-- Jerry Jackson Retires --

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

Well, this is sort of big news to start off the year (though certainly not unexpected):

http://tinyurl.com/lbry7wh

Dr. Jerome Jackson is retiring. Dr. Jackson has been one of my heroes for the last 30+ years, both in ornithology more generally as well as in the IBWO story more specifically -- and I realize a number of Ivorybill enthusiasts have issues with Dr. Jackson (nor have I agreed with everything he's written). But pretty much the only reason a Gene Sparling, or a Tim Gallagher, or Cornell Lab of Ornithology could step forth in 2005 and claim to have found an Ivory-billed Woodpecker... and not be laughed at... was because of the earlier work done by Jackson. His work is renowned on many fronts, as is his reputation as a teacher of budding naturalists.

On those very rare occasions over the past several years when something IBWO-related crossed my desk that I wanted to hear the opinion of others higher-up about, Jerry Jackson was at the top of my list of the views I wanted to hear.

Julie Zickefoose, in her 1999 essay (well before all the Arkansas excitement) for Bird Watcher's Digest wrote:

"Jerry Jackson, by virtue of his unique combination of ornithological expertise, woodsman's smarts, and unalloyed faith, refuses to close the book on the ivory-billed woodpecker. Alone among all those I've spoken with, he continues to search. He truly believes that, somewhere on the planet, ivorybills still hitch and rap and toss their fluffy topknots, pound their great shining bills into bark, fly in long straight lines over a sea of treetops. As much as I would like to see an ivory-billed woodpecker, I wish more that Jerry would see one."

And of course, I too wish, that in retirement, just maybe, perhaps, possibly, the-gods-be-willing and the stars aligning just so, Jerry will find the time to at long-last document the most elusive quarry of his career, because after-all, as his wife intones, "he's kind of driven." ;-)

In any event, sincerely Happy Retirement Dr. Jackson!

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

-- Year End --

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

I probably shouldn't let any year go by without re-playing Sufjan Stevens haunting tribute to the Ivory-bill:



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

-- "interesting followup"... --

************************************************

Cornell's John Fitzpatrick is in a new ~11 min. audio interview, recounting the Ivory-bill story. Nothing new in it, until the 9-minute point when he mentions what he terms an "interesting followup" occurring in the winter of 2008-9 when a "colleague" recorded a lengthy (but "inconclusive") set of kent-like sounds about "every 10-15 seconds" from treetops -- I think it's implied that this was in the Big Woods (Arkansas), though I'm not at all positive about that:

http://tinyurl.com/ma4dfos
(click on the arrowhead to start the audio)


************************************************

-- Mike Collins Summarizes His Work --

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

Mike Collins has produced a set of YouTube videos recapitulating his case for Ivory-bills in the Pearl River (LA.) region, based on his work there over ~8 years. There are a total of 10 videos, generally 10-15 mins. each, beginning with this one (the other clips accessible by clicking on the "14 videos" link beside Mike's name):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VJpxO5_D8

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

-- More of Same --

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

Earlier this year I cited the abstract to the final official report on the 2006-8 search for the Ivory-bill in South Carolina (from Matthew Moskwik et.al., and focused especially on the Congaree), and now I see the entire report is available for free on the Web:

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2013/ja_2013_moskwik_001.pdf

A nice read... that sounds all-too familiar.
------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Georgia's Altamaha... --

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

Just passing this along, in the event anyone might be interested…

A reader ("Tony") from McDonough, Georgia, has the birding 'bug,' in particular the IBWO 'bug,' and is very interested in exploring (starting as early as October) parts of the lower Altamaha River habitat "from Big Hammock to I-95," including setting up some automatic recorders. He's looking for anyone who would be interested in joining/assisting in such a search.

If there are any takers, especially from the area, send me your name and email address (or other contact info) and I'll pass them along to the emailer (I expect he'll be searching through wintertime, not just in October). Or, if you have any particular ideas/suggestions/contacts for searches along the Altamaha send those to me for passing along to Tony.

Though Georgia never seemed to receive extensive attention during the Cornell/USFWS search, the Altamaha has some interesting (though distant) history with the IBWO, and secondary growth along much of it should be quite good. And just to stir a little additional interest, here's a prior post I did on Georgia awhile back:

http://ivorybills.blogspot.com/2012/02/and-back-to-georgia.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More History From Houston --

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

"Houston" at IBWO Researchers Forum continues to post documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, the latest ones being old Ivory-bill sighting claims from various states:

Florida:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKndWw5NTM1MEc0bWc/edit

South Carolina:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnTGhoSUZ4WUd1Z1E/edit

Texas:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnY1VLYmRDR0hmVEE/edit

Mississippi & Louisiana:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmMmXDrBKnQlFHdmV0a2hTaE0/edit

Even when one is familiar with an individual claim from the literature, I still find reading the actual, raw first-person accounts from the time fascinating (and sometimes they include certain nuances not included in the more general literature reviews).

Anyway, of the above, I probably find the Mississippi claims the most interesting (even though old) as Mississippi remains among the most under-searched of the likely IBWO states, and shares a long border with Louisiana where IBWO's were last confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------

-- Just Passing These Along --

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

A couple of tangential things showing up in my feeds today:
 
New podcast of Tim Gallagher in a radio interview (haven't listened yet myself, but assume it is good):

http://www.wskg.org/episode/imperial-dreams-tim-gallagher

And relatedly, Audubon Magazine has posted online this old George Plimpton article, from 1977, on searching for the Imperial Woodpecker with Victor Emanuel:

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/search-imperial-woodpecker?page=show

And finally, below, Jack Neely writes the most moving press tribute I've seen yet to Nancy Tanner who passed away a few weeks back:

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2013/jul/24/two-spirits-couple-good-reasons-not-dread-old-age/

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

-- Sounds of Silence --

------------------------------------------------------- 
 "And no one dared disturb
  The sound of silence." -- Paul Simon

To my surprise, have had no substantive feedback on the historical questions previously raised, that I was hoping could be closed out… indeed, the silence has been deafening (not sure if that makes the whole matter even more... or less... intriguing!). Anyway, will move on momentarily to note a couple of updates: 

Mark Michaels updated the Project Coyote site (Louisiana) awhile ago, for any who missed it: 

 http://projectcoyoteibwo.com/2013/07/07/update-july-6-2013/ 

 And Mike Collins left the Pearl River area to return permanently to Virginia (will probably still make occasional visits back to the Pearl). Before leaving he'd been posting a few short video tutorials on some of his video evidence (he seemed to be putting them up, taking them down, putting them up, taking them down??) -- they wouldn't persuade doubters, but I thought they were at least helpful in clarifying what he believed he saw in some of the clips; presumed he would probably group them together somewhere on his site, but instead they are difficult to locate, if they are even still there. Without them, there is still plenty of past material for people to work with on his pages for anyone with the time and interest. 

...And just this weekend I received an email report of a 39-minute view of an IBWO in an area outside Atlanta, GA. of all places (darn, no camera available)... and so it goes… and goes… and goes… and……. 

Meanwhile, this blog is approaching its 8th anniversary... refusing, like some bird species, to go extinct! ;-)
 -------------------------------------------------------

-- 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.
----------------------------------------------------------