Rediscovery and Recovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Abstract

In 2005 the ornithological world was shocked by the announcement of the rediscovery of an ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis; IBWP) northwest of Brinkley, Arkansas (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) revealed that a secret, year-long search along Bayou de View in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge (CRNWR) had produced 7 credible sightings, some possible recordings of vocalizations, and a short video of the woodpecker. However, despite extensive continued searching on public land in Arkansas and a few unconfirmed sightings, no further sightings have been confirmed by video or photographic evidence. The scientific community is currently divided on the correct interpretation of these data (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006, Jackson 2006). I will not enter into this debate because, like most of the world today, I have never seen a living IBWP. My exposure is limited to a close inspection of 2 mounted taxidermy specimens purportedly collected from the Trinity River bottoms near Dallas, Texas around 1900. From 1980–1992 I worked in Arkansas for USFWS and later, United States Department of Agriculture addressing migratory bird conflicts with landowners. This allowed me to meet rice farmers, aquaculturists, and a cross section of the other residents while traveling along most of the watersheds of eastern Arkansas. For example, I hunted waterfowl many times on rice farms and minnow ponds in the general area (within 10 km) of where the IBWP was reported. Following this announcement, I spoke with several residents who now claim to know that IBWPs have persisted on private lands in Arkansas throughout the 20th century. One individual, who chooses to remain anonymous, told me that he had watched IBWPs nest annually in the same old oak tree from as far back as he could remember (at least 1960) through the mid 1990s. His credibility with me is enhanced by the story of how much trouble he got into by shooting one when he was about 9 years old. His description of the plumage ‘‘in hand’’ is compelling, as are the descriptions of how they protected their ‘‘Good God Birds’’ from discovery. I use the word compelling because none of these people are trained ornithologists nor are there any supporting photographs. However, they do have many years of field experience with the local avifauna. Alas, these are compelling stories but not scientific proof. Before the 2005 announcement, none of the local residents said a word about IBWPs to any outsiders, including me, for fear that it could interfere with the duckhunting season. Waterfowl hunting is a major source of outside revenue in eastern and central Arkansas. Closing duck season has been proposed informally to USFWS following the 2005 announcement (S. Hamilton, USFWS, personal communication). I think this goes a long way toward answering Jackson’s (2006) question, ‘‘Why should ivory-billed woodpeckers not be in eastern Arkansas’’? Jackson (2006) also asks the question of why they should be there. He then provides an excellent review of the historic status and distribution of IBWPs, which logically explains how a population or populations might have persisted. My answer to this question is the private hunting clubs. How, one should ask, could IBWPs persist on private land and not on larger tracts of similar public land that are available in the local areas? This is an issue concerning the differences between how private and public lands are controlled and managed. The first big difference is water. Private lands are managed as green-timber reservoirs that are pumped to flood level every fall for waterfowl hunting. The result is some mortality of trees due to inundation, which provides new food sources virtually every year. Almost all of the public lands are flooded by rainfall or rising water. Thus, there is little or no flooding on public land in dry years. Predictable resource availability gains importance as remnant populations have to survive on shrinking habitat. Second, these private clubs are typically hunted from a few blinds (or holes in the timber) and do not allow hunters to move about other than directly in and out along the same path. Most public lands allow unrestricted hunter access over wide areas. Finally, and perhaps most important, private lands are posted against trespass and that is vigorously enforced throughout the year. The result of these differences is that private green-timber reservoirs offer a variety of secluded refugia of high-quality habitat for IBWPs every year during the very noisy waterfowl season followed by a long, quiet breeding period during the spring and summer. I have 2 competing hypotheses (and a corollary of one of them) to explain why an IBWP was seen on CRNWR. First is that it could have been the very last one in existence. If this is true, or the corollary that the bird seen was not an IBWP, it makes no difference to the IBWP what course of action we take, as the species is or soon will be extinct. The more optimistic hypothesis is that this was a surplus, or young bird from private land, out exploring for a new territory or mate. This hypothesis is consistent with the observed pattern of events that started with a flurry of sightings at a seemingly unlikely location (fragmented habitat with relatively un1 E-mail: bivingsb@forscom.army.mil