==> THEblog devoted, since 2005, to news & commentary on the most iconic bird in American ornithology, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO).... [contact: cyberthrush@gmail.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Martin used to stand on stage with an arrow through his head and a banjo in his hand, and explain that he was just a ' 'ramblin' sorta guy.' ...That's kinda how I'm feelin' these days (...without the banjo) --- so I may post a few days of ramblin' entries, 'bout things just rattlin' 'round my brain (there are many) at this point:
We'll start with Ivory-bill sounds... Lots and lots of claims by now for possible kents and double-knocks heard in search areas (indeed many recorded); even a few cases of kents and double-knocks heard in conjunction, or better yet sightings and sounds in conjunction. But still, over the entire last 4 years most sounds seem to be heard largely in isolation (with the occasional short series), and upon daily followup often not heard at all.I'd be curious to find out what we know about the repetitiveness or rate of calling or double-knocking for Ivory-bills historically, or other Campephilus species (if there is too little data for IBWO). I would've expected more sounds by now; much more. During the breeding and pre-breeding months (Jan. - April) I think one can go onto Pileated-established territory and through the day hear repeated calls from these birds. The sparse and isolated sounds of supposed Ivory-bills from many of the search areas doesn't seem normal, and is as troubling as the sparseness of the sightings. It argues for the likelihood that the sounds are not coming from live birds but from other more random sources. Or do Ivory-bills fail to 'communicate' much or regularly because they lack counterparts to communicate with? (One can always come up with explanations.)
The photo problem is similar; should there or shouldn't there be a better photo by the end of 4+ years? These large birds no doubt engage in extensive and significant foraging activity. Methodical categorizing of promising foraging sites as well as cavities in several of the search areas has been done (granted the land tracts involved are huge and many such sites may be easily missed), followed up with either remote camera or live human monitoring of the sites... and not a single adequate picture. Yes, the chances may be small of photo capture, but we only need ONE picture; not 10 or 5 or even 2, just ONE decent picture in 4 years of watching methodically, carefully-chosen sites; it is not encouraging. As I try to wrap my brain around how the last 4 years of data sync with the previous 60 years, various issues and disconnects come to mind. If other news doesn't intervene I may ramble through some of 'em in ensuing days.People sometimes get bogged down in minutia, and possibly miss the bigger picture which is more telling.... -----------------------------------------------------------------------
A somewhat extensive post, that I largely agree with, over at IBWO Researcher's Forum from "PORCAR" regarding the possibilities for Mike's Nov. 5 bird (narrowed down to 3 woodpeckers for PORCAR). The one thing he doesn't address directly that I think can't be entirely ruled out (however unlikely it seems) is a mutational Pileated (or for that matter possibly a mutation of something else):
For the moment we seem to be headed into Luneau Land on this video, but maybe the fog will lift and there will yet be a firmer consensus.
Also, thus far very minimal response over at the "Frontiers of Identification" birding site to the Collins videos. Could be, as I surmised earlier, that no one is taking them very seriously there... or, it could be just the opposite, that some folks are viewing them so seriously as to take significant time to analyze and prepare their response. But if we haven't seen more analyses posted within another week-or-so, I suspect it is the former explanation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, nice views of the extended dorsal and ventral sides of both Ivory-bill and Pileated wings from actual museum specimens HERE. (hat tip to pinguinus blog for pointing me to these.)
Additionally, Fangsheath points to one of Cornell's pages for various underwing views here:
Bill Pulliam has put up his final post on the Tennessee goings-on, essentially asking for suggestions and giving his own thoughts on how best to proceed in the next season (what works and what not so much). He plans to concentrate his limited time at Moss Island in February-March: http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-do-we-go-from-here.html
(Nothing in this post, btw, about the Pearl videos, but no doubt Bill will have more to say on that in the future.) I'm sure we wish Bill (and any other Tennessee searchers) good luck ahead. IF Ivory-bills exist in Arkansas I believe the chances of them being in west Tennessee are quite real (indeed more real than in the Pearl); but if there are no IBWOs in Arkansas (and I'm still debating that in my own mind at this point), than I'd find the Tenn. chances very slim.
