-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinda wondrin' if there may be a last IBWO website standing at some point?.... Mary Scott took down the majority of her Ivory-bill pages long ago; and of course Steve Sheridan's long-time and Gary Erdy's short-term sites vanished well in the past. I suspect The Nature Conservancy Ivory-bill site may fade from existence at some point, and even the sites from USFW and Cornell will likely get whittled down to a fraction of their former selves over time. Bobby Harrison and David Luneau only post occasionally at their respective websites. Recently, the IBWO Researchers Forum was asking for $$$, reminding members that their site costs money to keep running. Mike Collins at one point said he was 'retiring' from the Pearl River search (although he has since removed that posting from his journal). Geoff Hill wrote last August that, short of getting a photo, he wouldn't be doing any more updates to his Auburn IBWO site. With the exception of Bill Pulliam's site even most birding blogs don't report on the Ivory-bill story any longer, short of a crystal-clear photo coming along. What does the future hold?
I only get messages sporadically and second-hand from official sources anymore, but what little I do hear leads me to surmise that key people at Cornell may even have significant doubts about their own evidence at this point and might be inching away from the story (that's just me interpreting certain emails I get, since Cornell says little on their own behalf anymore). If their final report is as weak as I expect it to be, that may say a lot (on the surface it could appear hopeful, while a more critical reading between the lines may disclose a shallower document, possibly with a lot of ecological information, but little really promising for the Ivory-bill... again, just speculatin' here).
Worse yet, I still believe that a large-scale academic team approach was by far the best chance for documenting this species, yet has failed to do so. Am seriously doubtful that any independent searcher can accomplish the task, although someone might get a good enough sighting to attract dozens of other birders in who then finally document the birds' existence if methodically organized. More power (and fame and fortune) to any independent who does succeed.
Moreover, I see no way to piece together the totality of IBWO evidence in a nice, clean, logical manner at this point --- any explanation given for the overall findings runs into major problems/contradictions, whether you believe the species exists or is extinct --- just my disconcerting view. A catch-22 all the way around: one can only explain the IBWO's existence by employing arguments which in turn imply counter-arguments for its very extinction (in short, any view one takes holds the very seeds for the opposing view).
Well, "Ivory-bills LiVE" will be here as an information hub whether others stick around or not, continually attempting to sort through the evidence and ideas on-hand, positive or negative. And once current final summaries are out I'll draw my own independent conclusions of where things stand.
For now at least, a good number of folks will continue to follow this story... but harder to predict how many will be left standing (...or posting) 6-12 months from now, when the story could have no legs left. My intuitive/gut hunch says the documentation will... somehow... emerge in that time-frame... but my empirical sense says... it won't. The countdown begins.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
-- Job Posting --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties:
Posting for a 'woodpecker research technician' (Feb.-Jun. 2010) in Arkansas here :
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs/120737-Woodpecker-Research-Technician
(...some place called the "Cache River National Wildlife Refuge")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties:
Posting for a 'woodpecker research technician' (Feb.-Jun. 2010) in Arkansas here :
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs/120737-Woodpecker-Research-Technician
(...some place called the "Cache River National Wildlife Refuge")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Flying Far Afield --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an upbeat report on the California Condor recovery program below. It's an 11-minute clip, but I've only really selected it because of a couple off-hand, interesting comments within the first 2 minutes, when a participant mentions that the first captive-bred birds let loose in Arizona initially flew 300-400 miles away (to Wyoming), and no one knows why, before returning and establishing a territory. ...If young Ivory-bills routinely flew even half that far when dispersing it might help explain some of the geographically-disparate claims made for IBWOs over decades (of course, comparing IBWOs to Condors may make no sense at all from the get-go!):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an upbeat report on the California Condor recovery program below. It's an 11-minute clip, but I've only really selected it because of a couple off-hand, interesting comments within the first 2 minutes, when a participant mentions that the first captive-bred birds let loose in Arizona initially flew 300-400 miles away (to Wyoming), and no one knows why, before returning and establishing a territory. ...If young Ivory-bills routinely flew even half that far when dispersing it might help explain some of the geographically-disparate claims made for IBWOs over decades (of course, comparing IBWOs to Condors may make no sense at all from the get-go!):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
-- Giving Thanks --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've generally done some sort of 'things-I'm-thankful-for' post at this time of year... so in the Holiday spirit, 10 things I'm grateful for this year:
10. Tim Dee's book, "A Year On the Wing: Four Seasons In a Life With Birds"
9. Apple Computer/Steve Jobs
8. Twitter
7. Internet music radio
6. A Vice-President of the U.S. named "Joe" and not "Sarah" (...or "Dick")
5. Birds of the world from hummers to parrots, wrens to raptors, puddle ducks to seabirds; luv 'em all!
4. Small entrepreneurs and risk-takers who persist in a world of corporate behemoths
3. The Hubble telescope
2. A job
1. Thankful the country is in no worse, horrendous, calamitous, decrepit, financially-bankrupt, depression-teetering, de-regulated melt-down shape this Thanksgiving than it was one year ago today!
....But hey, a healthy, happy Holiday to all!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've generally done some sort of 'things-I'm-thankful-for' post at this time of year... so in the Holiday spirit, 10 things I'm grateful for this year:
10. Tim Dee's book, "A Year On the Wing: Four Seasons In a Life With Birds"
9. Apple Computer/Steve Jobs
8. Twitter
7. Internet music radio
6. A Vice-President of the U.S. named "Joe" and not "Sarah" (...or "Dick")
5. Birds of the world from hummers to parrots, wrens to raptors, puddle ducks to seabirds; luv 'em all!
4. Small entrepreneurs and risk-takers who persist in a world of corporate behemoths
3. The Hubble telescope
2. A job
1. Thankful the country is in no worse, horrendous, calamitous, decrepit, financially-bankrupt, depression-teetering, de-regulated melt-down shape this Thanksgiving than it was one year ago today!
