-- Trip Down the Cache River --

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

Recent Arkansas broadcast of a float down the Cache River:

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

-- Big Woods Happenings --

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

For awhile now, Jackson Roe, with his dad, has been independently searching a Big Woods area (Arkansas) known for previously-followed-up-on IBWO claims, and now reports on his blog (Thur., Sept. 30 post) what he believes was a sighting of 2 Ivorybills:

http://saveaspeciescorp.blogspot.com/

Jackson was kind enough to send along some additional details to me via email (since ironically I had recently written a post about "copious" details being needed for any claim), and of course I can only wish Jackson well in trying to further document the birds. The report is not unlike many previous reports of brief encounters, except for the claim that a pair of birds (male and female) were present... sightings involving pairs are fairly unusual.

...and the beat goes on.

[11/2/10 Addendum: sighting later retracted as being Red-headed Woodpeckers.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Mammal Study Lends Readers Hope --

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

Readers send along this news release of research from Aussie scientists predicting that a third of "extinct" mammals may yet be rediscovered:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/a-third-of-extinct-mammals-may-still-be-alive/

"It turns out that rumors of the extinction of more than a third of these species have turned out to be premature, the scientists report in Proceedings of the Royal Society B Sept. 29. At least 67 species — a little more than a third of those presumed to be extinct — were later found again. And in most cases, these were animals that had been hardest hit by habitat loss.

"...If the main cause of decline was habitat loss, you are quite likely to be wrong if you say that it’s extinct, unless it was restricted to a very small area.”

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

-- ...more difficult than ever --

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

Somewhat oddly I've had about the same number of stray Ivory-bill sighting claims arrive in my email box this summer as in the past; none very detailed or persuasive, yet they come. It's a bit frustrating that after all this time a lot of people still don't understand that you can't just say you've seen an Ivory-bill, and you looked in a book so you know that's what it was, and be taken very seriously.

It has sometimes been hypothesized that a lot more birders think they have seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker than have ever reported it, because BIRDERS do understand how difficult it is to be taken seriously; how grinding the questioning will be; and even the stigma attached to such a report. But for those who still don't 'get it,' if you're going to send in a claim that you've seen Ivory-bills you need to, at a minimum, fill in these details:

1. Where, when (approximate dates/time-of-day) did you see the bird(s)? and how far was it from you?
2. Describe what the bird was doing (perched, flying, on ground, pecking, etc.etc.), and how long did you see it for?
3. What makes you believe the bird seen was an Ivory-bill and not a Pileated Woodpecker?
4. Very roughly, how many Pileated Woodpeckers would you say you've seen over the years?
5. Did anyone else see the bird with you, or do you know of anyone else who has ever seen the bird in the same area?
6. Did it make any sounds?
7. Describe what you can of the woods or general habitat of the area it was seen in.
8. Are you a birder and if so for how many years? how would you describe your level of birding experience?
9. And exactly where do you purchase your moonshine?... NO, NO just kidding!!

These are the prelims... depending on answers to these basic questions I (or anyone you contact) may have another whole series of questions to follow up with. (...Understand that your report has been preceded by a couple thousand similar ones that haven't panned out.)

And I'm a patsy (who still believes the species is not dead, but just pining* ;-))... many others by now will barely even consider a lone verbal report, especially from a non-birder, that isn't accompanied by photographic or other evidence (...and I've had 'kent' sounds sent to me as well, but never one that sounded IBWO-like to my ear).
In short, though I'd like to encourage everyone who honestly thinks they've seen this bird to report it, they need to do so with the understanding that a 2 or 3 or 4 sentence report isn't even in the ballpark of adequacy... so if you can't stand the heat, you may as well stay out of the Ivory-bill kitchen; reporting you were abducted by a UFO will be as plausible to many folks.

One might've hoped that 5+ years after this whole venture began it would've become easier to credibly report encountering an Ivory-billed Woodpecker... in fact of course just the opposite has transpired, and it is now more difficult than ever. A report unaccompanied by a clear photo or video needs copious, copious details... lacking such it barely constitutes being a report at all.

