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

[GreatHornedOwl]

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.

Now that makes sense; being young males, without territories ... that would explain why they remain mostly silent, and rarely vocalize - no need for kent calls where there isn't a partner.

... This reminds me strongly in fact of that book about Raven behaviour by Bernd Heinrich "Ravens in winter" - same scenario there - a species with a large territory and a rather "specialised" food choice (and long wings ;-) ) - territorial pairs, wandering young birds... but that's a totally different species of course, don't know if extrapolarizing is appropriate here ...

About those territories in Louisiana - wasn't that video on the Fishcrow website shot in the Pearl, in LA ? I hope we'll get more news from the person who shot that video, there's something about it that feels "right". Look at all possible pictures and videos of Campephilus woodpeckers (powerful , pale-billed, magellanic, etc. ) and then at the video ... uncanny.

I am curious as to what Cornell are going to come up with ... guess we'll know within two months or so.

 

[MMinNY]

We're all hoping that Mike will come up with more. He's just reported hearing kent calls, and he heard a double rap a few days ago, so he may be honing in on the birds again.

The Pearl is in southeastern Louisiana, quite a distance from Arkansas. Our Louisiana participants can probably shed more light on this, but I believe there have been sightings in good habitat in parts of Louisiana that are much closer to the Big Woods.

Now that makes sense; being young males, without territories ... that would explain why they remain mostly silent, and rarely vocalize - no need for kent calls where there isn't a partner.

... This reminds me strongly in fact of that book about Raven behaviour by Bernd Heinrich "Ravens in winter" - same scenario there - a species with a large territory and a rather "specialised" food choice (and long wings ;-) ) - territorial pairs, wandering young birds... but that's a totally different species of course, don't know if extrapolarizing is appropriate here ...

About those territories in Louisiana - wasn't that video on the Fishcrow website shot in the Pearl, in LA ? I hope we'll get more news from the person who shot that video, there's something about it that feels "right". Look at all possible pictures and videos of Campephilus woodpeckers (powerful , pale-billed, magellanic, etc. ) and then at the video ... uncanny.

I am curious as to what Cornell are going to come up with ... guess we'll know within two months or so.

 

[fishcrow]

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.

It's way too early to answer Why. Right now, all we can answer is What, and that is that ivorybills are extremely wary and reclusive. Every sighting for the past several decades indicates this. Nearly every sighting has been a "one and done." When ivorybills are seen, they don't tend to hang around in the same spot for others to come see them. One of the exceptions is that I had seven encounters in five days. That was partially due to the fact that I was drifting quietly downstream with a low profile in a kayak. When I saw them, I didn't yell out "Ivorybill!!!" I never got out of the kayak or did anything else to spook them. On the sixth day, I brought in three other birders. There was me in the kayak and the others in two canoes. One of them got a glimpse of a large dark bird that flushed from the side of the water. I'm pretty sure that was the bird, but none of us got a good look at it. Since that day, I have only had a few sporadic encounters in that area. I may have located a new hot zone. If so, I'm going to approach it in a different way. I'm not going to take anyone out there. After the admirable work by Gallagher and Harrison (really by Sparling), the search in Arkansas has been a disaster. Way too many people. Even though they brought in some really good birders and some of them, such as David Luneau, made important contributions, the approach was all wrong. What needs to be done is to send one man teams to various areas within the range of the ivorybill to look for them. I would get local naturalists, such as hunters, involved in such searches. Here in the Pearl, I would team up with turkey hunters. One of the basic concepts in science is that you should minimize the disturbance of any system that you wish to measure. If you want to measure the temperature of an object, for example, you use the smallest thermometer possible, but even that will disturb the system slightly. Sending an army of searchers into an area where an ivorybill has been sighted is only going to drive it away. It's like throwing a baby into a vat of water and measuring its change in temperature in order to determine the baby's temperature. You can in theory get the baby's temperature with this approach, but there is a less intrusive way.

 

[grousemt]

...the search in Arkansas has been a disaster. Way too many people. ...

My impression from reading about the search is that the volunteers spend most of their time sitting in blinds. Others survey cavities or set up ARUs or cameras. It doesn't sound too obtrusive.

Not sure how big the total field staff is (paid and volunteer) but I'd guess it's less than 30 at any one time, covering both the Cache and White River. How would that compare with the number of hunters?

