-- M. Michaels' Video --

 ———————————————————

Many folks may feel overwhelmed by the final slew of comments in to USFWS, which unfortunately came flooding in largely at the very end. It was 29 days of not much, except for the latest Harrison evidence, and then suddenly being bludgeoned by an avalanche of downloads (would’ve been nice if they had been spread out over the 30 days, but oh well). Anyway, if I had to pick just one comment for readers-pressed-for-time to look over it is Mark Michaels (National Aviary) here, which is receiving a fair amount of chatter (again this is from Louisiana in case you get confused by all the different locales, that claims and videos are now coming from):

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0210

Within his comment are actually 8 separate downloads (and, depending on your system, some take quite awhile to complete), but begin with his overall presentation 20220722 (the key drone footage of a flying bird, which appears to be a woodpecker with interesting field marks, begins around the 12-minute mark, of a 28-min. presentation, and is best viewed on as large a screen as you have available). Unfortunately, Mark admits somewhat having to rush the preparation of this presentation, so it is not as polished as it could be, and there are no arrows, circles, marks, etc. to help guide the viewer through the footage — you will want to freeze-frame and patiently replay video parts multiple times. And then also look over some of his other 7 comment offerings as you have time and inclination (especially the zoomed version of "video3Landing").  The video, BTW, is from February of 2021. I am by no means convinced this is an IBWO (for one thing, once again I don't think leucism has been adequately discussed,and also potential issues of artifacts and lighting), BUT there are many interesting frames, and some have already voiced the view of ‘what else could it possibly be!?’

In that light I have NO interest in arguing back-and-forth here what the bird is because we will settle nothing, and frankly we are mostly riff-raff in the birding world! What I would again be interested in (though it almost certainly won’t happen) is to see a dozen or so of the most widely-respected and known field birders out there tell us what they see in this video. The variety of opinion might be interesting, or perhaps all would find reasons to downplay the clip; I’m not sure, but I think this video is open to more insights than most we've been privy to. Unfortunately, many of the “best” birders out there simply won't spend time on a debatable IBWO video anymore and I wish it were otherwise, but I also understand their utter frustration. I know of birders who won't go near the IBWO debate any longer for fear that it will taint them... not to mention viewing it as a waste of their time. :(

One final note: I was disappointed to see prominent ornithologist and skeptic Mark Robbins quoted as saying (of the bird) “it could be anything.” Well, unless maybe you're looking on a phone or small mobile device, no it could not be anything! I'm not fond of hyperbole from either side: don’t like believers saying that a crystal clear photo is now required (it isn’t) or that evidence thus far put forth is “proof” (again, no), and also no, this could NOT be a Ruby-throated Hummingbird or any of several hundred other North American species!… perhaps I’m being a bit harsh, ‘cuz I think I know what Robbins meant, and the quote may well be taken out of context (as the press routinely does), but it still grates, and this is an interesting bird on film, so excuse me for venting a little  ;)

...Anyway, will send you off into the weekend with this old John Anderson piece I used to link to on occasion, and which the Michaels' piece somehow reminded me of:

———————————————————

ADDENDUM:

It occurs to me I ought reiterate a point I brought up earlier which is that it is a shame that USFWS simply sits there and views these presentations without asking any questions or comments (this footage begs for questions). Even better would be to have some independent outside ornithologists there to aid in asking questions. What does USFW do, take this material to the inner Agency for broader consideration by others, but when the presenter is no longer present to answer questions or offer clarifying explanations? I’m sure they have reason for their policy (though it may be nothing more than time efficiency), but it leaves me scratching my head as to how this is good scientific practice? Meanwhile, some questions and commentary that could've been dealt with at the time, will instead fill up certain social media circles.

— Sleuthing Saluda —

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

Well, have canned the much longer post originally scheduled for today. :( After sleuthing around the internet yesterday to learn who the SC claimant is and becoming momentarily slightly more hopeful (...but then using Google Earth to explore his property and becoming less hopeful), I received overnight a series of emails from him that make things much less clearcut and far more problematic, and a story not worth me spending time on (...though again I'll say that if this tale was ever authenticated it would easily be the greatest story in the annals of American birdwatching). USFWS is supposedly investigating the case, so I'll end simply mentioning that the observer also claims to have Bachman's Warbler present on his property or nearby (he even sent me pictures), so gee, er, ummm, they may wish to pursue that as well, and make it a two-fer... ;)

Am hoping with the USFWS comment period finally over, all the hullabaloo will die down between now and November elections, and I can get back to other matters for awhile.