* apologies to John Cleese
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New Sibley Post --

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

David Sibley has a new post up at his blog better fleshing out his explanation of "wing-twisting" in bird flight in general, and with specific reference of course to the Luneau video. I'm sure there was some discomfort for David even re-visiting this whole issue at this late date, so I'm very thankful that he chose to take the time to do so, as it will help some better understand his position. I also realize his post won't end the frame-by-frame debate over just what is being seen in the Luneau bird, and I'd prefer to not get into an extended discussion here of specific frames that folks feel don't fit with David's rendering of matters, since the two interpretations simply don't seem resolvable. Given USFW/Cornell's rather dismissive take on David's position, I simply think it good that he has re-stated it:

http://www.sibleyguides.com/2010/09/wing-twisting-explained/

(...As a sidenote, I will say that I think some of the confusion over this matter stems from the use of the perhaps overly-vivid term "wing-twisting" for what seems to me to be a more subtle turning, tilting, or bending of the wings, along with the 'curvature' David describes.)

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

-- Putting Phantoms On Your Radar --

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

Bill Pulliam weighs in with one last "call to action" here:

http://tinyurl.com/2vcpp4r
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Another Look Back... and Forward --

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

Just another nostalgic look-back today at a 3-year-old "Birder's World" article that covered the Arkansas sighters who started this whole venture:

http://tinyurl.com/2wm8xge

...and in news of the Not-quite-so-extinct-afterall Dept., a couple of readers have sent along this link to a recent find in Spain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9008000/9008585.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More "Ghost Bird" --

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

Interviews with Scott Crocker, producer of "Ghost Bird," have been all over the internet for the last couple months as his independent, award-winning documentary makes its way around the country. Here's another recent example:

http://tinyurl.com/2cxcjf2

If you haven't yet seen it, you can go here to see if there is a screening scheduled in your area:

http://ghostbirdmovie.wordpress.com/screenings/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- "Ambivalence Permeates..." --

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

"When I start thinking about ivory-billed woodpeckers, I find it hard to stop. They hitch and flap and peck around in my head; they make me think about large issues, like extinction, and small things, like the look in their eyes, the gloss of their feathers."

I'm feeling a tad nostalgic today, so just a link back to one of Julie Zickefoose's wonderful pieces written over a decade ago (before Sparling, before Cornell, before Auburn, before Kulivan) that most of you have no doubt already read:

http://www.juliezickefoose.com/writing/ibw.php?id=1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 2006 Article, + Addendum --

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

"Concolor" sends along this link to a 2006 article (pdf) from Czech professor Jan Swart that attempts to summarize the IBWO situation and also hypothesize about the IBWO's mobility (as an explanation for the scarcity of findings):

http://www.kirtlandbirdclub.org/pdf/ibwobyjanmswart.pdf

ADDENDUM: Dr. Swart has sent along a link to further (updated) comments from him clarifying his current view of the IBWO situation (including pessimism over the species' likely persistence):

http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/IBWO.html

(thanks Jan for taking the time to update us)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- A Viewpoint From Arkansas --

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

Joe Neal posts today on the Arkansas birding listserv (a view shared by many):

http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/ARKS.html#1282830726
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Tweeting Across the Pond --

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

I've mentioned before here the desire to see some major independent wildlife expedition/film group (ala David Attenborough) do a search for the Ivory-bill in place of 'academia-types' and see what happens...

Lo-and-behold (at this late stage) I see on Twitter some chap (Brit) named "Thomas Thynne" is promoting the same notion, and has tweeted to Bill Oddie, Chris Packham (of the BBC), Sir David himself, and the editors of "Birding Magazine," urging such an excursion. He admits they probably think he's "an idiot," but can't hurt to ask; and gotta believe (even without a finding) it would make for a great nature TV special (Attenborough's British accent alone would make for more spellbinding viewing than Fitzpatrick's east coast intonations ;-))

Not sure whatever has happened (if anything) with BirdLife International's earlier plans to incorporate an IBWO hunt as part of their search for several worldwide endangered species, but if any of you blokes across the pond know more details about any of this let us know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More History --

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

Nice article (in Sept. issue of Smithsonian Magazine) from naturalist Stephen Lyn Bales, who's book "Ghost Birds" is due out soon:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Close-Encounter-With-the-Rarest-Bird.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- PLoS Piece --

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

Wow, VERY surprised to find Jerry Jackson authoring a lengthy review (entitled "Ghost Bird – The Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Hopes, Dreams, and Reality") of Scott Crocker's "Ghost Bird" documentary for the latest edition of PLoS Biology's open-access science journal:

http://tinyurl.com/2dp6pxj

Jerry doing film reviews... who'd-a-guessed it! ;-) I didn't even realize PLoS did film reviews! Anyway, a peculiar feeling for me reading this (there are a great many reviews of Crocker's film on the Web, but this is different).
There is nothing in the piece that Dr. Jackson hasn't already expressed in some form over the last few years... but an odd format for doing so now; seeming to use the Crocker film as a vehicle to get in a few final swipes at possibly the most bizarre episode in the history of American ornithology. Perhaps it is his way of bringing some closure to the whole affair for himself (even vent a bit at the end of a long process), or perhaps someone simply appealed to him to do a review of the documentary for the journal??? I don't know.

