More on the Ivory-bill's supposed elusiveness

I mentioned the recent Smithsonian magazine Ivory-bill article a few posts ago. I want to specifically address this snippet from that article:
----
If the hunt in Arkansas holds a particular lesson, it's that this is a surpassingly elusive bird, more like a will-o'-the-wisp than a living animal...Now some experts speculate that the noisy, tame ones were all shot and only those that were wary around humans survived.
----
To believe in the Ivory-bill's survival at this point, I think it's necessary to believe this "surpassingly elusive" argument. However, I think the argument is not logical or rational, and we've got no evidence to support it. I think there's no reason to believe that an Ivory-bill in 2005 would be any more wary than an Ivory-bill in 1935.

I've blogged about this subject here, here, and here, but I wanted to write a little more today.

In some current articles, I see an almost anthropomorphic undertone--the bird realized it was threatened with extinction, and so it resolved to be so wary that it could no longer be found. To me, it makes no sense to think that the birds could still be half-tame when maybe a dozen remained, then suddenly became far more wary than any woodpecker ever known by mankind.

Put yourself in the Ivory-bill's position and think about how you would continually avoid about 20 camoflauge-clad observers during the field season in the Cache River area. You need to feed in full daylight, often up high in the bare trees. You are large and conspicuously colored, and every time you fly, you are a sight that inspired people to call you "The Lord God Bird". Some people are quietly moving in boats, others are sitting quietly watching the best roost holes, feeding areas, and crossing points. Everyone's armed with high-quality optics and cameras. You somehow have to avoid the remote cameras too. You roost in holes at night, and as far as you know, cameras are trained on the entrance holes waiting for you to emerge every morning.

In two or three field seasons, do you think it's likely that the observers would get only one or two dozen poor looks, but never a good look or photograph?

Ok, now let's say you don't have human intelligence. You're just a bird that has no way of knowing it's almost extinct, and let's say your species has been half-tame, loud and conspicuous for hundreds or thousands of generations. How likely is it that an army of observers will never get one good look at you after two or more seasons of intensive searching?

Just for the benefit of any new readers--I think it's very likely that all of Cornell's "confirmed Ivory-bill" sightings were mis-IDs. I think it's no accident that all the views were poor ones. I think it's very likely that the bird(s) involved were seen well any number of times by the search team, but, given a good view, they were clearly Pileateds (or other species).