Poor looks and mis-IDs

On a BIRDCHAT "bloopers" thread this week, people have been sharing many stories of embarrassing mis-IDs in the field.

These are not stories of Lesser Yellowlegs misidentified as Greater Yellowlegs. How about buffalo dung misidentified as a Burrowing Owl? I think every experienced birder has firsthand experience with mis-IDs like this.

Some examples are here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The pattern is repeated over and over: A wildly incorrect identification is made based on a lousy look. Later, a better view reveals the truth.

In each of CLO's claimed "Ivory-bill" sightings, the ID was made after the "lousy look" stage.

In Arkansas, sightings that reached the "better view" stage always were non-Ivory-bills.

Stunningly, CLO apparently lacked the common sense to conclude that their lousy-view IDs were almost certainly wrong. Instead, they inexplicably concluded that this bird is now so supernaturally wary that it would never allow a better view.

Terri Luneau will visit your school!

...evidently for a fee.

Pictures of trusting, adorable, impressionable children are here.

Now, I've never met Terri Luneau, and (excluding me) she may be the nicest, most sincere person on the planet.

Still, I feel compelled to ask this question: Should our schools actually pay people to tell our kids bogus stories about ornithological miracles?

A paragraph found here seems to suggest that Terri may have "educated" a significant number of schoolkids about the alleged Arkansas Ivory-bill:

Each session will last about 30-45 minutes, depending on the age group and the level of interest. Scheduling should permit about 15 minutes between groups to insure an orderly transition. Group sizes of 50-100 give the students a chance to interact best, but I can talk to as many as you want at a time.

A interesting newspaper story on Terri Luneau and her book is here.

Please don't misinterpret me--I'm not attacking Terri personally. I'm attacking the mis-education of schoolchildren here.

Oh, please

Check out this paragraph from the Arkansas Times (the bold font is mine):

BEST MOVING TARGET. The ivory-billed woodpecker male who was checking out the Bayou de View is probably in the White River National Wildlife Refuge, if Cornell’s sound recordings are right. Head down to southeast Arkansas, find this baby’s roost hole, and claim a host of prizes, including good will, fame, and the everlasting gratitude of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Get a picture and send your kid to college. (A slight exaggeration, but you never know.) If you miss the bird, you still might see the swallow-tailed kites that started their return to the Big Woods nearly a decade ago, and that alone is worth the trip.

Some related information is here.

Sparling still wowing 'em?

An excerpt from this 7/25/06 blog post:

We left just in time to make it to the Twilight Prayer service at the chapel. It was kinda nice. A little bit-o-God in Tennessee. After that was over, we stayed to hear the nightly speaker. **drum roll please** Our guest lectioner for the night was none other than Gene Sparling. Who, you ask? He's the guy who first spotted the ivory-billed woodpecker back in 2004 in Arkansas. Dang was I excited! We were there for almost 2 hours. Even RAH was rapt. I wish you all could have heard him speak as well. It was amazing.

"...a figment of someone’s imagination"

Here.

An excerpt:

Cases like this are the very height of stupidity, the epitome of political correctness run amok. The type of thinking that permits this sort of thing boggles the mind.

And more links on the Irrigation project halt

1. Editorial from the Benton Courier here.

One paragraph:

We further understand that there's a great deal of politics in play with this issue. For one thing, a number of city and county officials in the Grand Prairie region want to balance the needs of farmers against the potential income these towns can realize from the woodpecker phenomenon. Some of these towns haven't had a thing to chirp about - pardon the poor pun - until the ivory-billed woodpecker became the rage. It's the one tourism draw these towns have in Arkansas' flatlands.

2. "EnviroWhackoRama Continues" here.

3. Cyberthrush weighs in here. An excerpt:

...I do find it interesting though that the numerous vocal critics of the decision seem very quick to assume that they are privy to all the evidence that the judge had at his disposal. Perhaps, perhaps not.

A court gets hoaxed

Check out this update from WorldTwitch (the bold font is mine):