Dr. Jackson always ultimately hedges his bets on the Ivory-bill's existence, but makes it clear here (as well as other correspondences) that he thinks the chances close to nil now for its persistence. Dr. Jackson is one of my ornithological heroes, and of all the "skeptics," the one I most respect. So there is something both sad and ironic in seeing the man who most prominently argued for this bird's possible continued persistence for so many decades (when everyone else rolled their eyes at the mention of IBWO existence), now be cast in the role of one of it's most prominent critics. And how ironic it would be if, as some of us believe, he turned out to be right back when most everyone thought him wrong, and now wrong when so many think him right! Worth noting, as an aside, that there are various long-term underlying schisms in the ornithological community which may also impinge on all that has transpired over the last few years (this has definitely been more than a story about mere scientific process).

....possibly, I'll add to this post later, as I've written more, but not sure how much, if any, I want to put into print.
Meanwhile, for now, the searches continue, the claims continue, and the implacable disagreements over interpretation of the accumulated evidence continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New Idea? --

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

A reader, "John D. Williams," sends in some ideas in the comments section to prior (8/5) post from his analysis of the IBWO history/situation. One idea that he mentions in the context of trying to acoustically 'attract' Ivory-bills is intriguing to me:

"Another avenue for this acoustic attraction is the observation that woodpeckers seem to be able to detect their beetle larvae prey remotely on the tree -- presumably by hearing them. Modern science could quantify these vibrations. Perhaps amplified, they would prove irresistable to an IB miles away."

I suspect that amplifying such sounds might distort them enough to make them less attractive to IBWOs, but the possibility of recording and playing them at closer to normal levels in areas where IBWO are claimed or indicated I do find quite interesting... any further thoughts? (read Mr. Williams' 2 back-to-back comments below).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- And the Beat Goes On --

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

There's long been a bit of a dichotomy in American birdwatching (despite substantial overlap) between what I'll call the 'pure birders' or 'top-notch birders' and the 'ornithologists.' By top-notch birders I mean not just 'rock stars' like Sibley, Dunne, Kaufman, but also, those who may be lesser known to the public, but are huge in the birding world for their accomplishments/abilities, if not for their writings. These are excellent, experienced birders, highly knowledgeable as well as instinctive; they'll make a living out of birding if they can figure out a way to turn their recreational love into a vocation. The ornithologists, on-the-other-hand, are birders as well of course, but more academic in focus, with specialized interests and pursuits, and a lot of 'book-learning,' with the act of birding more of a side-endeavor. The two sides certainly overlap greatly, yet their focuses tend to differ. Pure birders may be more attentive to 'life-lists,' identification, hotspots, field gear, and the like. 'Ornithologists' take a more scientific and academic interest in birds, including bird behavior and conservation/habitat issues as well.

Any readers who are members of the American Birding Association (ABA) know that it is going through a transition right now and trying to determine just what it's focus will be in the future --- again, it is largely a debate between those who want a recreational/hobbyist focus on pure birding, and those who definitely want the organization involved in conservation/political/scientific issues that relate to birds. It is interesting to watch it play out.

I mention all of this because one of the most fascinating aspects of the IBWO debate over these years has indeed been the 'birder' vs. 'ornithologist' debate in the form of David Sibley vs. Cornell (over the Luneau video). In point of fact, David has a large slew of 'ornithologists' or academics who side with him on this issue, believing the Luneau bird to be a Pileated (and for that matter a significant number of 'birders' side with the Cornell ornithologists in their interpretation of the video as an IBWO).

With the exception of Roger Tory Peterson (and maybe Audubon himself), America has rarely had a birding figure as esteemed, experienced, respected, renowned, multi-talented and iconic as David Sibley. Thus when he speaks (even if he didn't have the backing of others) the birding community stands at attention. If David had said the Luneau bird was an Ivory-bill, I suspect the doubts of Jackson, Prum, Bevier, Collinson, and so many others, would've largely been muted in the birding community; such is his influence. But of course, David said otherwise, and the entire weight of the debate turned.

