Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

[buck3m]

I'm starting this new thread for debating the case for the survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.

Let's try to keep it friendly, shall we? : )

[buck3m]

I don't think anyone's suggesting the Cornell team is guilty of fraud. I think they’re good, honest, intelligent, and human. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory buff to realize that fraud has, many times in the past, encouraged people to believe in amazing, but false, claims. There's no doubt that people have manufactured evidence that has fooled many. These hoaxes include:

“Piltdown Man” (which fooled anthropologists for 40 years.)
Viking “relics” manufactured and planted in the Midwest. Genuine Viking relics planted in the Midwest.
People posing as the undiscovered Tasaday tribe, (fooling scholarly organizations such as National Geographic and reported the world over as “fact.”) [as a side note, I didn’t learn the facts until the internet came along. I was wondering what had become of that amazing discovery, did a web search, and was stunned to learn the truth!]

And the list goes on and on. In many cases, expert, honest researchers have drawn invalid conclusions based on hoaxes perpetrated by others.

In some of these cases, the basic theory proved correct: Vikings HAD been in the New World, (but apparently not the Midwest) for example. In many other cases, once the hoax was proven, the theories were blown out of the water.

There has been more than one proven ivory-bill hoax already. In the case of the audio, I think it would be ridiculously easy for a prankster to play a recording and fool people into hearing what they're searching to hear. Some people confused gunshots for ivory-bill knocks, for heaven's sake. How many people could you fool if you played a GENUINE recording of IB knocks and calls? If you have no proper controls in your experiment, it erodes the dependability of the results down to nearly nothing, doesn’t it?

The reincarnation of the ivory-bill is a miracle, but there’s nothing miraculous or even particularly unusual about honest mistakes or hoaxes.

To paraphrase Occam's Razor: "The simplest explanation is the best."

I believe the ivory-bill MAY live, but the evidence is weak (and blurry), and the announcement is premature, at best.

[curunir]

So what is the simplest answer?

[Curtis Croulet]

which fooled anthropologists for 40 years

Some anthropologists. But I've had my say about this topic.

[buck3m]

Some anthropologists. But I've had my say about this topic.

Virtually all scientists who accepted evolution accepted Piltdown man until it was debunked.


So what is the simplest answer?

I believe it is fair to say that the two sides of the issue are:

1. The IBW has been proven to be with us all along.
2. The IBW may still be here, but should be presumed extinct until better evidence is offered.

To believe the former you would have to accept the following:

*Generations of IBWs have come and gone without any good photographs being taken or other solid evidence produced.
*Generations have come and gone without any dead specimens being found.
*Out of the numerous confirmed sightings, the only identifying characteristic marking noted was the white trailing wing edges. No one saw the "ivory bill" of these Ivory-Bills, nor the prominent white shoulder stripes, but they were there. (Note: if it were me, I'd have a mental list of each major identifying characteristic, knowing that I would be asked about it later.)
*The "spotters" never noticed or reported the noisy wings of the IBWs they saw.
*IBWs have gone from being relatively easy to find, observe and photograph, to being extremely elusive.
*They were lucky enough to avoid the remote cameras.
*Knocks heard can positively be identified as Ivory-bill knocks, not gunshots, axes, etc.
*Real kents can differentiated from recorded kents, blue jays etc, without seeing a living bird to match them to.
*For 60 years, populations were high enough to prevent extinction but low enough to prevent confirmed sightings.

To believe the latter you need to believe:

Ivory bills were not seen by the team at all, but they were fooled by fleeting glimpses of a pileated woodpecker or similar bird, as has happened hundreds of times in the past.

The audio is simply a combination of one or more: jays, guns, etc.

That explains:
Why they didn't HEAR the wings.,
Why they didn't SEE most of the main identifiers,
Why no verifiable ivory-bill photos have been taken in 60 years,
Why there were no GOOD CLOSE observations of the bird. Good views weren't confused with IBWs
Why there's only poor, FUZZY photographic evidence. Good photos and video would not reveal an IBW.
Why no IBWs appear on remote camera,
Why easily found and spotted birds have become so elusive,
Why no dead specimens have been found.

[humminbird]

Reading second hand records of the efforts to find Ivory-billed as provided in some of Gallaghers account, I do not find the "easy to find" contention supported by what these early century observers recall.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

[affe22]

The audio is simply a combination of one or more: jays, guns, etc.

That explains:
Why they didn't HEAR the wings.,
Why they didn't SEE most of the main identifiers,
Why no verifiable ivory-bill photos have been taken in 60 years,
Why there were no GOOD CLOSE observations of the bird. Good views weren't confused with IBWs
Why there's only poor, FUZZY photographic evidence. Good photos and video would not reveal an IBW.
Why no IBWs appear on remote camera,
Why easily found and spotted birds have become so elusive,
Why no dead specimens have been found.

Do we know they didn't hear the wings or see the identifiers? I'm really tired of people putting words into the researchers' mouths and stating things that they neither said for or against. As for dead specimens, stuff doesn't last long in the woods, let alone a swamp. I've hunted and hiked woods that I know deer live in, but I think I've found one or two naturally dead carcasses. I have never found a full dead bird in the woods. It just doesn't happen that often. The jay theory is as ridiculous to me as the IBWP sounds are to skeptics. If jays in NJ made sounds like the IBWP it doesn't mean they make that sounds anywhere else. Here's an interesting fact, Blue Jays have very regional calls which are extremely variable from one place to another. The Blue Jays in St. Louis don't have all the same vocalizations as the ones in Kirksville, MO which is only 200 miles away. Has everyone forgot that the Cornell team stated that they were pretty confident they were at the edge of this bird's range? Maybe that explains the behavior. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, why not keep an actual open mind and wait to hear all the evidence (i.e. the audio clips) and maybe even see what the next search turns up.

As for people playing original recordings of IBWPs to fool Cornell, as far as I know there is only one recording that people know about and wasn't the search kept extremely quiet? Why would someone be out there with IBWP sounds when hardly anyone knew what the small group was looking for? Don't you think they could establish that someone was playing an old recording? Who would transport the audio equipment required to fake the sound loud enough and well enough by canoe into a swamp with no power? Don't you think people learned the lesson about gunshots and double-knocks which sound nothing alike?

As for sightings, haven't there been many, many sightings that were just blown off since they came from "amateur" birders? Maybe some of these sightings were valid but no one ever bothered to look into it because it was someone that wasn't anyone in Ornithology.

I'd say everyone should take the position of the IBWP MAY exist, but some people on the forum who claim this opinion seem to have the opinion of the IBWP does not exist and there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

[affe22]

(Note: if it were me, I'd have a mental list of each major identifying characteristic, knowing that I would be asked about it later.)

Sorry I missed this. If I were someone watching a species that was supposed to be extinct fly past me, I think I wouldn't be paying extremely careful attention to every field mark I should. As buck has stated, people do make mistakes. I think I would be so excited that the adrenaline rush would overcome the "I need to pay close attention" and I have a hard time believing anyone would stay very calm at that moment. It's kind of silly to sit on the computer and say that we would do otherwise in that situation because none of us has ever been even close to that situation and I'm sure we'd all lose careful focus.

[Curtis Croulet]

It's kind of silly to sit on the computer and say that we would do otherwise in that situation because none of us has ever been even close to that situation and I'm sure we'd all lose careful focus.

Yes, there's a lot of the "if I ran the zoo" type of argument in the Nelson Brothers' posts, i.e., "I would have done it differently!". "If I'd been there, I would have noticed character X!" Maybe, maybe not.

[timeshadowed]

Thank you for starting this thread and leaving the 'Updates' for the purpose it was started and made a 'sticky'.

I would like it better if a moderator were to move all the posts dealing with this discussion here removing them from the updates file.

I would also like HGR to give the same consideration to the 'other side of the coin'. That being that the IBWO should NEVER have even been considerated 'extinct' in the first place!

He should be asking questions like:
1. How extensive have the searches been throughout the years since 1944?

2. How much of the deep deep swamplands have undergone extensive searches for the IBWO since 1944?

If the answer is not very much, then why not???

Can HGR PROVE that the IBWO is indeed extinct??
What proof can he produce? Does HE have any? IF not, then WHY is he so determined to debunk the 2004-2005 information on the IBWO??


It sounds to me like HGR has some 'axe to grind'! I would like to know just what that AXE is!

Now regarding the lack of reported 'field marks'on the IBWO:

I do quite a bit of observation of the Bald Eagle and I can tell you that sometimes it is very difficult to "see clearly" the white head and/or tail of the eagle. The sun is sometimes the reason that these appear to be 'black' and not white. It is only after extensive time spent looking at the soaring bird that I have been able to 'confirm' the sighting as an adult bald eagle! Now compare that to the IBWO which was only a 'fleeting glimpse'. Surly it may be hard to see more than ONE field mark in that short time frame!

YET I was sure I was looking at a bald eagle BEFORE I saw the white head and tail!

TimeShadowed

Edited to add - I was hoping that a Moderator would move the comments from the original thread to this thread. But since that has not happened - here is the url where this discussion all began:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=33968&page=10&pp=25

[Curtis Croulet]

Can HGR PROVE that the IBWO is indeed extinct??

He can't "prove" a negative. He can only cite reasons (which he has done) for believing that it is probably extinct.


It sounds to me like HGR has some 'axe to grind'! I would like to know just what that AXE is!

Agreed.


I do quite a bit of observation of the Bald Eagle and I can tell you that sometimes it is very difficult to "see clearly" the white head and/or tail of the eagle...etc.

I have had similar experiences. I sometimes find that, even with a bird that I've been able to study with a scope or binoculars for several minutes, I'll go back to the bird guide and see listed some important character that I completely missed.

[Pileated_MO]

Sorry I missed this. If I were someone watching a species that was supposed to be extinct fly past me, I think I wouldn't be paying extremely careful attention to every field mark I should. As buck has stated, people do make mistakes. I think I would be so excited that the adrenaline rush would overcome the "I need to pay close attention" and I have a hard time believing anyone would stay very calm at that moment. It's kind of silly to sit on the computer and say that we would do otherwise in that situation because none of us has ever been even close to that situation and I'm sure we'd all lose careful focus.


This just reminded me of the searchers doing all of that waiting, then when the bird flew past, yelling "ivory bill" out loud so the bird could hear it, causing him/her to fly away from them. That has bugged me, though I do understand how excitement could make someone do that.
I do believe that the Cornell people and other searchers know what they're looking at, and as someone who used to have no hope that IBWP's existed, I believe so now, and I'm ecstatic. As for how I would behave if I were to spot one, I can't say.

[BarbaraM]

You sceptics do know, don't you, that there were about 9 people, in several different groups, at different times, on different days, who identified IBW as part of the recent "rediscovery"? Not all of them were even part of the Cornell "team". Did they all experience hallucinations? Barbara

[buck3m]

I do not find the "easy to find" contention supported by what these early century observers recall.

Well, as an easy example, in 1943 Pough found what was thought to be the last IBW alive. In 1944, Eckelberry went back, found and refound that bird over a two week period, and made detailed sketches of it, including the identifying marks the current observers were possibly too excited to see. This is a big, loud, impressive bird. The Lord God Bird.

Most of these photos (http://www.zeiss.de/us/co/sports/home2.nsf/0/d5e5f09000e0c2e485256d24007c45f2?OpenDocument) were taken when the IBW had dwindled down to a relative handful. Compare them to the best photos from the paper.


I think I would be so excited that the adrenaline rush would overcome the "I need to pay close attention" and I have a hard time believing anyone would stay very calm at that moment.

So you're arguing that they were repeatedly too excited to make accurate and complete observations? If so, wouldn't they be flawed reports? If they couldn't see things that WERE there, is it possible they saw things that WEREN'T there?



Do we know they didn't hear the wings or see the identifiers?


Since they're in the bird guides as a defining sounds and markings, surely they would have noted it and recorded it in the paper. Although I disagree with the conclusions, the report looks well-written to me.


The jay theory is as ridiculous to me as the IBWP sounds are to skeptics.

Apparently the authors of the paper disagree as quoted here: nasal calls closely resembling those recorded by A. A. Allen at the Singer Tract in 1935 were recorded at two places in the White River National Wildlife Refuge, but these may have been given by blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata, a notorious mimic).


Why would someone be out there with IBWP sounds when hardly anyone knew what the small group was looking for? Don't you think they could establish that someone was playing an old recording?

Well, one group that was out there playing sounds was the searchers themselves. It's my understanding that at least once this was mistaken for "the real thing." (Later discovered.) Since, as quoted in the paper above, blue jays are notorious mimics, they could have "played back" the recordings. I think it would be very easy to slightly change an old recording and fool people.

I know many of you think this skepticism is heresy, but I ask you to be open-minded, too.

Please realize that I'm not claiming to be infallible. One example is when I temporarily identified a distant wart hog as a rhino. That's what I was looking for and that's what I saw. It's because I realize that no one is infallible that I think some of the observations were probably flawed, too.

When word of the ivory-bills rediscovery came out, I immediately emailed my brother. We were ecstatic. I was especially happy when I heard the challenge had been dropped based on the audio evidence. Personally, I'd always hoped, and wanted to believe, there were Ivory-bills all along. So did my brother.

I was shocked when I saw the actual evidence and read the paper. I may be wrong. They may live. If enough additional evidence comes along in the future, I WILL accept it. Show me a good photo along with a couple of good, close range sighting reports, and I am on board with the believers.

[buck3m]

Let's establish this: do you believe that
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[buck3m]

Did they all experience hallucinations? Barbara

From Sibley's Birding Basics as quoted in The Blog (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com) (I added italics and bold.)

---
...An observer might see something intriguing, say a large falcon flying away, and jump to the excited conclusion that it could be a Gyrfalcon, a bird normally found in the far north. The next step should be to pause and start from the beginning, looking at each characteristic objectively, but too often the overexcited birder tends to stick with the first impression and simply tries to confirm the identification as a rare species. Often, a very brief sighting does not allow any more detailed study, and the observer might choose to emphasize anything that can tip the balance toward the desired identification: "Yes, it did look long-tailed; yes, it was very dark; it just didn't 'feel' like a Peregrine,", and so on. Other poorly seen field marks that point toward a Peregrine Falcon--perhaps it looked long-winged, or seemed to have a contrasting white cheek--are then ignored.

This problem can result in a sort of "group hysteria" when large numbers of birders look at the same bird. The suggestion by one person that the bird is a certain species forms an expectation for everyone else, who then looks only for field marks to confirm the "expected" identification. In one very well documented case in California, the first state record of the Sky Lark (a Eurasian species) was misidentified for days, and by hundreds of people, as the state's first Smith's Longspur. The two species have a superficial similarity but are not even in the same family and can be distinguished by dozens of features. The initial observers expected a Smith's Longspur to show up in the state and never considered the Sky Lark as a possibility. Most of the people who went to see this bird over the next few days had the same expectation, augmented by the knowledge that they were looking for a "confirmed" Smith's Longspur.

[timeshadowed]

Let's establish this: do you believe that
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."


No! And again a great big NO OOOOOO ooooo!!!

As I said, I don't believe for one minute that the IBWO was EVER extinct!

The reason that the IBWO was not 'confirmed' seen was because the 'ones' doing the 'looking' were never looking in the right places, ie the way, way back deep swamps! And further these same 'ones' choose to disregard ALL reports of sightings by hunters and fishermen who WERE going deep, deep into the swamps.

TimeShadowed

[timeshadowed]

It seems to me that all of HGR's questions and statements START with the fundamental belief that the IBWO was/is extinct.

He needs to be fair and consider the 'other side of the coin'. He needs to start asking questions as to why the 'experts' ever began thinking that the IBWO was extinct in the first place.

Why didn't the 'experts' follow-up on some of the 'sightings' by hunters/fishermen???

Until HGR starts asking 'fair' questions, his views are going to remain unpopular with some on this forum.

TimeShadowed

[curunir]

It seems to me that all of HGR's questions and statements START with the fundamental belief that the IBWO was/is extinct.

He needs to be fair and consider the 'other side of the coin'. He needs to start asking questions as to why the 'experts' ever began thinking that the IBWO was extinct in the first place.

Why didn't the 'experts' follow-up on some of the 'sightings' by hunters/fishermen???

Until HGR starts asking 'fair' questions, his views are going to remain unpopular with some on this forum.