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

By the way, Audubon wrote that going near a tree with a cavity was sufficient for the birds to evacuate the tree and not return. Wariness may not be such a new thing after all. The birds that Tanner may have worked by may simply have become accustomed to his presence and if I had to bet he did not run around yelling "ivory bill" either. I am sure his initial approach was slow and quiet and probably remained that way for a while.

Slow and quiet seems to work really well for most other wildlife. Even birds that appear at the feeder, while less repulsed by human contact, will not let us walk up and pet them. But slowly, and quietly, one may approach.

We see this also in top predators. Cougars are some hard animals to hunt unless you spend a lot of time and patience. Why? The animals are wary and also depend upon stealth. They are not often seen, even though their effects may very well be.

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

Nearly every sighting has been a "one and done." When ivorybills are seen, they don't tend to hang around in the same spot for others to come see them.

On April 1st 1999 David Kulivan saw a couple of them, pretty close, he could observe them for about 15 minutes if I'm correct. Wasn't he hiding in a blind, waiting for a Turkey to come round ?

Of course, Kulivan was incredibly lucky, but nevertheless I suggest you find a tree with cerambycid larvae on which some sort of large woodpeckers are clearly feeding (I suppose they come back to the same tree until they've eaten all they can ?), in an area where you hear double-raps and kent calls, and, for a few days, hide in a blind and wait - oh btw be sure to take a camera and telescope. ... Perhaps a different approach than kayaking through an area might yield surprising results?

I keep my fingers crossed and look forward to seeing what you come up with !

Cheers

 

[slobyn]

Here is a link to an interesting article about IBWP biology by Arthur Allen and Paul Kellogg, published before the Tanner study. It summarizes their experiences with the IBWP in the Singer tract and also has some details about the Florida sightings Allen had in 1924.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v054n02/p0164-p0184.pdf

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

These birds can finish off a tree in very short order. By the time one is found they may easily be done with it. Reports have been made that a downed tree could be scaled in a fortnight by imperials.

 

[Ibwo Jima]

My impression from reading about the search is that the volunteers spend most of their time sitting in blinds. Others survey cavities or set up ARUs or cameras. It doesn't sound too obtrusive.

Not sure how big the total field staff is (paid and volunteer) but I'd guess it's less than 30 at any one time, covering both the Cache and White River. How would that compare with the number of hunters?

When I was in Arkansas in January, there were 8 volunteers in White River plus six more in Cache River. There are also about a dozen full-time people in the field. Considering that there are over 500,000 acres to search, I wouldn't exactly say it was an army. Furthermore, each volunteer went out alone, and from my experience, most of the day was spent sitting quietly without moving, in full camouflage, either in a blind, or in a hidden unobtrusive position where one would have a good vantage point to observe fly-by's or watching potential cavities.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Allen and Kellog's work was very informative. Upon reading it I noted:

A. Historical range into southern Indiana;
B. Much speculation on the birds eating ants and termites.

Many people have given Steve Sheridan grief over an "indiana" siting and the birds eating ants as both facts being completely improbable and nothing of similar note being reported in any of the literature.

Again, there are no "experts" on ivory bills even though many people are paid well and claim to be the same. Unless, of course, Mr. Allen is not an authoritative writer on the subject.

This is part of the reason that I continually say that we need people doing actual research and not merely siting back in comfortable surroundings ignoring the reports that come in from the field. We need research and the exchange of information.

 

[fishcrow]

When I was in Arkansas in January, there were 8 volunteers in White River plus six more in Cache River. There are also about a dozen full-time people in the field. Considering that there are over 500,000 acres to search, I wouldn't exactly say it was an army. Furthermore, each volunteer went out alone, and from my experience, most of the day was spent sitting quietly without moving, in full camouflage, either in a blind, or in a hidden unobtrusive position where one would have a good vantage point to observe fly-by's or watching potential cavities.

What I have heard from some of the participants is that several searchers were concentrated in the original hot zone (a tiny fraction of the 500,000 acres) and that the initial phase of the search was very intrusive. I have also heard (once again, by participants) that the same mistakes are being made this year in a search in another state.

 

[fangsheath]

I am not so concerned about volunteers in blinds and canoeing on Bayou DeView. What concerns me more is the traffic necessitated by the deployment, moving, and checking of ARU's and other remote devices and the inventorying of cavities and foraging sign. I think it was perfectly natural for the CLO to pursue this more aggressive strategy given the results last year, and for all I know it is paying off. But it seems equally possible that the birds are now avoiding areas that they previously frequented, and that it might be better to leave the remote devices in place for much longer periods and put only a few people in the field. I cannot help but think the very low water levels this season are putting the searchers at a disadvantage.