Yet David's position (though not that of all the critics) relies on his assertion of "wing-twisting" in the downbeat of a Pileated Woodpecker's flap (a motion that Cornell claims cannot be detected on any comparable available videos of Pileateds in flight). It's odd to me that David's idea of wing-twisting flaps hasn't been definitively proven or disproven by now... we have quite precise knowledge of the movement-pattern for the wings of a hummingbird flashing at 50 beats/sec. --- can't we determine to everyone's agreement the precise movement-pattern for the wings of a cruising (lumbering, by comparison) Pileated Woodpecker (to what degree for example, did Jeffrey Wang's animated analysis of a Pileated-in-flight, exhibit twisting wings)??? While the Luneau video is fuzzy and blurry and brief, can modern day technology not decipher where the white shown is coming from? That, by itself, wouldn't end this debate (and the claim for the existence of IBWOs rests on a LOT more than the Luneau clip), but at least this one narrow argument might attain some conclusion.

There is NO POINT in having those who have already taken a public stance on the IBWO, further analyzing the Luneau clip and re-stating their cases, but I do wonder if somewhere out there, there isn't a group of excellent, experienced, detached wildlife videographers (with the Smithsonian, National Geographic, the BBC, or any number of other possibilities), who have not taken a stand, and who would be viewed as objective and supremely competent to pass judgment on what is seen in this video (and on PIWO videos) --- a group, BTW, that requires little expertise in birding, but keen, seasoned expertise in film-making and analysis.
....and I say all this as someone who thinks we've already spent waaaaaay too much time on a single silly 4-second clip of accidental video!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Intermission --

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

For those who followed her escapades the first-go-around (or maybe especially for those who missed it entirely), Molly the Barn Owl is back on a 2nd clutch of (4) eggs in her man-made owlbox home in a southern California backyard, and again being followed 24/7 by a UStream webcam (1st egg due to hatch in about 11 days).
Following the secret family lives/antics of a pair of nesting Barn Owls, Molly and McGee, as they raised their first clutch over several months earlier this year was simply the most fascinating, fun, entertaining, and learning experience I've had on the internet ever! Many of UStream's other bird nestcams are also fascinating, but for many reasons, Molly's was the best and most addictive! Highly recommended.
Also, they try to keep the site (and "Chat Room," but NOT the "Social Stream") very kid-friendly so it's generally suitable for young children to watch and learn as well... with the precaution that it is essentially wild nature at work, and things do occur which may be upsetting to youngsters or require adult explanation:

http://www.ustream.tv/theowlbox

(the site does require a lot of bandwidth for best viewing...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- The Good, the Bad, and the Fuzzy... --

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

Overview of the USFWS final summary report, "Recovery Plan For the Ivory-billed Woodpecker":

I'll say, for starters, that I basically enjoyed reading this USFWS summary of the 5-year organized effort to find the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which fleshes out in greater detail some of what has transpired over that time period. But... I also recognize that in some quarters out there the very title of the document ("Recovery Plan For the Ivory-billed Woodpecker") will be viewed with utter amusement. An alternative working title might've been, "What Friggin' Little We Know With Certainty About the Wholly Mysterious and Elusive Lord God Bird" ;-)) The emphasis in this summary document, in some ways, remains not on what we know about Ivory-bills, but on how uncertain and sparse our knowledge thereof is. And in short, there is nothing here that will sway proponents of the IBWO debate from their entrenched positions.

The first 35 pages of the 160-pg. offering are the main body of the report, and largely recapitulate what has already more-or-less been publicly available, much of which will be familiar to readers of this blog. The main findings from each of 11 states where organized searching took place, are reviewed on a year-by-year basis (habitat descriptions and conservation aspects are also reviewed). This includes mentions, though not with great detail, of sighting claims and auditory encounters, that were deemed interesting/credible enough for inclusion, as well as possible ARU remote acoustic recordings. These potential claims were of course few-and-far-between (over scattered areas) compared to the initial mini-flurry of reports for the Arkansas Big Woods and Florida Choctawhatchee areas.
I would've liked to have seen more specifics on some of the sighting claims and maybe greater indication of which claims were granted most credence (although this is somewhat surmisable from the wording).

I had also hoped for a fuller report on the ACONE automatic camera system deployed in Arkansas, which is only alluded to in one of the appendices --- I take this lack of coverage to mean that the technology (which seemed to hold great promise, despite mechanical problems), may have been a failure --- my assumption 'til someone informs me otherwise.(???)

I also wish the report could've drawn some conclusions/recommendations for independent searchers on where best to continue their efforts, but there is nothing like a rank-ordering of locales most worthy of further time (one suspects there is simply no widespread agreement on this).

Overall, these are minor quibbles.

