "Chasing The Ghost Birds," covers efforts to bring three other large bird species back from the brink: Whooping Cranes, Trumpeter Swans, and Siberian Cranes. Not specifically on Ivory-bills, but nonetheless some of the issues, concerns, considerations are similar. A couple of book reviews here and here, and book website here:

http://www.chasingtheghostbirds.com/contents.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Pure Speculation --

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

hmmmm, I sense another TOP 10 List incoming....


In the event the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is eventually confirmed, what might be the first words uttered by T. Nelson :

10. Oh ^&$#%#&@*!!!

9. Say WHAAAAAAAAT!!??

8. well geeeeez, I was just k-i-i-i-i-dding, afterall...

7. ShaaaaZZZAAAAAAMM!!!

6. uhhh.... I'm OUTTTA heeeere

5. ooops, my baaaaaaad....

4. Whoooooa, Cyberthrush RU-U-ULES!!

3. ehh well, guess tomorrow I'll start my new blog.... "Dodo-skeptic"

2. yeah, Ivorybills exist, sooooo?; that's just one more piece of rock-solid evidence that global warming is a sham!

1. DOHHHHHHHHH!!!!
...................................................................

And from the Web Grab Bag, interesting NY Times article on birds and sleep here.

(...apologies in advance if this requires registration, which is free, for access.)

And how much more bad luck can California Condors have... finally, a law is signed into effect working to diminish lead in their environment (a frequent cause of death), only to find a group of them threatened by the incredible wildfires presently devastating parts of Southern California (they are safe within San Diego Zoo facilities at the moment):

http://sandiegozoo.org/wpmu/fire/

Best of luck to all those being affected by this current catastrophe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- It's (Not) All About the Money --

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

When I first read the USF&W Draft recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the $27 million figure for the task immediately jumped out at me as something that would grab skeptics' attention (...and I don't mean that in a positive way ;-))

Sure enough, some have seized that figure like a rottweiller grabbing a towel and, weeks later, continue shaking it back and forth. The proposed funding was for the years 2006 - 2010, so as I understand it (but feel free to correct me if you know I've got it wrong), the first $13 million, allocated for 2006- 2007, has essentially already been spent if it was going to be. What we are really talking about is the $14-or-so million scheduled for 2008 - 2010. Of course there are possible reasons why that expenditure can be criticized, although I'd quickly add that almost all science spending the Gov't. does can be criticized by SOMEone in terms of finding a better use for it SOMEwhere.

I love the space program --- they can double it as far as I'm concerned --- but as a practical matter I could never "justify" its cost given the pressing and immediate problems afflicting us, and all the PR-created-justifications regarding side-benefits that are spun off by it (according to NASA) DON'T justify it either (truth be known, I suspect the REEEEAL justification for the space program is 'national defense' and not a whole lot more). Buuuut, exploring space and the cosmos gets at the essence of what we are as humans, in both our desires and our capabilities... and that's all the justification I need.

Like the space program, the proposed in-depth study of Southeast bottomland habitat and search for the Ivory-bill will also have numerous side-benefit spin-offs for natural history study and other endangered birds potentially. But I wouldn't use that as the justification for going forward with the Plan. The simple fact is that there are claims, beliefs, hopes, and scientific controversies (even personal reputations and integrity) involved at this point that are difficult to put a monetary figure on and that need resolution... as well as obviously one of the most inspiring, charismatic birds that ever graced the American woodland, at the center of it all.
A long-deceased Senator once famously said, regarding Gov't. expenditures, 'a million dollars here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...' Yes, the Draft Plan involves 'real money,' but had we spread that $27 million over the last 60 years on this very work I don't know that anyone would've ever batted an eye, and no telling what the gains might have been. Personally, I don't have much problem spending it now.
Still, I realize it is a roll of the die: the possibility of rolling snake eyes (NO Ivorybills found) and potentially affecting future endangered species funding well into the future, far outweighs, for many, any possibility of confirming IBWOs. But the reverse is also true: because of the way this saga has played out, just documenting the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (even if it could not be saved) would now likely be the greatest boon to both private and Federal funding for endangered species support and habitat conservation ever imaginable.