Something someone said recently really got me thinking about water levels and ivory-bills - That with rising water in White River NWR birds were having a feast on insects moving up off the forest floor. What was the Luneau bird doing so close to the water? One of Bobby Harrison's sightings was on a water tupelo near the water. And there are Mike's obervations. What has made the Pearl so unusual this season are its high water levels. This may lure the birds down and this, combined with the improved stealthiness of a water approach, may be the single most important factor in a person or a camera getting close enough for a decent look.

 

[MMinNY]

I'm about halfway through the Allen and Kellog paper, which seems familiar, so I've probably skimmed it before. It is indeed very interesting. The question that strikes me now is -- what happened to their audio recordings? Does Cornell still have them? If they haven't been lost, they might be very useful for comparison with Mike's calls.

Here is a link to an interesting article about IBWP biology by Arthur Allen and Paul Kellogg, published before the Tanner study. It summarizes their experiences with the IBWP in the Singer tract and also has some details about the Florida sightings Allen had in 1924.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v054n02/p0164-p0184.pdf

 

[AmpelisChinito]

"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)

GreatHornedOwl, whether or not you stand by this, I think this a great quote that we should all think about. What do we want more, the existence of the IvoryBill, or the exciting search that sporadically gives tiny clues?

 

[MMinNY]

For my part, I want the existence of the ivory-bill. And I think what you are insinuating is deeply offensive.

GreatHornedOwl, whether or not you stand by this, I think this a great quote that we should all think about. What do we want more, the existence of the IvoryBill, or the exciting search that sporadically gives tiny clues?

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I'm about halfway through the Allen and Kellog paper, which seems familiar, so I've probably skimmed it before. It is indeed very interesting. The question that strikes me now is -- what happened to their audio recordings? Does Cornell still have them? If they haven't been lost, they might be very useful for comparison with Mike's calls.

Aren't those the "kent" recordings we're all familiar with from 1935? IIRC, Kellogg actually did the recordings or at least created the apparatus. Gallagher talked about this last week.

 

[MMinNY]

You may be right. I thought the recordings were Tanner's and were made later, but I could easily be mistaken.

The other thing that strikes me about the Allen and Kellogg paper is how disruptive they seem to have been, despite their claims to the contrary. To wit, "the female was inside, brooding, but did not come out when we pounded on the tree" (p. 20). It makes one wonder just why those nests failed.

Aren't those the "kent" recordings we're all familiar with from 1935? IIRC, Kellogg actually did the recordings or at least created the apparatus. Gallagher talked about this last week.

 

[fishcrow]

I'm about halfway through the Allen and Kellog paper, which seems familiar, so I've probably skimmed it before. It is indeed very interesting. The question that strikes me now is -- what happened to their audio recordings? Does Cornell still have them? If they haven't been lost, they might be very useful for comparison with Mike's calls.

Keep in mind that the calls that I recorded might turn out to be a Blue Jay. I have heard Blue Jays make a similar call, but what I heard that morning seemed to have a different quality, which was not captured well on my handycam. The calls started immediately after I flushed an ivorybill and came from the direction that it flew. The calls lasted for about three minutes. At the time, I said it was at least two minutes, but I went back to the raw data and determined that it was about three minutes with no other calls mixed in. As you watch the video, you can see that I pulled the kayak in to the opposite shore and pointed it to where the calls were originating, and that is exactly where I captured the ivorybill on video. It could just be a coincidence that a Blue Jay was making that call in the same time and place. There is an ivorybill call that Tanner described that has higher frequency tones. I wonder if this is the call? There are many vocalizations of different species that are similar, such as American Robin and Rose-breasted Grosbeak. I hope more data on calls will be forthcoming. I am especially interested in hearing the call that is described as a "kient."

 

[slobyn]

Keeping in mind recent observations by e.g. cinclodes & the Cornell team, of the bird appearing close to the ground, I thought it was interesting to read (p. 166 in the Allen and Kellogg paper) the observation of the IBWP on the ground ("hopping like a flicker") as well as the bird feeding on trees "within five-ten feet of the ground."

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Kellogg was part of Allen's crew on the 1935 expedition. It's mentioned on p.9 of The Grail Bird, and Gallagher, during his talk in San Diego, showed a photo of Allen & Kellogg in the Singer Tract, with Kellogg's recording equipment.

Slobyn: Maybe I've just forgotten. Where is the report of Cornell seeing Ivory-bills close to the ground?