If any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers yet exist, they are likely 'functionally' extinct. If we find them, recovery efforts will be made (because that's what we humans do... after we devastate a species), and they will likely be futile. If we are unwilling to set aside huge tracts of land from human encroachment for these and other creatures (and we are unwilling to do that, opting instead for 'management') than any future for them seems bleak. My best hope is that we find them, so that we can, in a sense, say our final farewells, and just maybe learn something in the process that will assist us in dealing with the 1000's more species now headed their way. And lastly, my hats off to all those who work so assiduously and selflessly, in any capacity, in conservation. Even with the occasional successes, rewards, the good people, the constant hope, any progress is very slow and almost miniscule compared to the burden-at-hand; the depressing moments and days must be abundant. Thanks for all you do.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike has posted 3 of his videos (links) over at the "Frontiers of Identification" website. I suspect a lot of folks over there are quite exasperated at spending time on fuzzy purported IBWO videos, but I'll be interested in any response that does result (so far the only guess made is that the 3 vids show a Red-headed Woodpecker, a Kingfisher, and an Anhinga).
I too spent further time with the video today and hold to my belief that no Ivory-billed Woodpecker appears here (and there are several reasons, having nothing to do with the video images themselves, why I believe that). Further, at this point in time, I don't believe there are Ivory-bills in the Pearl, the Big Thicket, the Choctawhatchee, or the Congaree... just my current opinion (always subject to change).
Don't know if it's because we now have a commenter named "spatuletail" or just coincidence, but a reader sends me this link to wonderful video of the Peruvian spatuletail hummingbird (from BBC and the incomparable David Attenborough). Enjoy... :
I'll probably review the last Pearl video again on a larger computer screen this afternoon (not expecting my conclusions to change though), and likely won't be back at my own computer before 3 or 4 pm today (EST), so in the unlikely event that any news would break you may want to keep in touch with Bill P.s site, Mike's site, or IBWO BirdForum (guessin' there will be ongoing discussion, but no major new news; links below provided as needed for quick access, or of course folks can carry on discussion here as well):
For anyone not following along over there, "Dave in Michigan" (this is NOT Dave Nolin as I initially printed) at BirdForum (different from IBWO Forum, I know this gets confusing) has posted the latest Pearl video as a series of GIFs here:
Of course, you lose the sense of flight pattern/style/speed etc. but some may find these views very helpful... or it may confuse the issue even more, depending on your point-of-view.
Addendum: I might further note that that good British bloke Dr. Martin Collinson (who we haven't heard much from for awhile) did check into BirdForum long enough to say he would be looking over the videos more closely as well and probably offering an opinion at some point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike C. has additionally eliminated the Nov. 5 video bird from contention as an Ivory-bill (another Red-headed Woodpecker? -- Addendum: Mike now doubts the likelihood of this bird being a RHWO; other suggestions have also been made; I suspect continuing analysis may reach some general consensus but still not be definitive; just my guess. And I assume Mike will leave the clip up and available while that debate continues; the Nov. 3 (with RT Hawk...) clip seems to have been taken down from consideration).
For a range of reasons far too many to delineate (and only some of which have anything to do with the latest Pearl episode), I'm rapidly moving to the view that there are NO Ivory-bills residing in the Pearl (possibly some in central La. or southwestern Mississippi that might occasionally stray through the Pearl, but none residing). The Pearl has been combed over extensively in the last decade by good birders, and I believe the conclusion of Cornell, Fish and Wildlife, and most competent, experienced Louisiana birders is that the species ISNOT there. As always, my mind is open to be changed with new evidence, but I find no evidence from the last 4 years even close to persuasive (and I won't take the time to summarize what has transpired in the last week of hyperbole and miscues).
Those who have only entered this story since Cornell's 2005 announcement, now should have a greater appreciation for why there are so many strongly-inclined skeptics. What we have witnessed in the last 4 years is so reminiscent of what occurred over and over for 50 years prior. Nothing new here, just the same story of claims made and claims unverified that repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats. Various individuals through the 50's, 60's, 70's really did painstaking followups to most of the better claims back then (as painstaking, as single individuals or small groups could do), and came up empty. They must be shaking their heads back and forth in a knowing fashion now, maybe chuckling under their breath (while also sad at these outcomes), and feeling deja vu, deja vu, deja vu. This story has never ended as wished in 60+ years. That's the bad news.