....But hey, a healthy, happy Holiday to all!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
-- More Ramblin' Thoughts --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were simply hanging out in remote and very restricted territories they would've probably been found by now and fully documented. The alternative, that many have suggested, is that they are ranging over large swathes of territory, and not restricting themselves to a given area. But I've also argued that the farther afield they routinely fly, the MORE sightings we should have by now, given the wide casting of searchers over the last four years (i.e. the more ground the birds cover, the greater the chances of human encounters).
But why would the birds even move about so much? Some surmise the constant search for new food resources keep them nomadically moving around; that would make sense if their numbers were great enough that they truly cleared out food resources of any given area in short order, but I don't believe that to be the case. I suspect the numbers are so paltry low that they could sustain themselves in a given area for a significant length of time (the fewer the birds, the fewer the resources required). Perhaps frequent human disturbance causes them to keep moving on. Or maybe it is the search for mates that constantly drives them to new grounds (of course they must have had enough success finding mates over the last 60 years to still be with us at all, and when they do locate mates their movement would likely then be constrained at least through the breeding season).
If Ivory-bills are both looking for mates AND actively trying to avoid human encounters, that combination might account for their movements and elusiveness; this in turn largely assumes we are dealing primarily with juvenile and unmated birds at this point... and maybe we are. Given the paucity of sightings though, can there even be enough of them to find mates with regularity needed to sustain the species going forward? Finding an active nesthole is key to this whole story in so many ways, including getting the clear photos/film sought, and documenting that the birds are breeding, as well as studying the breeding process itself. Finding a nesthole... keeping its locale top secret, but broadcasting its activity via remote videocam over the internet with moving pictures reminiscent of Singer Tract film a la 70 years ago... ahhh, a jaw-dropping prospect to be devoutly wished!
I continue to believe that for the above scenario to play out the birds must travel along wooded river corridors (where there may be diminished chance of sightings), with the Mississippi River itself, and its tributaries, offering the most obvious possibilities as it stretches from western Tennessee/Illinois along Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. And Florida with its multiple interconnected swamps and waterways stretching from the central part of the state, northward and westward, likewise retains interest. Alabama, Georgia, South/North Carolina, Texas... don't seem (to me) as riveting, nor as readily able to account for 60+ years of evasiveness. But... in the Ivory-bill arena, little can be taken for granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were simply hanging out in remote and very restricted territories they would've probably been found by now and fully documented. The alternative, that many have suggested, is that they are ranging over large swathes of territory, and not restricting themselves to a given area. But I've also argued that the farther afield they routinely fly, the MORE sightings we should have by now, given the wide casting of searchers over the last four years (i.e. the more ground the birds cover, the greater the chances of human encounters).
But why would the birds even move about so much? Some surmise the constant search for new food resources keep them nomadically moving around; that would make sense if their numbers were great enough that they truly cleared out food resources of any given area in short order, but I don't believe that to be the case. I suspect the numbers are so paltry low that they could sustain themselves in a given area for a significant length of time (the fewer the birds, the fewer the resources required). Perhaps frequent human disturbance causes them to keep moving on. Or maybe it is the search for mates that constantly drives them to new grounds (of course they must have had enough success finding mates over the last 60 years to still be with us at all, and when they do locate mates their movement would likely then be constrained at least through the breeding season).
If Ivory-bills are both looking for mates AND actively trying to avoid human encounters, that combination might account for their movements and elusiveness; this in turn largely assumes we are dealing primarily with juvenile and unmated birds at this point... and maybe we are. Given the paucity of sightings though, can there even be enough of them to find mates with regularity needed to sustain the species going forward? Finding an active nesthole is key to this whole story in so many ways, including getting the clear photos/film sought, and documenting that the birds are breeding, as well as studying the breeding process itself. Finding a nesthole... keeping its locale top secret, but broadcasting its activity via remote videocam over the internet with moving pictures reminiscent of Singer Tract film a la 70 years ago... ahhh, a jaw-dropping prospect to be devoutly wished!
I continue to believe that for the above scenario to play out the birds must travel along wooded river corridors (where there may be diminished chance of sightings), with the Mississippi River itself, and its tributaries, offering the most obvious possibilities as it stretches from western Tennessee/Illinois along Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. And Florida with its multiple interconnected swamps and waterways stretching from the central part of the state, northward and westward, likewise retains interest. Alabama, Georgia, South/North Carolina, Texas... don't seem (to me) as riveting, nor as readily able to account for 60+ years of evasiveness. But... in the Ivory-bill arena, little can be taken for granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 23, 2009
-- Video Analysis and Assumptions --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Pulliam has a new post (as he promised) wrapping up the analysis of the initially-interesting Collins Nov. 5 video from the Pearl; examining why folks were quickly, but falsely, enthused over the clip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Pulliam has a new post (as he promised) wrapping up the analysis of the initially-interesting Collins Nov. 5 video from the Pearl; examining why folks were quickly, but falsely, enthused over the clip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 2010 Choctawhatchee Expedition Planned --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist John Agnew, who had one of the more detailed Choctawhatchee IBWO sightings in 2008 (which will be recounted in the Jan.-Feb. 2010 issue of "Bird Watcher's Digest"), reports that he is returning to the Choc. area with Auburn's Dr. Hill and others in Jan. 2010 to try and confirm current Ivory-bill presence:
http://herps2art.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/upcoming-ivory-bill-expedition/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist John Agnew, who had one of the more detailed Choctawhatchee IBWO sightings in 2008 (which will be recounted in the Jan.-Feb. 2010 issue of "Bird Watcher's Digest"), reports that he is returning to the Choc. area with Auburn's Dr. Hill and others in Jan. 2010 to try and confirm current Ivory-bill presence:
http://herps2art.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/upcoming-ivory-bill-expedition/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, November 22, 2009
-- Haunting Notes --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the greatest costuming ever... but, another vid of Sufjan Stevens memorializing the Lord God Bird:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the greatest costuming ever... but, another vid of Sufjan Stevens memorializing the Lord God Bird:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, November 20, 2009
-- Quite A Hoot, Indeed (OT) --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barred Owls... gotta love 'em!
