— The Mason Spencer Effect —

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

I currently have a lot of IBWO dribs and drabs on paper I might write posts about (or just skip), but today a couple of folks emailed me about the Ivorybill eBird report in south Texas, which I was already aware of, and for which I see no credibility to speak of, so no I won’t be addressing that here (unless of course something were to change). But it did get me thinking more about something I’d already been pondering. For years now, with so much Ivorybill publicity, IBWO reports from non- or inexperienced birders, average folks/everyday-people, have been regularly popping up in social media and internet forums (some are recent and some from years past) — they are almost always weak, poor, undetailed, and essentially lacking in credibility. Almost always these reports can be shown to be a non-IBWO species, or at the very least can’t be verified as IBWO… so why do folks continually glob onto these shallow claims with so much hope and interest, despite the odds against them (I’m leaving out here all the reports from EXPERIENCED birders and wildlife officials). It’s almost embarrassing… it’s certainly one reason believers are regularly mocked by serious birders who perceive them as gullible, if not foolhardy. In a similar vein, a common line you hear is that country folk who live or spend a lot of time in deep woods (unlike most birders, even serious ones) reeeeally DO KNOW Ivorybills, really have seen them… just happens that when offered $10,000 or even $50,000 to find them, oh gee, all of a sudden they can’t. Bird identification is tough, and sorry, I don't ascribe great birding skills to woods-folk (not that it's impossible, but just that it's rarer than people enjoy imagining). 

So why do so many believers keep falling for these feeble, rank amateur tales I wondered; why do they keep letting wishful thinking sully realism? There remains a deep-seated hope that somewhere along the way just one of them, just ONE, will be true, will be validated, and some ’nobody’ will gain instant fame; we root so much in America for the underdog, and we love to see the experts, the elitists, the intelligentsia nudged off their pedestals. Where does such an attitude stem from in the IBWO arena?  I think there’s an answer, which is the Mason Spencer story — I won’t repeat it, since most readers here know it (but if you don’t, I’ve referenced it many times in old posts including this summary from wonderful author Christopher Cokinos).

It is Mason Spencer who haunts us still today and almost single-handedly gives so many a possibly false hope that some unknown person, some average bloke, may be the one to stumble upon this remarkable species and bring this story finally to a beautiful conclusion. Personally, I don’t see it likely ending that way… I see it taking LOTS of hard work and skill getting the evidence needed, and I wish many ‘truthers,’ as they’re often called, didn’t so easily (almost embarrassingly), fall prey to amateurish storylines…. but on the other hand, I can't deny the legacy that Mason Spencer handed us... and moreover, I can't read the future with any certainty. 

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

-- Wow! Timely Overview Piece -- +Addendum

 ——————————————————————

This just suddenly came across my computer… finally, a very timely, long, nuanced, broad and balanced overview of auditory evidence/analysis pertaining to the IBWO arena (the best summary I've ever seen), from Canadian doctoral student Hannah Hunter. It is lengthy and basically for the deeply-entrenched ;) but I highly recommend it:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03063127231214501

There are several sentences (and perhaps other notions) from this I would like to pull out to quote, just don’t know if I’ll find the time to do so; have perhaps one tiny beef with the piece, too minor to mention. In the event I don't get around to any followup on it I recommend everyone read it.

————————————————————

change-of-topic ADDENDUM:

Completely different topic, but I’ll add here rather than create a new post….

Don Scheifler, who is part of the Latta (Proj. Principalis) team, is requesting partners for one or more all-day kayak floats and IBWO searching along a stretch of the Sabine River in Texas, sometime this winter:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7235378013150233/

Contact HIM (I don’t have further info) if you are interested or need more info. I don’t know if this is in any way connected to the Latta work (in Louisiana) or if it is strictly an independent effort by Don who is a long-time Texas searcher. The Sabine River has been a source of IBWO claims in the past (though I don’t recall any recent claims) and I believe was also previously a favored site of Ivorybill expert Van Remsen of LSU.

