Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Rowlands]

see http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=556261#post556261

Tim

2005 IUCN Red List Category (as evaluated by BirdLife International - the official Red List Authority for birds for IUCN): Critically Endangered

From http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=719&m=0

 

[MMinNY]

I am aware of Jackson's role in keeping the IBWO on the list, and that is to his credit; however, his past actions don't excuse some of his recent public statements, in my opinion. This is not about his skepticism, it's about the rhetoric he has used, rhetoric that is far too easily recruited in service of a deeply anti-environmental agenda, as has already happened. Also, and this has been observed elsewhere, some of Jackson's assertions in his Auk paper directly contradict things he has written about the IBWO in the past. As a consequence of these factors, I mistrust his motives and suspect he did not arrive at his conclusions based on a truly open-minded and objective analysis of the evidence.

By way of contrast, I personally don't agree with Sibley, but I think he has advanced his position in a responsible manner, even though some headline writers have misrepresented his views. I have no reason to doubt his motives or his objectivity. There is an enormous difference between Sibley's paper and Jackson's, and I think this is evident from the tone of the writing alone.

I hope I'm not straying too far off topic here, and I'm trying to get at something other than the debate over existence. This is more of a meta-examination of how the process of analyzing the data proceeds; it is important to raise questions; it is important to challenge material that is presented and suggest alternative hypotheses; I don't think those of us who believe Mike Collins or the Cornell people would have it any other way. Close analysis and rigorous questioning of evidence is an integral part of the search for truth. At the same time, for example, it doesn't serve anyone to accuse reasonable people who arrive at a certain interpretation of the evidence of engaging in "wishful thinking," simply because you don't agree with them.

FYI....Jerry Jackson is routinely credited as the person most responsible for keeping the USFWS from declaring the Ivory-bill extinct.

 

[choupique1]

I am aware of Jackson's role in keeping the IBWO on the list, and that is to his credit; however, his past actions don't excuse some of his recent public statements, in my opinion. This is not about his skepticism, it's about the rhetoric he has used, rhetoric that is far too easily recruited in service of a deeply anti-environmental agenda, as has already happened. Also, and this has been observed elsewhere, some of Jackson's assertions in his Auk paper directly contradict things he has written about the IBWO in the past. As a consequence of these factors, I mistrust his motives and suspect he did not arrive at his conclusions based on a truly open-minded and objective analysis of the evidence.

By way of contrast, I personally don't agree with Sibley, but I think he has advanced his position in a responsible manner, even though some headline writers have misrepresented his views. I have no reason to doubt his motives or his objectivity. There is an enormous difference between Sibley's paper and Jackson's, and I think this is evident from the tone of the writing alone.

I hope I'm not straying too far off topic here, and I'm trying to get at something other than the debate over existence. This is more of a meta-examination of how the process of analyzing the data proceeds; it is important to raise questions; it is important to challenge material that is presented and suggest alternative hypotheses; I don't think those of us who believe Mike Collins or the Cornell people would have it any other way. Close analysis and rigorous questioning of evidence is an integral part of the search for truth. At the same time, for example, it doesn't serve anyone to accuse reasonable people who arrive at a certain interpretation of the evidence of engaging in "wishful thinking," simply because you don't agree with them.

there are many reasons the IBWO was never declared extinct.........the most imposing... because it is not....

 

[Curtis Croulet]

there are many reasons the IBWO was never declared extinct.........the most imposing... because it is not....

To make this opinion universal, we'll need more than we've got. Go get it, Mike.

 

[SBauer]

there are many reasons the IBWO was never declared extinct.........the most imposing... because it is not....

Actually, I'll have to disagree with you on that -- not that it's not extinct, but that that had nothing to do with it not being declared extinct.

 

[humminbird]

Actually, I'll have to disagree with you on that -- not that it's not extinct, but that that had nothing to do with it not being declared extinct.

Many animals have been declared extinct that turned out not to be. Can we all say coelocanth? Or Dusky Starfrontlet?

