Belatedly climbing on the Arkansas "IBWO" bandwagon

From a National Wild Turkey Federation press release, dated 7/25/07:

The NWTF's Operation Oak program provides mast-producing hardwoods that benefit the endangered ivory-billed woodpecker thought to be in Arkansas.

Thanks for sharing

A paragraph from the National Wildlife Federation's 2006 report:

Sometimes the results of our efforts are slow in coming. Another victory celebrated last year was from our efforts of over 30 years ago. Long feared to be extinct, the ivory-billed woodpecker was spotted in the exact location that was targeted in the 1970’s to be dredged and drained by the Corps’ Cache River Channelization Project. National Wildlife Federation stopped the Corps then, and this year stopped it again by working alongside Arkansas Wildlife Federation to secure a court ruling that blocks a Corps-sponsored irrigation project in the ivory-bill’s habitat. National Wildlife Federation now shares with Americans the reward—the return of the fabled ivory-billed-woodpecker, the largest woodpecker in the United States.

Kenn Kaufman on IBWO in Birder's World

A reader writes:

I share your skepticism about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Here's something you might consider posting on your blog. Readers would find it interesting I suspect.

I'm an avid birder and I read both Audubon and Birder's World magazines. This month the Birder's World issue (August) hit my mailbox first and contained a tidbit from Kenn Kaufman about the Ivory-bill situation. It was an interesting preamble to his comments in the Audubon article, which I noticed you linked to in a blog posting on July 5th. He's clearly a skeptic.

Kenn writes a piece called "ID Tips" in each issue of BW that focuses on a particular species or group of species. The August piece was on the Whimbrel and species that might be confused with it, including the presumed extinct Eskimo Curlew. The last paragraph reads:

"Two centuries ago, we would have been discussing how to tell the Whimbrel from its smaller cousin. Eskimo Curlews were abundant then, migrating from the Arctic to the pampas of Argentina in the company of American Golden-Plovers. Market hunting did them in, and the Eskimo Curlew has joined the ghostly company of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. We can't prove that it's extinct, but no sighting in decades has been confirmed. Today, a small curlew seen in North America is more likely to be a Little Curlew, a vagrant from Asia - or just a runt Whimbrel. Any sightings of odd small curlews should be backed up thoroughly with photographs."

Not so subtle, eh?

Dave Hewitt
Gloucester, VA

A bit more on Fitz' July 28 keynote

An excerpt from the Squam Lakes Natural Science Center Calendar of Events:

Join us on Saturday, July 28 for our Gala celebration and Annual Meeting. We are pleased to announce John W. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. will be the Keynote Speaker at the event. John Fitzpatrick is a world-renowned ornithologist and head of the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. Dr. Fitzpatrick will share the story of the ongoing search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which has been making front page since its 2005 rediscovery. We have been fortunate to obtain Dr. Fitzpatrick as a speaker through George Butler who will introduce him. Originally we planned to show a preview George’s new film about the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker at the Annual Meeting. But instead George has generously offered to show The Lord God Bird as a benefit later this year. We are working with George to set up a date and venue. The day’s activities will start with The Great Woodpecker Quest, a scavenger hunt and fun, family activity that will pit teams against each other in an exciting contest to uncover answers and to raise the most money in pledges.

A copy of the invitation is available here.

Hill to speak in Alabama on Oct. 19

An excerpt from this year's schedule for the Alabama Coastal BirdFest:

After dinner, we'll hear a fascinating presentation about the search in Florida for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Dr. Geoff Hill , ornithologist and Professor at Auburn University, has been leading a team through the swamps and backwaters of the Choctawhatchee River Basin on the Florida panhandle in search of this elusive bird. Recently, the team has discovered many large cavities and unique feeding trees, heard the distinctive kent calls or double raps on 41 occasions, and observed Ivorybills 14 times, according to Dr. Hill. Research is continuing. Come hear his exciting first-hand stories.

A related paragraph is here:

"We know that Dr. Hill and his team have heard the birds' distinctive calls and seen evidence of nests and feeding, and we hope they will have some conclusive proof by October, but in any event, he will have fascinating stories to tell about the search," Morley said. "Who would have guessed that this elusive bird could be living so close to us here on the Gulf Coast?"

Post-1944 "IBWO" not ABA countable

I sent the following email to Bill Pranty:

Just checking--some time ago, I had heard that the ABA was allowing people to count recent alleged encounters with "Ivory-billed Woodpeckers" on their ABA lists.

There was a rumor that one high-end lister had ticked IBWO after seeing something while flying over the Big Woods area; David Chaffin also claims a heard-only "IBWO" as "a very memorable #799 ABA" here.

As I look at my new 2006 ABA Listing report, I see that any bird counted on these lists must be (rule 2): "a species currently accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee for Lists within its area...".

Do you think that the ABA is currently allowing people to count modern "IBWOs", a Code 6 species, on their ABA checklists?

Here is Bill's reply (posted with his permission), dated 7/24/07:

Tom,

The ABA Checklist Committee determines the legitimacy of birds reported to occur in the ABA Area (49 continental states, Canada, the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and territorial waters up to 200 miles offshore, or half the distance to a neighboring country, whichever is less). The CLC also determines a "birding code" (1-6) that describes the likelihood of finding a species in the ABA Area.

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is -- and has been -- listed as a Code 6 species, which means that it is probably or definitely extinct, or at least extirpated from the ABA Area. The CLC will not change this code to a 5 ("accidental") unless proof of Ivory-billed Woodpecker occurrence is determined by the CLC.

