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

[slobyn]

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

According to the Cornell Science paper, Gene Sparling saw the IBWP close to the base of a tree. Also, Bobby Harrison saw an IBWP take off from the base of a tree on June 9th 2004. This sighting was mentioned in the "Supporting on-line materials" that accompanied the Cornell Science paper that reported the rediscovery in 2005. The sighting is also described on Cornell's website: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/rediscovery/sevenSightings/document_view. The birds in the Sparling and Harrison sightings are mentioned to be near the base of trees but there are no estimates of the actual distance to the ground - so I am not sure how close to the ground these birds were.

Another, interesting recent (December 2005) report from the Dagmar WMA in Arkansas that mentions an IBWP close to the ground can be found here: http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2006/01/29/news/local_news/1012728.txt This sighting was not by the Cornell team, although they were informed about it.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The Herald & Review report is interesting in that the guy says he saw the white markings on the back.

 

[MMinNY]

The Herald and Review story is quite interesting and certainly looks like a very high quality sighting by an experienced birder. I hope that Cornell is tabulating and documenting non-search team encounters from the area as fully as possible. I'm aware of at least three this season -- the Arkansas Fish and Wildlife person's report (he said he was 90% sure), the auditory encounter from the Mallard Lodge that was reported on the Tennessee Surfbirds forum and this one. I wonder if there have been others.

As to feeding or flushing from on or near the ground, it's also worth noting that both Steve Sheridan and Mary Scott report the same phenomenon. It doesn't seem particularly surprising behaviorally, and I suspect it mostly reflects the fact that it's a lot easier to see a flushed bird or one close to the ground than it is to see one up in the canopy.

The Herald & Review report is interesting in that the guy says he saw the white markings on the back.

 

[slobyn]

It doesn't seem particularly surprising behaviorally, and I suspect it mostly reflects the fact that it's a lot easier to see a flushed bird or one close to the ground than it is to see one up in the canopy.

That makes a lot of sense. Good point.

Allen & Kellogg also makes the point that they did not find any evidence that flying IBWP's made vocalizations (p. 183). Hence if the bird takes off in the canopy one may not know about it (at least not what bird it was). Also, I think that most of the Cornell observations of the flying bird, not close to the ground, has been over relatively open space (eg water bodies).

 

[slobyn]

The Herald & Review report is interesting in that the guy says he saw the white markings on the back.

Yes, if the guy is quoted correctly in the article it is a fabulous sighting with at least two field marks (white trailing edges & white stripes on back).

 

[choupique1]

as for wariness......

Most animals are leery of humans....... whether we hunt, harass or otherwise bother them.. we are predators.. we have forward facing eyes... they KNOW this instinctively.. NOT fearing humans is a learned trait... and a dangerous one for any wild creature...

 

[MMinNY]

I'm wondering about the confidentiality agreements CLO searchers sign. I may not be remembering correctly, and I couldn't dig anything up online, but it seems to me some of the early accounts from searchers mentioned not having any IBWO encouters. Two recent accounts have been very cagey.

Here:

http://www.surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=66&i=5733&t=5733

(thanks to cyberthrush's blog for pointing this one out.)

and here:

http://little.birdie.home.att.net/MDOS_HARRY_ARMISTEAD_060321.HTM

(this report was mentioned upthread and also on cyberthrush's blog)

Am I misremembering, or is there anything to infer from what's left unsaid in or has been deleted from these descriptions -- Armistead's in particular?

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The surfbirds link leads to nothing useful. Maybe (conspiracist hat on again), TPTB at Cornell pulled the plug on that item, too.

My forecast: When CLO reveals the results from this season, they will have some interesting "kent" and double-tap recordings, some possible nesting and roosting holes, and some sightings that are no better than last year's (they've already said as much). The maps of active areas will probably be refined. Of course, we still have a month to go in the search season, and we all remember that the Luneau video was shot on April 25. Skeptics will be emboldened. Believers will not be pushed into the other camp, but they'll have no "proof," either. Looking ahead to the next year or two, the "killer" photo will be found elsewhere. Cornell may have too many people on the scene.

 

[MMinNY]

From Surfbirds:

"I am of course not allowed to reveal if I found the bird or not, so I believe I will just walk around looking mysterious."

You may well be right about what Cornell produces this year, and I don't have very high expectations. Still, I found this statement interesting, if somewhat less interesting than the deletion of a couple of paragraphs from Armistead's piece.

The surfbirds link leads to nothing useful. Maybe (conspiracist hat on again), TPTB at Cornell pulled the plug on that item, too.

My forecast: When CLO reveals the results from this season, they will have some interesting "kent" and double-tap recordings, some possible nesting and roosting holes, and some sightings that are no better than last year's (they've already said as much). The maps of active areas will probably be refined. Of course, we still have a month to go in the search season, and we all remember that the Luneau video was shot on April 25. Skeptics will be emboldened. Believers will not be pushed into the other camp, but they'll have no "proof," either. Looking ahead to the next year or two, the "killer" photo will be found elsewhere. Cornell may have too many people on the scene.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

MMinNY: I've started to break my own admonition about posting existence stuff here. Meet you in the other thread.

 

[MMinNY]

I just broke my own vow not to post over there, but I had something to say that seemed important.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm still very interested in the terms of Cornell's confidentiality agreement.