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

-- Saluda Questions etc. -- +Addendum

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

For those who don't understand my issues with the Saluda, SC story here is a verbatim copy of the questions (in no particular order) I have sent along to John Williams. Clarification on these matters may well yet come forth, I just don't know at this point:

1)  You mention that one USFWS official knows the name of the SC observer… has she met him/talked to him, been to the site, or merely knows a name that has been given to her?  And is she the only USFWS official who knows his name or are there others? and how many, if any, outside yourself and USFWS know his supposed name?

2)  You report a lot of measurements the observer made and sent along to you, but has any other independent person verified any of those measurements, or you just have his word to go by? 

3)  A 24-year old female IBWO is referenced as being known by “its markings” — any idea what those markings were that stayed consistent for 24 years?

4)  The observer talks of the IBWO nest as “burrows” with various passageways… how does he know that? did he climb the trees to investigate the cavities? 

He also talks of the birds returning to the same nestholes many years… while that could be the case (there is variability), woodpeckers often build new holes every year as part of the re-bonding ritual each new breeding season; even if they return to old holes, those holes usually get worked on and enlarged (the hole shown isn’t very large for having been used several years).

5)  the observer states that 80-90% of trees in IBWO feeding range should be hollow and 70-90 ft. high — seems a pretty absurd statement… and he talks of “water oaks and willow that have rotten cores” as IBWO preferences while at same time talking of the importance of “alive trees”. My point simply being that I don’t think he’s all that consistent in his note-taking and observations, only a small sample of which we’re even seeing.

6)  At one point there is a list of other birds in IBWO territory and the Bachman’s Warbler is included (another likely extinct species) — if one was merely talking historically that might be OK, but it sounds like he is talking about the present or even about his own property? (in which case not OK to include Bachman’s Warbler). Or is it perhaps s’posed to say Bachman’s Sparrow, which would make more sense?

7)  You have from the start simply assumed that the nesthole moving object is a bird bill — that is a subjective presumption that you never validate or consider other options.

8)  What verification do you have that this individual is whoever he says he is? Any actual authentication that he ever attended college? What is his current profession (if any)? It sounds like as a full adult he is still living at home with mother or family; is that the case? Does he have any criminal or mental health record? In short, there’s nothing significant here that lends this anonymous, unknown person any credibility for me. (and if I can’t establish credibility I can’t take for granted much of what he says).

9)  Have you met him and visited the site? Has ANYone relevant met him or visited the site? If not, why not? or has ALL communication been done online?

10)  He speaks of the birds returning to the same site for decades, but then also mentions observing a female “for the first time in nearly a decade” in 2016… does that mean he generally didn’t see IBWOs from 2006 to 2016, or only that he didn’t see any females those years (including I guess the 24-yr-old female that fledged in 1998)? Again, consistency???

11)  At one point he talks of “The God Good Bird” — is that a misprint or is that the actual phrase he used; just seems odd (there are a lot of common terms for the IBWO, but that’s not a phrasing I’m familiar with).

12)  He tells of seeing an “all black female” IBWO in his youth, but of course females are not all black; they have the same prominent white saddle as males.

13)  You/he say there are additional photos/videos, but I assume we are being shown the best available, or are you claiming there are even better ones being withheld for some reason?

14)  The observer claims to have previously “reached out” to “professional entities” in SC about the birds earlier on and gotten no response… have any of them been re-contacted since then and shown any interest?

15)  And yes, it would be nice to have a real understanding of why the observer demands so much privacy but loves telling these fine tall tales that can’t be confirmed, and has failed over so many years to gain better evidence or pics, or searched the hole for DNA? Does he have any real understanding of the importance of documenting these birds? It’s nice and convenient to talk about privacy and conservation concerns and respect for the species… but it’s also a lack of transparency that can be earmarks of… well, something much worse.

16)  Is any professional, academic/university (PhD.) ornithologist actively exploring this story and/or visiting the site?

17)  Are the birds currently out of the area (not being seen), but expected to return in the winter months, and if that were the case is any preparation being made to document them for real? Or, are they being seen right now?

18)  You write of the validity and logic of the storyline, but there is NO real validity established; just a quirky off-the-charts narrative (and the usual blurry photos, interpreted in a preferred manner) from a lone unknown individual with a largely unknown or sketchy background.

Just some final comments: The tree is described as “large,” yet doesn’t appear from the photos exceedingly large (especially girth-wise) compared to known IBWO nest trees of the past. Nor does the hole appear (though hard to tell) to have the shape historically typical for IBWOs. Nor does the habitat/surroundings appear at all typical for IBWO either. None of these things are too important by themselves, but the fact that there are so many oddities/implausibilities to the story does not yield much confidence in it. And again, I get no real sense of the knowledge-level, experience, or motivations of the observer from the few actions and conversation on tape.