Another off-topic story too good not to pass along, heading into the weekend:
(Barred Owl in a Boston Christmas tree)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/11/whos_that_hangi.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barred Owls... gotta love 'em!
Another off-topic story too good not to pass along, heading into the weekend:
(Barred Owl in a Boston Christmas tree)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/11/whos_that_hangi.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, November 19, 2009
-- You're Velcome --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A li'l housekeeping....
For those who've emailed recently saying "thanks" for the blog, and for continuing through thick and thin... that's what it's here for... to see this story through to the bitter... or glorious end!
BTW, I assume when folks tell me things in email it is for my eyes only, but if you ever wish your ideas added to a "comment" section (but are unable to comment yourself), just let me know that and I can transfer them there --- just say if you want them associated with your own name or left anonymous (I choose the latter unless someone explicitly gives ok to use their name).
Still in a bit of limbo myself... believing the bird is there, but unable to make good sense of several things at this point... things that just don't add up well (but they don't add up well on either side of the debate). The IBWO story seems so utterly different than the search for any other endangered species in the history of ornithology... and difficult to say why that should be.
We may now finally be heading into a quiet time for IBWO news (though, every time I think that, something pops up), until summary reports are issued.
For now, continue thinking, pondering, dialoguing, debating, and of course, searching....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A li'l housekeeping....
For those who've emailed recently saying "thanks" for the blog, and for continuing through thick and thin... that's what it's here for... to see this story through to the bitter... or glorious end!
BTW, I assume when folks tell me things in email it is for my eyes only, but if you ever wish your ideas added to a "comment" section (but are unable to comment yourself), just let me know that and I can transfer them there --- just say if you want them associated with your own name or left anonymous (I choose the latter unless someone explicitly gives ok to use their name).
Still in a bit of limbo myself... believing the bird is there, but unable to make good sense of several things at this point... things that just don't add up well (but they don't add up well on either side of the debate). The IBWO story seems so utterly different than the search for any other endangered species in the history of ornithology... and difficult to say why that should be.
We may now finally be heading into a quiet time for IBWO news (though, every time I think that, something pops up), until summary reports are issued.
For now, continue thinking, pondering, dialoguing, debating, and of course, searching....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
-- Get A Photo, Sherlock --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe time for something on the lighter side... so today just a revamped version of a post from over 3 years ago:
TOP 10 Ways To Finally Get a Photo of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker:
10. Sneak up on it from behind.
9. Instead of calling it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker" just re-name the bird "Britney Spears" and paparazzi will get all the pics you want.
8. Use ‘Google Earth' to zoom in on the Arkansas Big Woods and scan for a foraging Ivory-bill; as soon as you spot one snap a screen shot.
7. Use mental telepathy... or, if that fails, pray a lot... or, if that fails, use Photoshop.
6. Go into the swamp and do your very best David Attenborough impersonation.
5. Use a swinging pocketwatch to hypnotize the bird and lull it to sleep; then snap all the pictures you want.
4. Give a nine-year-old kid a camera and tell him it's humanly impossible to get a picture of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
3. As long as you’re in the swamp just stop and ask Bigfoot where to find an Ivory-bill.
2. Use an MRI machine to take a photo of one of Cyberthrush’s midnight dreams.
1. Elementary, Sherlock: find some Ivory-bill poop... look up... snap a picture!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe time for something on the lighter side... so today just a revamped version of a post from over 3 years ago:
TOP 10 Ways To Finally Get a Photo of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker:
10. Sneak up on it from behind.
9. Instead of calling it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker" just re-name the bird "Britney Spears" and paparazzi will get all the pics you want.
8. Use ‘Google Earth' to zoom in on the Arkansas Big Woods and scan for a foraging Ivory-bill; as soon as you spot one snap a screen shot.
7. Use mental telepathy... or, if that fails, pray a lot... or, if that fails, use Photoshop.
6. Go into the swamp and do your very best David Attenborough impersonation.
5. Use a swinging pocketwatch to hypnotize the bird and lull it to sleep; then snap all the pictures you want.
4. Give a nine-year-old kid a camera and tell him it's humanly impossible to get a picture of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
3. As long as you’re in the swamp just stop and ask Bigfoot where to find an Ivory-bill.
2. Use an MRI machine to take a photo of one of Cyberthrush’s midnight dreams.
1. Elementary, Sherlock: find some Ivory-bill poop... look up... snap a picture!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
-- To Whom It May Concern --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My email lately contains a large divergence of opinion on all matter of IBWO things... this, after 4+ years of study... we are hardly any closer to consensus now than we were before the process began, and maybe even further apart. Disappointing. My hunch is that even the 'powers-that-be' harbor widely differing, unresolved opinions such that their final summary report may be another wishy-washy document. They may even be parsing out all the data they've collected by now to see how many different publications they can squeeze out of it --- that's not meant as a dig, just an honest reflection of the workings of academia these days...
At any rate, to whomever it may concern, here are some things I'd like to see addressed in that final summary report, whenever it appears:
1) A rank-ordering or rating of pertinent states for how great officials view the likelihood of Ivory-bill presence based on all the data gathered. And further a rank-ordering/rating for the specific areas (within states) that are regarded most promising for further study.
