Well, I've read just about everything I could find over the past few years concerning the IBW; from James Tanner's work in the 30's to the just released "The Grail Bird." All were interesting reading. Taking nothing away from Tanner, it seems to me that what he wrote about described "his" birds, at that time, in that place. I think we see now that this doesn't hold true for the bird, as a species. If we took his research as the end-all of IBW information, then we would have no IBW living into this century. Tanner's work may describe the ideal (or perhaps not) IBW habitat. Now we see that this bird can hold on, however small in numbers, in something less that what Tanner described. Perhaps what we can learn most is how little we really know about this bird as a species. One-thousand years from now, when humans are discussing the IBW, I'm sure Tanner's name will still be linked to this bird. He's a classic example of a great field ornithologist.
Also, please don't think I'm taking up for the logging industry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We need to perserve large tracks of unbroken, old-growth, bottomland forest for the IBW (as well as for other species). Indeed, other plant and animal species, all over the United States, can benefit from protecting old-growth forests.This will become more difficult in light of the Bush Administration's recent lessening of rules concerning rangeland. How anyone, claiming Christian values, can stand and take photo ops for the protection of a extremely rare bird species in Arkansas, and then within weeks, lessen protection for other rare and endangered plant and animals species in other parts of our great nation, is beyond me!