This is obviously a controversial topic, making it all the more important to solidly establish ahead of time the knowledge and credibility of any individual making such incredible claims — that hasn’t been done here for the readers; indeed, it’s been evaded.

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

Meanwhile, in other news, I've taken at least a brief look at most of the 3 final "comments" sent in to USFWS (8/10) and will be perusing some of it further. If you've been closely following this saga, most of it (not all) is previous material being re-packaged/presented (be aware that some of it is ill-organized and some is choppy, and a few entries took over 30 mins. to simply download on my system). None of it meets the USFWS request for video that multiple observers can easily automatically agree upon. The one main new, and interesting piece (but still, no slam dunk) that I recommend readers look at is Mark Michaels' narration of drone footage (especially the slo-mo version) of a flying bird from their studies. But we are truly near a saturation-point for footage of this sort that serious birders will even tolerate spending time on. On the one hand I'm all for putting out on the table ALL evidence that might aid/support the case of the IBWO; on the other hand I also realize that continuing with this level of ambiguous evidence simply turns more and more people off to the entire subject, while left shaking their heads. :(

ADDENDUM 8/11:

There is yet another new comment posted today from Mark Graham on the USFWS site:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0211

(I'm not clear if all these 'late' comments actually came in by the deadline and just took awhile to post, or if USFWS did not have a hard-and-fast deadline?)

BTW, the Mark Michaels' posting I mentioned above is now also available at their own Project Principalis site here (again, worth a look):

https://projectcoyoteibwo.com/2022/08/11/national-aviary-project-principalis-final-submissions-on-the-proposed-delisting-of-the-ivory-billed-woodpecker/

Also, today I sleuthed around the internet to discover the identity of the Saluda "observer"(obviously won't give out his name), and at least from initial indications he seems to be a perfectly reasonable, potentially credible individual; still leaves lots of questions, but off to a good start.

— Evidence Schmevidence — +Addenda

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

The USFWS latest IBWO comment period is officially over [possibly some late entries may yet appear]. Will repeat again what the USFWS was (quite reasonably) seeking, in their own words:

“The Service is seeking new information during the 30-day reopening, including clear video or photographic evidence of the presence of the ivory-billed woodpecker that can be repeatedly interpreted the same way by independent observers, such as definitive photographic evidence collected by a field observer. Comments provided during the initial proposal and the previous reopening do not need to be resubmitted.”

What they received, as expected, was mostly meaningless verbal accounts from folks usually giving no credentials for their reports, and others who (embarrassingly) included clear unmistakable still photos of (no surprise) Pileateds. Most of the comments (and pics) simply reinforce the perception that, even after all this time, people are widely ignorant of this species and how to identify it. The believer community continues to largely generate greater skepticism -- as critics never tire of pointing out, it’s a funny coincidence that every decent identifiable picture submitted is of a NON-IBWO (usually a Pileated) leaving only blurry, ambiguous, poor pics to even possibly be an IBWO… as has been the case for decades (well, maybe ‘funny’ isn’t the word for it?)… and  yet many believers seem oblivious as to why they are scoffed at, while the quality of evidence, the scientific rigor, the critical-thinking and credibility in this arena has mostly strayed downhill, sometimes into LaLa Land, and naivete and gullibility grows.

Nothing submitted came close to meeting the high bar that USFWS specifically requested. This was basically a 30-day friggin' waste of time -- don’t even know what the purpose of an extended month-long comment period was (probably some sort of procedural requirement), when the actual decision is being put off for 6 whole months. IF good evidence is to come along it will probably be next winter (…but then I’ve been saying that for about 15 winters in a row ;). IF no such evidence arises it’s hard to see, given the pressures upon them, how USFWS will have any other choice but follow the consensus and de-list, despite the vocal opponents of such.

The main substantive new submission in to USFWS came from Bobby Harrison. I don’t wish to feed more ammunition to the skeptics so won’t address Harrison’s tightly-rehearsed, year-and-a-half-old video in detail at the moment other than to say that, while interesting, I don’t find it compelling, convincing, rigorous, objective, nor even terribly credible, but rather just another typical example of the incessant over-promising and under-delivering that has marked the last several years. For folks who want to gobble it up though, hey I can find you some Loch Ness Monster footage you ought reeeally enjoy….

I assume the stunning lack of discussion of his video in actual serious birding circles is a reflection of how little time or attention science-minded folks think it merits… though maybe duckhunter sites will find it irresistible. Quack, quack.

