-- Freedom of Information Act Requests --

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

First, for any latecomers to this line of posts, here's a link to the original letter-exchange put up by "Houston" at IBWO Researchers Forum that started the ball rolling on this tangent:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnRDc0RjBzVXl1NDg/edit

Again, you can also read my posts starting with 5/31, and followed on 6/2, 6/15, 7/4, and 7/7 to catch up.
 [The simple question we are trying to get to the bottom of is whether or not there were any private (timber industry), or governmental lands in the late 1960s/early 70s that were specifically managed for the presence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, and if so was such action based on any evidence for the species beyond what is already in the public literature?]

Of the documents Houston more recently posted to the Forum, I find this 1985 letter from Dr. John Funderburg (a naturalist and museum director, since deceased) to a USFWS official regarding a study of the IBWO, quite interesting, simply because of some of the opinions expressed:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnWHJ5YmxmV01LUEk/edit

[Many of the other documents Houston has received are HERE.]

Anyway, I asked Houston if he'd be willing to send along a little primer on making FOIA requests for IBWO documents, for anyone else interested in doing so, and he kindly sent along the following info (and also confided he's still learning as he goes):

Some state agencies have an official form to complete. Others provide a sample letter to modify, and there is usually an easy email submission process. Here's an example of the basic letter format Houston uses:
...................................................................................

 Freedom of Information Act Request

        [date]

I am requesting all < name of government body> communications and documents held from 1900 - present that mention, refer or relate to the presence or possible presence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the state of < State>. These should include but may not be limited to sighting reports, follow up investigation reports, search reports, habitat assessments, management plans, and other internal communications.

The following documents are in my possession and may be excluded from the response:

       [list of documents that may be excluded]

Please also exclude any correspondence or reports that are specific to ongoing search efforts by private citizens.
 
Documents in the response will be shared with other Ivory-billed Woodpecker researchers on http://www.ibwo.net/ to provide the public with a better understanding of how to respond to claims of Ivory-bill sightings, and what management practices are considered and implemented for potential Ivory-bill Woodpecker habitat. I am therefore requesting a fee waiver. If a fee assessment is required, please advise if the amount exceeds $25.00.

Thank you in advance,

       [Your name, address and phone number]

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

 He notes that the governmental agency contacted is supposed to respond within a week or so (variable) to confirm receipt of the request, and that thus far he hasn't had to pay any fees. The agency may ask questions in order to clarify certain points, and may ask in what format (hard copy or pdf) the requester would like the documents.  And then it may take days, weeks, or months to receive the documents.

 Anyone wishing more details about the procedure can private message Houston over at the Researchers Forum for further assistance. (If you're not a member of the Forum I s'pose you can send any inquiries to me for forwarding to him.) 

Further, Houston sent along contact info for a number of states of interest, and notes that it may be helpful (but not necessary) to be a resident of the state you are contacting: 


Louisiana
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/contact

Florida
http://myfwc.com/contact/public-records-requests/

Mississippi
http://www.mdwfp.com/applications/ContactForm/default.aspx

South Carolina
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/admin/foia.html

Alabama
http://www.outdooralabama.com/contact/ 

Tennessee Wildlife
P.O. Box 40747
Nashville, TN, 37204
attn: Executive Director
 or email melinda.raymond@tn.gov

Georgia
Georgia Wildlife Resources Division
2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE, Social Circle, GA 30025
...........................................................................

Now don't everyone file your inquiries at the same time....

Anyway, great information; thanks for sharing it Houston.

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

-- Re-hash --

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

The prior blog-post brought in a small odd mix of email responses, so, re-tracing a bit....

This whole matter began with some simple sentences in a 1967 memo uncovered from a timber industry official to a Government wildlife official (as quoted in my 5/31 post):

"One major company has ivory-billed woodpeckers on its lands in the South and has taken steps to protect the areas where they are located. Fearing that any publicity might attract people to the areas and disturb the birds, the company has kept this matter a secret. It does no harvesting in those areas."

Now, either that statement is:

1) a bald-faced lie
2) a bald-faced mistake
or
3) a bald-faced truth (and there were living Ivory-billed Woodpeckers under protection on timber industry property in 1967 that several people knew of)… which implies, in turn, lies or deception on the part of many.

