-- The Ghost Bird: Jabiru? --

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

It's been over a week since reports of a Jabiru visiting Mississippi surfaced... and stiiiiill the enormous, gawky, impossible-to-miss critter hasn't been relocated. Hmmmm... :

1) Rick Wright, a very credible member of the birding community, first reported the bird on the Web, BUT never saw it himself (in fact, it's not clear to me IF ANY experienced birders ever saw it); he merely received still photos of the bird from a catfish farm where the supposed bird supposedly set down supposedly on Aug 24 (and the only photo released on the Web looks like a possible Photoshop candidate).

2) After-the-fact, OTHER non-birders in the area very conveniently reported having seen the bird around other fish farms one or two weeks prior to the announcement (...but again, no established birders I'm aware of).

3) With birders flocking into the area the gee-normous bird mysteriously vanished and hasn't been re-found.

4) There are no sound recordings or feathers or DNA evidence for the bird's presence, nor so far as I'm aware, any video.

Does something smell fishy here... I mean besides the catfish farms? Not only has a Jabiru not been seen in Mississippi in 60 years, one has NEVER been seen there.
Do I believe a Jabiru actually set down in Mississippi in August? --- YES, I do (for reasons I won't even bother with), but do I believe the evidence presented thus far on the Web could be torn to shreds by someone skeptically-bent on doing so --- you betcha! (because skepticism is the easiest game around).

No substantial IBWO news for the moment, and likely nothing prior to last season's final summary reports being released. Several IBWO talks will be given around the country this month, so watch your local listings, and George Butler's "The Lord God Bird" documentary still scheduled for mid-Sept. theatre release. Otherwise, good time for chillin' out... except for those yet throwing conniptions over the whole potentially $27 million affair....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 'nuther Big Bird in the News --

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

Sesame Street, NOT! :

As many know, a putative ;-) Jabiru materialized out of thin air in Mississippi recently (huge, striking, almost comical-looking bird... not unlike some others occasionally mentioned on this blog...) Rarely seen in the U.S., it created a stir in birding circles, especially for those close enough by car, train, plane, or Nimbus 2000 to go look for it. Anyway, can't help but wonder how much excitement there would be over this rogue bird had there not been an accompanying diagnostic photograph supporting it's arrival. Without the supposed photos, would it's improbable presence be questioned and immediately dismissed as "not credible," "moonshine-induced," or simply, "no way"?
IBWO skeptics would say this is exactly the point --- there are photos of the bird! --- people claimed seeing one AND have photos to verify!! Of course Jabiru don't reside high in dense forest canopies and inside tree cavities, but hang out conveniently in fields... which can make a difference (moreover, all of this assumes the purported photos are authentic --- haven't seen what the evidence for that is yet, other than trust --- afterall we're surrounded by stringers and hoaxers these days --- and oddly, the huge stork hasn't been relocated since its initial cyberspace splash).

[none of this means I doubt the report's validity; it's merely a recognition that I possess no direct evidence either the report, the photos, or the bird are real, beyond my blind trust in some of those doing the reporting --- what some might call 'faith-based ornithology'...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Just A Ramble --

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

Sightings, sounds, searches, and yes, science, continue... as does spreading skepticism. The skeptics' echo chamber reverberates with the claim that Ivory-bills are extinct, and thus any claimed evidence is automatically viewed through the prism of that premise, and then dismissed in favor of alternative conjectures. Skeptics' faith in the ability of humans to find and photograph rare creatures is paramount, despite the number that have previously gone missing for decades.

The downside of having the fuzzy Auburn video released publicly is that it gives skeptics yet another instance to say, "see, that's inconclusive." Through some sort of twisted logic, cynics view anything that is not conclusive of Ivory-bills existing as somehow supportive of them not existing. It's as if someone took pieces of evidence that tied someone to a crime, but, because the pieces weren't definitive, instead used them to argue the accused must be innocent. Non-definitive evidence is simply non-definitive evidence, it does not support one side more than another (and certainly not the naysaying side).

Certain subjects (abortion, animal rights, creationism vs. evolution, come to mind) can hardly be debated anymore because protagonists start from such different underlying assumptions, that agreement cannot be reached. So too it has come to pass in the Ivory-billed debate. Underlying assumptions about extinction, about the ecology/behavior of Ivory-bills, about evidence, and about human capabilities, cannot be reconciled.

Time may tell in the next couple years if the Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives; unfortunately for skeptics, none of their arguments, nor time nor logic alone, can possibly tell in the short term if the species is extinct... but do give 'em credit for trying!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- The Votes Are In --

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

The guesses for the 3 Choctawhatchee birds' quiz in Birding Magazine have now been published in the latest issue here:

http://www.americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/archives/vol39no5p74w1.pdf

Not unexpectedly, there's no agreement on what the birds are, and indeed I was somewhat surprised by the sheer variety and range of responses. No one has a real clincher argument for their case, and many seemed to base their guesses on "first impression" sorts of arguments, although some put forth a few more technical reasons (I had thought someone with more precision photo-analysis techniques might actually try to measure wing-to-body, wing-to-tail, or similar type ratios, but this didn't happen --- the photo is probably just too vague). Finally, a bit surprised that most of the biggest names in American birding are missing from even taking a stab at it --- maybe an indication of just how inadequate the photo is for identification purposes.