2) More specifically I'd like to know how many man-hours were expended on central and western Mississippi, and the details of any searches there. Same goes for central Louisiana and northern Florida (not counting the Choctawhatchee).
3) Suggestions given for independents, who won't have the time and resources of official teams, on techniques that are deemed the most and least useful from the Recovery Team's experience (i.e., if doing cavity inventories is unproductive for the man-hours required, say so).
4) An account of the sightings from the last 4 years that officials believe are the most detailed, credible ones they have on record.
5) A fuller accounting of the results from the ACONE remote camera system used in the Big Woods: how many total photo-captures were there? How many were Pileated Woodpeckers? How many (if any) captures were unidentifiable, but in the size/shape range for Ivory-billed Woodpecker? They could supply similar data for the Reconyx cameras as well, but I'm most interested in the ACONE results.
6) Officials' own best speculation for why, IF the species persists, the last four years has failed to conclusively document them.
Anyone else have some things they'd like the final report to cover....?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My email lately contains a large divergence of opinion on all matter of IBWO things... this, after 4+ years of study... we are hardly any closer to consensus now than we were before the process began, and maybe even further apart. Disappointing. My hunch is that even the 'powers-that-be' harbor widely differing, unresolved opinions such that their final summary report may be another wishy-washy document. They may even be parsing out all the data they've collected by now to see how many different publications they can squeeze out of it --- that's not meant as a dig, just an honest reflection of the workings of academia these days...
At any rate, to whomever it may concern, here are some things I'd like to see addressed in that final summary report, whenever it appears:
1) A rank-ordering or rating of pertinent states for how great officials view the likelihood of Ivory-bill presence based on all the data gathered. And further a rank-ordering/rating for the specific areas (within states) that are regarded most promising for further study.
2) More specifically I'd like to know how many man-hours were expended on central and western Mississippi, and the details of any searches there. Same goes for central Louisiana and northern Florida (not counting the Choctawhatchee).
3) Suggestions given for independents, who won't have the time and resources of official teams, on techniques that are deemed the most and least useful from the Recovery Team's experience (i.e., if doing cavity inventories is unproductive for the man-hours required, say so).
4) An account of the sightings from the last 4 years that officials believe are the most detailed, credible ones they have on record.
5) A fuller accounting of the results from the ACONE remote camera system used in the Big Woods: how many total photo-captures were there? How many were Pileated Woodpeckers? How many (if any) captures were unidentifiable, but in the size/shape range for Ivory-billed Woodpecker? They could supply similar data for the Reconyx cameras as well, but I'm most interested in the ACONE results.
6) Officials' own best speculation for why, IF the species persists, the last four years has failed to conclusively document them.
Anyone else have some things they'd like the final report to cover....?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 16, 2009
-- Stepping Over to the Dark Side ;-) --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm expending a lot of brain cells recently trying to understand how we could have so little firm evidence of Ivory-bills after this widespread, 4-year effort. But let me now turn it around for one post and ask the opposite question: IF the birds are long extinct how could there be so many repeated sightings over time? In a famous 'Seinfeld' scene (fans will remember) Elaine answers, "Fake, fake, fake, fake" to a question. The common refrain from skeptics to the IBWO situation is similarly going to be "mistake, mistake, mistake, mistake" (and, well, occasionally also 'fake'). But that is too simplistic; if you believe in such a long history of mistakes, how do those mistakes come about? There is only one feasible explanation that has ever made any tenuous sense to me (...and to give credit where credit is due, I believe "PCoin" was the first to propose this to me long ago... apologies, if it was someone else and my memory is lapsing!):
We know Cornell found a largely albinistic Pileated in the Big Woods (body mostly white), and additionally partial leucistic PIWOs (with small white patches somewhere on their body -- see comment clarifications) have appeared from time-to-time. The question I asked at that time, over two years ago, was, what might the parents, siblings, and offspring of such birds look like? Might there not be, somewhere in the mix, birds with intermediate amounts of white (not small patches, but not the entire body)... and among those, could there be the rare, occasional individual where the added white actually appeared as a backmantle triangle, mimicking that of the Ivory-bill? What are the chances?? Well, as many know, Noel Snyder (a thoroughly reputable, credible birder) reported just such a bird in Florida back in the 70's (I believe?); no photos, just his verbal report of a Pileated he dang near took to be an Ivory-bill, before getting a better look at the head. If there was one, how many others might there be stretched across the Southeast at any given moment, or in any given decade for that matter. And would it not be easy, in brief glimpses, to mistake them for IBWOs given the long-time emphasis on wing pattern for ID'ing these two species?
Moreover, the"PCoin" view further hypothesis (as best I recall) was that such birds, being mutations, might be less healthy, living shorter lives than their counterparts; maybe even being shunned by them as oddballs/outcasts, in turn causing them not to remain long in any given area; staying on the move. People wandering in the woods might report these specimens as IBWOs, and then upon followup they can't be found. ...Sound familiar?
That, I think, was the gist of the argument. I find it a weak and UNprobabilistic theory, but one I can't entirely rule out... and can't banish from my mind. Surely, by now someone would've captured one of these impostor birds on film, or at some point a follow-up search would be quick enough to spot it and recognize/report the look-alike, even without a photo. Surely? or maybe not? Could such birds account for the few-and-far-between, but never-quite-ending chain of reports over the last 60 years? If "mistakes" are what we are dealing with, I can't come up with any better explanation... (though of course there are still the 'sound' encounters to deal with ...another form of 'mistakes'?)
Through this last Pearl River episode I remarked to some folks that we needed a shot/frame where we could make out the bird's bill --- THAT would move the identification along significantly; to see the IBWO's big, white, honkin' beak stickin' out there. Plumage interpretation in rough video may always be subject to artifactual, illusory, inconclusive elements, but that beak...