 

[fangsheath]

It is indeed important and valuable to raise questions and examine each piece of evidence critically. In this thread, though, it must be done in the context of aiding searchers and/or ivory-bill conservation. For example, if someone comes forward with, "Here is a photo of a pileated with a crest that appears similar to that of the bird in Mike's video," that is fine. Or, "How much do we really know about ivory-bill double-knocks?" These are relevant to the main purposes of this thread, helping to find, document, and protect ivory-bills. On the other hand, if someone repeats, for the hundredth time, "You don't have proof," I consider that unhelpful and adversarial to our purpose. Some seem to want to argue endlessly about whether the Luneau video or other evidence is proof. That is not the purpose of this thread. If someone says, "Wingbeat rates in pileateds are variable, so we can forget about that," I consider that unhelpful, NOT at all critical analysis, no analysis at all in fact, dismissive and counterproductive. It is not insight. It is mere debate.

This is a searcher's forum. It has a very specific purpose. No, you don't have to be a searcher to post. You just have to be trying to help us find, document, and protect the birds.

 

[MMinNY]

Thanks Fang, and I agree wholeheartedly. I was seriously considering deleting last night's post, but I was trying to get at something that seemed worth addressing, and others had already responded this morning. You've done a very good job at putting a finer point on my general idea and making clear how it relates to this thread.

It is indeed important and valuable to raise questions and examine each piece of evidence critically. In this thread, though, it must be done in the context of aiding searchers and/or ivory-bill conservation. For example, if someone comes forward with, "Here is a photo of a pileated with a crest that appears similar to that of the bird in Mike's video," that is fine. Or, "How much do we really know about ivory-bill double-knocks?" These are relevant to the main purposes of this thread, helping to find, document, and protect ivory-bills. On the other hand, if someone repeats, for the hundredth time, "You don't have proof," I consider that unhelpful and adversarial to our purpose. Some seem to want to argue endlessly about whether the Luneau video or other evidence is proof. That is not the purpose of this thread. If someone says, "Wingbeat rates in pileateds are variable, so we can forget about that," I consider that unhelpful, NOT at all critical analysis, no analysis at all in fact, dismissive and counterproductive. It is not insight. It is mere debate.

This is a searcher's forum. It has a very specific purpose. No, you don't have to be a searcher to post. You just have to be trying to help us find, document, and protect the birds.

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

trying to help

It is indeed important and valuable to raise questions and examine each piece of evidence critically. In this thread, though, it must be done in the context of aiding searchers and/or ivory-bill conservation. For example, if someone comes forward with, "Here is a photo of a pileated with a crest that appears similar to that of the bird in Mike's video," that is fine. Or, "How much do we really know about ivory-bill double-knocks?" These are relevant to the main purposes of this thread, helping to find, document, and protect ivory-bills. On the other hand, if someone repeats, for the hundredth time, "You don't have proof," I consider that unhelpful and adversarial to our purpose. Some seem to want to argue endlessly about whether the Luneau video or other evidence is proof. That is not the purpose of this thread. If someone says, "Wingbeat rates in pileateds are variable, so we can forget about that," I consider that unhelpful, NOT at all critical analysis, no analysis at all in fact, dismissive and counterproductive. It is not insight. It is mere debate.

This is a searcher's forum. It has a very specific purpose. No, you don't have to be a searcher to post. You just have to be trying to help us find, document, and protect the birds.

OK, here's something Roger Tory Peterson wrote about HIS sighting in 1942; can't argue with this sighting ... after all, the man invented birding.
OK, well I feel there's a lot of useful insights here ... read through the text. It took him two days to find the IBWP; but once he had found them, he was able to observe them for a while. And the same goes for other accepted sightings... James Tanner, and the IBWP sightings in Cuba in 1948 where a nice photo was taken of a bird (was that Dennis ? I believe so)

So, if the bird is present in the area where you search, it might take a few days before you can locate it, but eventually it should be possible to observe it for a while - if it is present in the area that is; and of course, it should be possible then to take some pictures ... easy.

So : not easy to locate at first, but once located, it is possible to observe and photograph.