It’s also problematic that USFWS does not ask questions at these presentations… Bobby's clip and analysis begs for questions to be posed, and not the softballs that come from the believer community. It’s a major dereliction of duty to NOT ask questions of such. Bobby’s film is legit, but what if someone offers up a pretty obviously fake, CGI or whatever, video of an IBWO for the Agency… is USFWS just going to sit there, nodding, taking it all in!? Do the officials who watched Bobby’s clip even have any expertise/knowledge/competency to adjudge what they were viewing?… I assume so... but would have a better idea if they posed questions along the way. And then there's all the lovely Pileated pics sent to USFWS by sincere folks declaring them to be IBWO -- is it against USFWS to publicly respond by informing them of their confusion? a possible teaching moment. For now, we seem doomed to 20 more years of Nessie photography and PIWO pics masquerading ad nauseam as IBWO, when all we need is one photo from an automatic remote camera trained on a nest/roost hole or active foraging site. Without that, this 3-ringed circus atmosphere will continue to grow.

Color me peeved.

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

ADDENDUM:

Turns out there were 6 late comments turned in to USFWS that have now been additionally posted — I’m a bit uneasy that so many folks waited so late to post their material; it’s as if they were too afraid to leave time for skeptics to react to what they were posting (of course skeptics can still respond, but just not on the USFWS site). At any rate the final postings are here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0166/comment?postedDateFrom=2022-08-09&postedDateTo=2022-08-09

Not certain why, but Bobby Harrison simply posted his brief videos again, this time without narration; they were previously in a supplemental section (and of course available several other places as well), but I guess he wanted to have them somewhere on the main comment page.

Dan Dullum’s post is probably the closest to my own take on all these matters so I’ll recommend reading it also.

Matt Courtman does a good job of summarizing/overviewing his take on things, so you’ll want to read his entry (though nothing too new in it).

And finally there is John D. Williams’ lengthy, long-awaited entry (which will require a lot more time, including by myself, to slowly go through text and all photos/videos). For now I’ll simply say that, if authenticated as true and accurate, the (implausible?) tale he tells will literally likely go down as the greatest story in the history of American ornithology!! — that of course is a tall order. And while some photos and video are interesting, others much less so. But truly what I think is most interesting is the narrative given toward the end by the purported South Carolina reporter of these (multiple) IBWOs, assuming he really exists — seriously, there is so much sketchiness here and unanswered questions/details, I’m unwilling to assume anything about this odd storyline. But it is certain to get a lot of chatter going (though again, like the Harrison video, it's possible the chatter may be relegated to IBWO bubbles and not serious birding or ornithology sites?). Keep in mind as you read John's narrative, not just what he's telling you, but how much is being left out, or assumed.

[added:  I will be sending John a list of questions before the weekend per his request below (even though I suspect he is not at liberty to answer several of them) — BUT I must be blunt, having re-read this piece I am even more underwhelmed, and give it less credence, than upon the first reading; just doesn’t pass the smell test -- with that said, would love to be convinced, because it's a fabulous storyline, but too many problems.]

ADDENDUM  8/10:

And now there are yet 3 additional comments posted to USFWS just today:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0166/comment?sortBy=postedDate&sortDirection=desc

It'll take me a day or two to get to these, but I'll probably post the questions I'm sending to John Williams tomorrow or Friday here at the blog.

— Odds & Ends —

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

1)  First, will just note that Matt Courtman holds his next monthly Zoom get-together tomorrow (Monday) at 8pm EDT.

2)  Some folks seem to keep panicking over the USFWS possible removal of the IBWO from the endangered list. Apparently it scared Bobby Harrison so much he decided to quit sitting on a year-and-a-half-old video and figure out some way to use it as evidence for IBWOs existing (at least 20+ months ago; no telling if that particular bird is still alive).

But guess what, everyone can still search for the bird even if it’s de-listed, you can report it, you can research it, you can doctor photos of Pileateds if you wish — nothing really changes. The private lands this species may reside on stay the same; the public lands are largely protected for a great many reasons beyond any IBWO presence (and of course all U.S. songbirds are protected from harm). The main thing that changes if this bird is de-listed is that the USFWS subjects itself to absolute ridicule and decreased credibility if the species is then ultimately documented, and it must then backtrack — that ought be the real fear, the USFWS seen as incompetent. I suspect the de-listing recommendation came about to start with because the Agency already felt pummeled and ridiculed from a great many quarters for NOT listing the IBWO as extinct, and only when it encountered the vocal backlash of the ‘believer’ community did it suddenly become aware of the ‘rock and hard place’ it was betwixt — open to ridicule and egg-on-its-face in either direction just depending upon which one finally holds sway.

