There has been an interesting development in the world of bird-watching over the years. I don’t quite know when it began, but it has become something of an irritant in my opinion. This development is the “need for a photograph” phenomenon. Now that cameras are prolific and people have also lost faith in God (which directly correlates to a loss of trust in people), you have this phenomenon that “if you did not photograph it, you probably did not see it.” This is not universally applied. Sometimes an excessively thorough description of what you saw may suffice, but usually it ends with, “Maybe you did, but if we had a photo we’d know.”
I understand and appreciate the desire to be precise and accurate, and the photograph argument is not malicious, but it is fallacious. Yes, there are a lot of quacks and loons out there who cannot tell the difference between a blue jay and a blue bird and who think all woodpeckers are the same, and some people do make mistakes in identifying an odd looking bird, so it seems benign to have a standard for judgment. Prove to me you saw it by showing me a photograph. It’s not like its hard to take a photo of something these days. “Surely, if you saw it, you could photograph it.” “We won’t really know unless we can collaborate on the identification.” No one is malicious and I do not suppose to malign anyone. But the principle is what I am maligning. At least, to a degree. Photographic evidence is helpful, but photographs can also be editing and forged, so there’s that side of things to consider.
Regardless, the point is that we have an odd standard in the birding world that requires a technological artifact to prove you saw something. Range maps are helpful, but they are not Gospel. I’ve seen lots of birds in places they don’t belong. We all have. But just because I did not photograph it does not mean I did not see it. Yet you see so many people say “I know I saw this, but I didn’t photograph it, so we’ll never really know.” I’ve fallen into that trap in the past. Photos are useful for identifying things because you can study them later and discern what you could not see in the field. Birds often don’t sit still, so identifying can be a problem. It’s also nice we don’t have to shoot them to inspect them. All good things.
But to make it a standard or proof of what you see is what I dislike. My experience and study and observation skills should alone be enough. My word should be enough. If I can explain it clearly and it checks out with what a field guide supports, there should be no question what I saw. There should not even be a suggestion that a photograph would seal the deal. My word and my senses are enough. People should, and many do, have the honesty to say, “it may have been this, but I’m not sure”. I’ve had many birds like that — some I wish I could count, but I’m not certain so I don’t — but at no point do I think the camera is the magical judge of all things. I don’t need photographs to prove what I saw. I don’t need them to do the identifying for me. Having some get away or some mystery helps keep the excitement going — you never know what you are going to see.
This proof of evidence standard has found its apex in the Ivory-billed woodpecker debate. Since 1944 there has been this myth that for someone to have seen an Ivory-bill they need to have a photograph of it. But no one can seem to get a photograph of it. So does it exist? According to the proof by camera argument, no. Then someone does take a photograph — some of clearer quality than others — and immediately the answer is, “well the photo isn’t good enough,” or worse, “you faked it.” So the community demands a photo then rejects every single one thrown its way.
The only time it didn’t was in 2004 when one of its own took a grainy video. But nothing else yielded any results or photographic evidence, which led many to doubt the video. So photographs and videos have limitations in austere environments. But, there are countless observations, detailed drawings, and descriptions of ivory-billed woodpeckers. Dozens and dozens showing a small but robust community of birds across the southeast. It proves 1944 wasn’t the last. But no one wants to take people on their word.
People will immediately argue, “it looks like a Pileated! They just saw a Pileated;” or worse, “they saw a red-headed.” Yes, some people, like your ordinary, innocent neighbor, did see a Pileated and you can tell that within thirty seconds of talking to them. But there are those who are either really good liars, or are telling the truth, and not everyone who claims to see an Ivory-bill is a liar. There is really no point to lying about it. Seeing a woodpecker is not going to shoot you to fame and launch a billion dollar career. At best you’ll be a cool nerd who likes to dwell in swamps and will be quickly forgotten.
But not everyone is stupid. And not everyone is a liar. So why isn’t their word good enough? People just don’t have trust. We saw this in the 1920s when Mason Spencer saw an Ivory-bill and reported it (this was back when they were still “common”). He reported it to the wildlife warden who laughed at him and said he misidentified it. So what did he do? He went and shot it. Easier than getting a photograph in those days. Maybe guys need to start shooting the ivory-bills they see? Most of them hunt as well and are good at shooting. But you get into a sticky situation that way. Instead of trusting someone on their word and listening to their story, you doubt them, so they shoot it to prove it to you. If he didn’t shoot it, there would be one more ivory-bill to help an already small population. How many ivory-bills were shot to prove they existed? A lot.