My take from the beginning has been that the most likely explanation is an ill-informed mistake/misidentification.
Yet, some emailers felt the last post (7/4) needlessly pushed a 'conspiracy theory'… so will reiterate that I DON'T believe there could've been any group of IBWOs under official protection anywhere in the Southeast in the 60s/70s… in part because I don't believe the folks required for such an effort would've had the brights to successfully pull off such a large-scale deception! ...BUT, circumstances remain that seem peculiar.
 
The agency receiving the above memo (including those remarkable sentences), surely would've investigated such a claim of Ivory-bill presence at the time, and probably found no verification (there were many IBWO claims across the Southeast in the 60s/70s, and so far as the literature is concerned, none were ever confirmed; but is there a written record somewhere of investigating this particular claim?). I've speculated (6/15 post) that the property referred to in the memo may have been near the Neches River (TX.) where several claims came from, though it could've been from a completely different locale.

But then along comes the last memorandum (7/4 post) which now once again hints at Ivory-bills in Texas, this time at Sam Houston National Forest in 1971, and specific actions taken to protect them (indeed, an "Ivory-billed Woodpecker sanctuary and buffer"!)… perhaps all of these memos reference mere proposals or planning documents, pointing to actions that were considered but never implemented… though as written, they certainly sound like actions that were indeed underway and with the knowledge of a Government agency.

Multiple emailers referred me to this passage (pg. 35) from the 2007 USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for the IBWO, which simply reflects what was already in the literature, and only ADDS to (does NOT resolve) any intrigue:

"Wherever the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is suspected to still exist it stirs both excitement and action. In the early 1970’s Sam Houston National Forest in east Texas proposed to modify timber harvests based on three unconfirmed Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings by their staff (Ruediger 1971). These and other sightings in east Texas were never widely accepted and, consequently, did not stimulate forest management changes to promote the welfare of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.  Similar stories of unconfirmed sightings have generated no change in land management throughout the southeast." [Bold added]

This is the same general version of events that fills the historical writing on the IBWO, but what "Houston" has provided with his FOIA gleanings are raw background materials that appear to directly contradict the above gloss-over statements, indicating that "land management" practices WERE in fact altered in certain instances upon belief of Ivory-bill presence. WHY the discrepancy??? Were these instances of management-changes so minor as to be considered insignificant; were the seemingly altered practices never actually carried out? Is the language in these documents so loose and sloppy that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean?  Or maybe the above statements simply say, rather insipidly, that no broad-scale land-management changes took place all across the entire Southeast on behalf of IBWOs, even though isolated changes did occur in select few areas? Something just seems amiss…

I'm pressing the issue because OTHERS will believe a 'conspiracy theory' is what best fits the pieces together (that the timber industry or a Gov't. agency had IBWOs secretly under protection in the 60s/70s)... which I believe IS a near-preposterous notion… unfortunately, the alternative is that multiple people are lying, concealing, or badly mistaken about some matters, and the question is simply why? 
Almost certainly, there are still at least a few individuals alive today from that period (early 70s) who know what the answers are… and they don't seem to be saying much. The answer may be very simple; I'm just waiting to hear of it.

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker saga has for awhile held a sort of reverse Midas-touch effect… many of those deeply involved, eventually become too embarrassed by their association with it, to say much out-loud on the topic -- it becomes the touch, not of gold, but of quicksand.
-----------------------------------------------------------

-- WHAT did they know and WHEN did they know it?… --

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

...that was the question raised during the Watergate era, and it's beginning to rattle in my brain anew….

(again, you need to have read posts here from 5/31, 6/2, and 6/15, as background to this post)

Despite a lack of forthcoming conclusive information I still have hope that the facts behind the story unearthed by "Houston" at IBWO Researchers Forum may be resolved... He has put up another 'management plan' document received from his FOIA requests, and for now it only adds to the intrigue. See it here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnRndVdFI1SFFXYmc/edit

It is a 1971 memorandum from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service regarding management of areas of the Sam Houston National Forest (near to, but separate from the Big Thicket Preserve in Texas).

It contains several statements that are tantalizing, yet not conclusive as to whether they refer only to anecdotal reports of IBWOs, or some sort of more definitive evidence for the presence of the species in 1971:

"Dead trees of any species shall be protected due to probable presence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. See proposed Ivory-billed Management Plan (attached). The removal cuts in stands 7,8, and 9 will be deferred 2 years or longer depending on the continued presence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker."

"Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings in the SE part of stand 8."

"Give the matter absolutely no publicity. We will follow up with a more detailed statement of our policy on handling publicity in connection with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, within the next few days."

one map shown includes in the key: "Removal Cut Deferred due to Ivory-billed Woodpecker"

and a 2nd map key indicates an "Ivory-billed Woodpecker Sanctuary and Buffer"

??????

WHAT to make of it?
I don't know that any of this is directly connected to either the earlier Goodwin/McClellan memo uncovered by Houston or the reference I earlier posted about IBWO in the Neches area. It is virtually impossible for me to imagine that USFWS (and others) could have known of confirmed IBWO populations under protection from at least 1967 - 1971, and word of this never have leaked out decades ago. The best explanation I can fathom is that the proper agencies (quite rightly) at the time took very seriously a series of anecdotal reports of IBWOs and acted accordingly, but that the reports were never confirmed, and that all involved felt too embarrassed at the time (or just lackadaisical) to ever speak publicly about the matter (in terms of actual protection measures instituted)…

But what if, for years, confirmed Ivory-bills were in fact under protection as late as 1971… it boggles the mind, to think that not only the public, but such Ivory-bill luminaries as Les Short, Jim Tanner, and Jerry Jackson when he conducted his 1980s search for the species, would have been deprived of such knowledge. It would be a conservation story almost as big as the very Cornell Big Woods story that kicked this blog off.
 (...but then, 'for the good of the birds, let's keep the public in-the-dark' is not an unknown attitude in the IBWO saga).
Anyway, it all gives more food for thought while awaiting Freedom-of-Information-Act requests to slowly play themselves out and just maybe yield a fuller explanation.
-------------------------------------------------------

-- Nancy Tanner… Last of a Unique Tribe --

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

“I was a redhead, so I guess that’s why he noticed me.”  --Nancy Tanner on catching Jim Tanner's eye (from a newspaper interview) 

An emailer notifies me that Nancy Tanner passed away yesterday. She was the last living individual who had seen the famous Singer Tract Ivory-bills in the early 40's with her husband Jim. She had generously shared her knowledge and memories with many over the last several years amidst the Ivory-bill excitement begun in Arkansas. She celebrated her 96th birthday just a few weeks back, as recorded by Stephen Lyn Bales in this post:

http://ivorybillwoodpecker.blogspot.com/2013/06/nancy-tanner-celebrates-birthday-at.html

I suspect (but don't know) that Mr. Bales may have another tribute to Nancy up at his "Ghost Birds" blog when he gets a chance.

Meanwhile, my emailer sends along two links as tributes to her:

 http://vimeo.com/6873694

 http://torchbearer.utk.edu/2009/01/a-lucky-life/

…and I'll add this past post that Julie Zickefoose did when Nancy visited her home some years back:

http://juliezickefoose.blogspot.com/2006/01/mrs-tanner-gets-chetted.html

(If I find a comprehensive obituary or other official newspaper notice in the ensuing days, I'll add a link later.) 

ADDENDUM: Mark Bailey sends along this link to an obituary in the Knoxville News Sentinel:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/knoxnews/obituary-print.aspx?n=nancy-b-tanner&pid=165650343 

...and Stephen Lyn Bales now has a farewell post up here:

http://ivorybillwoodpecker.blogspot.com/2013/07/heavy-heart-after-nancy-tanner-passes.html 
--------------------------------------------------------

-- Follow-up --

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

Read the prior two posts, if you haven't already, to be up-to-date for this post….

I was disappointed that no one has sent along any personal knowledge, or research, of the prior Goodwin/McClellan exchange that would clarify matters. It makes no sense to me that such a claim as voiced by Mr. McClellan wouldn't have been swiftly pursued by USFWS at the time, and there be some record of it. I assume in some form it was investigated, and nothing came of it.
 
This weekend I found an hour of time for my own quickie Web search... The closest possible 'smoking gun' reference I can find to the whole matter comes in this 1980 USFWS IBWO report which at the bottom of page 9 briefly makes note of a December 1967 message from Mr. Goodwin to a Roland Clement, which I suspect (but don't know with certainty) is referencing the same matter as originally uncovered by "Houston":

"In 1967. the U.S. Corps of Engineers halted the timber management plan at Dam B Reservoir on Neches River, Texas, in deference to ivory-bills. Federal and state wardens in area were alerted and public appeal received positive and gratifying response (Harry Goodwin in lit. to Roland Clement 16 December 1967)."