That's the best I can do for the skeptical side... and once again, it's not very satisfactory. Someone, puuhh-leeeeze bring me a clear photo of an Ivory-bill (showing the bill)... or, bring me a photo of a Pileated that truly mimics one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm expending a lot of brain cells recently trying to understand how we could have so little firm evidence of Ivory-bills after this widespread, 4-year effort. But let me now turn it around for one post and ask the opposite question: IF the birds are long extinct how could there be so many repeated sightings over time? In a famous 'Seinfeld' scene (fans will remember) Elaine answers, "Fake, fake, fake, fake" to a question. The common refrain from skeptics to the IBWO situation is similarly going to be "mistake, mistake, mistake, mistake" (and, well, occasionally also 'fake'). But that is too simplistic; if you believe in such a long history of mistakes, how do those mistakes come about? There is only one feasible explanation that has ever made any tenuous sense to me (...and to give credit where credit is due, I believe "PCoin" was the first to propose this to me long ago... apologies, if it was someone else and my memory is lapsing!):
We know Cornell found a largely albinistic Pileated in the Big Woods (body mostly white), and additionally partial leucistic PIWOs (with small white patches somewhere on their body -- see comment clarifications) have appeared from time-to-time. The question I asked at that time, over two years ago, was, what might the parents, siblings, and offspring of such birds look like? Might there not be, somewhere in the mix, birds with intermediate amounts of white (not small patches, but not the entire body)... and among those, could there be the rare, occasional individual where the added white actually appeared as a back
Moreover, the
That, I think, was the gist of the argument. I find it a weak and UNprobabilistic theory, but one I can't entirely rule out... and can't banish from my mind. Surely, by now someone would've captured one of these impostor birds on film, or at some point a follow-up search would be quick enough to spot it and recognize/report the look-alike, even without a photo. Surely? or maybe not? Could such birds account for the few-and-far-between, but never-quite-ending chain of reports over the last 60 years? If "mistakes" are what we are dealing with, I can't come up with any better explanation... (though of course there are still the 'sound' encounters to deal with ...another form of 'mistakes'?)
Through this last Pearl River episode I remarked to some folks that we needed a shot/frame where we could make out the bird's bill --- THAT would move the identification along significantly; to see the IBWO's big, white, honkin' beak stickin' out there. Plumage interpretation in rough video may always be subject to artifactual, illusory, inconclusive elements, but that beak...
That's the best I can do for the skeptical side... and once again, it's not very satisfactory. Someone, puuhh-leeeeze bring me a clear photo of an Ivory-bill (showing the bill)... or, bring me a photo of a Pileated that truly mimics one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, November 14, 2009
-- Up To The Task??? --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A little more background before explaining the point of yesterday's 'story'. Through the 60s, 70s, 80s I thought Ivory-bills existed and a major systematic, concerted, organized search, throughout the Southeast, if done, would easily demonstrate it within a couple years. The small size and paucity of previous searches was the principal reason for failure to document Ivory-bills in my mind. Fast forward to 2005, Cornell's announcement, and finally a real intention and plan to do just such a widespread, methodical search... my wish come true. Fast forward four more years. Still, no rock-solid documentation of the species' persistence. Not only has the IBWO not been confirmed, my faith in a large-scale, methodical, team approach has also not been confirmed (...though I still believe in it). If Ivory-bills exist (as I also still believe) what could've gone wrong???
Some think the methods/protocols employed were poorly designed or deeply-flawed. I've thought long about that, and concluded that despite weaknesses and flaws (expected in any such large scale project), they were sufficient enough, and even quite good in many respects; good enough to expect positive results. But if the planning and methods were adequate the only thing left is the execution, and really that means the searchers themselves.
This isn't meant as a slam at the 100's of dedicated volunteers and staff who spent so much time and energy in the swamps, but I do wonder how many were up to the task. In short, what percentage of IBWO searchers were, in reference to yesterday's 'story,' essentially "9th" choices (or 4th, 5th, 6th... choices)?
Early in the search, a few volunteers in the Big Woods even emailed me with remarks like, "I'm not sure what half these people are doing here; they're really not cut out for this," or "most of these folks aren't up to the task at-hand," or "the quality of searchers isn't really what it ought to be".
Is it possible that IBWO searches largely attracted people with the interest, time, and money to do so (and maybe a sense of adventure), but NOT the best, most experienced, keen-eyed, sharp-eared, intuitive, skilled backwoods birders in the country, as needed (even just being stationed in a spot and asked to watch a certain quadrant of forest for the next 8 hours takes skills and attention not everyone has). In addition to all those qualities, the searchers needed to be good photographers with other technical skills, and have great backwoods instincts about them. Ultimately, that is a tough combination to come by. And once found, those people then must have the time and money to part from family or job for the endeavor. In short, I can't help but wonder whether most of the highest caliber candidates for this 4-year effort never even took part? And the leaders who were highly-qualified couldn't pull this off by themselves; the support staff was crucial.
I'm not asserting that the bulk of searchers lacked the competencies most needed... just saying I don't know what percentage did; it remains a question in my mind --- were search techniques that appeared adequate on paper, compromised by a shortage of outstanding practitioners to carry them out? The Arkansas search, with by far the most volunteers, would've been the most affected by any potential shortage of qualified people; other search areas may simply not have had enough people period, whether qualified or not. (Time, money, and job precluded my own participation, but more importantly I recognize my own limits, and know I'm not the least bit qualified for this work, despite birding off-and-on for 45 years; but I wonder how many people of my ilk did take part for the thrill of a lifetime.)