3)  Am curious why I've heard nothing more about the ACONE automated bird-viewing system that was deployed in the Big Woods search and, to my knowledge, not used since in any IBWO searches (if anyone previously involved is able to speak on that)? It had plenty of mechanical/operating problems, and perhaps was expensive to deploy/analyze, but even with all its downtime and trying conditions it seemed like one of the better ideas that was attempted back in the day… and all these years later, surely the programming and performance (even efficiency) could only be improved by now. Is it just a case of no other corridor or opening seeming worthy of deployment since the Big Woods (which seems hard to imagine), or just too expensive/difficult to maintain/monitor/analyze the results, or something else? I’ll repeat what I’ve said previously, the single greatest failure (out of so many) in this saga, has been the failure of ANY remote, automatic camera system to capture a clear, indisputable photo of an IBWO (while having little trouble capturing pileateds, red-heads, hawks, raccoons, possums, squirrels, deer, etc.etc.). Robots have capabilities that humans will never have, and don’t suffer human frailties, limitations, and excuses, yet even robotic systems, have not definitively documented this bird.

4)  About a week remaining in the current comment period to USFWS. One thing I'm not clear on is the exact procedure for contributing yet further evidence (and there ought be some) to USFWS over the next 5 months (well after this comment period) before the Agency makes its decision? 

Anyway, I suspect that the next week may be interesting... and, not necessarily in a good way. 

8-/ 

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

ADDENDUM:

videos don’t lie… so I guess JFK’s limo driver assassinated him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6vWgMDq6tk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A--W4xRqLzw

ADDENDUM2:

Roshan Vignarajah is a young birder bitten by the Ivory-bill bug who has been doing his own YouTube blog, and has started a few Ivory-bill entries as seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwU1HS6IwGHxRz8YTREqVS7ECF0b_8vcV

ADDENDUM 8/5:

TGIF...

-- Awaiting Evidence --

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

With all the talk of evidence these days, just realized it's about the 16th anniversary since this memorable piece of evidence was originally introduced (just to take a sad trip down memory lane...); sometimes I wonder how much progress we've really made since then?:

(blast from the past)

Still a tad flabbergasted at the scarcity of in-depth discussion of Harrison's latest vid -- as if skeptics don't even find it worthy of their time!? Probably an omen of how tiresome birders find these poor-to-inconclusive offerings.  The closest thing I've seen to a substantive post anywhere is this one (by Henning) from BirdForum:

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/new-ivory-billed-woodpecker-info.426599/page-4#post-4356103

The poster is mainly concerned with photographic artifacts, so I'll just toss out a related concern. Bobby admits he was using a 20-year-old camera. Photographers take good care of their equipment, BUT still a 20-year-old camera is likely to have some micro-abrasions/scratches, imperfections, dust particles, etc. that may cause further artifacts in stills or film especially when the camera is moving (...and while Bobby himself points out a few artifacts in the clip, that by no means rules out other unrecognized artifactual elements).

Right now, what we need, above all, is to show that this species simply still exists... period! IF you're interested in money or fame or publication or other self-serving matters, then legal or conservation or procedural matters may be important and delay things, but IF you're truly interested in the bird itself, the immediate real concern ought be to get any actual good evidence made public ASAP to establish that, lo-and-behold, it lives. IF I captured video that I felt clearly showed an IBWO in the wild it would be in the hands of a dozen or so experienced birders whose judgment I respect within two weeks, and at virtually the same time it would be on at least a couple of internet sites... difficult for me to even take seriously video held back longer than that --  it's an admission that the video is not that good and gives off the appearance of needing time to figure out how to plausibly 'spin' it into an IBWO that people might somehow, possibly, perhaps, just maybe with some coaxing, believe (moreover, the provenance of any such long-held video must then be examined: who all has handled it and done what to it, when). I don't mind there being a plenitude of fuzzy, debatable videos for this species, I just mind having them quickly adjudged as persuasive or 'proof' or otherwise hyped beyond their value. Every such over-hyped video and over-the-top claim, simply adds yet one more nail into the IBWO's coffin in the public eye, while making 'believers' appear more foolhardy than they've already been painted. So until truly clearcut evidence is produced (if ever) I'll continue to try to tamp down the enthusiasm and anticipation over weak-to-mediocre-to-speculative evidence. The problem in the Ivory-bill realm is not that skeptics have ever really won their case, it's that believers constantly shoot themselves in the foot.