The ABA Recording Standards and Ethics Committee chaired by Tony White is responsible for reviewing lists submitted by birders to ABA, and for determining under what circumstances certain species can be counted on personal lists submitted to ABA.

Tony and I work together as chairs of our respective committees.

The RSEC is aware that the CLC has retained Code 6 status for the Ivory-billed. Therefore, the RSEC should not be accepting any report of the species seen after 1944.

Nobody who submits lists to ABA for publication in ABA's annual list supplement should be claiming Ivory-billed Woodpecker seen after 1944. And any lists submitted with that species should be edited by the RSEC.

So no, ABA is NOT allowing anybody to count alleged Ivory-billeds on lists submitted to ABA. In fact, we are prohibiting such action, and have prohibited it for years.

Our annual CLC report is in review right now, set for publication in the November/December 2007 issue of _Birding_. In the report, we reiterate our stance that no recent report of Ivory-billed Woodpecker persistence in the ABA Area is accepted by the CLC. While we all remain hopeful that the species still exists and will be documented conclusively, we keep emotions out of our deliberations and focus solely on the evidence provided.

Best regards,

Bill Pranty
ABA Checklist Committee chair
Bayonet Point, Florida

Sibley et al. letter to Birding

The following letter appears in the July/August 2007 issue of Birding (starting on page 10):

As participants in the scientific debate about video purported to show an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, we read with interest the March/April 2007 Birding, particularly the Hayes and Hayes survey results (pp. 36–41). Although this survey illustrates a wide range of opinions on the topic, it did not employ random sampling and therefore cannot be considered truly representative of perceptions in the birding and ornithological communities. Moreover, Hayes and Hayes instructed respondents to review only two interpretations of the evidence: the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and “FishCrow” websites. We hope that future surveys will encourage people to review other published analyses as well, since several of those differ sharply from the FishCrow and Cornell interpretations. It would also be interesting to know where, specifically, respondents obtained their information on the evidence and, especially, whether they have read the original scientific articles.

Our concern is that many people seem to have based their views on press coverage and online discussions, which are often opinionated and emotionally charged. This situation is troubling to us because our published analysis of the video is often misrepresented by those secondary sources. As an example, we did not emphasize the narrow—and ambiguous—black trailing edge to the wing when ruling out Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Instead, we judged that the bird in the video must be a Pileated because of four other details of wing pattern that cannot be explained as video artifacts or as the wing pattern of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker; see figure online [here].

Three years of intensive formal surveys in Arkansas, two years in the Florida panhandle, and countless hours of informal searching by birders all over the South have failed to confirm the Ivorybill’s presence. Many people have adopted a “wait and see” attitude with beliefs tending towards either optimism or pessimism. These beliefs are not necessarily wrong, but they are simply a matter of opinion. Meanwhile, the scientific debate and public-policy decisions must be based on a clear and objective understanding of the strength of the evidence, not on suggestive or emotional arguments, and we encourage everyone to read the peer-reviewed scientific publications, all of which are available online.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), which might have saved the Ivory-billed Woodpecker if it had been enacted 70 years ago, has been chronically underfunded, and the 2007 budget for the ESA is 5% less than in 2006. On average, each of the 1,200 species of plants and animals designated as threatened or endangered receives only about $14,000 per year in federal and state funding—compare this to the $5.87 million in federal funds spent on the Ivory-bill in 2005, to say nothing of the huge investment of time and effort by government and non-government parties. Another 228 species that warrant protection have not yet been reviewed because of a lack of funding for the listing process. And, still, many more species are declining. In this dire situation we question the wisdom of devoting such a large proportion of scarce resources to a bird that cannot be found.

But the real issue is not that we are spending too much on hopes that we might save the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; it is that there is simply too little money to go around. Under these circumstances, funding one species inevitably takes money away from others. As long as funding is limited, it is important both to direct money where it will have the greatest overall benefit and to base those decisions on sound scientific evidence.

Whether or not the Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists, birders should demand better funding of the Endangered Species Act and speak out against attempts to weaken it. While we wait and search for confirmation of the Ivory-bill, one of the best things we can do is to make sure that other species do not meet the same fate.

— David A. Sibley, Concord, Massachusetts; Louis R. Bevier, Waterville, Maine; Michael A. Patten, Norman, Oklahoma; Chris S. Elphick, Storrs, Connecticut

The highest research standards

From an item about Sara Barker here (page 24):

...All of the “secrecy” was to maintain proper research protocols and documentation. Searches for this “iconic, mystical” bird have been conducted for the past sixty years, but previous sightings were not well documented. “From the 1950s through the 1970s serious researchers, big birders, had their careers ruined due to insufficient documentation,” she explains. Hence, the Cornell team’s firm commitment to maintaining the highest research standards.

Rumors still persist

A paragraph from this article about the Pileated Woodpecker:

With the overall decline of many of the birds around us, it is satisfying to see that the largest of the remaining North American woodpeckers is able to adapt to a changing world, and will still be with us in the future. Whether you say "pill-eated" or "pile-eated," this woodpecker is still an impressive bird. While it now holds the distinction of being this country's largest woodpecker, this has not always been the case. The almost, or completely, extinct ivory-billed woodpecker was larger by around 3 inches. This species is now a legend; although, rumors of its continued existence still persist, especially in this part of the country.

"everybody is optimistic"

A short Arkansas State University radio show on the IBWO (dated February 20, 2006) is here (MP3, 4.9 MB).