TimeShadowed
In California it was widely believed that mountain lions wouldn't hurt people until they bagged a few kids and joggers. The point being is that all previous claims of mountain lion attacks were poo pooed and dismissed and more importantly, never officially recorded as mountain lion attacks. And with as many as there are out there, I have never seen a mountain lion, or bear, or deer, dead of natural causes. I still think the big pecker lives!

Anybody ever notice that the video seems to show a woodpecker low on a tree that gets scared off when the boat gets too close? Will woodpeckers hide on the far side of a tree like a squirrel will?

[buck3m]

In reply to my question: "Let's establish this: do you believe that
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" timeshadowed said the following...


No! And again a great big NO OOOOOO ooooo!!!


My quote is generally attributed to Carl Sagan, but has been a generally accepted scientific principle for a long time. If you don't accept that basic idea, it will do little good to debate using facts and logic.


It seems to me that all of HGR's questions and statements START with the fundamental belief that the IBWO was/is extinct.

He needs to be fair and consider the 'other side of the coin'. He needs to start asking questions as to why the 'experts' ever began thinking that the IBWO was extinct in the first place.

Until HGR starts asking 'fair' questions, his views are going to remain unpopular with some on this forum.

Both he and I started with the assumption that the ivory-bill "return" WAS proven. It was only after looking at the evidence that he decided that it hasn't been proven yet. I was skeptical of HIM at first until I'd done some research of my own and read his blog.

I can assure you our views will not be very popular with some people, regardless of the merits of our arguments, until we say "the ivory-bill lives."

I think HGR has considered the facts very carefully, and come to a rational conclusion. Clearly, AFTER considering the facts (and looking for more all the while, including two-way calls/emails with David Sibley, Jerry Jackson, Richard Prum, Mark Robbins, John Fitzpatrick, David Luneau) he's arguing his side of the debate, as is everyone else here.


Why didn't the 'experts' follow-up on some of the 'sightings' by hunters/fishermen???

I suppose because they didn't think they had merit. Experts can be wrong.



The notion that "why hasn't a dead IBWO been found?" is simply ABSURD.


Not if there wasn't one to find. And with a population of only about 200 birds, most dead Whooping cranes are found. Not one IBW has been found.



I do not wish to be unfriendly, but do some of our armchair experts understand the jungle that some of the Deep South swamps are?

Well, for one, I spent a few weeks in the swamps of east Texas looking for space shuttle debris.


I do quite a bit of observation of the Bald Eagle and I can tell you that sometimes it is very difficult to "see clearly" the white head and/or tail of the eagle.


If you saw seven eagles, what do you think the odds would be of not seeing the white head once?



I definitely think someone has an axe to grind, and have felt that for a while.

There is no axe. He just holds another view.

[buck3m]

Anybody ever notice that the video seems to show a woodpecker low on a tree that gets scared off when the boat gets too close? Will woodpeckers hide on the far side of a tree like a squirrel will?

Is that the stills captured from the video, that are shown in The Paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1114103/DC1)?

If anyone hasn't seen the paper, or seen those captures of the PERCHED BIRD, check it out. Would you have the remotest clue that they were a bird, let alone an ivory-bill, if they didn't tell you so? Seriously!

Maybe you're talking about a third woodpecker in the video??

Yup, woodpeckers will hide on the far side of the tree sometimes.

I must have fantastic luck finding dead animals, because I've found scores of dead deer, also caribou, moose, geese, eagles and hundreds and hundreds of other birds. Not always the whole critter, but identifiable parts. No cougars, though.

[hgr389]

Why didn't the 'experts' follow-up on some of the 'sightings' by hunters/fishermen???

TimeShadowed

The experts *have* followed up on hundreds and hundreds of sightings by hunters and fisherman. From James Tanner to George Lowery to Jerome Jackson, experts have spent an enormous amount of time on this very activity. As you know, an apparently credible sighting by a hunter in Louisiana in 1999 was followed by one of the most intense scientific bird searches of all time.

Of course, in 61 years, all these searches have resulted in zero authenticated Ivory-bill sightings.

[hgr389]

Look at all this evidence!
---
The search has been going on for many years, and although we don't have definitive proof yet, the evidence just continues to pile up. Thousands of people say they've seen the species, and some of these people are quite credible. An avid hunter with 30 years of experience noted the fieldmarks at a distance of 140 feet. A lawyer searching extensively for the species was finally rewarded with a close-range (15 feet) sighting. There have been recent sightings in Arkansas and Lousiana, and reports from Texas as well.

In addition to all those sightings, we have plenty of other evidence. We have some pictures, but unfortunately these are so fuzzy that not everyone agrees on the species shown. We also have audio recordings, but those are ultimately inconclusive, since we can't be 100% certain of the origin of the sounds. In some areas where the sightings have been concentrated, we also have markings on trees that we cannot attribute to any other source.

Although none of the current searchers has notched an authenticated sighting, noted experts in related species strongly believe in the evidence. Among the searchers, it is common knowledge that their quarry is very elusive and wary to an extreme. Remote cameras and video surveillance systems are now being used, and it can only be a matter of time before the definitive images are finally captured.

Until we have those images, of course there will be naysayers, but to many, it's clear that the accumulated evidence just cannot be denied.
---

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Here's a related link:
http://theshadowlands.net/bfarticles.htm

[timeshadowed]

In reply to my question: "Let's establish this: do you believe that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" My quote is generally attributed to Carl Sagan, but has been a generally accepted scientific principle for a long time. If you don't accept that basic idea, it will do little good to debate using facts and logic.

You seem to have missed my point. It was not the basic idea that I was objecting to, but rather that the quote be applied to the claims of seeing an IBWO.

Why do you consider the claim "that the IBWO is ALIVE and well" extraordinary in the first place??

The answer to that question must be:
Because the IBWO was considered to be already extinct!
Therefore, if you claim to have seen one, you must produce "extraordinary" proof of that sighting.

Here is another example:
The Calif Condor population is very small. If that bird were not visible soaring in the open skies, just how many birds do you think would have been be seen if they inhabited only the large deep swamps that the IBWO does?

Dare I suggest that if that were the case, the Calif Condor would also have been labled extinct!

It is only because the habitant of the Calif Condor is the wide OPEN SKIES and OPEN RANGE that it CAN bee seen.

How many Calif Condors would have been located ON THE GROUND eating their prey (in dense swampland), if not FIRST located soaring ABOVE the prey?

TimeShadowed

[timeshadowed]

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Here you are comparing apples to unicorns!

There is absolutly Zero PROOF that Bigfoot has EVER existed!

However there IS proof that the IBWO was a living creature.

Where are your bigfoot 'skins'? There ARE IBWO 'skins'.

Your logic here is faulty, HGR.

TimeShadowed

[Snowy1]

:clap: You sceptics do know, don't you, that there were about 9 people, in several different groups, at different times, on different days, who identified IBW as part of the recent "rediscovery"? Not all of them were even part of the Cornell "team". Did they all experience hallucinations? Barbara

Nice work. This is exactly my point as to why the rediscovery is now certain. If this had not happened (ie 1 or 2 sightings only with no recordings or video) we would not have a confirmation. But we do.

After David Kullivan's sighting I travelled to the Pearl for a group expedition in 2001. We saw glimpses of wary Pileateds through the trees and with each one I considered the possibility of an Ivorybill. However, I NEVER jumped to the conclusion that it/they WERE Ivorybills. Never. We hoped they would be, but if the view we had was all but a glimpse, I wouldn't just assume "Ivorybill". That would be unprofessional. I believe an even higher degree of scrutiny was used by Cornell and others in determining whether their particular sightings were, in fact, Ivorybills.

When you put together the following - in my opinion - you have evidence:
1) Multiple sightings
2) Multiple observers - many professional
3) Different days/months/years
4) Recordings
5) Video (placed last because even without the video, the above 4 points would be enough - the video was an Ivorybill but very unclear)

You can never satisfy a hungry skeptic.

[affe22]

From Fitzpatrick et. al (2005)

"Several field marks suggested that the bird was a male ivory-billed woodpecker."

"We considered and rejected the hypothesis that the sightings and video can be explained by a "piebald" or partially leucistic pileated woodpecker with symmetric white patches on wings and back approximately matching the pattern of an ivory-billed woodpecker... We are unaware of any examples of extensively and symmetrically piebald pileated woodpeckers in museum collections or the literature."

Seems to me that this says at least one observer saw multiple marks (I imagine this means more of the color patterns, bill, etc.) of an IBWP and that they already looked into the birds having some sort of symmetric plummage miscoloration and that is straight from the horse's mouth.

[ed keeble]

From Fitzpatrick et. al (2005)

"Several field marks suggested that the bird was a male ivory-billed woodpecker."

"We considered and rejected the hypothesis that the sightings and video can be explained by a "piebald" or partially leucistic pileated woodpecker with symmetric white patches on wings and back approximately matching the pattern of an ivory-billed woodpecker... We are unaware of any examples of extensively and symmetrically piebald pileated woodpeckers in museum collections or the literature."

Seems to me that this says at least one observer saw multiple marks (I imagine this means more of the color patterns, bill, etc.) of an IBWP and that they already looked into the birds having some sort of symmetric plummage miscoloration and that is straight from the horse's mouth.

This is touched on in the available summaries from Cornell of the seven leading sightings- crown and neckstripe are referred to but not bill colour, which does not amaze me as much as it amazes hgr389.

Of course one of the seven sightings is the Sparling one- I don't think I have seen a detailed breakdown of all of the features he saw (or claimed if anyone prefers it to be put that way) but I think it was much more than a flash of wing pattern- hence the level of follow-up it triggered. May even have included some of the more sophisticated features, like shape of crest and pale base to the red crown feathers.

As it happens, I prefer to see the sightings so far described as very probable rather than absolutely certain- but so what? For me and many others they are by some margin enough to justify a major last-ditch search and conservation effort.

[thatmagicguy]

Hello, My name is William, I am 46 years old and I live in central florida. I have been interested in the Ivory Bill since my teen years when a neighbor lady of mine told me all about them. Since then, I have studied them extensively and I hope to see a live specimen one day(as I'm sure most birders would).

I mean no offense here,,truly I do not. I have been amused by the bantor about the "rediscovery". Really, all any of us has to go on is 4 books, and assorted articles here and there about possible rediscoveries. Regarding Arkansas, Tim Gallagher's book gives detailed information about the sighting's he's made, and in depth discussion of the sightings that his associates have made. So I don't think that we should be quick to discount his story,,but we can surely debate it. He describes his encounter in detail,,along with the emotions and excitement of the moment,,how they were surprised and how his shouting scared the bird off in a different direction.

If you read Tanner's book, he himself uses the word "rediscovery" at his time. That term is used in Hooses' book. I am sad to say that I have not read Jackson's work, although I have had three conversations with him. The thing regarding the old photos and encounters with "the bird" in the past is that they shouldn't be regarded as "tame" birds as many have stated here. Nor were they easy to find. The singer tract birds were "rediscovered" in 1935 only because of Mason Spencer, a man who bragged about seeing them and ultimately he shot one. Cornell didn't just stumble upon them,,indeed, at the time they were searching in florida and followed up on the Spencer lead,in Louisiana,and when it came time for them to find the alleged birds it took 3 days to be guided there by a local who "knew" where they were. I doubt they would have found them as easily without being guided. In arkansas, the territory is larger, and there is no one guiding them to the "spot". Regarding them being tame,,Audobon and Tanner himself were very wary about disturbing them in fear of them abandoning the nest. They did as most large birds do when their nest is being bothered,,they defend it. Tanner had no close encounters with "tame" during non nesting season,,he had to chase them through the forest,,he hid in blinds,,,they weren't tame.

No one has found a nesting or roosting location yet today,,so we do not know how today's birds act when approached, so I find it difficult to make this common comparison to discount the birds.

One point I would like to make is that there are many many sightings of this bird that go the wayside because of skeptics. In recent years I have been interested in finding them in florida because many good sightings occur, I have talked with wildlife officials in suwannee and ocala and other places that get dozens of reports a year and no one is following up on them. The game/wildlife people simply state that they are extinct and that pileateds are the bird they see. I have started to speak with people who have seen the bird and their stories can be compelling. So I do not buy into this belief that they do not exist because no one sees them,,many people claim to see them,,but they are not birders. They are people who find themselves in the swampy rivers of florida either hunting fishing or for recreation. they have no cameras aimed,,,they aren't trying to find the birds. Very few people are making real attempts to find the bird. The areas here in florida where they might be are very vast, and harsh. and if a bird flys into view along a waterway, who's ready to photograph it??? No one,,and hence the bird is extinct.

Some people claim they are extinct because Tanner looked for them. He is one man. He spent relatively very little time(by his own admission in his book), looking for them. One man can only cover a very small area,,and he was comparing areas to the Singer tract,,,and no one really knows if the birds could or could not live in a different habitat today.

He stated in his book that he "believed" they existed in many other areas in florida and south carolina,,but he couldn't prove it. Does that make them extinct?

People still reported them,,and even Tanner himself was quick to dismiss them. Why?

Here on the forums there was a post about a woman who had a picture in her resturant. A year after that post and after the rediscovery I went to visit her. She does not display the picture in fear that someone will find the birds. She states that many people have called and visited her and have been very indignant. I believed her. She is a smart business woman,,not a flake,,or as someone here posted"a ufo nut". She saw how people reacted to the rediscovery in arkansas and she has no desire for the area that she sees the birds in to be inundated with both scientists and birders and bird killers. I believe her.

One point about the pearl river fiasco. Only David Kulivan knows if he is lying. He did not report his sighting on April 1st as an april fools joke. He waited. He may still have been lying,,but people who previously easily discounted good sightings were suddenly believers,,so he must have been an impressive witness. The pearl was inundated with hoards of birders by local hunter's accounts. the local hunting population was worried that their hunting would be restricted,,indeed, lumbering was stopped so why wouldn't they believe that they would be chased out as well? Isn't it ironic that Mr. Kulivan is now a lobbyist for the NRA? I belive the birds were shot and killed and will not be found in the pearl. That is my belief and the belief of many others. If restrictions are placed on the land in arkansas then the same thing will happen there. Hunters love their land. Hunters are loyal to themselves and their livelyhood and most do not want to be kept out of their land by a government they do not trust. If the birds are ultimately not found then the hunters will live in peace.

Where is all of this going? No where I think, lol. I believe the birds do exist but I do get amused at how detailed a debate can get when there is so little information available. Read Gallagher's book and you will see all there is to see regarding this bird in arkansas. There is no conspiracy,,there hasn't been any lies,,,just a bunch of Cornell nerds tromping through an area looking for a needle in a haystack,,,and if they are lucky we'll have our proof in the fall and winter. Bill

[Katy Penland]

Hi, Bill! I see this is your first post on BirdForum, so let me wish you a warm welcome on behalf of the entire staff. :t:

[dacol]

To paraphrase Occam's Razor: "The simplest explanation is the best."

The simplest explanation for the images in the Science paper by Fitzpatrick and others is that it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that was videographed.

The authors of the Science article point out 5 diagnostic features that led to their conclusion. One, size, was obtained by identifying the tree in the video from where the woodpecker takes off. Then the section of the trunk where the bird was perched was identified and measured to yield a yard stick to measure the lenght of the bird in the video still. This is illustrated by figure 1 of the paper. This video still also shows the bird to be a woodpecker due to the manner it is perched on the almost vertical trunk of the tree. The other four diagnostic features have to do with the patterns of black and white displayed by the bird in the video.

Summarizing:

1) Size - the estimated size of the bird exceeds all known comparable values for Pileated Woodpecker and are compatible with the upper ranges of values for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

2)Wing pattern at rest - compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker. Fig. 1 of the paper.

3)Wing pattern in flight - Video still reproduced in Fig. 2A show a patttern compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker.

4)White plumage in dorsum - clearly visible in one of the stills reproduced in Fig. 2C of the paper . You have to go slowly frame by frame to see this in the Web distributed video. Again compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker.

5) Black-white-black pattern of perched bird. Again compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker. This is in Fig. S5 of the supplementary online materials that can be downloaded free of charge from the Science site (unlike the paper).

Evidently the above arguments were judged good enough by the referees for the article to appear in Science.

The alternative explanation of the bird being an aberrantly plumaged PIWO fails Occam's razor test because it demands too much: this aberrantly plumaged PIWO must have the extra white feathers arranged in such a way as to give the impression of a IVWO and it must be a giant among the PIWOs. Birds that are partially leucistic, as any PIWO would have to be to show as much white as the bird in the video, usually do not exhibit symmetric patterns. Thus the special requirements of extraordinary size and extraordinary plumage anomalies make it unlikely that the bird in the video is a PIWO. Thus the bird in the video is either a IVWO or a hitherto undiscovered species of large black-and-white woodpecker. Again the simplest explanation is IVWO as this species was known to occur in the region where the sightings and video were made.