That is the best I can do to account for the negative or questionable results after four years, other than simply reverting to the notion that we are looking for lone, quick-moving needles in immense haystacks and it requires more time (a notion that I think is getting stretched thin by now). This is not a satisfying answer... but then there is little at this point that is satisfying.
ADDENDUM: having received a few emails now in response to the above I've moved the discussion over to the new "Permanent Open Thread" to try and kickstart things there, if anyone cares to add to it...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A little more background before explaining the point of yesterday's 'story'. Through the 60s, 70s, 80s I thought Ivory-bills existed and a major systematic, concerted, organized search, throughout the Southeast, if done, would easily demonstrate it within a couple years. The small size and paucity of previous searches was the principal reason for failure to document Ivory-bills in my mind. Fast forward to 2005, Cornell's announcement, and finally a real intention and plan to do just such a widespread, methodical search... my wish come true. Fast forward four more years. Still, no rock-solid documentation of the species' persistence. Not only has the IBWO not been confirmed, my faith in a large-scale, methodical, team approach has also not been confirmed (...though I still believe in it). If Ivory-bills exist (as I also still believe) what could've gone wrong???
Some think the methods/protocols employed were poorly designed or deeply-flawed. I've thought long about that, and concluded that despite weaknesses and flaws (expected in any such large scale project), they were sufficient enough, and even quite good in many respects; good enough to expect positive results. But if the planning and methods were adequate the only thing left is the execution, and really that means the searchers themselves.
This isn't meant as a slam at the 100's of dedicated volunteers and staff who spent so much time and energy in the swamps, but I do wonder how many were up to the task. In short, what percentage of IBWO searchers were, in reference to yesterday's 'story,' essentially "9th" choices (or 4th, 5th, 6th... choices)?
Early in the search, a few volunteers in the Big Woods even emailed me with remarks like, "I'm not sure what half these people are doing here; they're really not cut out for this," or "most of these folks aren't up to the task at-hand," or "the quality of searchers isn't really what it ought to be".
Is it possible that IBWO searches largely attracted people with the interest, time, and money to do so (and maybe a sense of adventure), but NOT the best, most experienced, keen-eyed, sharp-eared, intuitive, skilled backwoods birders in the country, as needed (even just being stationed in a spot and asked to watch a certain quadrant of forest for the next 8 hours takes skills and attention not everyone has). In addition to all those qualities, the searchers needed to be good photographers with other technical skills, and have great backwoods instincts about them. Ultimately, that is a tough combination to come by. And once found, those people then must have the time and money to part from family or job for the endeavor. In short, I can't help but wonder whether most of the highest caliber candidates for this 4-year effort never even took part? And the leaders who were highly-qualified couldn't pull this off by themselves; the support staff was crucial.
I'm not asserting that the bulk of searchers lacked the competencies most needed... just saying I don't know what percentage did; it remains a question in my mind --- were search techniques that appeared adequate on paper, compromised by a shortage of outstanding practitioners to carry them out? The Arkansas search, with by far the most volunteers, would've been the most affected by any potential shortage of qualified people; other search areas may simply not have had enough people period, whether qualified or not. (Time, money, and job precluded my own participation, but more importantly I recognize my own limits, and know I'm not the least bit qualified for this work, despite birding off-and-on for 45 years; but I wonder how many people of my ilk did take part for the thrill of a lifetime.)
That is the best I can do to account for the negative or questionable results after four years, other than simply reverting to the notion that we are looking for lone, quick-moving needles in immense haystacks and it requires more time (a notion that I think is getting stretched thin by now). This is not a satisfying answer... but then there is little at this point that is satisfying.
ADDENDUM: having received a few emails now in response to the above I've moved the discussion over to the new "Permanent Open Thread" to try and kickstart things there, if anyone cares to add to it...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, November 13, 2009
-- Pulliam et. al. +Addendum --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of views coming into my mailbox as well as what I've seen on the Web (certainly not unanimous though) point to Red-headed Woodpecker as the ID for Mike Collins' Nov. 5 bird (even Mike has vacillated greatly on this video and directed folks back to one of his earlier videos as being 'stronger' evidence of IBWO). Bill Pulliam has begun weighing in as well, indicating a likely conclusion for RHWO --- he'll have more to say later:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-collins-11-5-2009-video.html
While I continue to lean toward RHWO, my main point, as indicated early on, is that I don't believe it to be an Ivory-bill, whatever else it may be. Moreover, to be more blunt, after the first few days that this story played out I no longer needed to even view the video (let alone analyze it) to reach that conclusion, the tell-tale signs against it were so strong (I did continue to analyze it though to try and pinpoint what the species was). I don't expect an IBWO will be documented in the Pearl anytime in the near future, though other parts of La. may still be fertile ground.
*ADDENDUM*: Bill P. now adds a new post confirming, with analytical frame-by-frame comparison (of new Red-headed film), his firm belief that Mike's bird is a Red-headed Woodpecker:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/11/side-by-side.html
We're probably rapidly reaching the 'time-to-move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here' phase of this episode. (Actually, there are likely some worthwhile teachable moments that may come out of this, and I'm sure Bill will have more to say.) Where-to, next?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of views coming into my mailbox as well as what I've seen on the Web (certainly not unanimous though) point to Red-headed Woodpecker as the ID for Mike Collins' Nov. 5 bird (even Mike has vacillated greatly on this video and directed folks back to one of his earlier videos as being 'stronger' evidence of IBWO). Bill Pulliam has begun weighing in as well, indicating a likely conclusion for RHWO --- he'll have more to say later:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-collins-11-5-2009-video.html
While I continue to lean toward RHWO, my main point, as indicated early on, is that I don't believe it to be an Ivory-bill, whatever else it may be. Moreover, to be more blunt, after the first few days that this story played out I no longer needed to even view the video (let alone analyze it) to reach that conclusion, the tell-tale signs against it were so strong (I did continue to analyze it though to try and pinpoint what the species was). I don't expect an IBWO will be documented in the Pearl anytime in the near future, though other parts of La. may still be fertile ground.