But, onward we trudge. So here is a recent article from Arkansas that includes a 35-minute interview with David Luneau (not too much new if you’re a long-time follower of the topic, but a nice overview of several things):

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/jul/27/capitol-scott-searching-for-the-ivory-billed-woodpecker/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_ArkansasOnline

Meanwhile, folks have about 11 more days to get their very nice Pileated photos uploaded to the USFWS.  :(

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

-- Weekend Interlude --

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

Feel like injecting a li'l humor... in the event the next post or two aren't very lighthearted. Old Tom Toles cartoon from back in the heyday of the Big Woods search:

...Still seeing no significant or extended discussion at serious birding sites of the latest video "evidence" which probably says a lot about how dismissively the bulk of the birding community regards it, with about 16 days left for comments to USFWS.

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

-- A Li'l Followup To the Harrison Clip --

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

I s’pose I should’ve expected it, but am amazed at the wide range of views I’m seeing around forums, quora, birding sites, social media etc.etc. on Harrison's almost 2-years-old 10 seconds; amazed at how different people can see so many widely differing things — and that is exactly the sort of Rorschach-like outcome that doesn't help matters. If people are viewing the video on a mobile apparatus that is a problem right away; but admittedly I’m viewing it on a laptop which may also be problematic. Big screen would be best, but certainly wouldn’t resolve all the problems.

I haven’t yet seen a real, deep discussion of the video I’d be willing to link to (the Birdforum site is especially disappointing, but then I know how sick they are of this debate); mostly just a lot of opinions/assertions being put out really not taking all variables into consideration (also,a lot of mockery). I know what I think the bird is too, but not willing to say ‘cuz it serves no purpose except to create unresolvable arguments. It would be neat to see the video thrashed about on the “Frontiers of Bird Identification” listserv — is that still operating?  I can’t seem to find it… in fact I can’t even get the ABA general site for state listservs to boot up the last several days…? Anyone know anything about that. Very bad timing  :(  (or, if the sites ARE operating for others let me know).

Anyway, here’s what I do wish — ‘cuz we don’t really need a lot more commentary from ‘believers’ on the video; they are so committed/invested already, that their views will be routinely dismissed as un-objective and non-credible by the bulk of the birding community — what I would dearly like to hear are the fleshed-out opinions of renowned birders long and well-respected for their field identification skills: Sibley, Crossley, Kaufman, Dunne, Jackson, certainly come to mind, but there are many others (names not so familiar to the general public, but well-established within birding circles) — I’d like to hear what 10 - 12 of those folks, who have actually observed, photographed, painted, written about bird identification for decades, see in the video (and what they think of Bobby's assertions)… especially if there is any consensus among them (there may not be, which would be interesting in itself). But so far, just the sounds of silence from those I’d most want to hear from, and such silence itself may speak volumes? (unless they are on the listservs that I can't seem to pull up). [OK, added: this morning 7/22, I was finally able to open the various state listservs again, as well as "ID Frontiers," and sure enough, NO significant discussion of the latest video, which is probably pretty telling by itself of how unseriously the birding community as a whole takes these now almost routine, erratic, blurry video releases and claims.... though, with more time, perhaps some discussion will ensue?]

I’ll end with what just might be my favorite comment into USFWS so far:

“I have a 30 second video of a Ivory Billed woodpecker but it’s 46mb and this site only allows 10mb. How can I get it to you?”

Somehow seems to typify the befuddled state we're in... and so it goes…. ;)

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

— Are We Having Fun Yet!? -- After 17 Years — +Addenda

 ——————————-----------------———

Happy Anniversary, to me! Incredibly, this month marks the 17th anniversary of this blog, which I started, envisioning a li’l news service to run for 1 or 2 years recounting the activities of an IBWO recovery program; and little guessing the controversy that would ensue, within a couple weeks of initial posting, let alone still being waged 17 years later, with many of the same arguments, theories, blather, etc. (I’ve actually started and closed about 15 other blogs over that time period, but this one is the gift that just keeps on giving! ;))  A number of key people have passed away over that space of time (...and, a number of 'skeptics' have simply left the debate in disgust!)… but others enter the fray to fill their spaces.

I naively thought that when the Cornell/USFWS and Choctawhatchee searches ended over a dozen years ago that debate might be over… unless or until another Gene Sparling-like figure suddenly came forth with another report AND photograph. Instead, after a lull in the proceedings, a number of folks (too many to mention) kept plugging away in various ways and through various channels, creating a sort of IBWO bubble, keeping hope alive, and here we are today. Indeed, a lot of skeptics simply quit following the storyline and were caught off-guard when the more recent USFWS controversy ensued. I'm still not confident of what the short-term will bring though, and we can continue with this level of evidence, this level of debate, and never-ending assurances that ‘proof’ is right around the corner, for another 20 years. But nobody ought want that (least of all those of us who won't be around for another 20 years!). 