Dalcio

[hgr389]

This is touched on in the available summaries from Cornell of the seven leading sightings- crown and neckstripe are referred to but not bill colour, which does not amaze me as much as it amazes hgr389.

Of course one of the seven sightings is the Sparling one- I don't think I have seen a detailed breakdown of all of the features he saw (or claimed if anyone prefers it to be put that way) but I think it was much more than a flash of wing pattern- hence the level of follow-up it triggered. May even have included some of the more sophisticated features, like shape of crest and pale base to the red crown feathers.



Here's what the Cornell paper says:
----
11 February 2004 sighting. Field marks noted by G. Sparling were the bird's unusually large size compared to pileated woodpecker, peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge, long neck, and extensive white on lower half of folded wings showing slight yellowish tinge along edges "like parchment paper."
----
Again, four of five key field marks separating IBWO from Pileated were not mentioned. These are the white dorsal stripes, the white neck stripe ending before the bill, the longitudinal black stripe on the white wing underside, and the pale bill itself.

If you're claiming you saw an IBWO, it's not very helpful to say that the bird looked large, that it had a peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge, that its neck looked long, that it "didn't fly like a Pileated", or that it had a white neck stripe. Any or all of these characteristics could quite easily fit a glimpse of a completely normal Pileated.

Two key observers are Bobby Harrison and Gene Sparling. Neither are ornithologists. Harrison teaches art and photography, and Sparling is an "entrepreneur". Of course, Sparling had the initial sighting that sparked this entire thing. On page 146 of "The Grail Bird", there's this interesting exchange:
---
After a long talk with Gene, Bobby told him "It sounds to me like you've seen an ivory-billed woodpecker."
"You think so?" said Gene. "I don't have enough confidence to make that call, but I'm glad to hear you say that".
----
On page 230, Gallagher writes about yet another claimed sighting by Harrison:
---
Of course, this sighting didn't sit well with some of the other searchers. Bobby had had a lot of sightings, and people were starting to doubt him.
---

If you've seen the Luneau video, you may be interested in what Tim Gallagher says about it in "The Grail Bird", pages 224 and 225:
---
In the blown-up film, I could see what appeared to be a large bird with a black-crested head and a white bill peering out from behind a tupelo...I was completely floored. Virtually all of the ivory-bill's major field marks were there, albeit fuzzy.
---

Curtis--you've seen the DVD. Did you see a white bill, and virtually all of the ivory-bill's field marks?

By the way, it looks like Gene Sparling is now offering to guide you in your search for Arkansas Ivory-bills, with "deluxe" packages priced at $1300 or $2300 per person!

http://birdingisnotacrime.blogspot.com/2005/08/tours-to-search-for-ivory-billed.html

[Tero]

The evidence, and probability, is slightly better than for UFOs containing aliens. ;)

[thatmagicguy]

It's so easy to make a point with quotes out of context. "I don't have enough confidence to make that call, but I'm glad to hear you say that". Gene Sparling is quite familiar with pileated woodpeckers,,he has them on his land in arkansas and knows what they look like. He has never seen an ivory billed woodpecker and this is why he made this statement.

Regarding Sparling's description of the bird he saw,,he was not out to prove the existance of the IBWP. He merely reported on a kayaking forum that he had seen an unusual bird along with many other facts about his trip,,it was only through alot of coaxing that his story was followed up on. It's very easy to armchair critique peoples' observations,,but you must look at the whole story to get at facts,,not pick apart conversations to find a sentence that supports your point.

"In the blown-up film, I could see what appeared to be a large bird with a black-crested head and a white bill peering out from behind a tupelo...I was completely floored. Virtually all of the ivory-bill's major field marks were there, albeit fuzzy."

I am with you on this,,,,I read this passage in my copy and was perplexed by his description of the video.

It is interesting to note that Bobby Harrison, albeit an art and photography proffessor, has been studying the IBWP most of his life,,I do not consider him a layman,,,indeed he probably has more "street knowledge" of the woods and bird than most Cornell people.

Regarding his tour business? I sighed when I read that,,,he needs the money,,I know that,,a very sick wife,,,a bad hobby that taxes his time and finances,,,,I don't blame him,,but I do find it tacky,,,I hope he finds peace in his concious about doing that. Bill

[buck3m]

The alternative explanation of the bird being an aberrantly plumaged PIWO fails Occam's razor test because it demands too much:

The issue must be considered as a whole, therefore Occam's Razor must be applied to the debate as a whole.

Very poor video is easy to misinterpret, even by experts. Other birding experts, including, apparently, Prum and Jackson, have studied the video and said they believe the video shows a Pileated woodpecker. I'm sure they had a checklist of points with "proof" of their own.

What it comes down to, again, is that claiming you've refound the ivory-bill, or that you have video showing an ivory-bill, are both extraordinary claims. If the video is so poor (and it is) that top birding experts don't agree on what species it shows, it is, in the words John Fitzpatrick, one of the authors of the science paper, "crummy" not extraordinary.

[buck3m]

Thank you, thatmagicguy, for being a voice of reason. There truly are two sides to the issue, and it hasn't been proven one way or another. That's why a reasoned debate is so important.

As far as taking things out of context, it is standard practice to quote the relevant part of what someone has said, and then cite the source, and that is what hgr389 did. The point is that in some of these sightings people WEREN'T 100% sure what they had seen.

[hgr389]

The simplest explanation for the images in the Science paper by Fitzpatrick and others is that it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that was videographed.

Dalcio

A few comments:

--I'm completely unconvinced that the bird in the video is larger than a normal Pileated Woodpecker. When I look at images A and B on page 9 of the Supporting Online Material, it actually makes me feel a little sad. The "woodpecker" is just a smudge that's not composed of a whole lot of pixels. The researchers believe the smudge is a woodpecker because they went back to the tree, and they found no black-and-white mark on the bark. Given that smudge, I don't believe that there is any way to calculate a useful "wrist-to-tailtip" measure.

---Regarding the perceived white plumage on the bird, I think this is a key sentence in the Cornell paper: "With these distances and light conditions, bleeding tends to exaggerate the apparent extent of white in the wings." I'm unconvinced that the bird in the video has white plumage on the dorsum. On some frames, it apparently does, and on other frames, it apparently does not.

--I think you can access Cornell's paper for free if you go to answers.com, type in "ivory-billed woodpecker", then click on the link where it says "Sciencexpress" down near the bottom.

[affe22]

It's still taking a quote out of context. That is why sound bites on the news always fit the way the news wants the story to look. See, I can do it to:

Look what buck3m said about hgr389's skeptical views on the IBWP, "I was skeptical of HIM..."

He seems to agree about the possible existence, look "I believe the ivory-bill MAY live..."

HGR389 even seems to agree on his blog, "This spring, when news reports announced that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was alive, I was thrilled!!"

[Cornell75]

Thank you, thatmagicguy, for being a voice of reason. There truly are two sides to the issue, and it hasn't been proven one way or another. That's why a reasoned debate is so important.

As far as taking things out of context, it is standard practice to quote the relevant part of what someone has said, and then cite the source, and that is what hgr389 did. The point is that in some of these sightings people WEREN'T 100% sure what they had seen.

As has been pointed out, Occam's Razor demands the simplest answer based on the evidence available. Dacol has given an excellent review of the evidence with that in mind. While I don't have the advantage of having seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, there can be little doubt that the evidence points to the existance of at least one Ivorybill in Arkansas. Applying Occam's Razor, the bird clinging to the tree trunk in the video is either an Ivorybill or a pileated woodpecker. In order for it to be a pileated, we must postulate a bird well outside the known size range of the species, and in addition it needs to be leucistic (or piebald). It seems to me this fails the test miserably, and in fact amounts to the kind of extraordinary claim discussed in several posts in this thread. There is, by the way, no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, for a giant, leucistic pileated woodpecker.

In regard to the evidence from the reported sightings, the summer 2005 Living Bird again summarizes the sight records; at least one observer did record the white dorsal lines (It is also unlikely that these summaries constitute the set of entire notes taken by the observers - others may have recorded similar markings). While there is no doubt observers can see what they are expecting to see (e.g., the Sibley example), the simplest explanation for several independent observers, well aware that pileated woodpeckers were present, reporting ivorybilled woodpeckers is that they saw ivorybilled woodpeckers. Or did they all see our giant, leucistic friend.

The Summer 2005 edition of the Living Bird (a Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology publication) is devoted entirely to the ivorybill, and has among other items a piece by James T. Tanner that is worth reading (or re-reading).

[Snowy1]

[QUOTE=Cornell75]Applying Occam's Razor, the bird clinging to the tree trunk in the video is either an Ivorybill or a pileated woodpecker. In order for it to be a pileated, we must postulate a bird well outside the known size range of the species, and in addition it needs to be leucistic (or piebald). It seems to me this fails the test miserablyQUOTE]

I agree. I would also like the opinions of everyone on a third point - the direct flight of the bird in the video. Would the straight flight exhibited be characteristic of the Pileated? To my knowledge, no. Has there not been much written about the flight of the Ivorybill vs the Pileated? If you watch the video to the end, there is clearly no undulation at all in the visible frames. Most if not all Pileateds I've seen have paused mid-flight creating an undulation - however not to the extent of the American Goldfinch, for example.

[Curtis Croulet]

Curtis--you've seen the DVD. Did you see a white bill, and virtually all of the ivory-bill's field marks?


I can't see much of anything. When I heard about the analysis of this video, I imagined that CIA-type techniques were being employed to dig out heretofore unimagined detail. Maybe somebody did just that, but it's not on this DVD.

[Curtis Croulet]

The Summer 2005 edition of the Living Bird (a Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology publication) is devoted entirely to the ivorybill, and has among other items a piece by James T. Tanner that is worth reading (or re-reading).

I don't think I've received this issue. What's on the cover?

[hgr389]

In order for it to be a pileated, we must postulate a bird well outside the known size range of the species, and in addition it needs to be leucistic (or piebald)

Here is precisely where we disagree. I think the bird in the video may well be a normally-sized, normally-plumaged Pileated.

Regarding the size--again, anyone interested should take the time to look closely at images A and B on page 9 of the Supporting Online Materials. Looking at that smudge, do you really think that anyone can reliably tell you whether the wrist-to-tailtip measurement of the bird was 33 centimeters, versus 31 centimeters?

Regarding the perceived white plumage--again, Cornell said: "With these distances and light conditions, bleeding tends to exaggerate the apparent extent of white in the wings." Also, some of the extensive white in the video may be the flashing white wing linings of the Pileated.

Please note that I'm not at all sure that the video and the sightings were all of the same individual bird. I think it's possible that the video shows a normal Pileated, and that the sightings were all of a partially leucistic Pileated.

[hgr389]

I agree. I would also like the opinions of everyone on a third point - the direct flight of the bird in the video. Would the straight flight exhibited be characteristic of the Pileated? To my knowledge, no. Has there not been much written about the flight of the Ivorybill vs the Pileated? If you watch the video to the end, there is clearly no undulation at all in the visible frames. Most if not all Pileateds I've seen have paused mid-flight creating an undulation - however not to the extent of the American Goldfinch, for example.

Yes, I think the straight flight exhibited on the video is characteristic of a Pileated. This is an "escape flight" (I believe someone calculated 8.5 flaps per second), and at that flap rate, I don't think there is much time for pausing and undulating.

[Cornell75]

I don't think I've received this issue. What's on the cover?

The cover is an Arthur Allen photograph of a male ivorybill at a nest or roost hole. This photograph, under the magazine title Living Bird, is a bit of a comment in and of itself!

I just received the issue yesterday.

[Tim Allwood]

blimey

i see BF is still on the realms of the x files and geek country

the birds have been observed several times by some of the best ornithologists in the Americas

it's gen

end of

cannot understand why this thread is here?

Tim

[Curtis Croulet]

I just received the issue yesterday.

Oh. We get most of our magazines much later than the eastern part of the country. So it should still be on its way.

[Curtis Croulet]

On the video: I can't see the white bill on the perched bird (this is silly!), but it does look like it has extensive white on the back. I might barely be able to accept leucistic Pileated, but normal Pileated -- no.

Edited to add: There's a series of presentations on the IBWO at the AOU meeting tomorrow morning (Wed, Aug 24) and a talk by John Fitzpatrick on Thursday evening.

[hgr389]

the birds have been observed several times by some of the best ornithologists in the Americas
Tim

Can you please name some of these ornithologists?

I know that Gene Sparling, Tim Gallagher, Bobby Harrison, and David Luneau all reported brief sightings, but none of those fellows is an ornithologist...

[Tim Allwood]

no

read the papers from Cornell

this thread is absurd

keep your ramblings to conspiracy websites

Tim

[Curtis Croulet]

Ornithologists will be presenting evidence in Santa Barbara tomorrow and Thursday.

[Steve]

Gentlemen and Tim calm yourselves please !!

[curunir]

Regarding the size--again, anyone interested should take the time to look closely at images A and B on page 9 of the Supporting Online Materials. Looking at that smudge, do you really think that anyone can reliably tell you whether the wrist-to-tailtip measurement of the bird was 33 centimeters, versus 31 centimeters?

Why does it matter what we think, we're lay people here remember?

[Tim Allwood]

Why does it matter what we think, we're lay people here remember?


dont know bout that

seems everyone here knows more than the experts

as usual

Tim

[curunir]

Can you please name some of these ornithologists?

I know that Gene Sparling, Tim Gallagher, Bobby Harrison, and David Luneau all reported brief sightings, but none of those fellows is an ornithologist...
D. Sibley isn't a professional ornithologist either from what I gather. That being said, Bill Gates isn't a computer scientist, but he does have some influence in the field.

[choupique1]

if... there were only 20 to 30 woodducks or wild turkeys in LA do you think you would ever get to see them


and .. big foot in LA... come on now...

[Cornell75]

Why does it matter what we think, we're lay people here remember?

It does matter what we think. Since the beginning of Audubon Christmas Bird Counts (or before), organized "citizen science" has provided a great deal of data for scientific investigations, through organizations like Audubon, Bird Studies Canada, the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, the RSPB (I suppose), and programs like eBird. Look at the AOU Checklist and see the vast amount of distribution data that comes from "us". Remember, the initial hint of an ivorybill in Arkansas came from someone who probably would not call himself an ornithologist.

However, in the situation at hand, better to examine the evidence and publish your own conclusions, as Fitzpatrick et al. have done, than merely assert that you can't tell much from the video evidence. They have published their evidence (and made it available to others, I understand), methods and conclusions; an independent demonstration that the conclusions are or are not reproducible would be a real contribution to science in the traditional manner.

[curunir]

Hey, any of the bookmakers in the UK got a line on the big woodie? If so, how is the wager posited?

[hgr389]

Why does it matter what we think, we're lay people here remember?

To me, this is a rather humorous turn of events.

A week or two ago, I took a lot of flak here along the lines of "you, HGR, are a mere lay person; who are you to question the eminent ornithologists on the Cornell search team?"

Now, after I point out that lots of the key Cornell observers were not ornithologists themselves, it seems that the tone has changed. Now, it seems evident that lay people can, in fact, have credible things to say.

And I completely agree with this new tone. I think the playing field is quite level here. No Cornell team member (and basically no outsider) has a single confirmed moment of IBWO field experience. If you have internet access and the ability to read and think logically, you may well have something credible to say. We all basically have access to the same Cornell paper, the same historical books, the same original Luneau DVD, etc.

I would argue that an amateur birder combing through all this info may have credible opinions on this subject. On the other hand, an eminent ornithologist who is getting all his IBWO updates via the New York Times may not have much to add.

[Steve]

Hey, any of the bookmakers in the UK got a line on the big woodie? If so, how is the wager posited?
I will give you any 100/1 against !

[affe22]

Now, after I point out that lots of the key Cornell observers were not ornithologists themselves, it seems that the tone has changed. Now, it seems evident that lay people can, in fact, have credible things to say.

Once again a quote taken out of context. The person was saying that we (the people on bird forum) are the lay people and we need to not make conclusions that should be left for people better educated than ourselves. To call the Cornell people "lay people" is ridiculous. A lot of those people are either experienced field biologists with doctoral degrees or people who had been birding for a very long time and know their stuff. My friend birded with one researcher and stated that he was the best birder he has ever met. You should not consider yourself as qualified as the people that did the research, used technology probably not available to you to do the film analysis, and who would all say that they have in fact had verifiable experience with the IBWP.

