--------------------------------------------------------
Been a lot of time spent on auditory evidence lately which I almost never link to (my view of auditory evidence has been consistent over the last 18 years) -- it won't move the needle forward for skeptics, who view such evidence as “stringing” people along — and I try these days to focus on evidence that skeptics may find of interest (because in the end they must be persuaded). So a few things:
1) First, if you haven’t already seen Chuck Hunter’s response to recent views of Mark Michaels see his postings here (which cover some of what I’ll be saying, but with more specifics):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/posts/7439564326064933/?comment_id=7440282235993142&mibextid=c7yyfP
https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/posts/7439564326064933/?comment_id=7440308122657220&mibextid=c7yyfP
2) Kents and DK sounds are HIGHLY simple, generic sounds with many sound-alikes in nature from both animals and potential artificial sources. Kents/DKs are not more complex, unique birdsongs or calls as say from a White-eyed Vireo, a Barred Owl, a wren, a Chat, or 100s of other species, so while “earbirding” certainly makes sense in a great deal of birding, it is of uncertain, strained use in the IBWO debate.
3) The true sample size of IBWO sounds is MINISCULE and recorded on antiquated equipment, possibly producing artifacts that I’m not confident we fully comprehend (though maybe experts do?). There are NO recordings of IBWO DKs at all to go by— zilch — I’ll grant that recordings of other Campephilus DKs (of which there are plenty) are probably adequate for drawing conclusions about IBWO DKs — except that again we have little idea of the range and variability specific to IBWO, which given the generic nature of DKs, makes them hard to generalize about.
4) The only kent samples we have of IBWOs come from one small set of birds in one place at one time, 80+ years ago — again no good sense of the variability for this species (although there are historically verbal descriptions of different types of kent calls from IBWOs) — in this regard it is interesting how when a putative kent call spectrograpically matches the original Cornell Singer Tract recordings researchers are quick to point that out, but when the match is not as great they fall back on the excuse that the Singer birds were recorded when “agitated” and the call at rest is different — it’s a perfectly plausible explanation, but it also comes off as a case of pounding a square peg into a round hole (or selecting whatever explanation suits one's case in the moment). In short, we don’t have good recordings of enough certain IBWO calls to draw any firm conclusions — and NO, one CANNOT simply assume that calls recorded in the Big Woods, or Choctaw or Pearl or Big Thicket… or… or… emanated from Ivorybills when the presence of the species was never confirmed (lumping all these together may be lumping together apples and oranges until truly shown otherwise)… nor can one assume that ALL other possible sound candidates for such simple sounds have ever been considered or are even known. Sample size is important, and we truly DON'T have it here.
5) Also, commonly dismissed is the notion of other IBWO searchers in the woodland generating kent or DK sounds that are then picked up by a different group of searchers — unlikely perhaps, but by no means dismissible! (and perhaps no more “unlikely” than hearing IBWOs is!). Anyone who thinks that the only people searching for IBWOs are the few folks reporting on the Web is living in their own self-contained bubble and doesn’t realize how many other individuals, using unknown techniques, are on occasion venturing into remote woodland to search for America’s most iconic species. (…and those are sincere people, let alone any pranksters who deliberately venture to woodland, to make noises solely to befuddle IBWO enthusiasts). Folks are too easily rushing to dismiss the unlikely... when in fact simply encountering the IBWO is itself highly unlikely!...
6) Again, Ivorybill searchers continually preach to the choir within their own self-contained bubble with evidence often presented by just one person — someone who has already fully-committed to a stance of IBWO persistence and will be perceived, rightly or wrongly (by doubters), as biased or otherwise non-credible. Anyone who is already committed to IBWO persistence who analyzes say, the Luneau video or Mike Collins’ “underflight” video, will be seen as a ‘wishful’ thinker with self-fulfilling analysis and NOT be taken seriously. Instead, such analysis needs to include a co-author who is neutral or even skeptical yet agrees with the writer’s conclusions — and the problem there is that so many neutral/skeptical folks have left the arena wanting to avoid the IBWO debate (it literally could hurt their career!). Hearing the same people, or sort of people, tout the same evidence or sort of evidence over and over and over again has not moved us forward much.
In short, I find recordings of distant kents and DKs verrry problematic, with questionable assumptions made or left unstated. Those (few) that come in direct conjunction with good sightings (almost all of which are brief) are at least somewhat more interesting, but then again comes the endless question of why in 80+ years no active nesthole, roosthole, foraging site, or adequate photo/video has emerged following such evidence… and there too, multi careful-analyses, over decades, of cavities and foraging work, like multi-analyses of kents/DKs, have FAILED to lead us to a single live bird.
Despite the successful degree to which earbirding is utilized for bird counts, bird atlases, eBird, etc. (i.e., common birds), the gold standard by far in the controversial IBWO debate will remain visual evidence.
ADDED: just to be clear, I’m not arguing that auditory evidence is of no value or should not be submitted and reviewed, but simply that it doesn’t carry the weight for me that others are wanting to give it. I recall certain of Cornell’s Big Woods’ recordings sounding dead-on to my ears as IBWO kents (and even some significant skeptics were impressed by those at the time!) — but those alone would not persuade me of Ivorybill presence there (other evidence did).
-----------------------------------------------------