——————————————————

— Just An Experiment That Ought Be Done (…but won’t be) —

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

Place ARUs (autonomous recording units) in some northern forests (where there are NO IBWOs), Maine, Michigan, Washington state, or the like. Let them run for a month or two, then collect the recordings and use a computer program or AI to analyze the results looking for “kent”-like and double-knock-like sounds. Once isolated, these can be further spectrographically-analyzed for ones perhaps in the range of the IBWO (understanding that the true range isn’t really known precisely). Kents and double-knocks are waaay more generic than many acknowledge. Often just a small handful of examples of things that may sound like them are mentioned, when there may be dozens of similar sounds in deep woods (not to even mention, in the instance of southern forests, there may be IBWO searchers moving around making such sounds, which are then picked up by others — in the last dozen or so years, even in my NON-IBWO area, I have never gone into deep woods without at some point attempting a double-knock imitation on a tree out of sheer curiosity whether anything would respond to it).

All of this to say, we don’t have a base or control value for kents and DKs in deep woodland… we are clueless how many may appear regardless of any IBWO presence. And it gets worse, we have but a tiny (almost statistically meaningless) sample size of genuine “kents” from known IBWOs (in one locale and circumstance, at a point in time almost 80 years ago), recorded on large antiquated equipment which may enter variables or artifacts into the recordings that aren’t fully known -- the tiny sample size may not necessarily yield a true spectrographic analysis of what today's birds might sound like.  And we have no past recorded IBWO DKs, though I’ll grant that those of other Campephilus species are probably good for comparison-sake. We are, to some scientific degree, operating blindly.

Long time readers here may recall that I essentially feel that auditory evidence sucks (okay, maybe I'm biased by all the junky recordings sent to me over the years)! -- not ALL of it, but enough of it that I don’t place much weight on it. It’s nice to have WHEN directly in conjunction with good sightings (or film clips), but otherwise it doesn’t mean much…. indeed if all the nice-sounding auditory recordings were real one might expect there to be many more good (or even fleeting) sightings by now, when in fact sightings are rare.

 It’s bad enough that most film/photographic evidence is ambiguous at best; acoustic data is perhaps even more ambiguous (and not diagnostic) because of all we don’t know. Similarly, for decades searchers have tried to come up with diagnostic features of IBWO cavities and foraging work, only to have automatic cameras trained on such activity fail to produce a single clear IBWO, despite literally millions of photo frames. There are of course many cavities and tree-work that can be ruled OUT as coming from IBWOs, but nonetheless, ambiguity rules; we seem incompetent to actually pinpoint such necessary avian work.

Thus, we still need to find CURRENT, ACTIVE (daily used) roostholes, nestholes, foraging sites… all the other evidence turns to mush without those. I've lost track now of how many years we've been told the definitive evidence was just around the corner... when in fact the only thing around the corner, was.... another corner... on and on.

With all that said, my basic view remains that Ivorybills likely exist in at least 3 states (Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, being the top contenders, but at least a half-dozen other states are possible!), perhaps spending most of their lives in the upper canopies (far from people and cameras), yet so too remains my pessimism that human intervention can do much long-term good -- still, stranger things, and remarkable successes, have at times happened….

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

-- Just Quick Note --

———————————————————

Quick note that as forewarned some time back, have finally gotten around to updating the blog format from the very, very, very old platform previously used — sorry for any shock :( …. and, as predicted, much of the prior left column is lost in the process (a bit of which I’ll restore, but may take time  OK, I may already have done about as much as I'll do).

All for now….

———————————————————

11/28 -- restoring the left-hand column has gone faster, more smoothly than I expected and is largely completed, though I'll be continuing some tweaks here & there...

-- Martjan Lammertink coming up --

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

A reminder that Dr. Martjan Lammertink will be Matt Courtman's guest on his coming Monday night Zoom meeting (free, Nov. 20).