[BarbaraM]

No Cornell team member (and basically no outsider) has a single confirmed moment of IBWO field experience.

Hey hgr389 - did you check out this little alumni association article: http://www.su.edu/temp_news.cfm?urlnum=542

These folks were not Cornell team members, are very experienced and reliable birders, and seem to have three "confirmed with each other" moments of IBWO field experience.

And I agree with Tim - this is a silly thread kept going by a couple of folks with little to say and fed by those of us who can't stop ourselves from responding to the little said. Barbara

[timeshadowed]

And I agree with Tim - this is a silly thread kept going by a couple of folks with little to say and fed by those of us who can't stop ourselves from responding to the little said. Barbara


I tend to agree with both Tim and Barb!

In internet speak - what these two folks are REALLY doing is called "Trolling for Responses". They ignore the absurdity of their own words - even when it is pointed out to them.

(See my response the absurity of comparing the IBWO with Bigfoot sightings in this same thread.)

TimeShadowed

[affe22]

I agree with all three of you, but it keeps my day interesting at least. Plus, it is interesting to see how some view science and scientists with, from what I can tell, no real scientific background.

[Snowy1]

I also agree this is a useless thread kept alive by 1 or 2 people that just want to up hits at their own personal websites. Hopefully the moderator will just remove it - my last post.

[hgr389]

Hey hgr389 - did you check out this little alumni association article: http://www.su.edu/temp_news.cfm?urlnum=542



Barbara,

Yes, I had seen that story before. Some parts of the story trouble me.

Some key parts:
----
After consultation, Simpson, Mulqueen, and Trochet were asked to join the official search and were told of the earlier sightings.

“We said we’d help, as long as we could go to the areas we wanted,” Simpson said. After all, she pointed out, it was their vacation.

“We had to sign a confidentiality agreement,” Simpson said.
...
At 8 a.m., Simpson was throttling back the motor as Mulqueen threw a rope around a cypress knee, when Trochet heard a drumming sound. Simpson heard it too. They looked east toward the sound and “a large, dark bird flew from where we heard it. It flew 120 degrees around us. I saw the markings. I saw the bill. I saw it land,” Simpson said. “It was definitely a male,” since it had the distinctive red crest.

Thanks to cell phones, Simpson was able to contact Sparling to report the sighting and the location.

Sparing told them their first job was to try to get a photo.

“In the bird world, that confirms everything,” Simpson explained.

He also told them their second job and their third job was to get a photo.

“We sat there 3 1/2 hours trying to get a photo,” she said.

“But we never saw it again,” Mulqueen added.
----

Ok, so they apparently joined the official search, and even had a sighting that may be credible. So why aren't any of the three listed anywhere in Cornell's "Meet the Search Team" page?
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/story8.htm

And if John Fitzpatrick thought their sighting was credible, why didn't it make the Big 7 sightings listed in the Cornell paper? If sightings of the "one-person, 100-meter, naked-eye, fly-by" ilk can make the Big 7, why didn't this one make it?

The way this story is written, it also sounds like Simpson wasn't aware that she should get a photo until *after* she saw the bird. That makes no sense.

[thatmagicguy]

Hi, Two points.

1. It wasn't included in the report because by their own admission, the Cornell personel do not recognize lay-people's sightings as credible. Mr Sparling's sighting would not have been taken seriously if Tim Gallagher hadn't made a case back at Cornell. And by Cornell's standards, a lay-person is anyone who is not studying at or employed by Cornell.

2. It is hard to imagine, being a bird lover, that someone could be in this situation as this woman was and not have a camera aimed. It is easy. Even the Cornell grad students who spotted the bird did not have cameras ready. But once again, quoting Sparling seems to indicate that she didn't know to photograph it,,,but no where in the article did it indicate she didn't know to photograph it,,she just wasn't prepared to actually have a sighting. She wasn't prepared the same way Tim Gallagher and Bobby Harrison weren't prepared when they saw it,,even though their prime reason to be on the cache was to verify Sparling's sighting. Cornell person and photographer professor not being prepared with a camera. It's easy for us to be critical after the fact sitting at our computers,,,but even I find myself in the swamps here in florida without a camera,,and I am consumed with finding "the bird", Bill

[hgr389]

For those of you that are true believers, Laura Erickson has written up some good posts at:

http://birdwatching.birderblog.com/

If you'd prefer not to read an opposing viewpoint, please don't click any links that mention my name (Tom Nelson).

[Curtis Croulet]

Laura Erickson's post is such a compelling summary, that I don't feel there's much more to say. Certainly there's nothing I can say that probably won't be bleeped by the moderator.

At this point I bow out of this "debate."

[Katy Penland]

Just as a reminder, please comment on the blog on the blog's site and keep BF's bandwidth for BF members and their opinions. If you feel you must quote from a blog, please cut-n-paste the relevant portion into your post here rather than just posting off-site links. Thanks.

[curunir]

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Bigfoot probably qualifies in the extraordinary proof category, along with Sasquatch. The Ivorybill probably falls into a lesser category, along with Mexican Grizzlies, Imperial and Cuban Campephilus, and Eskimo Plovers. I can say I might have seen bigfoot once after working in northwest California for about 15 years. I still give the big pecker 95% chance of being around, probably higher after this years AOU meeting. Bigfoot, less than 1%.

[timeshadowed]

"If you'd prefer not to read an opposing viewpoint, please don't click any links that mention my name (Tom Nelson)."


HGR,

Why do you even continue posting your ludicrous ideas of doubt about the existence of the IBWO here on BirdForum?

Why are you so convinced that the IBWO is EXTINCT?!?

I have not seen any hard EVIDENCE presented in any of your posts that would convince me that the IBWO was indeed EXTINCT. Rather, all you seem to be doing here on BirdForum is TROLLING.

Why do you continue to post statements that are only meant to inflame and not inform?

TimeShadowed

[affe22]

I think everyone should listen to the audio recordings, not just the IBWP ones, all of them. It is interesting how you could hear the two note drop in pitch on the IBWP recordings, how similar this was to the 1930s recordings and how much alike the double knocks sounded to other species in the Genus. It seems that they did record something producing sounds of an IBWP. Whether or not it was one, I guess some are still undecided.

[Curtis Croulet]

I downloaded and installed the free player -- now what? Clicking on the sound icons does nothing. What do I have to do to get them to play?

Edited to add: OK, the "analyzer" program is a dud. Simple Sounds works.

Edited further to add: I can't get the Jan 31, 2005, "kent" calls to work at all. Can anybody? The sound file never loads for me.

[hgr389]

Laura Erickson's post is such a compelling summary, that I don't feel there's much more to say. Certainly there's nothing I can say that probably won't be bleeped by the moderator.

At this point I bow out of this "debate."

Hey Curtis,

After one day at the AOU meeting, Laura Erickson now says this in her blog:

"I think that it was probably a mistake of Cornell to announce their work in Science, and present it as definitive, rather than using the more careful language in these papers presented today."

[Curtis Croulet]

hgr: She also says much else, but I'm not surprised that you'd ignore it and focus on one word. Classic conspiracist thinking. I'll not discuss it further. I've had my say.

[timeshadowed]

mistake


Are you TROLLING AGAIN ,HGR??????

That "quote" by Barbara is taken out of context!

I'm not surprized that you would focus on only this ONE teanny, tinny bit.

Oh, and I might also add, you have AGAIN ignored my questions to you!!

TimeShadowed

[curunir]

Hey Curtis,

After one day at the AOU meeting, Laura Erickson now says this in her blog:

"I think that it was probably a mistake of Cornell to announce their work in Science, and present it as definitive, rather than using the more careful language in these papers presented today."
Well, Cornell probably didn't want to get scooped by a competitor publishing elsewhere. Who that competitor could be I can't guess. Probably got nervous after a year of keeping mum. Watson and Crick didn't publish all of their findings in Nature either.

[buck3m]

Are you TROLLING AGAIN ,HGR??????

That "quote" by Barbara is taken out of context!

I'm not surprized that you would focus on only this ONE teanny, tinny bit.

Oh, and I might also add, you have AGAIN ignored my questions to you!!

TimeShadowed

It's not a "quote," it's a quote. If you accurately present what someone has said, word for word, that's a quote. Quotes are almost always "out of context" because it's sensible to present the relevant words and not the entire speech or book. She disagrees with him, and yet he gave you a link to her blog so you can read the quote in context, if you like.

affe22, your example of out of context quotes were invalid because you purposely selected quotes to change their meaning. hgr389's quote of Laura Erickson is accurate because he's trying to show she has changed her mind about whether they should have announced there was definitive proof. That's what the whole debate is about! (Although I disagree with her on some of her views, I think she's got a great birding blog.)

You both have repeatedly quoted hgr389 and myself out of context.

Timeshadowed, I'll answer some of your questions on hgr389's behalf. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Why do you even continue posting your ludicrous ideas of doubt about the existence of the IBWO here on BirdForum?
Obviously they're not ludicrous if they're being discussed at the AOU meeting.

Why are you so convinced that the IBWO is EXTINCT?!?
If you've read his blog, and listened to what he's said, he's NOT. He's said that: "I am absolutely not certain that the IBWO is extinct. For everyone interested in the controversy, I think an excellent question is 'What is your estimated probability that the IBWO lives?' My current answer is 'Greater than 0, but well short of 50%'."

We WANT the IBWO to be alive and well.

I have not seen any hard EVIDENCE presented in any of your posts that would convince me that the IBWO was indeed EXTINCT.
Please see the above. Most reasonable people suspected that the IBWO may likely be extinct after there were no confirmed sightings for 6 decades.

Rather, all you seem to be doing here on BirdForum is TROLLING.
Absolutely untrue. He IS trying to raise awareness, however, that there is still debate on whether sufficient proof has been presented.

Why do you continue to post statements that are only meant to inflame and not inform?
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.

Curtis, I'd like to take you at your word (twice repeated) that you're "bowing out of the debate." And I'm a little tired of your use of the word conspiracy. Your Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) attacks on hgr389 and myself do not change the evidence or the facts, and that's what we should be debating.

[affe22]

Buck, my misrepresentation of quotes is no more invalid than HGR's. I did the same thing he did, took single line quotes, stated what I thought they showed, and then sited the source. Same thing. I too am now tired of this debate and shall be posting no more.

[buck3m]

I too am now tired of this debate and shall be posting no more.

OK, I'll quote you on that.

[curunir]

If you've read his blog, and listened to what he's said, he's NOT. He's said that: "I am absolutely not certain that the IBWO is extinct. For everyone interested in the controversy, I think an excellent question is 'What is your estimated probability that the IBWO lives?' My current answer is 'Greater than 0, but well short of 50%'."

Naw, 95%. 99% less 4% for a pileated in drag. I took Statistics for Dummies in college.

[buck3m]

Naw, 95%. 99% less 4% for a pileated in drag. I took Statistics for Dummies in college.

Ok, a valid alternate opinion!

[thatmagicguy]

Every new forum I visit ends up this way,,,it's why I and 100,000 other people don't visit forums that much. Every forum has either antagonists or trollers,,,and every forum has people that announce they are leaving,,,there is a total lack of credibility in forum atmospheres,,,serious researchers in any subject fail to participate because in the end in every controversial topic the end result is the same,,,the squabbling and least common denominator prevails,,,,,the internet has reached it's peak and will end up the swill that it is becoming,,too bad. Bill

[buck3m]

the squabbling and least common denominator prevails

At least that's the way it appears here, Bill. But it isn't that way on most of the other forums that I'm involved in. In most of them there's respect for the opinion of others. If you don't like their ideas and conclusions, you don't attack the people.

NPR Story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4814860)

This NPR story was interesting. Above is a link to the written story and you can listen to the broadcast.

As you can see below, there has been a retreat from "solid proof" to "suggestive evidence."

Still, the Cornell team says their evidence is "suggestive," and isn't what they'd like it to be -- the bird or birds are skittish and quiet, the video is short and blurry and the audio recordings are faint.

Please note that that's NPR's summary of the story, not mine.

This shows three things, in my opinion:
1. They believe their evidence strongly suggests that the ivory-bill lives
2. No one piece of evidence is solid proof, nor is the collective evidence solid proof yet, (including the video, audio, and individual sightings.)
3. They are reasonable, open-minded people, who really are interested in the truth.

I'm going to assume in advance that some of you will accuse me of taking things out of context and twisting their words, so please visit the link yourself.

gws, please review my link on Ad Hominem, and lets talk about the evidence and the facts, and not what you think about us.

As for the Roger Tory Peterson blog comment, give me a break! Everyone who knows anything about birding knows that Roger Tory Peterson, bless him, has passed away. Therefore people aren't going to mistakenly assume that he's making phone calls and attending meetings. Since we have to rely on old photos and accounts of confirmed sightings to evaluate the current evidence, RTP's quotes on the topic were perfectly relevant. For nitpickers, I've noticed that the title was changed to make sure people couldn't possibly be confused.

By the way, we aren't actually leucistic. You might want to clarify that.

[buck3m]

John Fitzpatrick, the head of the Cornell lab, said after the presentation that the researchers were not retreating from their conclusion that at least one ivory bill existed in Arkansas, that it was the weight of the combined evidence that had convinced him.

This is what was reported in the New York Times. Doesn't seem like Cornell has backed off from this quote!

[timeshadowed]

Every forum has either antagonists or trollers,,,and every forum has people that announce they are leaving,,, Bill


No one has announced in this thread that they were leaving the FORUM. What they said was, that they are tired of debating HGR and Buck in this THREAD.

It does not matter what evidence is posted, those 2 (HGR and Buck) seem to turn everything flip-flop and upside down in order to "troll for a response".

Stick around. This FORUM has some really good information on birds!

TimeShadowed

edited to correct spelling

[timeshadowed]

There is no known evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers resembling an IBWO to be found! Yet this is one of HGR's MAIN reasons why he rejects the film clip as being a REAL IBWO!!

ps
Embolding is mine

TimeShadowed
http://birdwatching.birderblog.com/
LAURA ERICKSON says:
"I didn't hear anything really new, but
did learn, after questioning several knowledgeable
people, that there are no specimens or photographic
evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers with
anything like an Ivory-bill pattern of white to be
found--if anyone has photos, they haven't published
them anywhere. Ken Rosenberg also told me that,
simply because there do exist rumors of such Pileateds,
observers were specifically searching for unusual
plumage in Pileateds, but none were observed despite so
many manhours in the field there. I also learned that it
was an overcast day when the video was taken, so that
weakens the case that sunlight somehow made black
parts of a Pileated Woodpecker's wings appear white."

[hgr389]

FYI.

This is cut/pasted from my blog:
-------

Ok, I listened to the January 24 double-knocks and took a look at the sonograms. In my opinion, these double-knocks are a very poor match for the detailed IBWO double-rap description from "The Grail Bird" (see snippet far below).

For one thing, the second knock of the IBWO is supposed to be "nowhere near as hard". In the Jan 24 recordings, the second knock is actually louder than the first.

For another thing, the spacing between the knocks is supposed to be about 75 milliseconds; the Jan 24 spacing looks more like 100 milliseconds to me. You might think that an extra 25 milliseconds of spacing is no big deal, but I think it is significant. Nancy Tanner (below) said that the spacing on a real IBWO double-rap is so close that some people heard them as a single rap. I can't imagine anyone hearing these knocks (spaced at 100 milliseconds) as a single rap.

A double-rap on wood is a very simple sound. If you record one with an ARU (autonomous recording unit), I think you have only two major variables to think about--the relative loudness of the two raps (ie, which of the two raps is louder, and by how much), and the spacing between the two raps. In the Jan 24 recording, neither of those variables is a reasonable match for The Grail Bird's double-rap description.

Of course, the other "half" of the audio information is the kent-like calls. Blue Jays sometimes make kent-like calls, and the IBWO made kent-like calls. I would argue it this way: in 20,000 person-hours in the woods, the searchers must have had thousands of conclusive sightings of Blue Jays, and they had zero conclusive sightings of IBWOs. Given that information, if you hear a kent-like call, it doesn't seem prudent to assume that an IBWO was the likely source.

Overall, in my opinion, the audio information presented yesterday considerably weakens Cornell's case that the IBWO survives. It's important to consider what the ARUs recorded, but I think it's just as important to consider what the ARUs didn't record.

