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

[steveholz]

When they did this over the White River NWR, they were plagued with delays due to weather related issues. While the idea certainly has merit, helicopters and fixed-winged aircraft may be more practical. I know we are probably going to be doing some helicopter-based searches along the Altamaha and Ogeechee and maybe Savannah this winter. It is a good way to cover a lot of ground, and the folks doing RCW (Red-cockaded Woodpecker) work have told us that they are able to see and id Pileateds quite well from the air.

If Ivory-bills were definately KNOWN to be in a certain area, there may be harassment issues surrounding aerial searches, but for searches designed to FIND ivory-bills I don't believe it's that big an issue.

BTW, for more information on the Ultra-light Whooping Crane project see:
http://www.operationmigration.org/Field_Journal.html

They are getting ready to start this year's migration, and it's pretty entertaining to follow along via the web.

 

[Bernie Nikolai]

Would "..flushing out an Ivory-bill" be an appropriate way to survey for a species listed as an Endangered Species?

In my humble, non-professional opinion "yes, most definitely!" The point is to FINALLY get the irrefutable video or photographic evidence, and then once the bird is confirmed to everyone's satisfaction (or I guess MOST everyone's satisfaction), the next steps would naturally be taken to protect/enhance specific habit, etc. But we are at the point now in the search where no amount of sound recordings, sketches, bark peelings, double knocks, etc. will do. Clear, concise video or a photograph/s that can leave little to dispute are needed. Then we can "all hold hands" and move on to help the bird ).

 

[fishcrow]

The lower wing is drawn distinctly smaller than the upper wing...

The sketch wasn't done by Renoir. It was definitely a dorsal view.

 

[olivacea]

The sketch wasn't done by Renoir. It was definitely a dorsal view.

Well, I note some dissenting opinions, already voiced, or at least, written.

Perhaps it was flying upside-down?

Later...

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The sketch wasn't done by Renoir. It was definitely a dorsal view.

Thanks. I'll ignore the sniping from the trolls.

 

[fishcrow]

Well, I note some dissenting opinions, already voiced, or at least, written.

Perhaps it was flying upside-down?

Later...

Hey, Noel. Did you think I was joking about outing you? It actually doesn't matter because the word has already gotten around about you.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hey, Noel. Did you think I was joking about outing you? It actually doesn't matter because the word has already gotten around about you.

er....

pot and a very black kettle?

Tim

 

[humminbird]

In my humble, non-professional opinion "yes, most definitely!" The point is to FINALLY get the irrefutable video or photographic evidence, and then once the bird is confirmed to everyone's satisfaction (or I guess MOST everyone's satisfaction), the next steps would naturally be taken to protect/enhance specific habit, etc. But we are at the point now in the search where no amount of sound recordings, sketches, bark peelings, double knocks, etc. will do. Clear, concise video or a photograph/s that can leave little to dispute are needed. Then we can "all hold hands" and move on to help the bird ).

So we condone violation of the Migratory Bird Act, AND harrasment of the bird, in the name of a "clear, concise video or a photograph"? In my mind this is just too much!

 

[fishcrow]

So we condone violation of the Migratory Bird Act, AND harrasment of the bird, in the name of a "clear, concise video or a photograph"? In my mind this is just too much!

I agree. They sent a large contingent of searchers into Arkansas, and that bird was apparently spooked out of the area. They're planning to do the same thing at the Florida site, where there appear to be multiple breeding pairs. I think it's a mistake to risk disturbing that situation just to rush to get a photo. Disrupting a key breeding area could have dire consequences, but many birders obviously won't care as long as they get to see a photo.

 

[Bernie Nikolai]

So we condone violation of the Migratory Bird Act, AND harrasment of the bird, in the name of a "clear, concise video or a photograph"? In my mind this is just too much!

While I'm not a lawyer specializing in the various terms of the Migratory Bird Act, my guess is taking Whooping Crane eggs, raising the young via humans in white bird costumes, teaching them to fly behind utralight aircraft, and trying to establish a viable eastern wild migratory population also violates several terms of the act.

Clearly the most basic, fundamental need right now is the "irrefutable photo or video" of a live Ivory-bill that "almost" everyone can agree is genuine. Yes, this means that possibly the bird is "harassed" for several seconds as it flys off, hopefully to a very clear video record. Short term pain for the Ivory-bill, but for its long term gain. Once it is "proven" to exist beyond a resonable shadow of doubt by the video/photographic evidence, the vast majority of government agencies and the public in general will be much more supportive in protecting the bird and its habitat.

I do certainly recognize and respect this may be "too much" for some folks, but I still think its the best approach by far at this point. Pull out all the stops. Get the video/photo/s that is/are irrefutable, clear and concise. Then go about protecting the habitat with the certainty the bird exists.

 

[HASnyder]

While I'm not a lawyer specializing in the various terms of the Migratory Bird Act, my guess is taking Whooping Crane eggs, raising the young via humans in white bird costumes, teaching them to fly behind utralight aircraft, and trying to establish a viable eastern wild migratory population also violates several terms of the act.

Clearly the most basic, fundamental need right now is the "irrefutable photo or video" of a live Ivory-bill that "almost" everyone can agree is genuine. Yes, this means that possibly the bird is "harassed" for several seconds as it flys off, hopefully to a very clear video record. Short term pain for the Ivory-bill, but for its long term gain. Once it is "proven" to exist beyond a resonable shadow of doubt by the video/photographic evidence, the vast majority of government agencies and the public in general will be much more supportive in protecting the bird and its habitat.

