-- Happy Days --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happier Days are here again (...for all life on the planet), Americans choosing to take Congress, democracy, and the Constitution, back --- neither scaremongering, dirty tricks, Rovian shenanigans, nor questionable voting machines could sway enough folks to side with the dark inept forces of the Cheney Administration this time around. What next... an Ivory-bill photo???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Skeptics' View --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics look at evolution:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3191

....and at the supposed moon landings:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

....because afterall (according to some), extraordinary claims/beliefs require 'extraordinary proof,' not mere theoretical evidence.

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

-- The Jizz of Birding --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several recent bird volumes have focussed on the importance of the 'jizz' of a bird in field identification (or if you prefer, the 'giss,' general impression of size and shape). While the emphasis on this gestalt aspect of bird identification is somewhat new, it is in fact the way most experienced birders have always ID'd the vast majority of birds seen in the field.
Next month 10's of thousands of birds will be turned in on Christmas counts with no videotape, no photographs, no field notes, no verification or validation of any kind (if you want to sign up for a Christmas count, but choose instead to watch football, drink beer, eat popcorn, and turn in a totally bogus list of counted birds, hey easy enough to do). Most of these bird IDs will occur in a matter of seconds (or less). In fact upon seeing a bird in the field, only a fraction of a second is usually needed to rule out 99+% of all known birds --- see a little brown bird hop from one bush to the next --- great blue heron, goshawk, blue jay, herring gull, sulphur-crested cockatoo, and thousands of other birds are immediately ruled out without any deep thought --- upon a second brief glance you may have it pinned down to one of 3 birds, or maybe specifically to winter wren, such is our ability to use a few glanced cues to pinpoint a species. In fact after ID'ing a bird, if asked what field marks were seen, one must often pause to bring to cognition whatever marks were involved in forming the identification, the process is so quick and unconscious for long-time birders.

Yet, in the case of the Ivory-bill, we are told experienced birders are not to be trusted. Multiple field marks must be seen and recorded, and photographs or videotape required... though it doesn't apply to 99.99% of all other birding where 'jizz' is the routine modus operandi, and is even more powerful when there are only two likely candidates for a sighting. Yes, mistakes happen, especially among novice and less experienced birders who play a significant role in Xmas counts where the data gathered is truly questionable. But do I believe that the likes of John Terres, John Dennis, Tim Gallagher, Geoff Hill, and a couple dozen others were all mistaken over the years in their claims of seeing something missing the 'jizz' of a Pileated Woodpecker, leaving but one possibility --- No. Seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not nearly as extraordinary as adamently and repeatedly discounting the observations of so many credible observers over decades is --- a kind of egocentrism or jealousy seems involved in so persistently placing one's own personal biases and speculation ahead of multiple others' onsite observations. Birds can, and most often are, ID'd by gestalt at a glance. Still, one ought not trust the accuracy of Xmas counts or lifelists, especially given that the notion of "species" itself is imprecise, somewhat arbitrary, and in flux. These are worthy of skepticism, as are most all field studies which purport to make generalizations about birds based upon inadequately small and non-random sample sizes, poor controls, ill-defined variables, and often without any replication. There is PLENTY to be skeptical of in the so-called science of ornithology. But do I accept the likelihood that some birders in the last 3 years have seen a certain single species, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, and that still to this day the majority of potential habitat has been inadequately, indeed barely, searched? Yes, indubitably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More of Same --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A current news story (mostly re-hash) from Brinkley, AR. centered largely on David Luneau and some video he took ; - )

http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=5627065

BTW, David has some updated info on remote camera systems under development at his website:

http://www.ibwo.org/

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

-- Cornell Report Near Completion --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell's summary report of last year's Big Woods' search season is virtually complete and apparently close to 50 pgs. long (don't know when they'll have it linked to on the Web or if they will only put a condensed version online). Other than the massive amount of audio data they've had to analyze, not sure why the long delay in bringing to completion. But as I've said for decades the name of the game in Ivory-bill circles is 'patience, patience' and that continues to hold, especially as there are almost always things going on in the background which aren't well publicized (...and rightly so, as they may lead nowhere).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Another Article --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October article from a Toronto newspaper (pdf format) on the Florida find:

http://www.kirtlandbirdclub.org/pdf/Ivory-billed_woodpecker_toronto_star_09262006.pdf

(also, note list of rediscovered "extinct" species along right-hand margin)

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

-- Friday Miscellany --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest issue of "Birder's World" Magazine has a Top 20 listing of the most sought-after N. American birds. Not surprisingly the Ivory-billed Woodpecker tops the list. Picks 2 thru 20 however, are a little more debatable:

1. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
2. Painted Bunting
3. Snowy Owl
4. California Condor
5. Whooping Crane
6. Great Gray Owl
7. Atlantic Puffin
8. Elf Owl
9. Violet-crowned Hummingbird
10. Magnificent Hummingbird
11. Elegant Trogon
12. Gyrfalcon
13. Bohemian Waxwing
14. Arctic Loon
15. Horned Puffin
16. Red-cockaded Woodpecker
17. Kirtland's Warbler
18. Harlequin Duck
19. Northern Hawk Owl
20. Blue-throated Hummingbird
...........................................................................