I am personally not convinced that this species has undergone an evolution to become all of a sudden very shy and wary and developped stealth techniques ... not possible; it would explain of course why Gallagher and Cornell can't (?) come up with proof .... but this explanation is too damn easy really. If Cornell and Gallagher DO have solid proof and HAVE indeed done good observations, it's about f$£%ing time they come up with it and make this public so that this agony for all them good people who believe in this bird stops; we all have a right to know ! They are to blame really if we fight about yes or no on this forum. So I challenge them here to share some of their insights so far ... why the secrecy ? Nobody who is sane in his mind is going to go after an ultra-rare species to shoot it to sell it's skin ?!?


Note also what Kuhn said to Peterson - indication of the best time to go out listening and searching ...

Here goes :

"In May 1942, I joined my friend Bayard Christy at a little hotel in Tallulah, Louisiana, hoping to see an ivory-bill in an expanse of swamp called the Singer Tract. Our guide was a local woodsman by the name of Kuhn, a man of great integrity who probably had seen as many ivory-bills as anyone at that time. Christy, just turned 70, said the ivory-bill was the bird he most wished to see before he died.
Setting the pace with his long swinging stride, Kuhn led us toward a section of swamp where a pair of ivory-bills had roosted the year before. He urged us to step along quickly, because the best time to locate ivory-bills is when they first leave their roosting holes in the morning. "Then they talk more," he explained.
By early afternoon we must have covered 15 or 20 miles (25 or 30 km.) within a block of woodland less than 2 or 3 miles square (7 sq. km.). We crossed and crisscrossed the best part of the swamp. Deer leaped from our path and stood watching from the shadows. The tracks of turkeys and raccoons laced the soft mud, and we even found some large round prints that Kuhn said were made by a panther. We saw many trees where ivory-bills had been at work.
Late in the afternoon, we found a hole that looked promising. We planned to watch it that evening, suspecting it might be the ivory-bills' roosting hollow, but our hopes were dashed when, at dusk, a fox squirrel entered it.
The next morning, Christy and I started out on our own. A small magnetic compass was our only guide, but we had a good mental picture of this part of the Singer Tract. We knew that the road extended from east to west and that John's Bayou crossed it from north to south. We picked our way over the same ground as the day before, alert for rattlesnakes camouflaged by the dry, silt-covered leaves. We waded the turbid waters of John's Bayou and tried the woodlands on the west bank. We found wolf tracks in the yellow mud along the margin of the stream. Many trees peeled of bark indicated that ivory-billed woodpeckers were about, but we saw none of the birds.
By noon, we were back at the spot down the road where we had seen so many diggings the day before. Hardly had we gone 100 yards (90 m.) when a startling new sound came from our right - a tooting note, musical in a staccato sort of way - a call of the ivory-bill. I had expected it to sound more like the "toy tin trumpet" described by early nineteenth-century ornithologist Alexander Wilson, or the "clarinet" of John James Audubon, the most renowned bird painter of the 1800s. What I heard was different, more of a henk, henk. An occasional blow would land - whop! - like the sound of an axe, as the woodpecker hammered a tree. Straining our eyes, we discovered the first bird, half hidden by the leafage, and in a moment the bird leaped into full sunlight.
A whacking big bird it was, with great white patches on its wings and a gleaming white bill. By its long, recurved crest of jet black, we knew it was a female. Tossing her hammerlike head to right and left, she tested a diseased tree trunk with a whack or two. Then she pitched off in a straight line, her wings making a wooden sound.
Then we spotted a second bird, which also proved to be a female. We had no trouble following the two, for as soon as they landed they betrayed their location by issuing their henk, henk call. Six months later, John Baker, president of the National Audubon Society, visited the same spot and saw only one female.
Observers in the Singer Tract reported what was presumably the same bird as late as 1946. The species had reached the end, though, and like the woodlands it inhabited, slipped into oblivion in North America. In the 1980s, ornithologists spotted ivory-bills in Cuba, but reports now say that the last of these birds are gone, too. "Extinction is forever," the saying goes. The ivory-billed woodpecker exists today only in the memories of birders."