....It won't be long before the next IBWO search season, whatever form it takes, gets underway; which means it will be even less time 'til the Auburn and Cornell summaries of the previous season are released. Oh, and from the Pearl (La.) Mike Collins reports he's given up his "trusty old '78 Fairmont" and purchased an '08 Honda Civic while embarking on yet another search season. Surely, a good omen! ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Florida Ivorybill Distribution --

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

"Dacol" over at IBWO Researchers Forum recently posted this map from Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission which shows the historical distribution, by county, that Ivorybill specimens in museums came from:

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=976&d=1192809820

Two things of note: few panhandle counties (where the greatest interest has been the last 1-2 years) are included in this distribution, and the four counties with the highest numbers of specimens, rather than being clumped together (as one might expect), are actually spread widely apart in the north, central, and southern areas of the Sunshine State.
(Doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, given the small numbers involved, but interesting.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More Old Ground --

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

Covering some old ground once again....

The lack of confirmation for various Ivory-billed Woodpecker claims over the decades, lack of a definitive photograph in 60 years, and failure to find an active nesthole, are all excellent reasons for postulating that Ivorybills are very rare creatures indeed, but insufficient for proposing extinction of the species, without a more thorough and systematic search of habitat, as now underway. The potential sheer rarity of the species can adequately explain all these (lack of) findings.

The strongest argument skeptics can muster for extinction is probably what I'll term the 'bottleneck' argument --- i.e., that one can't both assume the species is so rare that it exists only in small isolated, disparate populations, and yet simultaneously believe it has managed to persist for 60 years, through the breeding or genetic 'bottlenecks' that would result --- Either the population must be (or have been) much larger to still be around today (in which case good, confirmed sightings and/or photos would be available by now), or, if so rare for decades that it couldn't be documented, than individuals simply couldn't persist to today --- you can't have it both ways... To which I simply reply, "schnickerdooooodles!!"

The reproductive drive of animals is incredibly powerful (and mysterious). Moths of course employ pheromones to traverse amazing distances in locating mates, and larger creatures as well, routinely defy odds to link up with their own kind. Tanner presumed at the time of his study that there were small populations of IBWO in Louisiana, Florida, and S. Carolina. He may have underestimated the numbers and locales, but even if he was correct that presents both potential Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast corridors for Ivorybills to move along in pursuit of mates and territory --- corridors, that since the 50's have gotten slowly but steadily richer in (second-growth) habitat. Ivorybills were known as strong fliers that could easily cover wide distances, even if not migratory by nature. And with hunting pressure off them, odds for survival could further increase.

Moreover (as I've said previously), under some circumstances, animal populations can actually drop much faster from say 1000 individuals to 500, or 500 to 200, than from 50 to 0, because at the lower numbers, 'sustainability' sets in; i.e., the number of individuals being produced over a given time period offsets the number being lost, once territory, food, and other needs can now be met easily at the lower densities involved. (Whooping Cranes were down to around 14 individuals before humans stepped in to turn their situation around --- I don't know if there are any records indicating just how long they hung on at the under-40 level before that human intervention took place? --- cranes of course are very different from woodpeckers, but if they could sustain a viable population for decades, while only raising one chick per year in the wild, before Man stepped in, than the IBWO would seem to have the same opportunity.)

So, could the Ivorybill sustain itself at such small numbers over a lengthy period as to elude being definitively documented? Obviously, my answer is yes. How probable is it? --- I don't know (...maybe just as probable as every last report of the species over 5 decades being in error?).... and afterall really, in the grander scheme of things, how probable is a giraffe or a duck-billed platypus??? Or, as Annie Dillard reminds us, "improbabilities" are the "stock and trade" of nature....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------