So instead of shooting them, we say we should use a camera. A different shooting. But the same problem persists. Why aren’t people’s words good enough? I have studied the Ivory-billed woodpecker since I was twelve and I read almost every book on the subject before I finished high school. I have seen every video and listened to hours of calls an double knocks. I have spent hours looking at field guides and studying the birds. I can tell you with confidence that the Ivory-bill looks and behaves nothing like a Pileated and Red-headed Woodpecker, and it is absurd for a trained eye to easily be confused by them. A random person who doesn’t study birds can mistake them, but the ones who see them typically know what they are looking for, or at least they know the local wildlife to know what they aren’t seeing. I’ve seen thousands of Pileateds. I don’t have any issue in the field identifying one. I’ve seen hundreds of red-headed woodpeckers. I am not going to confuse that for an Ivory-bill. The sizes are absurdly different. The white patch is similar, but that’s it. A trained eye will not confuse the two, and all searchers err on the side of caution anyway. They argue themselves into seeing what they saw by trying to convince themselves they saw something different.
But the world demands a photo, which they will inevitably declare fake. So I think the whole thing is foolish. We don’t need photos to prove evidence. Foraging signs, sounds, short sightings — all these things can be sufficient and should be. A photograph is the cherry on top, but not the item that makes the dessert. Do Ivory-bills exist? Yes, they do. Will they always exist? Maybe not. We see that ever since the flood there has been a constant dwindling and reduction of the kinds of animals. Things are constantly going extinct or in peril thereof. So it is no surprise that the Ivory-bill may follow in that way. It’s sad, but it’s the reality we live in. The 1800s and 1900s were a particularly hard time on a lot of creation. Between countless destructive wars, excessive hunting, and rapid careless industrialization, a lot has been recklessly lost. I can easily conceive the Ivory-bill being among those things we lost. And it’s unfair to us who live without them. People lived in a time where they had no regard or respect for the future. Some did and tried, but the whole did not, and the whole ruled.
But I think there has been enough sightings to prove its existence. There have been enough honest observations that have been followed up by at least some evidence. Maybe it is not clear evidence, but after 1944, no one accepted even the relatively clear ones, so quality should not matter that much. Plus, most of the photographs are from trail cams, which don’t always produce great results at a distance. It’s hard to zero in on one spot of a tree. But get the whole tree and you might see something, but you sacrifice clarity of shot in many cases. So there’s a fair compromise, but it is not good enough for people.
I have also been to some of these places where Ivory-bills were historically seen. They are large tracts of hard-to-search areas. Since I fly for a living, I also fly above a lot of these tracts, and there are many, many miles of forests and swamps that could easily hold a population of birds that no one will ever see. And those who do might keep it to themselves or think, “i saw this odd Pileated today.”
We have also seen many evidences of man declaring something extinct only for it to show up again. Much like the Ark of the Covenant, maybe God hides them from man for a while because we have become unworthy. These things are His creation after all. Bermuda’s petrel went 300 years before being observed again. Bachman’s Warbler was observed in 1823, and then not again until 1870s. Ivory-bills would sometime take weeks to see in areas they were common in. It’s not very surprising, then, that it is hard to find to this day. It was always a shyer woodpecker. Yes, woodpeckers are loud, noisy birds, but this one was always harder to find. I’ve been to places where Red-cockaded woodpeckers reside and have trouble finding them sometimes. It took me four years to see a Wood Thrush despite always being near them and hearing them sing. Sometimes it’s not easy to see something. But you bet I don’t need a photograph to prove I’ve seen a Red-cockaded or a Wood Thrush. I can use my eyes and ears and that is enough. I know from experience and observation and study what they look like, and I can make a competent observation. I don’t need a photograph to show somebody to prove I saw it.
I think the same thing applies to the Ivory-bill. I know what it looks like, how it behaves, and I don’t need a photograph to prove I have seen it. It would be nice, but not necessary. I can also say with certitude that I have not yet seen one. I maybe heard one. Here, I also err on the side of caution. It was not enough in itself to prove I heard one, but it sounded like exactly what one sounds like. It was not the kent call, but a double-knock. I heard it on the heels of a Pileated drum on my first visit to Tensas earlier in March. A Pileated did its characteristic loud, hollow drum and immediately as it finished I heard “ba-bam!” just like in the recordings and imitations and book descriptions. I never heard anything again the rest of the day, but I heard plenty of Pileated drums, and I’ve never had a Pileated drum ever end with a double tap. So did I hear one? Seems like it. But I also can honestly say I never heard or saw anything else that day that suggests one was there, except for the wood works signs, which is not overly conclusive, but you can build a picture based on multiple pieces of evidence.
So the point. People would say, “it was just a Pileated” or worse “you heard two trees knocking.” Or they’d say, “well if you had a recording we’d know.” But this is nonsense. I know what I heard and I don’t lie. I don’t need technology to reinforce my observation of the world. It can help, but it is not necessary. I sometimes even debate bringing a camera, but I keep one on me not to prove I saw one, but because it would be cool to keep a photo in my home if I do see one. Yet, the memory of it will be enough. I care more about seeing and experiencing the bird than photographing it for the disbelieving masses. So I think a delineation is sufficient. There is active and passive and supplemental evidence for something.