More interesting really, are the several Appendices which constitute much of the document, and which offer greater detail on aspects of the search not always fully-covered in public before. Appendix D includes over 20 abstracts of various studies that were offshoots of the Ivory-bill search, many relating to habitat or ecological variables pertinent to our understanding of IBWOs (Appendices H and I also cover habitat). One would need to access/read the full papers to gain fuller insights from these studies, but the abstracts do bestow a sense of the variety of research carried out in support of the IBWO effort (research which may in some instances be valuable to other species or situations).

Other Appendices cover some of the actual ground-search protocols (which were sometimes controversial) that were employed at various times through the 5-year study. And Appendix C breaks down the costs of the overall project. Appendix K serves up USFWS responses to the motley group of comments that were addressed to the original "Draft" Recovery Plan.

I especially liked Appendix E which is Chuck Hunter's well-done succinct summary of the natural history of the IBWO, pulling together in a nutshell a lot of information and key points that are otherwise scattered among different sources/volumes.
One simple, but I think important figure (actually in Appendix F) is "Figure F2" (pg. 97), a simple map showing the entire interlocking southern river basin system stretching across the former historical range of the IBWO. (IF Ivory-bills travel along riverine systems, they have a lot of roadway.)

The entire report and Appendices tend to focus quite heavily on the search effort in Arkansas, not surprising given the amount of energy and man-hours spent there. Still I couldn't help but wonder, if S. Carolina and Florida didn't deserve a little more space and detail, given certain reports (perhaps Louisiana as well), but again a minor quibble (and they are of course covered).

All of which brings me backwards to Appendix B... the "fuzzy" --- the Luneau video, of course. I was surprised that an entire Appendix was devoted to discussion of David Luneau's blurry 4-second clip, an obvious nod to all those who feel this was Cornell's most crucial piece of evidence (I've never regarded it as such). The report goes to some length to argue that USFWS did not find adequate support for David Sibley's (and others') contention that the film clip shows a normal Pileated Woodpecker with wings 'twisting' in flight and escaping at a certain angle from the camera. Quite the contrary, USFWS suggests that the only good (or at least best) match for the bird-in-question is indeed an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, until some future advanced technical analysis shows otherwise. A couple of bits from the report:

"...to date no video of an actual Pileated Woodpecker exhibits from frame to frame the same plumage characteristics and flight mechanics exhibited by the woodpecker in the Luneau video."

and

"Our review of the presented arguments leads us to conclude that the alternative interpretations of Sibley et al. (2006) and Collinson (2007) fail to credibly support their assertion that the woodpecker in the Luneau video could reasonably be a Pileated Woodpecker."

... Uhhhh, let the food fight begin anew!! ;-)

Critics will no doubt feel their views got short-shrift here. It might have almost been worth including a "dissenting opinion" appendix where some of the major critics got one more chance to state the problems with the evidence as they see it, given the highly controversial nature of what is being addressed (I wouldn't be surprised if trenchant critiques of the report are, right now, being composed!).

Unfortunately, in many polarized quarters, rightly or wrongly, any 'summary' report (on this topic) from USFWS, Cornell, or The Nature Conservancy, simply will NOT be viewed as objective or credible at this point... we still need a clear video or carcass! (I don't know for sure about real objectivity, but perceived objectivity on this subject is torn to shreds by now.)

A lot more can be dissected from this USFWS summary, but let's cut to the chase...
In the end, the CRUX of the 5-year search and debate remains: This bird has been spotted, so it is claimed, sparsely but nonetheless repeatedly, over and over and over and over... again, for 65+ years, on many occasions by individuals with the experience and credentials that ought allow them to accurately identify an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. And YET, consequent searches have failed over and over and over and over... again to consistently relocate the birds reported. USFWS attempts in this document to make the case that the evidence-on-file is persuasive, and that there are historical/logical/ecological reasons why the species may be so difficult to re-locate (let alone, photograph) once it is reported.
We can all agree that for any given instance, even subset of instances, this failure to relocate a bird, following initial encounter, may be plausible. The skeptics will part company though with that plausibility when the same fate is met in case after case after case after case, ongoing for 65 years. And there the debate stymies. Nothing in this USFWS document will put to rest the numbers or probability game that can be played by either side of the controversy. The naysayers, however, can never prove their point; they can only keep slowly building their evidentiary case (with every year that passes without documentation). The 'believers' or 'optimists' are the only ones who can yet be 'proved' right... and some of us still believe that is a very real probability.

This document from the USFWS is a nice addition to the IBWO literature, and there will be further reports and volumes still to come down the pike. Stay tuned. I'm not certain if this story will yet end with a bang or a whimper.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------