Overall, 16 guesses centered on one or another waterbird, while 11 guesses went to woodpeckers, either PIWO or IBWO. Several folks did in fact think Ivory-billed Woodpeckers had been captured on film. Besides Pileated Woodpeckers, other guesses included a psitticine of some sort, Wood Ducks, Mallards, Anhingas, Cormorants, Bitterns, Cattle Egrets, Green or Night Herons. At least one individual noted, as I have previously, that it is not certain that the 3 birds are even the same, the top bird possibly being different from the other two.
My own loose first impression, way back, was Night Herons, and since I am almost always wrong on these type photo quizzes that can probably be ruled out ;-)
Anyway, a fun exercise... (now if we can just find the tree cavity these birds came out of ;-))
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Heeere We Go Again... --

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

Attention M. Collinson, L. Bevier, Sibley, Kaufman, Elmer Fudd, et.al.:

The old Auburn video from the Choctawhatchee has now been posted on the Web here:

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/ibillvideo.html

Have at it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More on the Plan --

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

The USF&W Draft Recovery Plan is getting wide news publicity, with the focus unfortunately on the projected costs, which may never come to pass. The Plan's summary of past information, assessment of significant state-by-state locales, and forest/timber analysis are probably more important centers of focus.
By the way, I neglected to mention in the 2 previous posts that USF&W is seeking public comment on the Plan. Various skeptics, one might guess, are already making a concerted, coordinated effort to register their views.
Comments can be sent to the US F&W Field Office at 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, Louisiana, 70506, or faxed 337-291-3139, or delivered via email to ibwplan@fws.gov. (However, some may need to be forewarned that comments like "this sucks" or "give it up, stringers" or "AAARRRRGGHHHHHHH!" might not be taken altogether seriously...)

As the saying goes, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" --- 70 years ago the professional ornithology and birding community failed the Ivory-billed Woodpecker miserably; it took non-birders Mason Spencer and J.J. Kuhn to prove the species' existence, and tap the professionals' interest. Once again, too many in the birding community have given up early on the Ivory-bill based on limited data. At some point the Ivory-billed Woodpecker will indeed 'be history,' but there remains too much evidence that we ain't there yet, and finally a plan has been put forth to study the matter, not piecemeal, but in a comprehensive way. A lot of people contributed to this document, and I suspect there was a lot of disagreement/debate behind the scenes as to its final version, but now that it's before us we ought move forward instead of rehashing the same tiresome arguments over and over and over and....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Thanks! --

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

I've had time to give the Recovery Plan draft at least a cursory once-over by now. First, a big THANK YOU! to the many involved in putting this document together --- clearly they took their subject very seriously (much moreso than several commentators on the Web treat it). The authors have stayed on topic and forged ahead despite all the sound and fury surrounding them; what results is a wonderful addition to the Ivory-bill literature. I'll caution in advance though that skeptics should only read the section on projected costs through the year 2010 for this endeavor, IF they have their double-dose blood pressure medicine immediately nearby... ;-)

For anyone familiar with the Ivory-billed literature large chunks of the report are repetitive of material already out there (and that's as it should be, since part of the goal was to pull together and summarize just such information). Thusly, large amounts of the 180 pages can be skimmed through quite rapidly. Moreover, many of the goals, objectives, priorities, protocols, plans, etc. listed are little more than stating the obvious, but again this is obligatory in such a report. It is worth reading closely the various state-by-state accounts of past claims and current habitat, for new tidbits. I was especially happy to see that some states of low historical importance were nonetheless given consideration in the report, even if downplayed (Tennessee probably being the most interesting of this group). However, there is no consideration given to Missouri or southern Illinois, which I think may be one shortcoming of the report, but there was only so much time to research.

The states seemingly most touted for future searching (so far as I can tell) are the expected ones: Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas. Additionally, happily, parts of Alabama appear to be given serious consideration. And the report notes that in looking at all reports of IBWOs since 1944 virtually all of their previous historical range is represented, not just a few isolated locales.
Included (toward the end) also are significant sections of state timber analyses which will be of interest to many.

Further encouraging is that a great many of the tasks listed as needing to be done are given time-tables of 2-5 years for completion. Much of this will be dependent on funding, but at least the long-term nature of the commitment needed is herein recognized (as opposed to the rush-to-judgment, alternative-explanations-are-always-to-be-preferred-because-I-say-so crowd who think that TWO WHOLE YEARS of searching a couple places, without a clearcut photograph to show for it is somehow definitive). Also the report stresses at several points how little we know with certainty about the species' behavior and ecology --- this is in contrast to so much written by others implying certainty of some generalizations based on very limited data.

The weight of emphasis in this report however, is on Arkansas, the state that spawned the impetus for a written plan to begin with, and given limited funding and manpower, it is still unclear how many of the noted Southeastern areas of interest will actually receive significant attention.
This report was a long-time coming (promised at varying earlier times), but is likely worth the wait. Again, thanks to all who contributed to it.

One last side-note, and a bit of a surprise to me: David Kulivan (of David Kulivan fame, who I thought had long sworn off any further interest in this bird) is listed as a member of the "Habitat Working Group of the Recovery Team"!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------