(last sentence are Peterson's words - not mine; I remain open to all options)

 

[jurek]

Who can say how much distance can be covered by observer looking for woodpeckers paddling in the swamp forest? My guess it is rather little compared to IBWO suspected territory.

And another question - how likely is that IBWO are shot at by minority of duck hunters? Let's forget this "alliance with duck hunters who protected habitat" for a moment. Duck hunters in parts of Europe are notoriously bad in shooting non-huntable species. This may explain shyness of IBWO.

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

... Look here my friend - they've been paddling around those swamps for over two years now... 2 YEARS. Right ? Methinks they covered at least a considerable part of the area by now.
As for the duck hunters - well read some of the postings in the IBWP threads on this forum; some of the people here who claim to have seen Ivory-billed wp recently say themselves they are duck hunters, not birders ... so ?
Actually, the species was most heavily persecuted in the years just before 1900, when it's extinction became more and more apparent everybody, from collector to respected ornithologist, wanted skins and shot at the birds. So why didn't they change their behaviour there and then ?

 

[choupique1]

Who can say how much distance can be covered by observer looking for woodpeckers paddling in the swamp forest? My guess it is rather little compared to IBWO suspected territory.

And another question - how likely is that IBWO are shot at by minority of duck hunters? Let's forget this "alliance with duck hunters who protected habitat" for a moment. Duck hunters in parts of Europe are notoriously bad in shooting non-huntable species. This may explain shyness of IBWO.

distance.... depends on the stealthiness and skill of the individual... and terrain.. the variables are infinite...

as for duck hunters here shooting at an IBWO.... very, very, very unlikely....

1. the first birds to fly.. in the zones where IBWOs are are woodducks and they do so at first light for quite and in the initial flurries... many hunters get their daily limit of woodies(which is 2).. after which them must be very careful if they continue hunting(many in woodie holes - get their two and get out quickly)... if they stay. the other ducks usually taken are mallards which look and fly absolutely NOTHING like and IBWO.... I have seen a couple of IBWOs on duck hunts... they were around an hour after sunrise..and CLEARLY not ducks... considering the cost of non-toxic shot(which must be used in duck hunting in the states).... duck hunters are very apt not to shoot at birds that are not ducks... additionally doing so scares off ducks..... the duck the look most like in the air is a hooded merganser... and hooded mergansers are generally not a highly sought after bird... ie.. MOST hunters pass on them...... IBWOs.. also quickly learn to avoid areas used by hunters... keep in mind.. effective shotgun range with waterfowl shot is 40 yards and less..... IBWOs are a LOT more wary than ducks...

duck hunters because of varying bag limits and seasons on certain species.. have to be very good at spot ID on birds... heck a seasoned retreiver doesn't turn the heads up at ANY birds except ducks and geese....

 

[MMinNY]

I don't think it's necessary to assume that wariness is a newly evolved trait. Other historical accounts describe the IBWO as wary. Here's a link to an 1898 example:

http://www.birdnature.com/mar1898/ivorybilledwood.html

Most suggestions to the contrary pertain to nesting birds, though this is not clear in the Peterson quote above.

There is simply not enough historical data to reach any firm conclusions about IBWO habits in the past, so to suggest that wariness is a newly developed characteristic strikes me as pure speculation.

Virtually all of those who claim recent encounters, including Jerome Jackson in his 1987 report, indicate that the bird is extremely wary. Steve Sheridan is perhaps an exception. But anyone who is actively engaged in searching should be prepared to be quite stealthy.

 

[jurek]

... Look here my friend - they've been paddling around those swamps for over two years now... 2 YEARS. Right ? Methinks they covered at least a considerable part of the area by now.
As for the duck hunters - well read some of the postings in the IBWP threads on this forum; some of the people here who claim to have seen Ivory-billed wp recently say themselves they are duck hunters, not birders ... so ?
Actually, the species was most heavily persecuted in the years just before 1900, when it's extinction became more and more apparent everybody, from collector to respected ornithologist, wanted skins and shot at the birds. So why didn't they change their behaviour there and then ?

I am not trying to tell that observers are somehow bad because they cannot row faster or so.

