In response to Mary’s question, you may want to direct that question to Cornell
as they were the ones that accepted the evidence and now say it was not enough.
I always felt the evidence was extremely flimsy. It was sort of a slight to
those of us carefully documenting and photographing to confirm first state nest
records, etc. to have had something like that accepted with so little actual
evidence. It also swallowed up a lot of energy in ornithological circles that
could have gone to more worthy projects and article space in publications.
Frank Renfrow
Fort Thomas, KY
Begin forwarded message:
From: Frank Renfrow <frankrenfrow@xxxxxxx>
Date: September 23, 2019 at 6:42:31 PM EDT
To: birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Ivory-billed Woodpecker eBird Cornell 3 billion less birds etc.
Update: I did find where Cornell still has the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
mentioned as "rediscovered in 2004":
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/lifehistory
"Although the species was thought to be extinct, it was rediscovered in
Arkansas in 2004, though there have been no confirmed sightings since 2005."
Apparently they still have their previous info floating around the internet
even now after the 2017 revision. Glad of this, just to show I was not just
dreaming this up. If you click on "the rediscovered in Arkansas in 2004"
link, it takes you to the new, revised account not mentioning anything about
having accepted the sighting and then unaccepting it. Sort of misleading not
to update us on the awkward details of how the major Ornithological
Organizations had accepted this and now have decided to go back on that I
would say. This should have been publicized as many out there are still
convinced about those records as being proven.
Frank Renfrow
Fort Thomas, Kentucky
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Renfrow <frankrenfrow@xxxxxxx>
To: birdky <birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2019 5:31 pm
Subject: Fwd: Ivory-billed Woodpecker eBird Cornell 3 billion less birds etc.
Well as Mark Greene mentions apparently what I requested concerning
unaccepting the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may actually have been done very,
very, very quietly during 2017 as mentioned in this intro on the Cornell NAB
website now:
"Editor's Note (February 2017)—Since reported (and controversial) sightings
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Big Woods of northeastern Arkansas in
2004 (Science: June 2005), extensive efforts to locate this species in
Arkansas, Florida, and elsewhere have proven difficult, and no unequivocal
evidence of the species has emerged. This account will be updated in 2017 to
reflect developments."
It is interesting that I follow multiple state listservs pretty regularly
(usually Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio every single day) as well as numerous
Birding FB groups, as well as watching and reading quite a large quantity of
national news each and every day, that I never saw any announcement on this.
Last I had checked (probably less than two years ago) it was still listed as
factual on eBird. Considering all the hoopla and publicity entailed when the
records were accepted by the Arkansas State Records Committee, with Gale
Norton at the Interior Department announcement and even a presentation made
at the AOU. There was even an article in Audubon Magazine very recently
reaffirming the sightings totally factual. And Brainard was right, one of the
guys from Cornell that swore then he saw the bird, is also the same person
announcing the 3 Billion less birds information on the Cornell Website.
Frank Renfrow
Fort Thomas, Kentucky
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Renfrow <frankrenfrow@xxxxxxx>
To: birdky <birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2019 8:14 pm
Subject: Ivory-billed Woodpecker eBird Cornell 3 billion less birds etc.
Since Brainard brought up the topic, I thought it might be a good time to ask
for thoughts from other birders. Isn't it about time eBird, Cornell, Arkansas
State Records Committee, the ABA, the AOU now AOS et al etc. admit there was
not really adequate evidence presented on the 21st Century Ivory-billed
Woodpecker reports for any of them to have been accepted? Isn't it about time
for them to move those records into the unaccepted records category?
Frank Renfrow
Fort Thomas, Kentucky