I don’t want to detract from Martjan’s expertise or current status, but can’t help but note that it was he who almost 30 years ago published a paper that many of us found objectionable, entitled, “No More Hope For The Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus Principalis,” which for many at the time, pounded nails into the IBWO coffin. He seemed to return to the optimist fold around the time of or shortly before the Cornell 2004 finding, and I expect he may have much of interest to say with Matt. Martjan knows the history, details, backstories, and issues of this saga as well as anyone, and just perhaps he'll know something about the current state of mind of the USFWS...?

I've been avoiding linking to 90% of the current IBWO stories, postings, podcasts, press releases, etc. that are around these days because they just fail to add enough new or significant or credible info to what we already know, but this is one that may be worth a listen. 

p.s.... such a low percentage of these Zoom meetings have been recorded for YouTube I'd recommend that if you wish to hear Martjan watch it live if you can.

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

11/23:  For those who missed it, Matt Courtman says he will upload a recording of the (long, 2+ hrs.) meeting within weeks. You can check his site here:

https://www.facebook.com/MissionIvorybill

Always good to hear someone like Martjan, but I was quite disappointed that most of the talk was of OLD, historical information/evidence. While there are constantly new people joining the Ivory-bill discussion who may find such information helpful, it is nonetheless all available in books, articles, internet pages, YouTube, etc. etc. with a little legwork. We simply walk in circles re-treading it over and over and over again, as we can do for another 20 years, when what is needed is new, fresh information, or at least in this case, discussion of the last dozen or so years (since the Cornell/Auburn searches ended) of evidence/speculation and the submissions to USFWS, not the 70-year well-worn history/background prior. In fact the only real tidbit of much interest I got from these 2+ hours came when Martjan was asked what he thought of the famous Mike Collins' "flyunder" video and he unenthusiastically responded to being unimpressed with it, feeling the quality was too low to even identify as a woodpecker -- I agree, as for me it is simultaneously the most intriguing bit of Collins' voluminous evidence but still not identifiable (let alone definitive) for many reasons/variables.  And then (elsewhere) you have Collins himself arguing that the Project Principalis drone video (submitted to USFWS), which many of us find quite persuasive, is just a Pileated -- in short a lot of dissension amongst so called IBWO-truthers themselves, let alone between 'believers' and skeptics... just as, despite all the meticulous analysis and modern day technology, the Luneau video still cannot be agreed upon by experienced/skilled field birders and ornithologists. Frustrating and exhausting, though I also fully understand how weak, imprecise, and prone-to-error human perception is, and how complicated (and often immeasurable) the variables are....

It's the winter season, a time when, if new evidence is to arrive at all, it may yet come (though there's often a long lag time between when new evidence is obtained and when it is made public), and about a month away from USFWS supposedly making their own official announcement (perhaps an anti-climax by now).

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

— And Now For Something Totally Different — +Addenda

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

These days I mostly try to focus here on current news or genuinely fresh, credible information (not speculation, hearsay, theories, rehash, same-ol-same-ol etc.) of which there is precious little… but I’ll take a moment to pass along this quirky tangent that blew me away!

On Facebook, Mishelle Lynn posts about a TV show including a segment showing Charlemagne's Palace Chapel Cathedral in Aachen, Germany where she noticed a single mosaic (as they were panning around) with what appears to clearly be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker (certainly more clear than anyone else in recent times has produced ;) Mind you this cathedral dates back to around the year 900!, though from Mishelle's own research this mosaic may have been a replacement(?) put in around the 1870s -- that would be well passed the time of early American painters/ornithologists prominently noting the IBWO, but still a bit mind-boggling that it should end up in this context.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7046358702052166/

Campephilus woodpeckers (let alone IBWOs) were certainly not a German, nor even European, species, so what an oddball occurrence. It’s well-known that Ivory-bill specimens were distributed to museums throughout the world, including Europe, but still fascinating (to me) that an artist would see fit to include it in a medieval chapel setting. What was he thinking; what was the inspiration???