If strategically placed ARUs recorded 17,000 hours of audio in an area where IBWOs live, I think you should expect to capture a good number of classic, "BAM-bam" double-raps, with something like 75 milliseconds separating the raps. The fact that these raps weren't recorded leaves me feeling doubtful that any IBWOs were present (although it's still possible). In 17,000 hours of audio, I'm wondering why you wouldn't capture some Pileated Woodpecker feeding knocks that would sound similar to the recorded Jan 24 double-knocks.
==============================
Below is some background information...

From Cornell's web site:
----
The recording of a distant double knock followed by a single knock on January 24, 2005, is especially intriguing. Russell Charif, who leads the acoustic research effort, first heard the recording with woodpecker expert Martjan Lammertink. “I immediately felt a thrill of excitement when I heard the recording,” Charif said. “Martjan looked at me and said something understated, like, ‘That sounds really good!’” Charif said, however, that as he listened to the sound repeatedly, his excitement was tempered as he began to wonder about slight differences in the sound compared with scientific descriptions of Ivory-billed Woodpecker display drums.

For example, those descriptions mention that the first knock is louder than the second. In the recording from Arkansas, the second knock is slightly louder. However, there are so few records of these display drums that researchers do not know to what degree they may vary depending on the geographic location and the context in which they are used. Without any recordings of known double knocks, there is no precise reference with which to compare the mysterious sounds from the Big Woods.
----

Here's a paragraph from "The Grail Bird", page 40:
---
This BAM-bam is the characteristic drum of a Campephilus woodpecker, a genus found through much of South and Central America, with the ivory-bill being the northernmost representative of the group. "The second part of the double rap is so quick," said Nancy, "it sounds like an echo of the first and is nowhere near as hard." The space between the two parts of the double rap is only about seventy-five milliseconds, which is so close that some people hear them as a single rap. But the separate parts are clear if you look at a sonogram (a visual representation of a sound showing its pitch and duration).
---
"Nancy" in the paragraph above is Nancy Tanner, who was married to the ivory-bill expert Jim Tanner. Nancy Tanner heard real Ivory-bill double-knocks in the 1940s

[curunir]

Of course, the other "half" of the audio information is the kent-like calls. Blue Jays sometimes make kent-like calls, and the IBWO made kent-like calls. I would argue it this way: in 20,000 person-hours in the woods, the searchers must have had thousands of conclusive sightings of Blue Jays, and they had zero conclusive sightings of IBWOs. Given that information, if you hear a kent-like call, it doesn't seem prudent to assume that an IBWO was the likely source.

How many hours of pileated knocks did they record? Realistically, if you get x many ivorybill maybes you probably should get at least 20x or more pileated forsures. Also, if jays liked Ivorybill kents, I presume they'd establish them in their repetoire, even retaining them over a period of years and generations.

[thatmagicguy]

I liked the NPR recording,,it had decent comparisons of the old and new recordings. I was confused by the double raps,,,by reading Tanner,,as you said,,the second should have been an echo of the first,,,strangely in Hoose's book he describes it as a ba-DAM! The second syllable being louder. But if you listen to the NPR story they do play a confirmed central american Campephilus species double rapping and it is identical to the arkansas rapping. I can't help but be suspicious of someone sitting underneath the recording devices and banging two logs together to fool Cornell.

The kent noises were inconclusive to me,,,at first they sound identical to the old Cornell recording,,but then again,,,they sound like jays to me. The only thing that is different than a jay is that when the jays make the kent sounding calls they usually interject other noises as well which I didn't hear on the tape. But still,,inconclusive is the only conclusion I can come up with.

In my searches here in florida I have heard raps and kent calls,,,but never in conjunction with a bird sighting,,,I do not place alot of credence in audible sounds,,,,I was in a cypress swamp recently and for the life of me I thought there was a sharp shinned hawk squawking at me,,,I looked and looked,,,the sound is on my camcorder,,,then,,it appeared,,it was a thrasher,,,doing a perfect mimic. I laughed for an hour thinking that bird must really think alot of himself immitating an accipiter that would just as soon eat him. Bill

[hgr389]

There is no known evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers resembling an IBWO to be found! Yet this is one of HGR's MAIN reasons why he rejects the film clip as being a REAL IBWO!!


Actually, I think the bird in the video may be a completely normal (non-leucistic) Pileated.

As for the seven sightings, as you know, I think it's likely that none of the observers actually saw an IBWO. I don't know what they saw. A Pileated Woodpecker with abnormal amounts of white on the upperwing is one logical guess. This bird could be a leucistic Pileated. Another possibility is a Pileated that had molted some black coverts so that an abnormal amount of white was revealed in the upperwing.

[cyberthrush]

[QUOTE=buck3m]
I believe it is fair to say that the two sides of the issue are:

1. The IBW has been proven to be with us all along.
2. The IBW may still be here, but should be presumed extinct until better evidence is offered.
---------------------------------

NO, you've left out the most important option:

3. The IBWO may or may not still be here, but should be PRESUMED TO EXIST until proven extinct BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This threshold has never even been close to met for this species, with repeated possible sightings over the decades, IN SPITE of the paltry few large scale organized searches ever carried out. How many NEW animal species are found each year; how many 'lost' species are RE-discovered every century?... or in the case of the coelacanthe, every 65 million yrs. The arguments for IBWO extinction would be laughable if they weren't so tragically serious in their consequences.

[curunir]

3. The IBWO may or may not still be here, but should be PRESUMED TO EXIST until proven extinct BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This threshold has never even been close to met for this species, with repeated possible sightings over the decades, IN SPITE of the paltry few large scale organized searches ever carried out. How many NEW animal species are found each year; how many 'lost' species are RE-discovered every century?... or in the case of the coelacanthe, every 65 million yrs. The arguments for IBWO extinction would be laughable if they weren't so tragically serious in their consequences.

Behind Door Number 3 is the status quo with much more status with the Cornell expedition. Ivorybills are still officially with us according to the Endangered Species Act. Where should one really worry about them? Not in some godforsaken swamp, but in the old pine highlands where they might still exist and developer's eye the property. If there is a pair close to a freeway, should the location be announced? I wonder if a location can be pinpointed by the sound of cars?

[buck3m]

"In the 70s there was a partially albino Pileated Woodpecker that was very much patterned like an Ivorybill. It required a visit. Already since the Arkansas sighting another bird like this has been reported in Baytown. Fortunately with the use of Internet birdcalls, this Baytown bird was identified as a Pileated without a trip to the home. These birds demonstrate that plumage alone will not assure you that you are tracking an Ivorybill."

The above quote taken from hgr389's blog (link provided there to read in context) from a paper entitled "Ivory-billed woodpecker found in Arkansas, Implications for Texas" by Fred Collins.

[curunir]

"In the 70s there was a partially albino Pileated Woodpecker that was very much patterned like an Ivorybill. It required a visit. Already since the Arkansas sighting another bird like this has been reported in Baytown. Fortunately with the use of Internet birdcalls, this Baytown bird was identified as a Pileated without a trip to the home. These birds demonstrate that plumage alone will not assure you that you are tracking an Ivorybill."
How do you get partially albino? One white feather?

[buck3m]

How do you get partially albino? One white feather?

You'd have to ask Fred Collins, but obviously enough white feathers to make them appear "very much patterned like an Ivorybill." Seems like it would take thousands, doesn't it?

[buck3m]

As quoted in Birdersworld (http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1298):

2. Upper-wing pattern. A questioner asked Rosenberg (who admitted that he was hoping to time his talk so as not to have to take questions) if members of the search team had observed any Pileated Woodpeckers with aberrant plumage. Rosenberg said that there were reports of such birds, and that he had seen a photograph of a Pileated that was missing upper-wing coverts. The missing feathers exposed more white than usual on the bird’s wing. Rosenberg said that the resulting pattern was not symmetrical, and stressed that he had seen nothing to contradict the team’s conclusion that the Luneau bird’s wing pattern was that of an Ivory-bill.

So now we know that there are leucistic Pileated woodpeckers and we know that there has been as least one leucistic Pileated patterned much like an ivory-bill. The team has verified at least one abnormally plumaged Pileated was sighted in the search area.

Thanks to hgr389 for his research and finding the above quote. His blog discusses how this abnormally plumaged Pileated could be the source of most of the sightings, and how it explains such things as why the other Ivory-bill field marks were consistently unseen, why the loud wing noise was never noted, and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill.

[timeshadowed]

"Thanks to hgr389 for his research and finding the above quote. His blog discusses how this abnormally plumaged Pileated could be the source of most of the sightings. . .. .and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill."



"and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill." - buck3m

1. Are you presenting this as a proven FACT or just a conculsion that buck3m and hgr389 have made?

2. Where is the evidence that proves the above statement?

3. Where are the clear photos showing these leucistic Pileated woodpeckers exist?

Please post the photos or give a link for them so that we can all examine this 'new' evidence for ourselves.

TimeShadowed

[Pinewood]

The old fashioned way of ending this debate, would be the collection of a specimen, which is not going to happen. Even confirmed sightings may be questioned and all videos and photographs may be suspect.

As Natural History Magazine has published an article in the September, 2005 issue by Bobby R. Harrison, about his sightings of the ivory billed, I am going to accept its existence.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[timeshadowed]

If hgr389 and buck3m wish to conclude as FACT that the ARK sightings were that of a leucistic Pileated woodpecker and not the IBWO, then THEY must also submit as much evidence for their conculsion as THEY are expecting the official search team to provide. Otherwise all that is being done in this thread is discussing the OPINIONS held by hgr389 and buck3m.

So far, I have not seen this kind of evidence being submitted on this thread or in the thread where this discussion began.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=384851#post384851

It would seem that they are using a double-standard here. They have set a HIGH standard of proof that the IBWO exists yet conversely have set a LOW standard of proof that leucistic Pileated woodpeckers exist that show plumage patterns similiar to that of the IBWO.

They seem very willing to accept only verbal accounts (no clear photos) of sightings of the leucistic Pileated woodpecker marked like IBWO's yet dismiss the verbal accounts of those who claim to have seen an IBWO.

Further discussion using this double standard is pointless.

So, hgr389 and buck3m, where are your clear photos of the abnormally plumaged Pileated that resemble the plumage markings of the IBWO??????


TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

If hgr389 and buck3m wish to conclude as FACT that the ARK sightings were that of a leucistic Pileated woodpecker and not the IBWO, then THEY must also submit as much evidence for their conculsion as THEY are expecting the official search team to provide.

That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.

I have suggested that it's even possible that there was a prank (http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ohio-birds/2005-July/007952.html) of some kind played ON the team.

Without more solid evidence, it's too early to accept as fact ANY of these theories, in my opinion.

Again, no one is questioning the integrity of the team. I don't think any reasonable person is even saying it's impossible that the Ivory-bill lives.

Please read the Fred Collins paper for yourself and see if you think his report rings true. I don't know if he or anyone else has photos of those Pileated woodpeckers that were marked like Ivory-bills. They must have gotten a very good look to see they weren't Ivory-bills.

As far as the photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated woodpecker from the Cache River area as reported by team member Rosenberg, you'd have to ask him to see the photo. I know I'D like to see it! Seems like that Pileated would have been worthwhile to report in the original paper.

I would also like to point out that both the Rosenberg statement and the Fred Collins paper are "new evidence" and highly relevant to the debate.

I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen."

If the IB exists, I'd expect that standard of proof to be met in the next few months, and I hope it is.

[timeshadowed]

That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.
(snip) . . . . . .
I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen."

If the IB exists, I'd expect that standard of proof to be met in the next few months, and I hope it is.



Spin, Spin, and more Spin . . .


Quote:
"I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen." -- buck3m"


You still are not presenting ANY hard evidence that "a leucistic Pileated, {or} another abnormally plumaged Pileated" even EXITS.

Both of you are just assuming that it does exist without applying the SAME standards you do to the IBWO (ie "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen.")

THAT is what makes this discussion pointless. THAT is using a double standard!

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

You still are not presenting ANY hard evidence that "a leucistic Pileated, {or} another abnormally plumaged Pileated" even EXITS.


A team member (Rosenberg) says that he has seen a photo of an abnormally plumaged Pileated. A photo is hard evidence. Surely you will take a team member's word?

I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists. All these points we are trying to make is to show how easy it would be to make a mistake. Mistakes of this nature have unquestionably been made many, many times in the search for the ivory-bill, and will be made again in the future. We are not trying to prove any one of these counter explanations is THE explanation. We are trying to prove that there are other possible explanations that may be more probable. We are saying the ivory-bill's existence has yet to be satisfactorily proven, not that it has necessarily been disproved.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi

Let's keep looking. The truth will come out.

[timeshadowed]

And Buck3m's spinning continues:

A team member (Rosenberg) says that he has seen a photo of an abnormally plumaged Pileated. A photo is hard evidence. Surely you will take a team member's word?

The following quote comes from this site:
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1298

Where Chuck Hagner, (Editor - Birder's World) says:

"Rosenberg said that there were reports of such birds, and that he had seen a photograph of a Pileated that was missing upper-wing coverts. The missing feathers exposed more white than usual on the bird’s wing. Rosenberg said that the resulting pattern was not symmetrical, and stressed that he had seen nothing to contradict the team’s conclusion that the Luneau bird’s wing pattern was that of an Ivory-bill."

Since these patches of white were not symmetrical,, they do NOT resemble that of the IBWO which IS symmetrical.




I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi


Why does the burden of proof lie "with those claiming the ivory-bill exists"?

Science has never 'proved' or officially listed the IBWO as indeed extinct. There were some who claimed that it was probably extinct, but this is NOT the same as declaring it a FACT. Therefore, the burden of 'proof' still lies with those who claim that the bird has not survived.

TimeShadowed

[curunir]

That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.

From this does it follow that you believe the Cornell team is honest but basically incompetant?

[buck3m]

From this does it follow that you believe the Cornell team is honest but basically incompetant?

Of course not. I also don't believe they're infallible.


Why does the burden of proof lie "with those claiming the ivory-bill exists"?

I guess if it doesn't, there's no really no debate.

[timeshadowed]

I guess if it doesn't, there's no really no debate.


So are you agreeing to end this thread on that note?

[curunir]

I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists.
Not true, the burden of proof still lies with those who claim the ivorybill doesn't exist. The Cornell group just said they saw one. That's their burden.

[Pileated_MO]

I have suggested that it's even possible that there was a prank (http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ohio-birds/2005-July/007952.html) of some kind played ON the team.
.

So, I wonder how much of a fight the poor pileated put up as its wings were being painted. ;-)

[buck3m]

Not true, the burden of proof still lies with those who claim the ivorybill doesn't exist. The Cornell group just said they saw one. That's their burden.

Proof needs to be shown by an accurate interpretation of the body of evidence upon which they draw their conclusions. The conclusion itself is not "proof."

Direct quote of a slide from a lecture called "Science - Methods, Misuse, and Madness" given at George Mason University. Capitalization is from the slide:

Two Big Rules in Science:

The Burden of Proof Lies is on the person MAKING the CLAIM.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF

As you can see from the title of the thread, the debate is on the evidence FOR the survival of the IB.

The most verifiable "proof" from the team consists of audio, which even the team concedes may not be ivory-bills at all, and a short, blurry video, which even the team has described as "crummy."

A recent New York Times article had this quote from Dr. Jerome Jackson, author of In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Several incomplete or inconclusive lines of evidence do not add up to conclusive evidence, Dr. Jackson said, adding, "The bottom line is we simply can't know yet, we don't have the conclusive proof."

[curunir]

Proof needs to be shown by an accurate interpretation of the body of evidence upon which they draw their conclusions. The conclusion itself is not "proof."

Direct quote of a slide from a lecture called "Science - Methods, Misuse, and Madness" given at George Mason University. Capitalization is from the slide:

Two Big Rules in Science:

The Burden of Proof Lies is on the person MAKING the CLAIM.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF

As you can see from the title of the thread, the debate is on the evidence FOR the survival of the IB.

The most verifiable "proof" from the team consists of audio, which even the team concedes may not be ivory-bills at all, and a short, blurry video, which even the team has described as "crummy."