Meanwhile, a number of the IBWO postings on Facebook are going from the ridiculous to the sublime (or, is it the other way around?), as are the current comments being sent into USFWS, not giving me a whole lot of encouragement for the rest of this year (but, who knows). Reminder: you have about 3 weeks left to get your own "claims" into USFWS during this renewed comment period, and maybe, hopefully, improved comments will yet appear -- again, IF you are sending something in that requires extensive explanation of why it is "evidence" of the IBWO... OR, that requires them to simply believe what you are saying with no authentication, OR that is "evidence" that they are already well aware of -- then DON'T BOTHER sending it (it is NOT what they want). Oy.

Anyway, in celebration of the approaching blog anniversary I’ll throw out a couple of bits which were at least good for entertainment (if you haven't already seen these on the main IBWO Facebook page). First, one of the oddest/quirkiest minor stories I’ve ever seen in covering this saga since it began!... a brief story about PBS, of all entities, prankishly inserting IBWO sounds (double-knocks and kents) into a documentary on cicadas (having nothing to do with IBWOs) — I can’t imagine what they were thinking (I constantly expect pranks and hoaxes in the IBWO realm… but from PBS!?)

Here is the original posting mentioning the story:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5544235825597802/

...and the referenced sounds start just before the 51-minute point in this video:

https://www.pbs.org/video/wfyi-local-productions-return-cicadas/?fbclid=IwAR1RhXzX58mkULB3oONCL3n8opE5UaMbuBz8GAvHoHH8CKWOtWTcQIrjvas

Second, is this wholly bizarre case of published avian species misidentification (NOT involving IBWO, but still...):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5546053918749326/

Hey, maybe the lesson in all of this is, to expect the unexpected!  ;)

Lastly, I'll close out with one of the more serious, and interesting, posts from Chris Gullickson at FB recounting how ultralights were used back during the Cornell/USFWS Big Woods search; a methodology that was mentioned, but not detailed at the time (you need to keep scrolling down and opening Gullickson's posts/description, which is interspersed with comments from others):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/5549907825030602/

....enough for now

——————--------------————————

ADDENDUM  7/18:

While others are sending in pics of Pileated Woodpeckers to USFWS to argue that the IBWO still exist (...oy veyyyy), the "Center For Biological Diversity" has now weighed in, almost vehemently, to say it does NOT! Download and read their comment and followup here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0182

While most of the stated criticisms are common and not new, I include this here so as to indicate the exasperation of the skeptical side (which I expect to only become more forceful by the end of the current comment period), and show what "believers" are up against in putting forth weak, ambiguous "evidence."

ADDENDUM  7/19:

...and now an addendum to the above Addendum!:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0185

an "anonymous" poster responds to the Center For Biological Diversity with the usual counterpoints (by inserting objections into their own article). Not sure how much of this sort of back-and-forth I'll keep linking to, should it continue, but these two reads somewhat give the overall flavor of the debate as it currently holds.

Be interesting to see how many more responses arrive in the 3 weeks remaining for comments.

ADDENDUM (again)  7/19:

Sheeesh, a 2nd addendum in one day, in what should be a quiet summer on this topic… the long-hyped, overly-anticipated Bobby Harrison video (from Oct. 2020) is now out. It can be seen starting around the 11-minute mark in this 54-min. piece from Matt Mendenhall of Birdwatching Magazine:

https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/exclusive-video-evidence-ivory-billed-woodpecker/?fbclid=IwAR3lI_AWQvIhBxvKAUHPZ-ULnGpE4Ahv9jL0HEcXVWNW2r_38Sf7r9eDowE

Again, does nobody understand English anymore! What USFWS wants is visual evidence that requires no explanation — that, upon viewing, will be agreed by all to be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker (and shown forensically not to be faked); it doesn’t have to be pristine, just easily recognizable, like billions of other photographed birds. This isn’t it; this isn’t even close, nor even close to being close. The variables, problems, issues, questions, etc. are too many to even approach, but no doubt others will.

Again, chances are that NO video of this species in brief flight will ever be adequate to ‘prove’ its existence.  Repeating what I’ve said before: we need photos/video of this bird PERCHED on a trunk, on a limb, on a log, at a hole…. the way it spends the majority of its day, day after day after day after day.

But now this will be the debate du jour for this week until the next deep-analyzed video comes along... and then maybe the next... and the next... and the......