*ADDENDUM*: Bill P. now adds a new post confirming, with analytical frame-by-frame comparison (of new Red-headed film), his firm belief that Mike's bird is a Red-headed Woodpecker:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/11/side-by-side.html
We're probably rapidly reaching the 'time-to-move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here' phase of this episode. (Actually, there are likely some worthwhile teachable moments that may come out of this, and I'm sure Bill will have more to say.) Where-to, next?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Just A Story --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, just a quick story, and then tomorrow I'll explain why I've told it:
Shortly before Auburn made their original announcement about the Choctawhatchee, Dr. Hill told me that he was already recruiting searchers for the upcoming search season, and if I knew 1-2 people who might be interested and suitable I could have them contact him. I thought of 8 of the very best birders in my area --- birders who have that knack for spotting rarities, or picking up something in their peripheral vision, or noticing field mark details missed by others, or picking out that one gull in a 1000 that looks different, that almost intuitive sense, and sent them a sketchy email about the chance to be part of an Ivory-bill search team.
I guessed I would probably need to contact about 8 people to come up with 1 or 2 who might be interested and able to do it. A day later it occurred to me that a veterinarian I knew, who was not a birder per se, but had a very deep interest in the Ivory-bill, might be a little resentful if he ever learned that I'd sought out 8 folks for this task and never mentioned it to him. So as mostly a polite gesture I sent him (I'll just call him 'Doc') the same email, figuring there was no way a veterinarian at a major state university would be able to engage in the 2-3 months involvement that Dr. Hill was asking for.
Lo-and-behold... All 8 people with the skill levels I wanted for the Florida effort turned down the offer (usually because family or jobs made such a commitment impractical, though I suspect some thought it was a wild goose chase from the get-go, and were too polite to say so), but 'Doc' jumped at the opportunity (turned out he had a sabbatical coming up anyway). Make no mistake about it, I'm thrilled that Doc got to go, that he had a great time and it was an incredible life-experience; he's a highly competent individual who I'm sure did a superb job for Dr. Hill... BUT hey, in all honesty, he was my 9th choice!!!
Tomorrow... the rest of the story... or, why I've even bothered to mention this.
..............................................
And heading into the weekend, a re-post of some links for quick access as needed:
Mike C.'s Nov. 5 video: http://www.fishcrow.com/flight5nov09.mp4
Mike's journal page: http://www.fishcrow.com/winter10.html
Frontiers of Identification site: http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/FRID.html
Bill Pulliam's site: http://bbill.blogspot.com
...and open thread below if desired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, just a quick story, and then tomorrow I'll explain why I've told it:
Shortly before Auburn made their original announcement about the Choctawhatchee, Dr. Hill told me that he was already recruiting searchers for the upcoming search season, and if I knew 1-2 people who might be interested and suitable I could have them contact him. I thought of 8 of the very best birders in my area --- birders who have that knack for spotting rarities, or picking up something in their peripheral vision, or noticing field mark details missed by others, or picking out that one gull in a 1000 that looks different, that almost intuitive sense, and sent them a sketchy email about the chance to be part of an Ivory-bill search team.
I guessed I would probably need to contact about 8 people to come up with 1 or 2 who might be interested and able to do it. A day later it occurred to me that a veterinarian I knew, who was not a birder per se, but had a very deep interest in the Ivory-bill, might be a little resentful if he ever learned that I'd sought out 8 folks for this task and never mentioned it to him. So as mostly a polite gesture I sent him (I'll just call him 'Doc') the same email, figuring there was no way a veterinarian at a major state university would be able to engage in the 2-3 months involvement that Dr. Hill was asking for.
Lo-and-behold... All 8 people with the skill levels I wanted for the Florida effort turned down the offer (usually because family or jobs made such a commitment impractical, though I suspect some thought it was a wild goose chase from the get-go, and were too polite to say so), but 'Doc' jumped at the opportunity (turned out he had a sabbatical coming up anyway). Make no mistake about it, I'm thrilled that Doc got to go, that he had a great time and it was an incredible life-experience; he's a highly competent individual who I'm sure did a superb job for Dr. Hill... BUT hey, in all honesty, he was my 9th choice!!!
Tomorrow... the rest of the story... or, why I've even bothered to mention this.
..............................................
And heading into the weekend, a re-post of some links for quick access as needed:
Mike C.'s Nov. 5 video: http://www.fishcrow.com/flight5nov09.mp4
Mike's journal page: http://www.fishcrow.com/winter10.html
Frontiers of Identification site: http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/FRID.html
Bill Pulliam's site: http://bbill.blogspot.com
...and open thread below if desired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, November 12, 2009
-- Permanent Open Thread --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues, Thoughts, Ideas, Concerns, Questions....
Taa Daaaaa!... an experiment: trying a permanent "Open Thread" (which may or may not succeed).
As I'm mulling over all-things-Ivorybill these days I suspect others are as well, with other thoughts. At the top of the "Ivory-bill Links" in the left-hand column I've listed "Permanent Open Thread" linking directly to this one post. I'm attempting to create a space that folks can quickly access for more open-ended discussion of things on their own minds. Am dubbing it a place for issues, thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions that readers just want to throw out for discussion. The operating rules, as usual, are 1) keep things civil, and 2) that space not be monopolized too much by 2 or 3 people going 'round and 'round with each other repetitively on a single matter --- make your best case, maybe with a couple of follow-ups, and then move on if it's clear that you and another person simply don't agree on the matter.