I do certainly recognize and respect this may be "too much" for some folks, but I still think its the best approach by far at this point. Pull out all the stops. Get the video/photo/s that is/are irrefutable, clear and concise. Then go about protecting the habitat with the certainty the bird exists.

So we condone violation of the Migratory Bird Act, AND harrasment of the bird, in the name of a "clear, concise video or a photograph"? In my mind this is just too much!

Once clear, concise video or photo are in hand, endangered species permits will given out to authorize whatever the next step will be. In other endangered species recovery programs, researchers with permits have done such hands-on things as trap, band, blood-sample, mark, take eggs, translocate trapped birds, etc. etc. Think condors, peregrines, black-footed ferrets, wolves... all these charismatic macrovertebrates have had people on the sidelines wringing their hands on the sidelines and making tearful pleas that all the animal needed was wilderness and isolation from humans; even 'death with dignity' was held up as a better alternative to hands-on management for recovery.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Clearly the most basic, fundamental need right now is the "irrefutable photo or video" of a live Ivory-bill that "almost" everyone can agree is genuine.

For you maybe. Many of the rest of us are willing to wait. While we'd all like to see a good photo, the only "need" arises from the "need" of a few skeptics to be convinced. This project should not revolve around them. Making the bird listable for twitchers and state list gatekeepers should be subordinate to the birds' survival.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Now hold on a second. You all step right up to defend the rights of people to enter the woods every winter with shotguns and a permit to shoot birds (in areas where Ivory-bills were sighted), yet researchers trying to observe and photograph the birds from the air is 'too much'.

Unbelievable!

 

[humminbird]

Now hold on a second. You all step right up to defend the rights of people to enter the woods every winter with shotguns and a permit to shoot birds (in areas where Ivory-bills were sighted), yet researchers trying to observe and photograph the birds from the air is 'too much'.

Unbelievable!

That was not the question asked. The question was "would flushing out an Ivory-bill be an appropriate way to survey...". No one said anything about trying to photograph them from the air.

As to the issue of what happens AFTER the bird is established as being extant - you mentioned a very important point - permits. IF the FWS is willing to allow an attempt to "flush" the bird through some appropriate and CONTROLLED means, then it would become appropriate. Until such time it is as much a violation as throwing stones into a bush to flush a bird. The techniques you cite have all been tested and shown to be the most appropriate and efficacious means to learn, propagate and rehabbilitate the population.

At present, we have no idea (despite what some are claiming) how this bird will react to any disturbance - if in fact it is still able to react in any way. Attempts to flush this bird should, in my mind, be treated as a serious and deliberate "disturbance" of the bird under the act.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Now hold on a second. You all step right up to defend the rights of people to enter the woods every winter with shotguns and a permit to shoot birds (in areas where Ivory-bills were sighted), yet researchers trying to observe and photograph the birds from the air is 'too much'.

Unbelievable!

Good point, though I'm not sure that I've personally defended, in this forum, the rights of hunters to enter these specific areas. Maybe the presence of hunters is one reason repeated sightings of well-seen birds have been so hard to obtain. In any case, I do think experienced hunters, travelling alone, are more likely to be stealthy and unnoticed by Ivory-bills than a busload of grad students and volunteers, not to mention low-flying aircraft.

 

[emupilot]

Now hold on a second. You all step right up to defend the rights of people to enter the woods every winter with shotguns and a permit to shoot birds (in areas where Ivory-bills were sighted), yet researchers trying to observe and photograph the birds from the air is 'too much'.

Unbelievable!

Hunters are an important source of information on Ivory-bills, as a great many reports come from them. While it might (or might not, for all we know) help to eliminate hunting from areas with IBWO, we need the hunters' help. If we were to punish hunters who report IBWO by closing their hunting areas, we would lose their cooperation on this and other conservation matters.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

That's NOT my point. We don't need to get into another discussion about how hunters are great for conservation (I agree, to a point). I'm arguing that if you say duck hunting will not harass the birds to leave the area, then you CANNOT say that going in these areas to find the bird will be a huge detriment to whatever population exists there.

I believe I read on somewhere on the internet, that even with the number of searchers they had in Ark, they rarely encountered each other and it appears that these watersheds can take a great number of searchers without it being that noticeable. These are pretty big areas remember.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Also, remember that birds flush for a myriad of reasons. Peregrines flush shorebirds, Coopers & Sharp-shinned hawks flush smaller birds. Afterwards they resume their normal activities. One would assume that being flushed by humans would elicit a similar response. Repeated flushing wouldn't be good, but I don't think that is what we are talking about.

 

[humminbird]

That's NOT my point. We don't need to get into another discussion about how hunters are great for conservation (I agree, to a point). I'm arguing that if you say duck hunting will not harass the birds to leave the area, then you CANNOT say that going in these areas to find the bird will be a huge detriment to whatever population exists there.

I believe I read on somewhere on the internet, that even with the number of searchers they had in Ark, they rarely encountered each other and it appears that these watersheds can take a great number of searchers without it being that noticeable. These are pretty big areas remember.

And I don't think that anyone has a problem with a search. I still go back to the choice of words - I would not support the idea of condoning a deliberate (as is implied by the choice of words) attempt to "flush" the bird JUST to get a good photo.

 

[piedmont]

Hobie kayaks

I recently learned from a friend about these "new" kayaks from Hobie that can be pedaled as well as paddled. I have no personal experience with them. It sounds like a perfect solution to the dilemna of paddling and filming or scoping at the same time. Just throwing it out there.