Mishelle asks several questions in making the FB posting, so do visit it (if you’re on FB) and see if any further questions get answered.

(I don't have the time to research it myself, but if someone else does and wants to report back any results feel free, or perhaps someone already knows the back story on this!). 

Sometimes I almost get tired of hearing the adjective "iconic" applied to this bird, and feel it is overused... but then I see a story or example like this, and think, YUP, it's iconic!!

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

ADDENDUM :

And now today, yet another crazy, entertaining story off Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7052449328109770/

It reminds me oddly of the story of claims that Louisianian Fielding Lewis, famous for a couple of 1971 never-authenticated photos of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Atchafalaya, had additional photos that he never ever released -- they were looked for among his belongings upon his death and never located.... are they buried in an attic, a thrift store, a shoebox somewhere.... or, they just never existed to begin with?

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

ADDENDUM 10/31:

Just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the death of Chris Feeney, at 77 (reported by Matt Courtman), a long-time Ivory-bill enthusiast and searcher. I’d communicated with Chris a bit over a dozen years ago, and then again a few months back when clarifying Paul Sykes’ current view of matters.

He often worked in conjunction with Keith Collins (another long-time searcher), who will be out there again this winter (if he isn’t already) searching in Florida (and perhaps Arkansas?).

It’s a shame that if there is ever a positive outcome to this whole saga, so many of the genuinely long-involved folks will no longer be around to experience it. :(

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

…and, another ADDENDUM 11/1:

Matt Courtman announces his guest on his (free) Nov. 20 Ivory-bill evening Zoom meeting will be Martjan Lammertink one of the world’s foremost experts on the IBWO and Campephilus woodpeckers more generally:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7087788361242533/?mibextid=zDhOQc

…I will try to remember to post a reminder for this closer to the date.

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

ADDENDUM 11/3:

The fun never ends....

I've lost count of the number of "groups" on Facebook that tout the existence of the IBWO, but now there is also a group (for skeptics) devoted to dissing such claims, calling itself, "Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Sighting, Lies, and Fabrications" (...it's a tad reminiscent of some of the comments/discussion that prevailed over 15 years ago on some IBWO sites):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/220897210949459

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

-- Washington Post +Addenda --

 ————————————————————

Another Ivory-bill update article today, this time in the Washington Post, if you can access it (always nice to see a major publication covering the saga seriously). Nothing terribly new; does mention that USFWS is still debating its decision because of all the controversial views/data it must evaluate (in its slow, not-very-transparent way); even says at one point it’s not known when they’ll make a decision, though USFWS earlier indicated they would have a decision by the end of this year — not very far away at all, or will they again be AWOL come December 31?

I did find it interesting that in well under 24 hours the article already has over 160 comments (when I last checked -- Edit: a day later, 250 comments!)… few of which add much value to the piece at all, but still nice to see that much public interest remaining. IBWO skeptics, I suppose, will cancel their subscriptions... ;)

————————————————————

ADDENDUM 10/18:

The information in the above article has by now been passed along in dozens of other press articles (including NY Times), testament to a story that will not die (anytime soon). I’m not too convinced myself of the competency of the USFWS at this point, but nonetheless have to chuckle a bit at the degree to which skeptics must be tearing their hair out by now….  ;)

Someone on Facebook did recently post a link to this lengthy skeptic-take from a year ago:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.13144

It’s two main (and old) arguments are that 1) all the recent “evidence” for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is sketchy and uncertain — this is of course a matter of some prolonged and subjective debate as to just how sketchy each piece of evidence is (though I agree it isn't conclusive), and 2) the ongoing ‘limited pie’ argument that every dollar (or even hour) spent on the IBWO is money and time that could be better spent on some other pressing conservation issue — I get a little tired of this take, since it is almost ALWAYS the case that one can find a “better” place to spend any given set of dollars, time, energy. I suspect the authors themselves have spent money on lattes, furniture, family vacations, doodads, etc. etc. that could’ve instead gone to help endangered species, starving children, earthquake victims, or whatever. Even money spent saving say the Bald Eagle, California Condor, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, etc. could also have been well-spent on other different cases (including less glamorous ones). While the ‘fixed pie’ argument can sometimes have merit, it will always be one of debatable choices between competing interests, and the relatively small amount being apportioned for the Ivory-bill makes it seem a tad disingenuous/rhetorical.