A recent New York Times article had this quote from Dr. Jerome Jackson, author of In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Several incomplete or inconclusive lines of evidence do not add up to conclusive evidence, Dr. Jackson said, adding, "The bottom line is we simply can't know yet, we don't have the conclusive proof."
Like I said, they don't have to prove it exists, it just so happens that any conclusive sighting does just that. The science of it is that if no one has heretofore fielded a big team to find the bird then no one has fielded a big team to not find it. Like the Houston toad, if a developer wanted to build something on forest land that might have an ivorybill on it, then he could face legal challenges up his slimy wazoo because the ESA says he will. Now if a big group of ornithologists somehow got the big woodie delisted then that would be a different story. Seeing UFOs or Bigfoot would be an extraordinary claim, seeing the giant pecker doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary.

[timeshadowed]

Like I said, they don't have to prove it exists, it just so happens that any conclusive sighting does just that. (snip). . . Now if a big group of ornithologists somehow got the big woodie delisted then that would be a different story. Seeing UFOs or Bigfoot would be an extraordinary claim, seeing the giant pecker doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary.

I agree with curunir.

Cornell doesn't have to prove that the IBWO exists, since it has NEVER been officially declared or listed AS EXTINCT.

According to the ESA the IBWO still is listed as being ENDANGERED,-- not extinct.

Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

End of Story!!

TimeShadowed

[timeshadowed]

Cornell doesn't have to prove that the IBWO exists, since it has NEVER been officially declared or listed AS EXTINCT.

According to the ESA the IBWO still is listed as being ENDANGERED,-- not extinct.

Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

Put another way:

Science does not demand EXTRAORDINARY proof that the IBWO is ALIVE, since it never declared that the bird was dead in the first place!

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

End of Story!!

TimeShadowed

If you asked the average North American birder to name the most extraordinary birding news of his or her life, I think it's fair to say "The Ivory-bill" would be at the top of most people's list.

To claim that the Cornell announcement that they had found a living bird wasn't extraordinary is simply ridiculous.

From Audubon Magazine: "By now everyone knows the miracle of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Here's an insider's account of what it was like being on the other side of the conservation story of the century."

Sounds extraordinary to me. And it is.

[timeshadowed]

If you asked the average North American birder to name the most extraordinary birding news of his or her life, I think it's fair to say "The Ivory-bill" would be at the top of most people's list.

To claim that the Cornell announcement that they had found a living bird wasn't extraordinary is simply ridiculous.

From Audubon Magazine: "By now everyone knows the miracle of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Here's an insider's account of what it was like being on the other side of the conservation story of the century."

Sounds extraordinary to me. And it is.


UM. . . .

You're confusing the issue as always.


Your use of the word 'extraordinary' has to do with public OPINION not SCIENTIFIC FACT.

The public had been convinced that the IBWO was dead.

Science had not declared the IBWO dead.

According to Science this is NOT an 'extraordinary' event since 'science' did not think that the IBWO was dead.

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

UM. . . .

According to Science this is NOT an 'extraordinary' event since 'science' did not think that the IBWO was dead.

TimeShadowed

Most people in the world of science thought the ivory-bill was likely extinct. Reporting a confirmed sighting of a bird widely thought to be extinct is extraordinary, isn't it? Don't you think that's what everyone's so excited about, scientists and common folks alike?

"Long thought extinct" Science Daily
"Once thought extinct" Department of the Interior
"Long believed to be extinct" Cornell
"Whether or not the bird still exists (odds are strongly against it)..." John Fitzpatrick, 2002

The news, the subject of an announcement by the journal Science, has stunned ornithologists world-wide, as the species was widely assumed to have gone extinct in North America since the last confirmed sighting in 1944. Birdlife international

The National Geographic:"Thought now to be extinct in North America..."

From the Fish and Wildlife Service "In April, the Department of the Interior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, The Nature Conservancy, and other partners announced the extraordinary rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker at Cache River National Wildlife Refuge.

“This extraordinary rediscovery provides hope for the 18 species classified as Potentially Extinct, such as Jamaican Petrel, Javan Lapwing and Pink-headed Duck,” says Dr. Michael Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International.

"It's an extraordinary find because no one ever thought we'd see a living ivory-billed woodpecker again." Science News for Kids

"Although the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has never officially been considered extinct, the discovery of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extraordinary!" enaturalist.org

[timeshadowed]

A few posts up you said this:


We are saying the ivory-bill's existence has yet to be satisfactorily proven, not that it has necessarily been disproved.
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi


In other words, you are demanding that SCIENCE now must prove a fact - that the IBWO still exists.

Yet, SCIENCE has never declared AS FACT that the IBWO has gone extinct - as your quotes suggest - they only THOUGHT that it MAY BE extinct.

There lies the BIG difference.

If the IBWO was never declared extinct by the scientific world, why must they present 'extraordinary proof' that is still exists????

The following quotes that you used are still only OPINIONS, and not scientific FACT:



Most people in the world of science thought . . . (snip)
"Long thought. . .(snip) Science Daily
"Once thought. . .(snip) Department of the Interior
"Long believed. . .(snip) Cornell

(edit - Still just his opinion, not a fact:)

"Whether or not the bird still exists (odds are strongly against it)..." John Fitzpatrick, 2002

". . .(snip)widely assumed" Birdlife international


The National Geographic:"Thought. . .(snip) in North America..."

"no one ever thought Science News for Kids

(edit - This is still expressing only an OPINION not a FACT)

"Although the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has never officially been considered extinct, the discovery of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extraordinary!"enaturalist.org

Again, I ask you:
If the IBWO was never declared extinct by the scientific world, why must they present 'extraordinary proof' that is still exists????

TimeShadowed

[Tim Allwood]

I will give you any 100/1 against !

I'll have £20 on that. (:

When a bird is captured or an absolutely cracking pic is taken, can i collect?
I'll take a cheque Steve

this is easy money folks; despite the weird conspiracy ramblings of late

Tim B

[jurek]

I will give you any 100/1 against !

Good - I bet 10 EURO.

Done.

[buck3m]

If the IBWO was never declared extinct by the scientific world, why must they present 'extraordinary proof' that is still exists????

TimeShadowed

For 60 years, there have been sporadic reports, even some disputed photos, of ivory-billed woodpeckers. Every single report and photo was either proven false or found to be unverifiable. After many decades, Science, rationally, believed it was extinct only because it couldn't scientifically be proven to be extinct. Science, including Cornell, rightly demanded extraordinary proof of the IB's existence.

Now I'm simply asking for extraordinary proof from science (along with Kaufman, Sibley, Jackson and others.)

If there ARE IBs, extraordinary proof will be found (repeated, good sightings by independent observers and photos that clearly show IBs) if NOT, unverifiable reports will still continue to pour in. Of that I'm certain.

[Tim Allwood]

howabout some clarification?

the bird WAS classified as extinct (eg in Birds to Watch 2 published by BirdLife). The definition is of "no reasonable doubt that the last individual had died". This was a reasonable supposition at the time.

the bird is thought by many, including BirdLife to very probably persist in the Sierra Maestre mountains of Cuba too

Tim

[timeshadowed]

howabout some clarification?

the bird WAS classified as extinct (eg in Birds to Watch 2 published by BirdLife). The definition is of "no reasonable doubt that the last individual had died". This was a reasonable supposition at the time.

the bird is thought by many, including BirdLife to very probably persist in the Sierra Maestre mountains of Cuba too

Tim

Tim,

Do you accept the evidence presented thus far by Cornell et all that the IBWO is still alive?

The reason I asked is, that both buck3m and hgr do not. That is what this debate has been about.

If you have not done so already, I would highly recommmend that you begin reading this topic from the beginning.

It started here in the update thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=384851#post384851

The discussion was later moved to this thread.

TimeShadowed

[Tim Allwood]

Tim,

Do you accept the evidence presented thus far by Cornell et all that the IBWO is still alive?



yes
unreservedly
the 'reasons' given here for it not being, are ludicrous.

and i look forward to collecting my cash

Tim

[timeshadowed]

yes
unreservedly
the 'reasons' given here for it not being, are ludicrous.
Tim


Thanks for the answer, Tim. I agree with you.

TimeShadowed

[cyberthrush]

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF

-------------------------------------------------
As folks have already said the AR. sighting is NOT an extraordinary claim; the claim in the '40s that the Singer Tract population of IBWOs were the last ones, now THAT was an EXTRAORDINARY, never-proven claim.

But moreover, extraordinary claims DO NOT REQUIRE extraordinary proof... indisputable proof will always be IMPOSSIBLE -- I would defy anyone here to "prove" beyond all doubt that they've ever seen a Northern Cardinal; or can you prove evolution, or The Holocaust, or that Vioxx is of any medical value (you can only accept certain probabilities and trust in the judgment/reports of others and your own senses) -- and of course we all know that Man never landed on the moon -- that was all just a Hollywood stunt full of trick photography and a vast Gov't./news-media conspiracy... at least I guess that's what the doubters are thinking...
Debating over words like "extraordinary" and "proof" is a red herring, and semantic game-playing. We need to focus on the mounting evidence, and not the illusory 'proof' that will NEVER exist. This easy technique of throwing up questions to raise doubts is the same technique Creationists use effectively against biologists. I would no more assume the IBWO doesn't exist in AR. because some have raised questions, than I would assume evolution must be false because Creationists pose questions.

[buck3m]

But moreover, extraordinary claims DO NOT REQUIRE extraordinary proof

They do in science. They don't in faith.

... indisputable proof will always be IMPOSSIBLE

Untrue. We have indisputable proof that the ivory-bill existed: good photos, numerous good first-hand accounts by dependable people of birds seen well at close range, detailed paintings, even good film including calls. With new evidence, a combination of these will be accepted as "indisputable proof" by any reasonable person, and the reasonable people are the ones that matter.

cyberthrush, on your blog you say this:
"Unlike many optimists, I don't find Cornell's acoustic evidence for Ivory-bills in the Big Woods compelling. And the Luneau film clip remains rightly very controversial. Upon first viewing it, the 'jizz' of that bird said to me 'melanistic white ibis!' -- I STILL haven't ruled that out!!!"

But you clearly "believe" in the ivory-bill, based on the recent sightings.

Every one of the recent sightings were so brief that no one got a good enough look to see all or even most of the field marks. Surely that isn't too much to ask for, is it? If several of them HAD gotten really good looks, the kind of views that Tanner, Allen and Audubon got, along with one reasonably decent photograph, that would be good enough for me. Does that really sound so unreasonable?

[dacol]

howabout some clarification?

the bird WAS classified as extinct (eg in Birds to Watch 2 published by BirdLife). The definition is of "no reasonable doubt that the last individual had died". Tim


The IBWO was not classified as extinct by the only organization that really matters here in the USA: the US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS never removed the Ivory-billed Woodpecker from the endangered species list, this had the consequence that similar agencies in the states in the historical range of the IBWO kept the IBWO listed as endangered as well. Many regional offices of the FWS as well as state agencies have received over the years reports from people that believed they had seen a IBWO. Thus those agencies acted more prudently than many ornithologists in organizations ostensibly dedicated to bird conservation. One case where the bureaucrats showed better sense.

Dalcio

[buck3m]

There's a new article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7056/full/437188a.html) that talks about the controversy.

As is the tradition in debate, I'm going to present the parts that support my views as a skeptic, while completely ignoring all the parts that contradict my view. Please read the whole article for the full story.

Please be reminded that I'm not saying the ivory-bill is extinct, only that it is too early to know for sure one way or another and much of the current evidence is, literally, fuzzy.

Quotes from the article:

Yet not all ornithologists are as convinced as Lammertink. Several, including Jerome Jackson of Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, have repeatedly questioned the Cornell team's evidence for the bird's existence. Neither the four-second video purporting to show an ivory-billed, nor the sound recordings released last month at a bird meeting in California, satisfy this group of sceptics. Ivory-billed searchers, Jackson says, "are shooting in the dark"...


Some ornithologists are developing a 'life-table model' to try to determine how many of the birds could have survived, factoring in estimated lifespan and habitat. The best guess is about 15 pairs... (My note: that quote was just interesting. Makes it hard to believe that 30+ birds have survived for 60 years without a good photo, but is good news if they ARE alive.)

On 1 August, as the journal PLoS Biology was close to publishing their critique of the Science article, Prum and Robbins withdrew the manuscript while Jackson was travelling...Even so, the three sceptics say that they withdrew their PLoS manuscript too hastily. They are getting support from other ornithologists, including Gary Graves, the Smithsonian Institution's curator of birds, who argues that the bird shown in the crucial video may be a pileated, not an ivory-billed, woodpecker.

And some authorities say that there is unpublished evidence that helps prove that the bird in the video is a pileated woodpecker. They are referring to a 1953 film of a flying imperial woodpecker (Campephilus imperialis), a species extinct in its home range of western Mexico. Some years ago, Lammertink secured a copy of the film, which had been taken by a birding enthusiast. It was among the evidence shown to ornithologist Michael Patten, research director at the University of Oklahoma's Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, when he visited Cornell in June.

Ornithologists generally agree that the imperial woodpecker is a sister bird to the ivory-billed, with many similar characteristics from coloration to the distinctive double-rap. But Patten was struck by the imperial's flight patterns. "As soon as I watched the film," he says, "I was absolutely certain they didn't have an ivory-billed woodpecker. The bird in the film flies utterly differently to the one in the Cornell video..."

"The sound recordings don't validate the flimsy sightings records," says Patten.

Remote sound recordings are notoriously deceptive, he points out. Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) can mimic woodpecker sounds, or gunshots can be mistaken for woodpecker raps. There are also untold copies of old ivory-billed recordings in private hands, including birders who play them back in the Arkansas refuges hoping to get a response from a live bird.

"We are 100% sure" that the new tapes don't just capture playbacks of old sounds, says Kenneth Rosenberg of the Cornell team. Analysis of the notes and sound shows that they don't match, he says. But the team acknowledges that it can't yet rule out a wily jay mimic.

My note: I'm not so sure it's a point in the team's favor to say the newly recorded notes don't match the old recorded notes!

[timeshadowed]

There's a new article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7056/full/437188a.html) that talks about the controversy.

As is the tradition in debate, I'm going to present the parts that support my views as a skeptic, while completely ignoring all the parts that contradict my view. Please read the whole article for the full story.


To be fair, you must also deal with "the parts that contradict my view".

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

To be fair, you must also deal with "the parts that contradict my view".

TimeShadowed

I was trying to be somewhat humorous, but anyway...

debate (noun)

1. A formal discussion, often in front of an audience, in which two or more people put forward opposing views on a particular subject.

Each party represents ONE view. Not BOTH views.

[timeshadowed]

I was trying to be somewhat humorous, but anyway...

debate (noun)

1. A formal discussion, often in front of an audience, in which two or more people put forward opposing views on a particular subject.

Each party represents ONE view. Not BOTH views.



You still need to RUFUTE the points (in that article) that you do not agree with. You just can't IGNORE the points you disagree with as you have all along in this thread. You need to PROVE your point of view, not just LIST it.

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

You still need to RUFUTE the points (in that article) that you do not agree with.
TimeShadowed

Been there, done that. Just showing that some of the nation's top ornithologists are making most of the same points.

[curunir]

Been there, done that. Just showing that some of the nation's top ornithologists are making most of the same points.
You're right about that. This is a lay debate over a subject that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has deems moot. There's another principle of science involved here, that is to have a claim at all you pretty much have to have a PhD. Snotty as it sounds, that's the way it is.

[affe22]

You're right about that. This is a lay debate over a subject that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has deems moot. There's another principle of science involved here, that is to have a claim at all you pretty much have to have a PhD. Snotty as it sounds, that's the way it is.

Or you have to at least be a biologist.

[gws]

You're right about that. This is a lay debate over a subject that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has deems moot. There's another principle of science involved here, that is to have a claim at all you pretty much have to have a PhD. Snotty as it sounds, that's the way it is.

I know some PhDs who couldn't run a donut shop.

[affe22]

I know some PhDs who couldn't run a donut shop.

Probably because they're not in business. It seems like the more education you get the less common sense you have about things outside of your field.

[gws]

Has there been mention here of a video that Bobby Harrison took of an IBWO?

In the 9/05 edition of Natural History magazine, Harrison states in an article that he took a video of an IBWO on 9/4/04. The video is brief and the quality is poor, but he says that frame by frame images bring out the wing pattern of an IBWO. Said video has not been released yet to the public.

Maybe they are getting Tom and Buck's analysis of the frames before a general release. Got to make sure this is not another freak pileated, I guess. :)

The article is interesting. Harrison also intimates that on another occasion he has also seen a female IBWO.