The timing is so close to the September 1967 note from McClellan to Goodwin it's hard not to conclude that they refer to the same situation… and possibly McClellan (in his note) was trying to have the foresters/timber industry take credit for actions the US Corps of Engineers had already put in place (just guessin'). At any rate, the several well-known claims for Ivory-bills at that time in the Neches (Texas) area, by John Dennis and others, were tantalizing, but of course never confirmed upon major followup efforts; indeed Tanner and others, upon studying the region, believed all such claims to be mistaken (still hotly debated to this day).

One could further research what major timber/logging companies were operating in the Neches area in 1967, but I'm guessing whoever was there 1) did not have any Ivory-bills under protection (even if they sincerely thought they did) and 2) may have been acting, not so much out of any real conservation concerns, but simply under the constraints of the Corps of Engineers (although I could have the actions in reverse, and perhaps the Corps only moved in AFTER true concerns expressed by the timber company?)

In short, I'm satisfied for now, that the fascinating story uncovered by "Houston," likely gets us nowhere... But if anyone finds evidence that the IBWO population referred to by Mr. McClellan in fact resided somewhere other than the East Texas Neches region, let us know… or again, maybe further pertinent documents will fall into the hands of Houston at some point.


(BTW, the whole 10-page USFWS report is worth a read, although it's mostly a re-hash of info available elsewhere. The report's author, J. W. Aldrich, concludes at the end that, "From the evidence presented, I believe that a few ivory-bills still exist in the United States [1980], but they are so nomadic that it will continue to be difficult to verify the occasional sighting."):

http://extinct-website.com/pdf/selectedvertebra00usfi-IVORYBILLED.pdf 

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

-- Speculatin' --

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

In follow-up to the prior post on a most peculiar 1967 memo sent from the offices of a Forest Products Industries group to an official with USFWS, let me sketch out what seem like the only major possible scenarios that could account for the note (read the prior post if you haven't already) -- and I don't mean to be casting aspersions here, but simply stating the possibilities:

1) Mr. McClellan is simply lying to Mr. Goodwin in his statement about living Ivory-bills in order to advance the notion that the forest products industry is a good steward. [In relation to bald eagles he at least happily mentions both Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific, but in regards to the IBWO claims he conveniently offers no details at all.]

2) Mr. McClellan is writing in sincere, good faith, BUT has been lied to by another individual down-the-line, again in an effort to put the best face forward for the industry.

3) All parties involved are sincere and honest, but simply mistaken… they genuinely believed they were protecting a group of Ivory-bills, but in fact, had only Pileated Woodpeckers on site. [Perhaps wildlife officials at the time figured this out, and that is why the story never reached the public sphere; or, another alternative, perhaps the birds being protected were actually Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, another endangered species, but somewhere along the line, the names got confused during communications.]

4) All parties are honest AND CORRECT, and a small group of IBWOs (possibly a lone pair) were in existence, as stated, in 1967, on private company land. Perhaps the birds disappeared shortly after the memo was communicated... or, not. [Of course, in any event, those birds would be long gone by now, but it would open the door to speculation on how many of the species existed across the South at that time; AND it would be highly important as demonstrating once-and-for-all that the species survived LONG past the early 1940's when cynics have routinely chosen to write them off.]

There can be other nuances, but I don't see a lot of wiggle room outside of these 4 basic scenarios (but open to suggestions if you have some).
Personally, I'd bet on some form of #3, but would sure be nice if we could put this baby to rest one way or the other....


....In other matters, a new article from South Carolina on biologist John Cely's searches for IBWOs (he'll be giving a university talk upcoming on June 6 about those searches):

http://www.thelancasternews.com/content/chasing-%E2%80%98ghost-bird%E2%80%99

The S.C. searches produced a number of tantalizing claims, but, as usual, none ever confirmed.

And here's a short YouTube clip of Cely describing the Congaree habitat (in S.C.):



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

-- The Houston Files... --

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

"The truth is out there," so it is said….