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

-- PIWO In Flight --

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

Couple of clips of a Pileated Woodpecker in flight posted on FB:

(there are many videos of PIWOs in flight on the Web, but these have some nice features)

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1007519790298785

[...some discussion over here:

 https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/6961828803838490/ ]

another video: https://www.facebook.com/melmore/videos/1574420766314754

...and an old clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFPEAQe0qCk

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

ADDENDUM 10/2:

I hesitate to even link to it, but what the hey (will do so for those with interest in such)…. Paul Guris has a new followup post on FB including 7 brief videos of Pileateds in escape flight… a number of potential issues in the videos, and indeed I have issues with most analysis of flight style and flap rates... as well as issues with auditory evidence (kents and DKs), and potential issues with eDNA as well…. feel like a broken record, but will repeat again: IBWOs, if they exist, forage and roost…. every.… single.… day…. find a foraging site or roosthole (or nesthole), place a remote, automatic motion-activated camera on it, walk away, and let the camera do the work. Short of that, I find it difficult to imagine any sort of evidence being persuasive.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/6965961206758583/

-- Lost Birds Initiative --

 —————————————————-——

Over on Facebook, Dwight Norris passes along a link to a newish article on the Ivory-bill and the “Lost Birds initiative”:

https://64parishes.org/lost

One interesting note to read is that LSU’s Van Remsen plans to teach a course in the LSU Honors College based upon Christopher Haney’s book, “Woody’s Last Laugh.”

————————————————————

-- Legacy --

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

Many warned (for those who would listen) that the single greatest danger (...out of sooo many, like him being a Russian puppet for at least the last 3 decades) posed by Donald Trump’s 2016 election, would be his lasting effect on the Supreme Court and the nationwide judiciary more generally. Those toxic changes/influences will continue to come home to roost:

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/29/1196654382/epa-wetlands-waterways-supreme-court

Such actions likely risk far greater impact/harm to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and other endangered species, as well as wildlife and wild spaces more generally, than any de-listing decisions made by USFWS. 

 :((

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

— And the Beat Goes On... —

 ——————————————————

Ivory-billed Woodpecker continues drawing lots of press in recent weeks, but I’ll only bother to pass along a couple of brief things:

1)  The American Ornithological Society is currently holding its annual meeting in Canada and Steve Latta gave a very-well-attended presentation today on the Project Principalis evidence. Certainly a great deal of interest, and I suspect at least some people had their minds opened a bit (…while some other minds are closed tight!). Haven’t seen or heard any direct feedback yet on the talk though, but will add anything significant if I come across it, in Addenda below (…or of course anyone who saw the presentation and wants to comment feel free to).

2)  Speaking of opening minds, a few weeks back long-time searcher Chris Feeney mentioned on Matt Courtman’s monthly Zoom meeting that Paul Sykes, one of the country’s premier experts on the IBWO, now is more open to the possibility of Ivorybill survival. Sykes, whose opinion is widely respected, had, after years of searching and study, turned very skeptical/doubtful that IBWOs could still persist, but recent evidence has notably loosened his skepticism. (I don’t believe Paul has publicly commented or written on the change-of-heart, but Chris knew from personal communications with him).

Otherwise, nothing I particularly want to report on right now, and still, so far as I'm aware, not a peep from USFWS (there are different possible reasons for this, but until persuaded otherwise, I'll continue to assume it indicates dissension in their ranks).

——————————————————