I think matter of covering ground may limit seeing ivorybill. To see rare and mobile species in the forest, you need to cover long, long distances, so by chance you come upon a patch where animal is on that day and, with luck, have a nice observation. If IBWO has estimated territory of 1600 ha, or more, then you need to cover lots of ground before you come at distance where it can be seen. For me this explains why it is so difficult to see.

And congratulations to have well behaved duck hunters. In Europe many shot at every bird which provokes them by flying close.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

GreatHornedOwl: Move this discussion to the "updates" thread

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

GreatHornedOwl: Move this discussion to the "updates" thread

... rather, "GreatHornedOwl, would you please be so kind to move this discussion to the updates thread ? Thank you very much." (+ acceptable reason for that request)

I value politeness and I don't like to be spoken at in short sentences or bullied, certainly not after I helpfully posted a description of a sighting that offers valuable insights to help anybody who's interested in searching IBWP's. And I'm not moving anything (I can't - guess only forum staff can do that ... )
Besides, I'm entitled to my opinion too. My opinion is that searching should continue, but also that searchers should produce some solid proof after 2 years.

I personally feel that the video on the Fish crow website is interesting, and it shows a bird that has something Campephilus about it - this one should be further investigated (but not for years on end !) and I'd like to hear some news about that.

If the forum admin thinks it is better to move my postings to another thread, then that's ok for me.

Regards

 

[MMinNY]

I think that Curtis was responding to the tone of your earlier posts, and your remarks about Cornell in particular. If he was a bit curt, it's because this topic has generated a lot of heat and your own language was not exactly temperate. Fangsheath's post from earlier today should be helpful in explaining the purpose of this forum. The question of "solid proof" is not an appropriate topic. I do think the issues around wariness you raised are worthy of discussion, and that's why I responded to those specifically but did not address you directly or engage with the rest of your post.

... rather, "GreatHornedOwl, would you please be so kind to move this discussion to the updates thread ? Thank you very much." (+ acceptable reason for that request)

I value politeness and I don't like to be spoken at in short sentences or bullied, certainly not after I helpfully posted a description of a sighting that offers valuable insights to help anybody who's interested in searching IBWP's. And I'm not moving anything (I can't - guess only forum staff can do that ... )
Besides, I'm entitled to my opinion too. My opinion is that searching should continue, but also that searchers should produce some solid proof after 2 years.

I personally feel that the video on the Fish crow website is interesting, and it shows a bird that has something Campephilus about it - this one should be further investigated (but not for years on end !) and I'd like to hear some news about that.

If the forum admin thinks it is better to move my postings to another thread, then that's ok for me.

Regards

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

I think that Curtis was responding to the tone of your earlier posts, and your remarks about Cornell in particular. If he was a bit curt, it's because this topic has generated a lot of heat. Fangsheath's post from earlier today should be helpful in explaining the purpose of this forum. The question of "solid proof" is not an appropriate topic. I do think the issues around wariness you raised are worthy of discussion, and that's why I responded to those specifically but did not address you directly or engage with the rest of your post.

OK for me. Thanks for your posting.

But you do agree then that there are some issues around the wariness of Ivorybills in the past and present ?
What are your thoughts on this subject ? You have probably read James Tanner too, how can it be that present day Ivorybills are much more wary ? They haven't been persecuted for ages.

Also, I wanted to indicate to searchers the best time to go searching - in the morning, when it is most vocal.

In all the old stories, this is a species which hangs around in the same area/territory; once found, it was possible to observe them and photograph them; of course, they have to be found first !

Now. About the story of "long ranging" "long distance" Ivorybills - how their long wings might suggest this is a nomadic species; this was a theory of J.Tanner, I believe he said that a long time after he saw IBWP in the Singer Tract ... it was hypothetical, an explanation how Ivorybills possibly may have moved into another area and survived after the Singer Ttract was logged over.
The longer wings may have been an aid when foraging about in such a vast territory as these birds had, but they DID have territories in which they nested and preferred to hang around.

I think searchers should do as Peterson and Tanner did - listen to "kent" calls, looking for feeding signs on trees, and zoom in on a territory. I guess that is just what they do ?