 "Houston" (IBWO Researchers Forum) has unearthed yet another fascinating piece of written history from his Texas FOIA inquiries. It's a Sept. 1967 letter from "James C. McClellan" with the American Forest Products Industries Inc. (name has since changed)  in Wash. DC. to "Harry A. Goodwin" with USFWS also in Wash. DC. Goodwin had basically inquired about efforts major forest products companies could make to assist in the management of endangered species (such companies owning the bulk of old growth forest tracts remaining in private hands). The letter exchange is here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnRDc0RjBzVXl1NDg/edit

The pertinent (intriguing) part of the letter from McClellan back to Goodwin reads as follows:

"We have been working with the Audubon Society on this endangered species problem and major companies such as Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific have surveyed their properties for bald eagle nesting trees and have taken steps to protect them.
One major company has ivory-billed woodpeckers on its lands in the South and has taken steps to protect the areas where they are located. Fearing that any publicity might attract people to the areas and disturb the birds, the company has kept this matter a secret. It does no harvesting in those areas."

Just a nice... brief... casual... off-hand... incidental mention of IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKERS!… or... as they are fond of saying on Twitter… WTF!!!!!! ;-)

Could there really have been a company-protected group of Ivory-bills somewhere in the South in 1967 and word not have leaked out long before now? Who all would've been privy to such information? I have real doubts that this is anything more than yet another case of mistaken Pileateds, but...?????  Where is Fox Mulder when we need him? (Any reader here perchance know anything further about the claim…? Someone alive today must have some connection to it.)

"Houston" is still expecting to receive more material from the archives so perhaps the whole situation will clarify itself in time. Or, in the meantime seems like there's a nice little sleuthing/research project here for someone: Are McClellan, Goodwin, or any associates still alive and reachable? Which "major company" is involved? -- from the wording I would guess it ISN'T Weyerhaeuser or Georgia-Pacific, but some other large forest or paper/pulp products company that has operations both in the North and the South, and obviously on lands (in states) where IBWO might be found (be aware there have been many mergers/acquisitions over time among these companies). I suspect one could find out what company (and perhaps even individuals) made the claim, and even the location, but I suspect also there's no documentation of the actual birds themselves, beyond weak anecdote (...or else USFWS follow-up investigation at the time showed them to be PIWO).
---------------------------------------------------------

-- Historical Reading --

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

For anyone not following the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Researchers Forum, "Houston" from Texas has been posting some additional archival documents lately, related to Texas/Big Thicket claims (old, but always interesting):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnOXpwSmVPZ2dQcjQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnbzJONGJRM1dSRUk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnek9DTnNVVUpqT2M/edit

And if you missed them, some other documents (John Dennis, Whitney Eastman) that Houston had posted previously here:

http://tinyurl.com/o86fy37

http://tinyurl.com/qx79xf7

Thanks for all the document-sleuthing, Houston!


....When there is a resolution to the Cornell Chris Dennis disappearance I will append the prior post to reflect it (he was scheduled to graduate TODAY). Yesterday, the local paper ran the following article:

http://tinyurl.com/pbnd8wg

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

-- Possible Tragedy --

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

Just a quick, potentially sad side-note to pass along (as some here would want to know)....

A notice from Cornell today reports that Chris Dennis, Cornell student and son of John Dennis Jr. (and grandson of John Dennis Sr., of Ivory-bill fame) is still missing after his canoe capsized on Cayuga Lake on Wednesday:

http://birding.aba.org/message.php?mesid=447704&MLID=&MLNM=New%20York%20Cayuga

If by any chance you live in the area and can assist in the search, contact information is given above.

--> 5/27/13 Update: by the end of today (Mon.), sadly, there has still been NO conclusion to the disappearance of Chris Dennis while canoeing last Wed.  A blog is posting updates here:

http://searchforchrisdennis.wordpress.com/

And I'll also post any significant news as updates onto this post as well.
----------------------------------------------------------

-- Employment Opportunity --

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

I've been asked to inform readers of two job positions available, one for a PhD. student and the other for a Post-Doctoral fellow, both related to studies of the Magellanic Woodpecker in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve (Chile).

The post-doc position is described at this link (and I assume the same contacts can give info on the PhD. position as well):

http://chile.unt.edu/

My emailer sends along these additional links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSay0LQUKo

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=523686567662364&set=a.523598161004538.119835.368441593186863&type=1&theater

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

-- The Cincinnati-Choctawhatchee Connection --

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

Since Geoff Hill's announcement (never definitively confirmed) of Ivory-bills in Florida's Choctawhatchee region, a dedicated group of artists/naturalists from Ohio have gone down each year for a search.
Quick summary of their results here:

http://societyofanimalartists.blogspot.com/2013/05/saa-artists-in-search-of-ivory-billed.html
----------------------------------------------------------

A Day That Will Live In Birding Infamy...?