MMinNY: I've started to break my own admonition about posting existence stuff here. Meet you in the other thread.

 

[Goatnose]

. 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.

fangsheath, I did see Pileateds down low this past weekend, not just low in the woods but also low on the bayou banks. Actually I saw two , on separate occasions from my Pirogue, feeding underneath root systems, you know when the bayou has eaten away at the tree and half of it's roots are exposed to the bayou. They were under these root systems, foraging. Unusual I think, also their plumage has really come on these last couple of weeks their black is more black or more coal color, very handsome birds especially with the dark background drop of a bayou bank. I startled them at close range and( to add to another argument) their flight did undulated after about twenty yards out, once they were clear of the bayou and into the woods. Yes the water here is on a rise, or was this past weekend. I concur.

 

[MMinNY]

I'm still hoping for more information on Cornell and confidentiality. It's interesting that it seems to have been okay for Bill Holliday to report that he did not hear an ivory-bill, but that these two other accounts suggest that volunteers can't comment one way or the other.

I could be reading far too much into this, but it's curious.

There seem to be a number of rumors flying around, and it's hard to sort them all out.

I just broke my own vow not to post over there, but I had something to say that seemed important.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm still very interested in the terms of Cornell's confidentiality agreement.

 

[cyberthrush]

I'm still hoping for more information on Cornell and confidentiality. It's interesting that it seems to have been okay for Bill Holliday to report that he did not hear an ivory-bill, but that these two other accounts seem to say that volunteers can't comment one way or the other.
I could be reading far too much into this, but it's curious.
There seem to be a number of rumors flying around, and it's hard to sort them all out.

The confidentiality agreements of course are very strict and any comments volunteers make are supposed to be okayed by Cornell ahead of time. Moreover, all pictures, field reports, notes, etc. of the volunteers become the property of Cornell. While Cornell's reasons for these restrictions are understandable, they probably also no doubt precluded a lot of excellent birders, who couldn't abide by such limitations, from joining the search.
Yes, the rumors are always intriguing, but given the past history of fizzled rumors they certainly have to be looked upon very cautiously. Still, April was a good month in the past for sightings so there's reason for further optimism.
And of course there still may be more to hear from S.C., Texas, Fla., and Mike C.

 

[MMinNY]

Cornell's policy on this is wise and cautious. If indeed a nest has been located, it would be a shame if details leaked out before the end of the season.

At the same time, I wonder if there has been a slight shift from allowing volunteers to speak freely about not seeing or hearing anything to a more general "no comment" policy. This appears to be the case.

The confidentiality agreements of course are very strict and any comments volunteers make are supposed to be okayed by Cornell ahead of time. Moreover, all pictures, field reports, notes, etc. of the volunteers become the property of Cornell. While Cornell's reasons for these restrictions are understandable, they probably also no doubt precluded a lot of excellent birders, who couldn't abide by such limitations, from joining the search.
Yes, the rumors are always intriguing, but given the past history of fizzled rumors they certainly have to be looked upon very cautiously. Still, April was a good month in the past for sightings so there's reason for further optimism.
And of course there still may be more to hear from S.C., Texas, Fla., and Mike C.

 

[GreatHornedOwl]

George Miksch Sutton sketches - helpful for ID

... Here.

http://training.fws.gov/history/ivorybill.html

Go down the page, click on the small images to open large images of '70ies pamphlet with sketches drawn after life by G M Sutton of living birds.

Note the form of the head, length of neck, size and position of bill, the size and volume of the raised crest ... compare with Mike's video shot 20 feb 2006 ...

copy and paste, print out, keep this in your field guides or somewhere handy when you go searching.

Hope this helps.

 

[Snowy1]

Since there's a bit of a lull here, thought you might like this link. While it isn't about Ivorybills, some of lessons can hopefully be transposed into the Ivorybill program. There are a few parallels...


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/30/condor.nesting.ap/index.html

 

[MMinNY]

There are a few updates from Bob Russell on Mary Scott's site, though nothing much to report, and no indication that photos have been obtained. Apparently there was a sighting by multiple observers in the White River NWR, though it's not clear if this was part of the Cornell search. Russell lists one other possible auditory encounter from Florida, but that report is vague to say the least.

http://www.birdingamerica.com/toptenibwpsites.htm

 

[fangsheath]

Actually I would call his White River NWR update a bit of a bombshell coming from him, a claim of an ivory-bill having seen by volunteers without any qualifiers whatsoever. There are no details, though, and I am flabbergasted by the statement that video cameras were turned off. You don't turn off the camcorder when you are in the habitat!

 

[MMinNY]

It seemed a little short on detail about the sighting per se. . .a tad sketchy for me to take too seriously, but yes, if it was unambiguous, with proper field notes, etc., you're right. And you're right to be flabbergasted. It doesn't sound like this is the incident that Choupique was referring to, or the nest rumor either. Well, we only have a little over a month to wait.

Actually I would call his White River NWR update a bit of a bombshell coming from him, a claim of an ivory-bill having seen by volunteers without any qualifiers whatsoever. There are no details, though, and I am flabbergasted by the statement that video cameras were turned off. You don't turn off the camcorder when you are in the habitat!