[timeshadowed]

Maybe they are getting Tom and Buck's analysis of the frames before a general release. Got to make sure this is not another freak pileated, I guess. :)



Yepper's! I'll bet that is what they are doing, since Tom and Buck have spent so many hours sitting still in the swamp just waiting for a REAL IBWO to fly by. However, it seems that they have both seen their share of freak pileateds though. :))

Why have they not released THEIR freak pileated photos??


TimeShadowed

[curunir]

I was trying to be somewhat humorous, but anyway...

debate (noun)

1. A formal discussion, often in front of an audience, in which two or more people put forward opposing views on a particular subject.

Each party represents ONE view. Not BOTH views.
I agree, debates aren't supposed to be fair. Bill Buckley could debate just about any topic, it was just tougher when he didn't know a thing about it.

95%

[buck3m]

Why have they not released THEIR freak pileated photos??
TimeShadowed

You should be asking Cornell. TWO team members have now admitted there were aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers in the study area. In this Arkansas Times (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=77904161-3db8-4ac8-ae83-5b73e2bdd2a8) article, it says the following:

Arkansas State University professor of wildlife ecology Jim Bednarz has seen several pileated woodpeckers with an abnormal amount of white wing feathers in the Cache River refuge. With Team Elvis, he pursued three birds that showed a flash of white in flight and white on their backs as they were perched. All were pileated.

Also, I remind you that in this Birder's World article (http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1298) it says the following:

A questioner asked Rosenberg (who admitted that he was hoping to time his talk so as not to have to take questions) if members of the search team had observed any Pileated Woodpeckers with aberrant plumage. Rosenberg said that there were reports of such birds, and that he had seen a photograph of a Pileated that was missing upper-wing coverts. The missing feathers exposed more white than usual on the bird’s wing.

Again CORNELL says they have a photo, and TWO team members say there were "freak" Pileated Woodpeckers IN THE STUDY AREA.

Another example of an aberrant Pileated Woodpecker is posted in Tom Nelson's Ivory-bill Skeptics Blog (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/) and is from Noel Snyder's book The Carolina Parakeet

Surely, mistakes in identification are sometimes made even by highly competent observers. Two examples from my own experience illustrate the risks clearly. One was a sighting of my own of an apparent Ivory-billed Woodpecker in central Florida in 1979. This was a bird that I flushed from a log in working through a hammock east of the Archbold Biological Station. The bird flew up to the vertical trunk of a pine only a few yards distant, and I could plainly see that it was a very large woodpecker with distinct large white secondary triangles on its folded wings, the most diagnostic field mark of the ivory-bill in distinguishing it from the somewhat similar Pileated Woodpecker.

Had the bird flown on immediately after I detected it, I would have been forever sure that I had seen a living Ivory-bill. But the bird remained perched on the pine trunk, giving me time to examine it more closely with binoculars. I soon determined that the white triangles on the bird's wings were in fact cream in color, not pure white, and in fact there were two black feathers intermixed with the cream-colored secondaries on the bird's left wing. Further, the bird lacked the huge white bill of an ivory-bill and instead had the much smaller black bill typical of a Pileated Woodpecker.

Since Pileated Woodpeckers have been mistaken for Ivory-bills hundreds of times in the past, and since the team was LOOKING for Ivory-bills, and since there were Pileated Woodpeckers IN THE AREA with more white than usual on their wings, and since the trailing white on the wings was the ONLY field mark most of the observers noted, doesn't it seem like a rather huge coincidence?

The video is EXTREMELY poor, and the top ivory-bill expert in the world, and several other top ornithologists, say the video shows a PILEATED woodpecker.

On this thread, it seems the most popular debating point is the credentials of the skeptics. All of the following people are skeptics. Again, I think few if any of the skeptics are saying the survival if the IB is impossible, just that it hasn't yet been proven.

1. David Sibley, bird book author
2. Kenn Kaufman, bird book author
3. Jerome Jackson, "world's foremost expert on the ivory-billed woodpecker"
4. Richard Prum, ornithologist, Yale University
5. Mark Robbins, ornithologist, University of Kansas
6. Gary Graves, the Smithsonian Institution's curator of birds
7. Michael Patten, ornithologist, University of Oklahoma

I challenge the believers to make a similar list of credentialed experts who have ACCEPTED Cornell's "proof."

[Tim Allwood]

surey not a difficult task...

you could start at BirdLife International, Go through the WCMC, take in the IUCN etc,

and the top two wouldn't be writers of field guides - I've got mates that have done that! The evidence provided by the team seems excellent to me.

Tim

[buck3m]

surey not a difficult task...

...and the top two wouldn't be writers of field guides - I've got mates that have done that!

Tim

If you are saying that Sibley and Kaufman aren't among the most recognized and respected experts in North American birding, you're not going to find many people to agree with you.

And if you can find an Ivory-bill expert with better credentials than Jerome Jackson, I'm waiting breathlessly to see who it is.

And if you can put together a more impressive list of experts who have publicly accepted Cornell's "proof," lets see it.

[Tim Allwood]

And if you can put together a more impressive list of experts who have publicly accepted Cornell's "proof," lets see it.

yes i can

several of those people wouldn't want me putting their names in a thread/forum like this though.

i find myself arguing with anti global warmers, people who know better than all the experts in every field etc. This place is getting seriously weird.

I'd better get out in the field for a few days...

Tim

[dacol]

Buck3m,

So, of the hundreds of ornithologists in the USA you can find only 9 that are skeptics? If I am not mistaken both Prum and Robbins have stated that based on the audio evidence they now believe that there are IBWOs in Arkansas.

Since you invoke science so much, I ask where are the papers challenging the Science article? Why don't you write one? Can your arguments convince referees, say of Science or Nature, to recommend publication of your paper?

The arguments of the Cornell people passed muster with the referees of the journal Science. Your ornithological skeptics withdrew their paper. What does that tell you about the solidity of their arguments?

Dalcio

[buck3m]

yes i can

several of those people wouldn't want me putting their names in a thread/forum like this though.


I'm going to specify that secret testimony of secret experts doesn't count.

Let's see your list of experts that WILL allow you to use their name. I'll predict in advance that you won't submit a list at all, and if you do it will be short and unimpressive.


So, of the hundreds of ornithologists in the USA you can find only 9 that are skeptics?

There are even less that have publicly accepted Cornell's report. There are 7 major names on that skeptics list first made by Tom Nelson. All have publicly expressed skepticism of the current evidence. I'm asking for a list of recognized experts of a similar caliber who have stated, publicly, that they accept the current evidence.


If I am not mistaken both Prum and Robbins have stated that based on the audio evidence they now believe that there are IBWOs in Arkansas.

You ARE mistaken. Prum and Robbins initially accepted the audio evidence but have since changed their minds. As quoted earlier in Nature:
On 1 August, as the journal PLoS Biology was close to publishing their critique of the Science article, Prum and Robbins withdrew the manuscript while Jackson was travelling...Even so, the three sceptics say that they withdrew their PLoS manuscript too hastily.

By the way, ethical scientists WILL change their minds if new evidence tips the balance one way or another.


I ask where are the papers challenging the Science article?

Based on the above quote, it seems likely they'll be resubmitting their paper. One way or another, I fully expect a challenge to the Cornell paper to be published in the coming months.

I'm even more confident that we'll be seeing a challenge published before we see a good Ivory-bill photo.

[timeshadowed]

On this thread, it seems the most popular debating point is the credentials of the skeptics.

Both buck3m and Tom Nelson are writing information in this thread and on the blog site in such a way as to make it appear that THEY are the ones who have first-hand knowledge of the "evidence" that is presented here. It is buck3m and Tom Nelson who are the skeptics in this thread, NOT the people that are listed in the post above.

It is NOT the credentials of the men listed in that above post that I question. The credentials that I question are those of buck3m and Tom Nelson.

TimeShadowed

[dacol]

There are even less that have publicly accepted Cornell's report.

There are no reasons for professional ornithologists that accept the conclusions of the Cornell team to appear in public.

The conservation measures taken so far to preserve IBWO habitat in Arkansas have not been derailed by the sideline sniping of the skeptics. The USFWS is moving full steam ahead with their recovery plans. The Big Woods partnership has been very successsful in raising funds for consertation too.

The presentations by the Cornell team were warmly and positively received at the AOU meeting in Santa Barbara.

The conclusions of the Science paper continue unchallenged in the published scientific literature.

[/QUOTE]By the way, ethical scientists WILL change their minds if new evidence tips the balance one way or another.[/QUOTE]


That is besides the point, I am not questioning their ethics. Their flip-flopping does indicate to me that they don't have much confidence in their own arguments and reasoning.

[/QUOTE]Based on the above quote, it seems likely they'll be resubmitting their paper. [/QUOTE]

Let us hope that this time they choose a jourrnal with a established scientific reputation, or better yet, conform to established scientific procedure and try to publish their refutation in the same journal where the original article appeared.

Of course, this will only be possible if their arguments have more objective and rational content than the ones presented by you and your brother. Those arguments of yours consist only of subjective impressions about the video, inuendos questioning the credibility and ability of the observers that saw the IBWO in Arkansas, and pathetic appeals to authority. Not enough to pass through a minimally competent referee.

Dalcio

[Tim Allwood]

ha ha ha

Buck, you reckon i have nothing better to do than ring up people and ask them if i can put their names on here as 'believing' the Cornell researchers...?

give BirdLife International HQ in Cambridge, UK a ring tomorrow morning - there's quite a few experts there for a good start... don't know whether they'll indulge you though.

anyway, i would take it that if any 'expert' hasn't registered their scepticism that is a tacit acceptance of the claims...

and i can't wait to read that 'rebuttal' paper - if we ever see one in anything like Science or Nature

Tim

[buck3m]

It is NOT the credentials of the men listed in that above post that I question. The credentials that I question are those of buck3m and Tom Nelson.

TimeShadowed

TimeShadowed, your "debating" consists almost entirely of personal attacks. You've argued over and over that the skeptics are wrong because the skeptics have no credentials. I've shown you that some of the top birding experts in the world have publicly proclaimed themselves to be unconvinced. Your answer? Personal attacks.

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.


Those arguments of yours consist only of subjective impressions about the video, inuendos questioning the credibility and ability of the observers that saw the IBWO in Arkansas, and pathetic appeals to authority. Not enough to pass through a minimally competent referee.

Dalcio

The trouble with the Cornell evidence is that it is so weak it is nearly all "subjective." We ALL know what an Ivory-bill looks like. In the best evidence, the video, some see an Ivory-bill, some see a Pileated, and some can't tell WHAT they're looking at. And that's the best evidence.

Eyewitnesses, especially those with preconceived notions, are notoriously undependable. This is doubly true in this case when there were several abnormally plumaged Pileateds in the search area and even more so with those brief glimpses.

A paper will be submitted, it will be accepted, and it will contain most of the arguments we have been making.

[Tim Allwood]

A paper will be submitted, it will be accepted, and it will contain most of the arguments we have been making.

i hope your confidence is not misplaced

it's not easy to get a paper in Nature or Science

who's writing it anyway?

Tim

[timeshadowed]

TimeShadowed, your "debating" consists almost entirely of personal attacks.

I disagree. My comments in this thread have been based entirely on the information you and Tom Nelson have written in this thread. I have also disagreed with the 'style and manner' in which this information has been presented by you and Tom Nelson. That is NOT a 'personal attack'.

Name calling is considered a 'personal attack'. I have not ever done that on this forum.

Both you and Tom tend to 'pick and choose' by taking information out of its original context and only presenting such information that will support YOUR point of view, while ignoring information by the SAME author that will disagree with your viewpoint.

So, yes, I have been critical of your 'style and manner' in which this information has been presented by you and Tom Nelson, but THAT is not a 'personal attack'.

I have also pointed out that both of you have a double standard where 'proof' is concerned. You apply a lesser standard to the 'evidence' that supports your skeptic point of view (aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers) while at the same time demanding 'extraordinary proof' for 'evidence' that DOES NOT support your viewpoint. But THAT is NOT a 'personal attack' either.

To prove my point, why are you not calling for 'extraordinary proof' that these aberrant marked Pileated Woodpeckers exist? Why do you just accept that they exist because some claim that they do?

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

To prove my point, why are you not calling for 'extraordinary proof' that these aberrant marked Pileated Woodpeckers exist? Why do you just accept that they exist because some claim that they do?

TimeShadowed

Firstly, in a population of hundreds of thousands of Pileated Woodpeckers the odds say there will be some with aberrant plumage.

Secondly, TWO team members say that there were aberrantly plumaged Pileated Woodpeckers in the area of the study. If they are telling the truth, I've proved my point. If they are lying, the study is invalid. I don't think they're lying, do you?

And using the audio as an example, I don't need extraordinary proof that the calls were made by a blue jay, but the believers DO need extraordinary proof that they WERE made by Ivory-bills. In that sense, it's a double standard, but thats the way it should be.

[Terry O'Nolley]

So what is the simplest answer?
The simplest answer is that it does exist since it is nearly impossibly difficult to prove a negative.

(except in the case of Iraq's WMD - everyone the world over "proved" that negative when they weren't found within 2 hours of the invasion....)

[Tim Allwood]

The simplest answer is that it does exist since it is nearly impossibly difficult to prove a negative.

(except in the case of Iraq's WMD - everyone the world over "proved" that negative when they weren't found within 2 hours of the invasion....)

or er.... at any time since...

more chance of finding an IBW - as was proven... :'D

Tim

[gws]

It is okay to accept if two qualified team members state that there are aberrant pileateds in the area.

It is NOT okay to accept 7 to 15 sightings of an IBWO in the same area by qualified members of same team.

Interesting.

[buck3m]

It is okay to accept if two qualified team members state that there are aberrant pileateds in the area.

It is NOT okay to accept 7 to 15 sightings of an IBWO in the same area by qualified members of same team.

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that they got at least one photo of the aberrant Pileated but none of their Ivory-bill sightings.

Also interesting is that the Ivory-bills all escaped after a brief glimpse, while, according to Jim Bednarz he has seen several pileated woodpeckers with an abnormal amount of white wing feathers in the Cache River refuge. With Team Elvis, he pursued three birds that showed a flash of white in flight and white on their backs as they were perched. All were pileated.

Some skeptics, including me, would point out that it looks like suspected Ivory-bills were Ivory-bills if they were only glimpsed briefly, but became Pileated Woodpeckers when observed closely or photographed.

[gws]

Well, it is even more interesting that some of the sightings have apparently revealed no red on the head at all!

Man, these are some hellaciously freak pileateds. Oversized, too! :)

[timeshadowed]

"Firstly, in a population of hundreds of thousands of Pileated Woodpeckers the odds say there will be some with aberrant plumage."



There have been numerous claimed sightings of IBWO's in the years between 1944 and now, so why just assume that the IBWO no longer exists and that it is extinct. It has NEVER been officially declared or listed AS EXTINCT.

Your continued demand for "extraordinary proof" that the bird still exits while your assumption that 'Elvis' was only "a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed"
( http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=400562&postcount=102 ) is still using a double standard of proof. You can't prove or disprove that this is what the search team was or was not seeing. Yet you still demand "extraordinary proof" that they saw what they claimed to have seen, an IBWO.





"Secondly, TWO team members say that there were aberrantly plumaged Pileated Woodpeckers in the area of the study. If they are telling the truth, I've proved my point. If they are lying, the study is invalid. I don't think they're lying, do you?"


No, you have NOT proved your point. Just because "TWO team members say that there were aberrantly plumaged Pileated Woodpeckers in the area of the study" does not mean that this is what 'Elvis' was. What it means is that you are ASSUMING that this is what 'Elvis' was!

Now here is the 'double standard' at work again.

THREE team members, Sparling, Gallagher & Harrison,(Science article, Apr. 28, 2005) claim to have seen an IBWO at the SAME time. Yet you refuse to accept their claim without "extraordinary proof".

Why do you accept the claim of "aberrantly plumaged Pileated Woodpeckers in the area of the study", yet reject the claim of Sparling, Gallagher & Harrison that they saw an IBWO??




"And using the audio as an example, I don't need extraordinary proof that the calls were made by a blue jay, but the believers DO need extraordinary proof that they WERE made by Ivory-bills. In that sense, it's a double standard, but thats the way it should be."


Wrong!

Why should we accept YOUR assumptions over the claims of trained audio techs who have analyzed those tapes??

Did YOU have access to the ORIGINAL recordings?
Have you personally analyzed the original recordings?

What qualifies you to make the scientific claim that those calls were made by a blue jay and not an IBWO?