Active evidence is what you see, hear, and observe. I heard the bird. I see it flying. I also see signs of its life. I see wood holes and torn up trees. Maybe I see feathers or nesting cavities. I see signs of a large woodpecker living even if I do not see the bird itself. At Tensas, especially in the Tendal sector, there are a lot of large trees that just don’t quite look like exclusively Pileated fed trees. Maybe they are, but there is reason to think possibly not.
There is also passive evidence. Passive evidence is the kind that suggests the bird does not exist and is not present. Take for example, Homochitto National Forest. I went on a 11 mile walk through it. It is am impressive dry mixed pine and hardwood forest. Lots of large trees. I even heard several Pileateds. But there was very little evidence of woodpecker life. Very few trees were bored into. Very few drums and calling. It would seem Ivory-bills would not be found there. Pileateds are probably common, but you wouldn’t guess it by just looking around. So there seems to be some active evidence in Tensas of possible Ivory-bill presence. Yes, a sighting would seal the deal, but it is fairly probable they are there or visit regularly. Woodpeckers are extremely happy there, and Ivory-bills historically live there. There is a ton of large woodpecker evidence at Tensas. And it seems active and recent. Maybe it is all Pileated, but it is compelling. Homochitto, not so much. It was quiet and there wasn’t much to suggest it was worth much searching. Doesn’t mean they will never visit there or reside there, but seems unlikely.
Supplementary evidence, then, is the external evidence that suggests something lives or not. This would be constant sightings, or lack thereof, as well as photographs and sound recordings and such. Supplementary evidence is useful but not foundational. It helps solidify a case, but is not required. I can see and hear a woodpecker and not photograph it and the bird can still exist. Existence does not depend on supplementary evidence. It does not depend even on my seeing it. Spiritual beings exist and I almost never see them. I have never seen or heard a Black Rail but they still exist. Other people see and hear them and I trust that they do. Regardless, it exists. The same can be said of the Ivory-bill. The more supplementary evidence (rumors of sightings, recordings of call, trail cams, etc) can tilt the scales in one direction of the other. I have a lot of signs, it is reasonable to conclude it exists. A lack of signs, it seems it may not.
There seems to be enough active evidence of its continued existence. There are trail cams, however blurry; there are videos, however blurry; there are sonographs; there are sightings, there are feeding signs — there’s a lot in many places that suggest it still exists. There are places where there seems to be no evidence of its existence. The passive evidence, the lack of evidence, suggests that Ivory-bills do not live in Homochitto. It almost felt like no woodpeckers lived there. I had an 11 mile walk and heard 13 woodpeckers. At Tensas it was about 30 pileateds, one possible ivory-bill, 10 red-headeds, and 50 red-bellieds, and some downys. So ivory-bills seem to prefer the wetter woodlands. But those are harder to get to and search extensively and have more dangers — bears, snakes, alligators, boars, mud, flooding. Ivory-bills are also known to be quick to fly away. Tanner had trouble keeping up with them in the 1930s. When they spooked he’d have to trek miles to find them. That’s not always easy to do in a swamp. It is easily conceivable I heard a double knock of a bird sending a warning call and promptly flying away while I was stuck wondering in a tangle of mud and palmetto.
I think the birding world could afford to take a step back and calm down with the artificial photographic evidence demand. People who are fakes are usually easy to spot, and the rest should be given an honest trust of what they saw. That’s the whole point of having field guides so people can make those decisions without guessing. What’s the point if nothing matters unless we take a photo and get someone’s approval? It’s definitely helpful for a hard to ID bird or a funny looking one, and it’s nice to throw a photo out and say, “here it is,” but it’s not necessary. So I think its entirely possible and probable that Ivory-bills exist. The evidence on sightings alone prove it to be so.
I have every expectation of seeing one some day, and I may not put any effort into taking a photograph of it. I don’t really care if people will accept my sighting or not. They are the same people who would demanded of Jesus a miracle to then turn around and say he was doing it by the power of a devil or deception. Jesus refused them the miracle because he knew their heart was not in the right place. I would refuse the photograph because people’s hearts are not in the right place. They don’t actually want the photo or care. They want to sideline and ridicule. If anything, they don’t want the bird to exist so they can decry how evil humanity is. But if I see one, no photo or lack of it will take away my sighting. Just like I heard one. Nothing can take that away. I heard a double-knock. I’m not crazy. It got my blood flowing and my heart racing. It’s a shame I didn’t see one that day, but it takes weeks of constant searching to see one, maybe years, just like it did when it was common in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s. The only shame is I’ve been too busy with work and family to consistently take trips out to the swamps to look consistently. Maybe I’ll have time in the fall before I leave Mississippi to go searching again, but you can bet I won’t need a photograph to see it or prove I see one. My eyes and ears and years of study are enough.
Semper Volans (Always Flying) 