Update: National Wildlife Federation v. Harvey, E.D.Ar, 4:05CV001278WRW, July 20, 2006 (PDF; [PACER login required]). In this action to halt an irrigation project, the parties stipulated that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker exists, and the court improperly accepted the stipulation of fact even though there is no competent evidence that the Ivorybill has existed in the U.S. since 1944. The court entered a preliminary injunction against the project under the Endangered Species Act. In footnote 16, the district judge wrote: "As stated, no party has questioned the existence of the IBW. Some ornithologist have questioned whether the bird in the film is an IBW or a Pileated Woodpecker -- the latter is common in both the Cache and White River Refuges. However, I have seen nothing that has questioned the authenticity of the sound recordings." In fact, Jerome Jackson explicitly questioned the authenticity of the sound recordings in his article in the Auk, and this website questions the authenticity of the sound recordings. The "kent" calls in all likelihood were given by Blue Jays, and the double-knock noises could have had a number of possible sources, including playback of tapes of Neotropical Campephilus drums. The findings of fact underlying this decision are "clearly erroneous", and it appears from footnote 16 that counsel misled the court by suppressing evidence contrary to the Official Story. The court should, sua sponte, schedule a rehearing and call Jerome Jackson, David Sibley, and Louis Bevier as witnesses, and the court should subpoena the original Luneau video and internal drafts, memoranda and emails. I would hate to see the Endangered Species Act die because a court was fooled by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker hoax.

I just signed up for a PACER login and downloaded the PDF document above.

Update: The wording on Worldtwitch has been slightly revised--a newer version is now above. Also, I'm told that there is no charge for the 31-page PDF document.

"What if another kayaker reports a unicorn sighting?"

Here.

Any predictions?

Do you have answers to any of these questions?

1. How long will the "Found!" banner remain here at ivorybill.org, and how long will Cornell continue to sell "Found!" merchandise here?

2. What will become of the vast Ivory-bill Recovery Team? According to some sources, that team has (or had) 70 or more members.

Will they continue to spend time and money under the assumption that there are living Ivory-bills to recover? More information on the team is here and here.

3. What will become of the Big Woods Conservation Partnership and their Ivory-bill logo?

4. In the comment thread here, John Wall wrote:

I predict that the Ivorybill "rediscovery" ultimately will become such an embarrassment to those involved that they will deny responsibility and blame each other.

Do you agree?

Not just Tanner

Cyberthrush tries to discredit Tanner's Ivory-bill observations here:

Addendum: Tom Nelson's response to this article underscores the skeptics' clear dependency on treating a single individual's (Tanner's) observations of a half-dozen Ivory-bills, in a single location, 60+ years ago, as gospel truth for all Ivory-bills, for all time. Were we to take observations (no matter how good) of 6 human beings (from 60 years ago no less) and generalize them to all humans the potential fallacy (absurdity?) of this approach would be obvious.

In reality, it's not just Tanner, it's not just one location, and it's not just six birds.

Tanner's observations are consistent with the reports of many other observers, including Allen and Kellogg (with Florida observations); John Dennis' observations in Cuba; and the late Roger Tory Peterson in the Singer Tract.

Tanner lists six known Ivory-bills in the Singer Tract as the population faded away in 1939; on page 39, he lists the territories of seven pair and four young observed by others there in 1934.

CLO's mythical Ivory-bill

In my opinion, today's Palm Beach Post Ivory-bill article is not a great read. However, the article does help underscore the stark contrast between CLO's mythical Ivory-bill and James Tanner's real Ivory-bills.

The reason for the contrast is simple--Cornell is extrapolating an "Ivory-bill" using base data consisting of fleeting observations of Pileateds, misidentified Blue Jay calls, misinterpreted double-knocky things, blurry photographs of branch stubs, etc etc. Tanner, on the other hand, based his work on years of close-up observations and photographs of actual, living Ivory-bills.

From today's article (the bold font is mine):

Citing his bird books and online stories about the ivory-billed sightings and recordings by Cornell ornithologists in Eastern Arkansas in 2004 and last year, he said that ivory-billeds are the last word in shyness.

"They say it takes about 100 square miles of forest to support one family of ivory-billeds. Any activity at all will scare them off. Your best chance is to see one flying up high in the canopy and note where he goes."

To keep your perspective, I think it's useful to periodically review what Tanner actually wrote. After glancing through my copy of Tanner's book this morning, here are a few notes:

1. Regarding the alleged wariness, again check out what Tanner said (here).

2. Regarding the alleged massive home range, note that Tanner wrote this on page 94 of his book (the bold font is mine):

...Studies of the Ivory-bills in the Singer Tract indicate that the minimum area for one pair of birds should be two and a half to three square miles. They do not need all of that forest at any one time, but that much would be necessary to insure an adequate food supply from year to year...

3. Regarding fidelity to the roost hole, Tanner wrote (page 100):

Ivory-bills roost singly in holes, and very frequently use the same hole night after night; one pair of birds used the same roosting ground for three years.

4. Note that on page 22, Tanner writes:

All the Ivory-bills that I have ever seen I located first by hearing them call and then going to them.

I believe 0% of Cornell's alleged sightings were achieved this way.