Having said all that, people need to realize that before 2004 there was not major interest in the Big Woods, the Choctawhatchee, or the Pearl as potential home for IBWO (a few individuals voiced interest in parts of the Big Woods, but basically none of these areas would've made any typical Top 10 list for IBWO potential, in say 2003). So even eliminating all these areas from interest now (if one chose to do so), still leaves historically-promising areas in contention: Apalachicola/Chipola, Atchafalaya, Pascagoula, Congaree, and several others. I'll await to see what the final official report has to say about such long-time locales of interest (and some newer locales as well). Can any (or all?) now be eliminated? Are certain ones especially deserving of additional special attention? Can they be rank-ordered in some meaningful way for future searchers, or will we, after four years, just be handed the same laundry-list of places that were already known, before $10 million was spent? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a comment below (prior post), "spatuletail" inquires about the "wingbeat frequency" in the videos....
However, a problem with the measurement of flaps, speeds etc. is that we have little good historical basis or data on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker for comparison, so it all quickly becomes highly speculative. But moreover, there is no such thing, for example, as A cruising speed for a bird; there are cruising speeds; it depends on too many variables. Is it really cruising or is it being chased (or spooked) or chasing something; is it flying into the wind or with the wind; is it flying long distance or from one branch to another 30 yards away; is it flying above the trees or through the forest; is it sick or injured or tired or well; is it a young juvenile or a gravid female; is it hungry or full; and on and on. These are living, breathing creatures, not marbles on a tabletop that can be easily calculated and predicted. Yes, there are physical constraints that will put a defined range on what, for example the "flap rate" of a given bird might be, but the variables are many and complex, and just a couple of values mis-calculated slightly at the beginning of the process can result in a final computed value that is considerably off.
Don't misunderstand, I'm all for every technical analysis at our disposal being employed and thrown into the mix on these things. Just saying many of them have to be taken with a huge non-definitive grain of salt. It is why, for me, the evidence I've weighed most heavily over the years are sightings from knowledgeable, capable observers who feel certain they've seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker (and, yes, those too can be mistaken), rather than the evidentiary material that comes from any after-the-fact analysis or hindsight, involving a myriad of intervening variables. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
But worth reading his 11-7 entry [http://www.fishcrow.com/winter10.html], where he's now discounting, on the basis of size, the clip which I previously considered his most interesting one (prior post). And I don't believe there's much chance the "gliding" bird clip will be reviewed as an IBWO-contender either. So that leaves just the "flushed" bird clip (I don't think it's determinable, but just my personal opinion), and now the new video, which once again has tantalizing frames, but also I think has significant issues. I suspect most will recognize the traits that are IBWO-like in this footage, so once again I'm really more interested in hearing from the skeptical side what is NOT IBWO-like in this bird, and what alternatives you favor (and no longer need to respond to the prior clip which I had focused on). (Mike is altering his log entries BTW, and this could make it difficult/confusing to follow this story if you entered late and read other people's previous references to his various posts over the last few days, which he's now re-written.) Again, I'm seeing less and less here to get excited over, but still willing to be convinced otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems likely that the bird flying leftward through the gap is the most interesting of the clips Mike has thus far posted (more interesting clips may yet appear):
There is probably room for debate over the size of this bird, and of course leucism or plumage mutation can never be completely ruled out, but putting those things aside (and assuming the film authentic), I'd be curious to hear specifically from "skeptics" what alternative takes on the clip they might have? Anyone of course is free to comment below, but honestly I'm especially interested to hear interpretations/comments from doubters (if there are even any skeptics who still read this blog ;-))...
(Possibly an upcoming post from Mike will make the above clip moot, or my same question may then apply to the new clip.) p.s. --- if you are unable to use the "comments" section, feel free to email your thoughts to me; just let me know if they are for my eyes only, or can be transferred to the comments section under an "anonymous" or other heading.
I'll try to leave the direct link to Mike's journal page near the blog top (for easy access) while this whole episode or process plays itself out (and I have no idea how long that will take, nor am I convinced that a consensus resolution on Mike's videos will be attained... but we can keep our fingers crossed).
To head into the weekend, just some words from Julie Zickefoose written 10 years ago at the end of a 'Bird Watcher's Digest' piece on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (long before the whole Arkansas story even broke):
"We've sent it [IBWO] countless messages with our saws and our columns of smoke. Leave or die out. Find somewhere else to live. This land is our land, now. And it just doesn't listen to us; it goes on, somewhere, I have to believe it; not dead, but missing in action; alive, defiantly, desperately, joyously, alive. No one can tell me I'm wrong, and, it seems, no one can tell me I'm right. There are those of us who cannot let it go."