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

...or, perhaps not???

It was 8 years ago today that Cornell Lab of Ornithology (with others) officially announced to the world, and published in the journal SCIENCE, that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker had been re-discovered in Arkansas:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/Birdscope/Summer2005/ib_press_conference.html


Time flies... but do Ivory-bills?
----------------------------------------------------------

-- Gallagher On Radio --

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

In case you missed it, Tim Gallagher ("Imperial Dreams") was guest on Diane Rehm's NPR show yesterday. Nice interview (50+ mins.) about his search for the Imperial Woodpecker in Mexico, available via podcast here:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=17584

More information on the show here:
http://tinyurl.com/amv78fz

...encouraging to know that the whole subject is of enough general interest to merit inclusion on Diane's show!

On a side-note, since mentioning over at IBWO Researchers Forum that this was an especially slow winter/spring for IBWO claims coming my way, a couple of folks troubled to email me about possible sightings they had or knew of in the last 6 months. So if anyone else thinks they had a possible encounter this winter or spring, that they haven't already emailed me about (or didn't put on the Web somewhere), I'd still be interested to know of it (primarily interested in locations, but of course any details welcome).
---------------------------------------------------------

-- Flatboatin' Around Natchez --

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

As a big fan of Jane Goodall this recent posting makes for an amusing story... and, with an Ivory-bill element tossed in to boot, it's all-the-more a fun read:

http://clermontsun.com/2013/04/07/george-brownadventures-of-a-novice-naturalist-at-natchez-trace/
----------------------------------------------------------

-- John V. Dennis Tape(s)? --

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

"Houston," who posted the John Dennis Texas summary reports over at Ivorybill Researchers' Forum that I cited last week (April 2), has another entry up, this time relating to whatever tapes (possibly a lost one) Dennis made of Ivory-bill calls in The Big Thicket… old (1960s), but still interesting stuff:

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6057&postcount=77

Some of "Houston's" information, BTW, has come from Freedom of Information Act inquiries to the appropriate state wildlife agency. Depending on the individual state, agency, and the precise information requested, FOIA requests can sometimes take a considerable time and effort, but still might be worth thinking about for other sleuth-minded folks in various key southern states.
----------------------------------------------------------

-- Chasing Another Ghost --

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

All people have dreams… some dream of power or riches or castles… some dream of big woodpeckers . . . . .

With so little Ivory-bill news to report I'll go ahead and post a blurb about Tim Gallagher's new volume on his quest (with Martjan Lammertink) for the Imperial Woodpecker, "Imperial Dreams" (I believe it is to be available in bookstores within the next 2 weeks, with its gorgeous, artsy, almost gaudy cover!):

This is a book partly centered on adventure, partly centered on a bird (known to Spanish-speaking natives as the "pitoreal"), and very largely centered on an obsession/compulsion! It is likely Gallagher's best offering yet. Certainly all Ivory-bill aficionados will enjoy it; and probably most birders, naturalists, conservationists as well. Still, having said that, those who never found Tim's prior book, "The Grail Bird," convincing, or for whom he simply lost all credibility because of that book, might not be moved much by the current volume (in which he does briefly recount the Arkansas Ivory-bill story, but gives little hint of the controversy and perceived debunking that followed).
It will be interesting to see how well this book sells to a broader audience of non-birders, who may scratch their heads at the whole premise… why would anyone risk life-and-limb to chase after a big bird that may be long-gone… how does one explain such a quest, or compulsion, to the non-initiated?

The volume is chock-full of risky adventure, man-made and natural history, fascinating details, word-of-mouth anecdotes, and also very sad accounts of lost possibilities, of human senselessness, the wanton killing (shooting and poisoning) of Imperials, and avaricious destruction of their habitat. Very sad… very very sad… But Gallagher is a gifted story-teller to be sure, be it hype or accurate history.