A note on imitating kent calling - I believe Tanner wrote it didn't work, it could never fool the woodpeckers; they responded however when he hit a tree with a stick - the double rap (wonder how he did that ... ). Anyway. Perhaps hitting the trees might provoke a response ?

Also : acc. to Tanner, the birds were inquisitive (... so not really wary!) - when he hammered some nails in a tree to climb up, they came to investigate the nails, strange objects in their territory to them - one even briefly hammered the nails.

Hope this helps,

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

... a note on the woodpecker that made a pass at a decoy - now that makes sense; there is probably a territory in that area, though it still must be found out wether Ivorybill or Pileated. Decoys, hammering the trees, etc. ... all things that provoke a territorial response !
kent call = communication between partners - birds can't be fooled - forget it.
double rap = territorial display - bird responds
decoy = provocation - unwanted woodpecker in territory - bird responds

 

[MMinNY]

A few thoughts -- I guess I don't agree because I just don't think there's enough data to jump to any conclusions about wariness and whether it's a new trait or an old one. Tanner's study is the only one that was done in any depth, and it was an analysis of one isolated population that was probably quite stressed at the time.

Tanner actually did indicate that the birds were very difficult to locate, and he only managed to do so with the help of a guide. As far as I'm aware, the lack of wariness he described only applied to nesting locations, which makes a good deal of sense.

Tanner also indicated that the birds are probably nomadic and are capable of travelling great distances depending on food supply. (pp. 35-36).

I'm sure the Cornell team is using some of the tactics you've described, but whether they work or not remains to be seen. There has been some discussion either on this thread or the former updates thread about whether having a large team of searchers is the best way to go. Like everything else, that too remains to be seen; I have my doubts, but I'm not sure what else they could do under the circumstances. It will be interesting to see what additional evidence the Arkansas search produces in a month or so; Cornell has made it clear they won't release it until the end of the season, and I think this is a sensible decision on their part. I think they're likely to have more evidence, but whether it will be enough to convince the reasonable skeptics is an open question.

There are simply too many unknowns at this point to arrive at any conclusions. It even seems possible that the bird or birds seen in Arkansas are lone young males that have moved out of other more remote territories (perhaps in Louisiana) that could no longer support them. This scenario would help explain some of the difficulties Cornell has encountered in getting more conclusive documentation. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part, but this type of thing is not uncommon in animals of all sorts - witness the young male coyote that was just captured in New York's Central Park. Again, I am not saying this is the case, just that it's possible, and one can only hope that we have the opportunity to learn more.

OK for me. Thanks for your posting.

But you do agree then that there are some issues around the wariness of Ivorybills in the past and present ?
What are your thoughts on this subject ? You have probably read James Tanner too, how can it be that present day Ivorybills are much more wary ? They haven't been persecuted for ages.

Also, I wanted to indicate to searchers the best time to go searching - in the morning, when it is most vocal.

In all the old stories, this is a species which hangs around in the same area/territory; once found, it was possible to observe them and photograph them; of course, they have to be found first !

Now. About the story of "long ranging" "long distance" Ivorybills - how their long wings might suggest this is a nomadic species; this was a theory of J.Tanner, I believe he said that a long time after he saw IBWP in the Singer Tract ... it was hypothetical, an explanation how Ivorybills possibly may have moved into another area and survived after the Singer Ttract was logged over.
The longer wings may have been an aid when foraging about in such a vast territory as these birds had, but they DID have territories in which they nested and preferred to hang around.

I think searchers should do as Peterson and Tanner did - listen to "kent" calls, looking for feeding signs on trees, and zoom in on a territory. I guess that is just what they do ?

A note on imitating kent calling - I believe Tanner wrote it didn't work, it could never fool the woodpeckers; they responded however when he hit a tree with a stick - the double rap (wonder how he did that ... ). Anyway. Perhaps hitting the trees might provoke a response ?

Also : acc. to Tanner, the birds were inquisitive (... so not really wary!) - when he hammered some nails in a tree to climb up, they came to investigate the nails, strange objects in their territory to them - one even briefly hammered the nails.

Hope this helps,