If you haven't already seen it, this page highlights the various research interests of Auburn's Dr. Geoff Hill, now of course highlighted by the search for the Ivory-bill:

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/hill/research.html#Ivorybills


... and finally on a different note, "Ivory Bill Jones" continues his misadventures in search of IBWO here:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2782856

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

-- Auburn Group's Blog --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "volunteer" group (who are operating out of the Nokuse Plantation) of Geoff Hill's 3 Choctawhatchee Ivory-bill search teams now have a blog up-and-running. Looks very promising, though there will no doubt be certain matters they can't say too much about:

http://ibwo.blogspot.com/

A welcome addition to the blog and IBWO communities!...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Bobby Harrison Foundation --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Harrison has apparently begun the fledgling stages of a non-profit foundation for the pursuit of the Ivory-bill:

http://www.bobbyharrison.com/SiteNews.aspx

Also, another related story here:

http://www.islandpacket.com/editorial/col/thatsthat/story/6182599p-5406149c.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Reviewing the Assumptions... again --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To believe that Ivory-bills survive today one must make one underlying assumption; namely that SOME of the 100's of people to report IBWOs in the last 60 years were right. Conversely, a belief that IBWOs went extinct in the 40's requires an assumption that ALL of those 100's of claimants (eliminating the few outright hoaxes) have been mistaken, no matter how credible or knowledgeable the observer; i.e. none of the claimants are to be believed, but the judgments of all who followed these folks into the woods and failed to confirm the species ARE automatically adjudged meaningful. What are the chances?

Further, to argue for extinction one must presume that all pertinent areas of habitat have been adequately searched over time by enough competent observers, to rule out any likelihood of existence. Talk about "faith-based ornithology" --- the extinctionist stance rests completely on an unwarranted faith in the ability of scientists to have adequately searched all appropriate areas of the southeast US over the last 60 years... with cameras in hand no less, despite extensive searches being few and far between.

The Ivory-bill is not a mythical creature as some others may be (Loch Ness, Bigfoot, Martians?); everyone accepts that it existed in the 1940s (indeed, Tanner thought it existed in three dispersed locales, La., Fl., and S.C., even though he was unable to find the majority of them). For it to be alive today it needed only what all creatures need, a will to live, an impulse to breed, and a place to do both safely (as every other southeastern woodpecker succeeded in doing). Extinctionists have brought forth a pittance of evidence that it lacked any of this and yet on the basis of that pittance all-knowingly presume the species gone forever (largely for lack of a photograph).

The Ivory-bill was known to reside variously in bottomland mixed hardwoods, upland pine forest, and cypress swamps, and yet been pigeon-holed as a 'specialist' species requiring old growth habitat for survival (the fact that the last few individuals studied were in old growth forest, and that such habitat may have been favored when present is in no way an indication that it was a requirement for survival... anymore than observing college students eat pizza three days a week is an indication that pizza is a requirement for student survival). Indeed, few other birds of the American Southeast showed such specialist tendencies. (The very notion of 'specialist' versus 'generalist' is a somewhat arbitrary concoction of the human mind since all creatures have certain specialist tendencies.)

The Ivory-bill once existed; it is no longer hunted; it's potential habitat has only grown over the last several decades and is searched on but rare occasions; and other southeastern woodpecker populations have grown over that time. What is really more likely then, that there are zero left and (extraordinarily) every single reported sighting over that time is a mistake, or that some percentage of those reports are true? Given the typical creature's 'will to live' and adaptability, the typical scientists' 'rush to judgment' and overgeneralization, and the misunderstood short span of ecological time involved (60 years), and this creature's specific use of remote dense canopies, tree cavities, and rapid flight, you already know my answer to that question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- John Dennis Book --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book that may be of interest to up-and-coming Ivory-bill searchers (recently recommended by a Birdforum poster) is John Dennis's old, but still informative, volume "The Great Cypress Swamps," available through Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cypress-Swamps-John-Dennis/dp/0807115010

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

-- On Display --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not able to make it to the Choctawhatchee River to look for IBWOs this winter, a surer bet is to go to the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainsville and see two Ivory-billed specimens that will be on display through mid Jan. 2007:

http://news.ufl.edu/2006/10/18/woodpeckers/

These may be the two nesting birds that Arthur Allen famously had under observation in 1924 until the State issued a permit for them to be collected basically for historical purposes because of the species' incredible rarity... seemed like a good idea (to some officials) at the time!!!??? Go figure...