I won't even attempt a summary of the wide-ranging content... I sometimes felt tired just reading of the travails that Gallagher and Lammertink endured. But I will mention that my favorite chapter is chapter 9, covering the expeditions of Chicago Pennsylvania dentist William Rhein to find and eventually document an Imperial in the 1950s, and Gallagher and Lammertink's preparations to follow-up on the Rhein findings. Much of this storyline has already been covered on the internet; for starters see here: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/Page.aspx?pid=2314 
Still, such stories of human infatuation, and fervid human connection to nature transfix me (Rhein's video documentation of the species is the ONLY film of an Imperial ever known.)
I didn't personally care as much for the more suspenseful, exciting, even violence-prone chapters of the book, though I suspect those will appeal to many readers for whom 'excitement' is a desired component for a good read.

Another interesting section comes in chapter 11 when, almost out of nowhere, Gallagher proceeds to tell the back-story behind Martjan Lammertink and his wife-to-be. It has virtually nothing to do with the main thrust of the book, and I won't give away any of it here, except to say that it is a testament to Gallagher's story-telling skills that he manages to shoehorn in this wonderful little human interest story amidst the larger tale he is telling. But the volume is peppered throughout with interesting passages, more pertinent to the story at-hand.

Oddly, reading Tim's book reminds me once again (as some other Ivory-bill matters have done) of the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." In that film innumerable individuals are drawn in unison to an out-of-the-way locale by a knowledge or intuition they can't understand or pinpoint, of the impending arrival of aliens from elsewhere in space. 
Those of us who have believed in the Ivory-bill's persistence for decades (often since childhood) can't explain the intuition or source of confidence, that impels us to that conclusion (it isn't just wishful thinking), in the face of what so many view as "empirical" evidence otherwise. Intuition, though, is a powerful force in life… and... in science. The problem arises in distinguishing the sometimes thin line between valid, inspired intuition and irrational, pressing obsession. (I won't claim enough objectivity to separate the two with certainty!) Gallagher believes some Imperials still exist, even though he never found them, nor even much direct evidence for their presence… I don't assume him wrong…

In the end though, a large reservation still hovers: for one can't help but wonder if Gallagher's time, energy, and dollars wouldn't have been better spent in continued searching for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, that he helped resurrect over a half-dozen years ago. Some of us believe there remains a better-than-even chance the Ivory-bill will yet be verified, but IF it is NOT, Mr. Gallagher's future reputation may well be that, not of a good birder nor ornithologist, nor even a fine writer or interesting naturalist, nor exciting adventurer… but rather, simply as a major teller-of-tall-tales… a cherry-picker of information, with a penchant for embellishment… and… THAT... would be a shame.
(Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Cornell to publish or make public a predictably overdue summary of their aborted IBWO search.)

With all that said, I have no hesitation recommending the book… with the proviso that each reader will have to decide for themselves if it is simply a stirring story from a great spinner of tales… or, indeed another chronicle of real, if slender, hope for yet another beautiful, incredible, and tragic creature.
As Jerry Jackson... and Fox Mulder would no doubt be want to say, "The truth is out there."

You can also check out Jim Williams' review of "Imperial Dreams" here:

http://blog.aba.org/2013/04/pitoreal.html

Also, Gallagher shares some of the book at his blog to promote it:

http://imperial-dreams.blogspot.com/

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

-- 1967, Texas, John Dennis --

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

A member of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Researchers' Forum has posted a number of the interesting original 1967 reports of John V. Dennis concerning sightings of the IBWO in the Big Thicket of Texas:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwTmMmXDrBKnYzNoTnRBWDlwVDg&usp=sharing

You may want to start with the 33-page "Final" report to get an overview, but the other (shorter) weekly reports are also definitely interesting to peruse. Wonderful historical documents.

Unfortunately, Paul Sykes' lengthy 1968 follow-up report is cited but not shown in full The Sykes 1968 document DOES now come up in its entirety; the first time I clicked on it it didn't (a couple of the more recent follow-ups from John Arvin and Fred Collins are also included).
------------------------------------------------

-- One Reporter's Tale --

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

 A semi-interesting... if rather disappointing concluding take from an Arkansas reporter:

http://www.couriernews.net/story/1946877.html

She's wrong about the Ivory-bill being bigger than a Bald Eagle, and wrong about it being the model for Woody Woodpecker... and I suspect wrong about more... but, oh well. 

Not certain what specifically she is referencing when she mentions in the first line a "decision... very quietly made by a group of renowned scientists" that brought the Arkansas search to an end, and "officially declared the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct"?  
------------------------------------------------------------