[BTW, I want to be clear that I'm not questioning whether or not Bobby has seen the IBWO, even multiple times, I'm simply acknowledging the huge gaping, exasperating difference between sighting the bird and offering conclusive evidence of having done so.]

added:  the USFWS has now posted Bobby's presentation to them (essentially identical to the Birdwatching Magazine version, just with an additional comment by Tim Gallagher at the end):

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0186

(I'm debating whether or not to even write about the issues I have with the video, most of which will probably be voiced by various skeptics as it is, and I don't really want to be feeding them any material!)

BTW, in some ways Harrison's clip is reminiscent of the brief film clip the Auburn team took at the Choctawhatchee back in the day (and released quite late, because they knew how unconvincing it was) -- not sure if it's even still available anywhere(?); Bobby's is better but in a few ways similar.

-- A Reprieve -- +Addenda

 ———————————————————

Not totally unexpectedly, the USFWS has announced a 6-month extension to its consideration of de-listing the Ivory-billed Woodpecker from endangered status. The IBWO was among 23 species scheduled for de-listing around September of this year, barring new evidence/information, and obviously there is enough controversy surrounding the Lord God bird to separate it out for special consideration (I assume the other 22 species will in fact still be de-listed before year’s end):

https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-07/service-announces-6-month-extension-final-decision-ivory-billed-woodpecker?fbclid=IwAR0d6PLugrDteydaJtYOsgR1V2YPlfeYSet3QMxUcNHNhw_NVKaDXm-Qdgo

In the announcement, USFWS further opens yet another new 30-day comment period, essentially starting now and running until midnight August 7, 2022. Part of the announcement reads as follows (I’ve bolded some bits):

“The Service is seeking new information during the 30-day reopening, including clear video or photographic evidence of the presence of the ivory-billed woodpecker that can be repeatedly interpreted the same way by independent observers, such as definitive photographic evidence collected by a field observer. Comments provided during the initial proposal and the previous reopening do not need to be resubmitted.”

also: “Information on how to submit comments is available at www.regulations.gov by searching under docket numberFWS‒R4‒ES‒2020‒0109”

Despite asking to avoid it, they will probably receive a number of repetitive, duplicative comments to what they have received already, so do keep in mind they are most interested in NEW and clearcut evidence (it's actually a pretty high bar, buuut, over the entire 6-month period it could happen).

...In other unrelated news, the proprietor of the main IBWO Rediscovered page on Facebook is contemplating taking the group “private” which has pluses and minuses… I s’pose he’ll make a decision soon.

So again, a lot going on, but not a lot of real news! and again, I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if there is much news before next winter. [Added: not clear to me why the agency is doing another 30-day comment period... perhaps just some sort of legal or procedural requirement? when evidence/documentation that arises in the next 4-5 months could clearly influence their final decision; i.e., a photo/video showing up in 35 days is not ignored because it failed to arrive within the 30 day period.]

—————————————————————

ADDENDUM  7/7:

There seems to almost be a pattern to the posts at the Facebook group that appear for awhile and then are later deleted…

(by the way, the group is now at 5900 members; not sure it will ever hit the 6400 figure I had predicted before it may go private (at least on a trial basis).

Matt Courtman will hold another Zoom meeting/chat this coming Monday night (8pm EDT) to update his ongoing search (currently in Tensas NWR, where he claims an encounter at end of June):

https://www.facebook.com/events/2364922253681976?ref=newsfeed

Meanwhile, I’m stiiiiiiiiiill looking for a “skeptic” to do a transcribed interview here at the blog. If interested, let me know (cyberthrush@gmail.com) and I can send along some questions for you to look over.

Ohhh, and hey, Boris Johnson will no longer be PM of Britain.

ADDENDUM2  7/8:

Jeeeeeez, the first 3 new comments are into the USFWS. NOT at all encouraging!

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R4-ES-2020-0109-0166/comment?sortBy=postedDate&sortDirection=desc

On a side-note, there now seem to be at least 4-5 Facebook groups (not all active, or public) for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; will be interesting to see how these all shake out, especially in the event that the main one (with 5900 members currently) decides to go private.

ADDENDUM3  7/12:

There are now 14 comments in to the USFWS site, 13 of which are nothing but essentially useless, anecdotal verbal assertions or claims that will carry NO weight (and ought not to)! when the Agency has specifically asked for NEW, CLEAR, PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence... is it that hard to follow directions folks!? Frankly, this is embarrassing and part of why this debate is considered laughable by so many. The one somewhat substantive comment by a poster pertains to the Latta data/evidence which USFWS is no doubt already quite familiar with. Folks are only hurting the case for the IBWO with all these unsubstantiated claims and NON-new evidence. What USFWS wants and needs is something, if not indisputable, at least more clear than anything yet that has been made public. I'll just leave you with an old popular saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” :(

Added...:  ;)