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

-- Big Birds --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat interesting speculative post and fun read from another blog today:

http://biofort.blogspot.com/2006/10/of-washington-eagles-ivory-bills-and.html

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

-- Alabama Birding Festival --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Coastal BirdFest opens this Thursday for 4 days in Fairhope, with a featured speaker being Alabama resident Bobby Harrison on his Ivory-bill experiences. He will be showing the (very) brief film footage he has which never gained any media traction, but which some claim shows an Ivory-bill in flight.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1161076554232190.xml&coll=3#continue

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

-- Conflict Brewing ??? --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arkansas it was a major irrigation project put into question; in Florida there may be an airport at stake. Before Auburn's announcement of Ivory-bills along the Choctawhatchee River a new airport was planned near Panama City near the south end of the very same river. It was already controversial before the Ivory-bill claim; it will likely become even moreso now. Here's a couple of articles on the proposed airport from a month ago (and prior to the Ivory-bill news, which comes from farther north on the river):

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/060915.asp

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/16/State/Panama_City_airport_o.shtml

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

-- Of Photos, Sagan, and Sincerity --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photos, photos, bring on the photos... skeptics keep imploring that a good photo will persuade them --- that's all that's needed. Good photos however can be faked (actually faked fairly easily, and with more effort and skill even a video can be faked)... it STIIIIIIILL ultimately comes down to a matter of trust... if you don't trust the individual submitting the photo(s), then the photos are of little value. Cynics don't believe the sightings that have been reported because they don't trust those doing the reporting --- they trust their own strained mental gymnastics but not multiple peoples' on-site observations.

Astronomer Carl Sagan believed in the existence of extraterrestrials, not because there was any hard evidence to support it (there is virtually none), but rather because there was virtually no evidence against it (except for decades of flimsy efforts to make radio contact in a few locales of the Universe), and therefore probabilistically it becomes likely. The same holds true in Ivory-bill land, except that there ARE ongoing reports decade after decade. Fa-a-a-ar more evidence exists for IBWOs than for extraterrestrials.

Given the extent of habitat rarely set foot upon by birders, and a bird that can be invisible inside tree cavities or high, dense canopies, there will be NOTHING remarkable in a confirmed discovery of Ivory-bills after 60 years. And some skeptics, having arduously painted themselves into a tight corner will sound disingenuous if they exclaim with born-again enthusiasm how great it is that the birds, yada, yada, yada, have finally been found and documented... at that point some of us will be justly skeptical of their truthfulness --- more likely certain cynics (they know who they are) would be chagrined and galled at the confirmation of this species and the skewering/spoiling of their personal credibility --- their judgments (on endangered species at least) being reduced to naivete. In a face-saving measure any such finding will be deemed 'miraculous' rather than admit that there never was any compelling evidence for the species' extinction. The prospect of living, breathing Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is likely now threatening to many (no, not all) who will be sorry to see even a single member of this species posing for a camera... but don't expect any cynics to admit this, nor to take any responsibility for the 50-year delay in finding the birds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- Some Rank-Orderings ---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state roll-call of the top dozen places to look for Ivory-bills:

1. Florida
2. Louisiana
3. Mississippi
4. Arkansas
5. (southern) Georgia
6.(southern) Alabama
7. South Carolina
8. (east) Texas
9. (west) Tennessee
10. (southern) Illinois
11. North Carolina
12. (southern) Missouri

....and a top dozen of where not to look for IBWOs:

1. Minnesota (especially Minneapolis)
2. (north, south, east, or west) Alaska
3. Hawaii (and most any other Pacific islands)
4. Maine (good for Puffins, poor for IBWOs)
5. Oregon (too rainy)
6. Wyoming (cattle yes, IBWOs not-so-much)
7. Rhode Island (a tad too few bottomland swamps)
8. New Hampshire, or is it Vermont (I always get these two mixed up)
9. New Mexico (although strange things do happen in Roswell)
10. North Dakota (or South D. for that matter)
11. Kansas (too flat)
12. Michigan (especially the Upper Peninsula)

...always tryin' to be helpful... and it's a slow news day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- This 'n That --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an odd quirk of timing yesterday, after I'd posted a link to some previous John Arvin IBWO articles (in Texas), John posted a new update to his "chronicles" on the TX. birding listserv, here:

http://www.surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=8&i=38182&t=38182#reply_38182

Also, I've been informed the contact person I listed yesterday for S.Carolina (Craig Watson) is no longer in that position, although any IBWO-related communication sent to him will get forwarded to the correct individual.

On a different matter, some weeks ago a Cornell email admitted that their final summary report for last season's search was "well overdue," and saying that it was a "joint effort with federal, state, and private agencies," and had to meet all agencies' satisfaction. before release. It will be posted on their site as soon as ready (...hopefully, before the next season begins ; - ) --- maybe, in an odd quirk of timing it will show up tomorrow!

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