Maybe something else will come along to pique readers' interest in the meantime... :-)
....Hits at the blog spiked considerably the last 24 hours --- even at this late date, despite all the naysayers and folks who've abandoned this saga, any glimmer of a new prospective video of the Ghost Bird ripples excitation through the ranks --- it says something wonderful about hope and the impact of this marvelous bird on the human psyche! But we've been down this road before (many many times), and may be best to restrain expectations until some dust settles. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic footage of a Peruvian crested woodpecker attacked by a large green tree snake at a nestsite(?) --- don't know which is more amazing, the snake's speed or the woodpecker's persistence (snake attack begins around the 37-second mark, so you can be ready):
(hat tip to BirdChick for this one) -------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone not reading the comments sections here, and thus unaware, Mike C. has posted recent video from the Pearl (La.) which he believes to be of Ivory-bills. Go to this link and scroll down to 11/3 - 11/4 posts: http://www.fishcrow.com/winter10.html
Certain frames/aspects of the clips are interesting (indeed, the more I watch the more intrigued I am, while also having doubts). We may be headed once again straight into Luneau-video unresolvable la-la land, but will be curious to see what various others have to say, and interested to see what Mike uncovers on follow-up visits to same area (...or has this nomadic bird already moved 5 miles up the road ;-) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
More Tennessee summary thoughts from Bill P. HERE.
The similarity between the Moss Island experience and that of observers elsewhere is striking. As Bill himself concludes, this "bird moves a LOT." No matter what 'hot zones' searchers establish, when they scour the area with increased people or increased searches, instead of confirming or pinpointing the bird, it seems to just move on. Very odd. Certainly during the nesting season, but even otherwise, one would expect it to have a restricted home base that it would return to every evening if not throughout the day, even while foraging might indeed take it very far afield (if it is feeding young though it must return again and again). Or must the bird constantly move from place to place for new food resources in diminished and fragmented forest? This persistent lack of repeatability and final confirmation (very unlike other endangered species that are re-discovered) is what understandably drives skeptics nuts. No matter how many or how good the birders, or how often in the field, 'hot zones' just seem to evaporate or move on down the road. Bill attempts to surmise some parameters of the potential bird's behavior, and surmise is all we can do for now.
Again, the only solution seems to be to find an active nest site. And we've already tried human perseverance, skills, technology, and greed ($50,000 rewards ;-)) to do just that. What we seem to need is a copious dose of pure dang luck. It was certainly only luck that put Gene Sparling in a certain place at a certain moment in time to begin this whole affair, and maybe only luck can bring it to the conclusion we wish for... if such a conclusion exists. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a long mish-mash of random things a'buggin' me:
1) People keep talking about how poor/inadequate automatic cameras have been in this search... funny thing though, those dicey, poor, crummy, worthless devices DID get decent pics of Pileateds, flickers, songbirds, squirrels along the way... just NO Ivory-bills. I agree the chance of any one camera capturing the bird we want is slim-to-none, but there have been 100's of deployments and millions of pictures by now (which increases that probability signifcantly), and, still, no IBWO... THAT is concerning. Moreover, in truth, I fully expected the advanced ACONE system used in Arkansas, even with all its downtime, to get the bird on film (again, it captured plenty of other identifiable species), but nada. Still, the lack of a decent photo after 2 years of searches was no big deal; after 3 years disappointing, but still plausible; but after 4 years (and really 5, counting Cornell's initial year-in-secret) it becomes increasingly problematic. Recall too that when Cornell discovered a leucistic Pileated Woodpecker cavorting around the Big Woods, pictures followed in short-order. Things just don't add up well. Even if we have to find a nesthole to get pics... well, 5 years seems like perhaps enough time to have done that... just once, that's all we need.The planning of search procedures, despite flaws, often seem on paper, to make good sense, so what's gone wrong in the execution I'm not sure.
2) Even without technical analysis the bird in the Luneau video always looked to me like an IBWO; or to be more accurate, maybe I should say it looks NON-PIWO-like. BUT, I have to respect the field identification skills of Jerry Jackson and David Sibley --- that both of these individuals can look at that film clip and UNHESITATINGLY perceive a PIWO gives one pause. Their "analysis" of the video means little to me; but their immediate, subjective impression ("gizz" as it were) of this bird as a normal Pileated actually DOES carry weight for me. And that's what they perceived from the get-go, not after extensive consideration or technological manipulations. I've written before that I take the "gizz" of bird identification, from experienced birders, at least as seriously as I take any after-the-fact delineation of field marks from memory. (But again, I don't ultimately regard the Luneau clip as a resolvable, or even important, piece of evidence in this saga; it simply turned into a terrible side distraction.)
