In reference to the Luneau video, we first saw this in May of 2004, in Little Rock, Arkansas. While there was excitement about the video, David Luneau was balanced in his presentation. There were many technical problems, but none more than the fact that his camera was on on autofocus.

I recall clearly walking up to DAvid, shaking his hand and saying”Congratulations, you got the bird but unfortunately, the video you’ve shot will never be more than the Sasquatch film.”

How prophetic those words have become.
Sincerely,

Timothy R. Barksdale
Managing Member, Birdman Productions, LLC

Not sure if this is still read by you. My 14 year old son and I just returned from a 20 day birding expedition to Florida, where he evidenced many of the traits you write and debate about in these blogs– too-quick ID, desire to see rare birds, etc. We still managed to get about 30 new spp. for him, and it was a great trip. And I served as the “straight man birder” on the trip. He has a thrill for the Ivorybill. Anyway, being a teacher with some time off, I am reading about it today, reviewing the films more than I ever had, and reading comments. I see one line of logic that is not commented on that I might add for consideration.

If the Luneau film was of a (fairly common) Pileated, and subsequently more people are filming in the same habitat, then more similar films would be shot. Since this does not seem to be the case in the last six years, this logic would favor the (near extinct) Ivorybill as the bird in the Luneau film, all other lines of inquiry being as they are.
With all respect, and as a lowly amateur birder with a life list of < 400 spp., I see an Ivorybill jumping off a tree and flitting away in the film. I think the 8.7 wingbeats per second is key, as is the failure of duplicating the film in situ with other Pileateds (if this is so).

John

Tyler Hicks does report seeing the white trailing edge as the bird flew, along with the pale bill and other features, but his sighting fails all of the other tests. He’s not using binoculars, and he’s distracted by pulling out a camera and trying to snap some pictures (but the autofocus fails), and it all happens in only a second or two! In such a brief and imperfect glimpse, any observer can grossly misinterpret the observation. There are lots of examples in birding that leave everyone, including the observers, shaking their heads and wondering how they could have been so wrong.

I think besides others, Mr. Sibley (David) would be the happiest if the existence of IBW would be proved without doubt.

Under this hypothesis, the bottomland forest populations of Ivory-billed woodpeckers, such as that studied by Tanner, would have been remnants in sub-optimal habitat, and were probably doomed. And this would also mean that pretty much everyone has the wrong idea about Ivory-billed habitat today, both in searching and in conservation.

I think that sort of question, probably never to be resolved, does emphasize just how little was actually known about the bird, and just how wrong-headed the current FWS recovery plan is.

Cornell’s seven sightings include descriptions of “a narrow red crescent on the bird’s folded crest”, “a small flash of red on the bird’s black crest”, and “long neck with white stripe, and black head with long bill”.

Tyler Hicks’ sighting of 12/24/06 was of a perched bird at 40 feet away. He saw the “glowing” white bill, an all-black crest, white dorsal stripe, and white on the lower “back” of the perched bird. The field notes of the previous year’s sightings on the Choctawhatchee included multiple reports of field marks like an all-black head and the distinctive underwing pattern of white coverts, white secondaries and some primaries, and a black line inbetween spreading out at the primaries.

David Kulivan got an extended look at a pair of perched birds and noted all the field marks.

You give skepticism a bad name with such an obvious misrepresentation.