Hope folks of all persuasions in the debate will feel free to voice their thoughts in constructive, yet critical ways. If this works, you may wish to just check in from time-to-time to see what if any discussion is taking place even if you have nothing to add... or, it may simply not succeed at all!
With that said, comments are open to you readers:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues, Thoughts, Ideas, Concerns, Questions....
Taa Daaaaa!... an experiment: trying a permanent "Open Thread" (which may or may not succeed).
As I'm mulling over all-things-Ivorybill these days I suspect others are as well, with other thoughts. At the top of the "Ivory-bill Links" in the left-hand column I've listed "Permanent Open Thread" linking directly to this one post. I'm attempting to create a space that folks can quickly access for more open-ended discussion of things on their own minds. Am dubbing it a place for issues, thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions that readers just want to throw out for discussion. The operating rules, as usual, are 1) keep things civil, and 2) that space not be monopolized too much by 2 or 3 people going 'round and 'round with each other repetitively on a single matter --- make your best case, maybe with a couple of follow-ups, and then move on if it's clear that you and another person simply don't agree on the matter.
Hope folks of all persuasions in the debate will feel free to voice their thoughts in constructive, yet critical ways. If this works, you may wish to just check in from time-to-time to see what if any discussion is taking place even if you have nothing to add... or, it may simply not succeed at all!
With that said, comments are open to you readers:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Just a Ramblin' Kinda Guy --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Martin used to stand on stage with an arrow through his head and a banjo in his hand, and explain that he was just a ' 'ramblin' sorta guy.' ...That's kinda how I'm feelin' these days (...without the banjo) --- so I may post a few days of ramblin' entries, 'bout things just rattlin' 'round my brain (there are many) at this point:
We'll start with Ivory-bill sounds... Lots and lots of claims by now for possible kents and double-knocks heard in search areas (indeed many recorded); even a few cases of kents and double-knocks heard in conjunction, or better yet sightings and sounds in conjunction. But still, over the entire last 4 years most sounds seem to be heard largely in isolation (with the occasional short series), and upon daily followup often not heard at all. I'd be curious to find out what we know about the repetitiveness or rate of calling or double-knocking for Ivory-bills historically, or other Campephilus species (if there is too little data for IBWO). I would've expected more sounds by now; much more.
During the breeding and pre-breeding months (Jan. - April) I think one can go onto Pileated-established territory and through the day hear repeated calls from these birds. The sparse and isolated sounds of supposed Ivory-bills from many of the search areas doesn't seem normal, and is as troubling as the sparseness of the sightings. It argues for the likelihood that the sounds are not coming from live birds but from other more random sources. Or do Ivory-bills fail to 'communicate' much or regularly because they lack counterparts to communicate with? (One can always come up with explanations.)
The photo problem is similar; should there or shouldn't there be a better photo by the end of 4+ years? These large birds no doubt engage in extensive and significant foraging activity. Methodical categorizing of promising foraging sites as well as cavities in several of the search areas has been done (granted the land tracts involved are huge and many such sites may be easily missed), followed up with either remote camera or live human monitoring of the sites... and not a single adequate picture. Yes, the chances may be small of photo capture, but we only need ONE picture; not 10 or 5 or even 2, just ONE decent picture in 4 years of watching methodically, carefully-chosen sites; it is not encouraging.
As I try to wrap my brain around how the last 4 years of data sync with the previous 60 years, various issues and disconnects come to mind. If other news doesn't intervene I may ramble through some of 'em in ensuing days. People sometimes get bogged down in minutia, and possibly miss the bigger picture which is more telling....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Martin used to stand on stage with an arrow through his head and a banjo in his hand, and explain that he was just a ' 'ramblin' sorta guy.' ...That's kinda how I'm feelin' these days (...without the banjo) --- so I may post a few days of ramblin' entries, 'bout things just rattlin' 'round my brain (there are many) at this point:
We'll start with Ivory-bill sounds... Lots and lots of claims by now for possible kents and double-knocks heard in search areas (indeed many recorded); even a few cases of kents and double-knocks heard in conjunction, or better yet sightings and sounds in conjunction. But still, over the entire last 4 years most sounds seem to be heard largely in isolation (with the occasional short series), and upon daily followup often not heard at all. I'd be curious to find out what we know about the repetitiveness or rate of calling or double-knocking for Ivory-bills historically, or other Campephilus species (if there is too little data for IBWO). I would've expected more sounds by now; much more.
During the breeding and pre-breeding months (Jan. - April) I think one can go onto Pileated-established territory and through the day hear repeated calls from these birds. The sparse and isolated sounds of supposed Ivory-bills from many of the search areas doesn't seem normal, and is as troubling as the sparseness of the sightings. It argues for the likelihood that the sounds are not coming from live birds but from other more random sources. Or do Ivory-bills fail to 'communicate' much or regularly because they lack counterparts to communicate with? (One can always come up with explanations.)
The photo problem is similar; should there or shouldn't there be a better photo by the end of 4+ years? These large birds no doubt engage in extensive and significant foraging activity. Methodical categorizing of promising foraging sites as well as cavities in several of the search areas has been done (granted the land tracts involved are huge and many such sites may be easily missed), followed up with either remote camera or live human monitoring of the sites... and not a single adequate picture. Yes, the chances may be small of photo capture, but we only need ONE picture; not 10 or 5 or even 2, just ONE decent picture in 4 years of watching methodically, carefully-chosen sites; it is not encouraging.
As I try to wrap my brain around how the last 4 years of data sync with the previous 60 years, various issues and disconnects come to mind. If other news doesn't intervene I may ramble through some of 'em in ensuing days. People sometimes get bogged down in minutia, and possibly miss the bigger picture which is more telling....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)