3) Most, including Cornell, focus on habitat in trying to decide where to expend energy looking for IBWOs... and so they've focused strongly on South Carolina's Congaree, where possibly the best habitat remains (and credible claims have also been made). I'm slightly less interested in habitat though, and more interested in probabilities... specifically, the probability that a species could hang out in a given area for 60+ years and evade detection. I think it unlikely (though by no means impossible) that IBWOs remain in South Carolina, where they've been looked for extensively over six decades, but much more plausible that they could move back-and-forth along forest and river corridors of the Gulf Coast (La./Miss. to Fla) over that same amount of time and evade human encounter. And as I previously wrote, the possibility of a more northerly population (again with wooded and riverine corridors) between Ark.--Mo.--Illinois--Tenn. (where they were never extensively looked for), also intrigues. Someone still has to convince me that the glimpses and sounds from S.C. are so much better than those from elsewhere as to merit the time and money expended there --- if Ivory-bills are still with us it is almost certainly because their progeny adapted, and DO NOT require the quality of habitat offered in the Congaree.
4) Martjan Lammertink is highly regarded as one of the world's premier experts on woodpeckers, especially large, endangered ones. In 1995 though I was surprised (indeed, incredulous) when he published a paper entitled "No More Hope for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker." It focused on the Cuban Ivory-bill subspecies which he'd concluded was gone, after an unsuccessful search. Yet without any similar extensive search in the U.S., Lammertink was apparently willing to write off the North American Ivory-bill as well, based solely on the views of others who had already concluded such. For someone regarded as a leading expert to proclaim "no more hope" seemed almost irresponsibly loose and premature language. That was odd enough... But I was even more surprised, 10 years later, when Cornell made their stunning announcement of the Ivory-bill's re-discovery in Arkansas, to see that Lammertink was part of the field team... someone I would've expected to be a skeptic, if there were to be skeptics... someone who's very academic reputation might even be compromised by finding the Ivory-bill alive 10 years after he'd summarily proclaimed it gone. Indeed Lammertink's association with the announcement and field work (his willingness to so publicly alter his view) was one of the many things which I thought lent the claims substantial credibility. Lammertink never saw the Ivory-bill himself, but after declaring "no hope" for it a decade earlier, now acknowledged very suitable habitat for it in central Arkansas, and apparently became a believer... over the ensuing years as part of Cornell's Mobile Team he found more potentially suitable habitat across the Southeast (although, funny, these were the same locations that had been talked, rumored, and/or written about for six decades --- not like they were ever any huge secret). What a difference 10 years makes, I guess... from zero hope, to a mini-assortment of locales the species just might hang out.
The recent Ivory-bill saga is chock-full of ironies: Lammertink the doubter becoming a believer; Cornell, having done little on behalf of the IBWO since the 40's also becomes a cheerleader only when one of their own, Tim Gallagher, reports seeing it up close and personal. Meanwhile, Jerry Jackson, possibly the Ivory-bill's most vocal advocate for decades becomes among the first serious doubters of the Cornell claims. The best birders and ornithologists in America can't find the bird, yet amateurs do on occasion. Just as Cornell claims for Arkansas are fizzling, an unheard-of Auburn team announces even more IBWO encounters in an out-of-the-way patch of N. Florida... only to then go the same way as the Arkansas findings. The one-time birding gold-standard of repeatable sightings now barely means anything, while people apply physics to fuzzy video to try and convince skeptics. Every other place we look intensely, or so it seems, putative sounds and scrapings materialize as if by magic, but the 20" Houdini bird itself eludes us. It's almost as if we've stepped into some topsy-turvy, Alice-in-Wonderland Through-the-Looking-Glass-World... I thought I knew my way, but am now feeling less than sure-footed... and half-expect to run into the Red Queen any day now.
None of this means I think the Ivory-bill gone; indeed, for now, I'm persuaded of its presence (even as my confidence level shrinks)... I'm just less certain than ever, where, in what numbers, and for how much longer.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------