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

Well, it is even more interesting that some of the sightings have apparently revealed no red on the head at all!



Or ivory-colored bills. Or the white dorsal stripes. Or the white neck stripe ending before the bill. Or the longitudinal black stripe on the white wing underside.

Look, in the study, NOBODY got ONE really good look. Not ONE look good enough so they could have made an accurate description of an ivory-bill if they didn't already know what one was supposed to look like.

There is another double standard in this debate, and that is that the believers CAN prove their case with good photos and videos. On the other hand, there is no evidence that skeptics can produce, nor are there any arguments logical enough, to convince the truly faithful believers that the case hasn't been proven yet either way.

And that IS a fact. |=)|

There is another really important point here that I think many in the "pro" camp don't understand. The skeptics are NOT trying to prove the Ivory-bill is extinct. Only time will prove that, and the decision will forever be subjective until when and if solid proof comes forward.

I for one don't think the search should end or reports be ignored. I'd like to see wilderness areas protected and more old growth forest.

I would be delighted to see video of a pair of adult ivory-bills and young. But I'm afraid I never will.

[curunir]

The skeptics just sound like they'd be happy as clams if no ivorybill ever shows up. The only people who really want to prove extinction would be developers, who would have one less species to address; maybe swamp people who want isolation for whatever reason. The skeptics on this forum wouldn't seem to want anything one way or the other, there would no longer be a reason to debate.

95%

[Terry O'Nolley]

or er.... at any time since...

more chance of finding an IBW - as was proven... :'D

Tim

:D I agree with you there!

[Cornell75]

Even more interesting is that they got at least one photo of the aberrant Pileated but none of their Ivory-bill sightings.

Also interesting is that the Ivory-bills all escaped after a brief glimpse, while, according to Jim Bednarz he has seen several pileated woodpeckers with an abnormal amount of white wing feathers in the Cache River refuge. With Team Elvis, he pursued three birds that showed a flash of white in flight and white on their backs as they were perched. All were pileated.

Some skeptics, including me, would point out that it looks like suspected Ivory-bills were Ivory-bills if they were only glimpsed briefly, but became Pileated Woodpeckers when observed closely or photographed.

I've read the Cornell paper published in Science, including the analysis of the video. I've read a number of assertions and a great deal of speculation about the evidence Fitzpatrick et al deduced from the video and other observations, but I've seen no published contrary evidence. One group was said to be ready to publish a "rebuttal", but never did so. I've also read the description in The Grail Bird (an unrefereed source) of the simultaneous observation of the same bird by two competent observers; in days past this kind of observation was widely accepted, and evidently still is if the bird is an aberrant pileated woodpecker and not an ivorybill. Photographs of these alleged aberrant pileateds, please? By the way, in the quote above, I see nothing to indicate that the birds pursued were "suspected ivorybills".

[dacol]

The trouble with the Cornell evidence is that it is so weak it is nearly all "subjective." We ALL know what an Ivory-bill looks like. In the best evidence, the video, some see an Ivory-bill, some see a Pileated, and some can't tell WHAT they're looking at. And that's the best evidence.

Nope. They have an objective measurement of the size of the bird in the video which even with the large error margin of the measurement due to the fuzziness of the video rules out any Pileated Woodpecker.

Dalcio

[Terry O'Nolley]

Nope. They have an objective measurement of the size of the bird in the video which even with the large error margin of the measurement due to the fuzziness of the video rules out any Pileated Woodpecker.
Where have those results been published? Who are "they" - the Cornell team?

[dacol]

Where have those results been published? Who are "they" - the Cornell team?

"they" = Cornell team, article published in Science:

Fitzpatrick et al, Science vol 308, 1460-1462, 3 June 2005.


Dalcio

[Terry O'Nolley]

"they" = Cornell team, article published in Science:

Fitzpatrick et al, Science vol 308, 1460-1462, 3 June 2005.


Dalcio

Thanks very much and for the email. I got it and it certainly seems solid.

[hgr389]

Thanks very much and for the email. I got it and it certainly seems solid.

Regarding the measurement of the bird in the Luneau video--I (and many others) believe that Cornell made a simple mistake.

They thought that they were measuring the wrist-to-tailtip on a perched bird; I believe that the bird has actually already raised its wing to fly. In my opinion, this mistake has misled many people into thinking that the bird is too large to be a Pileated.

My detailed analysis is available on my blog (see the home page for hgr389).

[curunir]

Regarding the measurement of the bird in the Luneau video--I (and many others) believe that Cornell made a simple mistake.

Still sounds like you're saying they're incompetant.

[buck3m]

Still sounds like you're saying they're incompetant.
He's saying he believes they're wrong. There's a huge difference between being incompetent and simply making a mistake (like misspelling incompetent.)

Every expert, no matter the field, makes mistakes on occasion. Science should be about observing, research and theory, and questioning and debate and the search for truth.

I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination.
- Peter B. Medawar, zoologist and immunologist, Advice to a Young Scientist, 1979

[curunir]

He's saying he believes they're wrong. There's a huge difference between being incompetent and simply making a mistake (like misspelling incompetent.)

Every expert, no matter the field, makes mistakes on occasion. Science should be about observing, research and theory, and questioning and debate and the search for truth.

I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination.
- Peter B. Medawar, zoologist and immunologist, Advice to a Young Scientist, 1979
Sorry, I'm too lazy to use spellcheck.

It's true, any expert can be wrong, but you are saying that 8 or more experts in the same field made an identical mistake.

[buck3m]

QUOTE=curunir]It's true, any expert can be wrong, but you are saying that 8 or more experts in the same field made an identical mistake. [/QUOTE]

Firstly, before these sightings, none of these people had seen any more living ivory-bills than you or I or anyone else. Also Sparling, Gallagher, Harrison, and Luneau are not trained biologists so although they may be competent they weren't experts in the field.

Secondly, they all only got brief glimpses.

Thirdly, most or all saw only one field mark, white secondaries.

Lastly, there were aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers in the area, according to the team.

Since the only looks at Ivory-bills were poor looks, I'm saying that yes, they likely all made a similar mistake, a mistake that would only have been made had they not already BELIEVED there were Ivory-billed woodpeckers in the are, and because there WERE aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers in the area, and because they WANTED to see Ivory-billed woodpeckers.

Had they all independently gotten great views, I'd believe them. Especially if they had photos!

[curunir]

Firstly, before these sightings, none of these people had seen any more living ivory-bills than you or I or anyone else. Also Sparling, Gallagher, Harrison, and Luneau are not trained biologists so although they may be competent they weren't experts in the field.

Secondly, they all only got brief glimpses.

Thirdly, most or all saw only one field mark, white secondaries.

Lastly, there were aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers in the area, according to the team.

Since the only looks at Ivory-bills were poor looks, I'm saying that yes, they likely all made a similar mistake, a mistake that would only have been made had they not already BELIEVED there were Ivory-billed woodpeckers in the are, and because there WERE aberrant Pileated Woodpeckers in the area, and because they WANTED to see Ivory-billed woodpeckers.

Had they all independently gotten great views, I'd believe them. Especially if they had photos!
The only way biologists could have used their expertise is if they had shotguns. You must agree that someone like Sibley would have more expertise than a biologist?

94%

[timeshadowed]

Had they all independently gotten great views, I'd believe them. Especially if they had photos!

Buck and Tom,

Who really cares if you and Tom don't believe that an IBWO exits?!

Most of us on this forum do. So just WHAT is your AXE that you seem to want to continue to grind??

You both have stated your case and most of us who have responded to this thread do not agree with your views, so why continue to re-hash and re-hash the same points over and over again??

Will you agree to disagree and call this discussion ended??

You both are NEVER going to convince those of us who have responded to this thread so far.

TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

You must agree that someone like Sibley would have more expertise than a biologist?

94%

Absolutely more expertise than most bioligists. And he's a major skeptic. He also "described doubters as being treated as 'heretics' in online discussions".

Gee, I wonder where he got that idea? |:d|


TimeShadowed, I'm not debating to make you angry, and I'm not trying to convince you, because I agree, I can't. I'm trying to make my points for the benefit of anyone trying to understand the other side of the debate. The "pro" camp is being presented all over the media, this forum and most other forums and I think it's smart and right to present both sides of an issue.

Please, if this bothers you, just don't read this thread, and don't respond. No offense intended.

[curunir]

TimeShadowed, I'm not debating to make you angry, and I'm not trying to convince you, because I agree, I can't. I'm trying to make my points for the benefit of anyone trying to understand the other side of the debate. The "pro" camp is being presented all over the media, this forum and most other forums and I think it's smart and right to present both sides of an issue.

Please, if this bothers you, just don't read this thread, and don't respond. No offense intended.
Like moths to a flame.

Anyway, I'm curious to know if those in the skeptic camp have improved expectations for the existance of the IBW. You can be a critic of the Cornell paper and still be substantially above the 50% confidence level.

94%

[gws]

Absolutely more expertise than most bioligists. And he's a major skeptic. He also "described doubters as being treated as 'heretics' in online discussions".

Gee, I wonder where he got that idea? |:d|


TimeShadowed, I'm not debating to make you angry, and I'm not trying to convince you, because I agree, I can't. I'm trying to make my points for the benefit of anyone trying to understand the other side of the debate. The "pro" camp is being presented all over the media, this forum and most other forums and I think it's smart and right to present both sides of an issue.

Please, if this bothers you, just don't read this thread, and don't respond. No offense intended.

Buck,

Bioligists??

Uh, I believe you may need to work on your OWN spelling before you busy yourself pointing out the spelling errors of someone else on this thread.

[buck3m]

The spelling comment was an apparently failed attempt at humor. (The topic having been mistakes.) [sentence fragment]

Let's not start a spelling and grammar debate now, too, or I'm afraid we'll all take a beating.

[gws]

The spelling comment was an apparently failed attempt at humor. (The topic having been mistakes.) [sentence fragment]

Let's not start a spelling and grammar debate now, too, or I'm afraid we'll all take a beating.

I'm not trying to start a spelling debate. You were the one pointing out the spelling mistake of someone else earlier on this thread.

Have a good night, Buck.

[hgr389]

Anyway, I'm curious to know if those in the skeptic camp have improved expectations for the existance of the IBW. You can be a critic of the Cornell paper and still be substantially above the 50% confidence level.

94%

As I've examined the evidence in greater and greater depth, I've become more skeptical. Right now, if you asked me "What's your confidence level that there was a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas in 2004?", I'd say "10% or less".

[the bird]

As I've examined the evidence in greater and greater depth, I've become more skeptical. Right now, if you asked me "What's your confidence level that there was a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas in 2004?", I'd say "10% or less".



surely there has to be photographic evidence by now!!!!

[Tim Allwood]

no

rare birds are by definition very difficult to photograph

many birds known to be extant have not been photographed yet. Many more have not been recorded for a long long time. Calayan Rail was recently found in the Philipopines - yet it's pretty common and easyish to see. We recently saw birds in Tibet that have never been filmed, some seldom photogrpahed and some that are quite numerous that were only recorded in 1985 and 1995 since the 1800s

the difficulty of photographing it is not at all suprising

atb
Tim

[gws]

As I've examined the evidence in greater and greater depth, I've become more skeptical. Right now, if you asked me "What's your confidence level that there was a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas in 2004?", I'd say "10% or less".

Right now, if you asked me "What's your confidence level in HGR's opinion that there is a 10% or less chance that there was a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas in 2004?", I'd say.....

".0000000000000001%, or less."

:)

[edenwatcher]

Oh, I'm entirely confident that it's his OPINION! :-O

Rob

[buck3m]

no

rare birds are by definition very difficult to photograph

many birds known to be extant have not been photographed yet. Many more have not been recorded for a long long time. Calayan Rail was recently found in the Philipopines - yet it's pretty common and easyish to see. We recently saw birds in Tibet that have never been filmed, some seldom photogrpahed and some that are quite numerous that were only recorded in 1985 and 1995 since the 1800s

the difficulty of photographing it is not at all suprising

atb
Tim

You are, in my opinion, comparing apples to watermelons. Supposedly Ivory-bills are now known to exist. Calayan Rails were, apparently, not known to exist (to science) but now that they are they are easy to photograph as can be seen here. (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=calayan+rail)

A large, famous, flashy bird in Arkansas is not the same as an unknown bird in Tibet, where, until recently at least, it was virtually impossible to visit by birders or anyone else for that matter.

The Ivory-bill is called "The Grail Bird" because it has been the subject of so much intense searching.

What IS apples to apples, is Ivory-bill to Ivory-bill, Cornell to Cornell, U.S. to U.S.

From The Cornell Daily Sun (http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/08/30/4313e60f185f4):

Of the few photographs of the ivory-billed woodpecker that exist, most were captured by another Cornell ornithologist, the legendary Prof. Arthur A. Allen, during an ornithological pilgrimage to the South in 1935...

In December 1934, an article in Science announced Allen’s expedition to the scientific community; it indicates that, over the last seventy years, Cornell ornithologists’ aims have hardly changed.

“Professor Arthur A. Allen, of the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell University, will lead an expedition next spring to search out the haunts of rare North American birds in order to preserve for future generations their habitats and calls,” it read.

Allen and his colleagues took early recording equipment on their trip. Although it was then considered to be portable and modern, their audio gear filled two trucks.

“The trucks will be equipped with cameras and blinds and modern sound-recording equipment so that the voices as well as the actions and appearance of the bird can be recorded on films and preserved for posterity,” the article continued.

According to Nature Ivory-bills were already so rare that by 1924 some experts were already beginning to wonder if they were extinct.

What were the results of that 1935 Cornell Ivory-bill expedition with relatively primitive equipment? Excellent film, photos and sound recordings. That is why Allen's evidence is universally accepted as scientific proof and why I refuse to accept the "it's nearly impossible" excuse.

[affe22]

You are, in my opinion, comparing apples to watermelons. Supposedly Ivory-bills are now known to exist. Calayan Rails were, apparently, not known to exist (to science) but now that they are they are easy to photograph as can be seen here. (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=calayan+rail)

Seems to me that there are actually only 4 or 5 pictures of the Rail and only one non-captured bird. You'd think that you'd get many more than one or two photos even in the matter of a year after knowing the bird exists wouldn't you? Maybe some birds are just that hard to find, especially if they are known for their transient nature and there are only a handful left.

One more thing, the rail is from the Phillipines and not Tibet. I'm pretty sure people have been going to the Phillipines easily for a while now.

[buck3m]

Seems to me that there are actually only 4 or 5 pictures of the Rail and only one non-captured bird. You'd think that you'd get many more than one or two photos even in the matter of a year after knowing the bird exists wouldn't you? Maybe some birds are just that hard to find, especially if they are known for their transient nature and there are only a handful left.

One more thing, the rail is from the Phillipines and not Tibet. I'm pretty sure people have been going to the Phillipines easily for a while now.

I thought you said you wouldn't be posting here anymore? As a matter of fact, I have irrefutable evidence:


I too am now tired of this debate and shall be posting no more.

I never said the Calayan Rail was from Tibet but it's irrelevant anyway. It IS rare, recently discovered, and they already have good photos of it. And I guess if they can catch them, by hand, they can probably get as many photos of them as they like, don't you think?

And most of these "discoveries" are discoveries to science, but not to local people. The famed coelacanth, which has often been cited in this debate, was well known to local fisherman. The reason it wasn't "found" is because no one was looking. Now it is refound and photographed repeatedly.

Do you think Ivory-bills are transient during the nesting season? Are they more transient or more wary than they were in 1935? Do you have any evidence of that other than the fact that no one can get solid proof?

"When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason."
- Thucydides

[affe22]

I never said the Calayan Rail was from Tibet but it's irrelevant anyway. It IS rare, recently discovered, and they already have good photos of it. And I guess if they can catch them, by hand, they can probably get as many photos of them as they like, don't you think?

What can I say, I missed it too much. As for the rail, from what I read they said the birds were actually quite abundant in the area they lived, only problem is that they live on one small island in the Phillipines, thus limiting their numbers. The local people had known of the bird for a long time before scientists got their hands on it (sounds oddly familiar). As for good photos and catching them (probably not by hand), all the evidence that I can find points to a single good field photo and two captured birds. I'll keep looking though.

Also, I wonder why the fact that these birds "differ from 1935" is brought up. If you read anything about the 1935 search you would learn that they had to be escorted to the sight by someone who had seen them and almost gave up their search before the person guiding them relocated the birds. It took about a week to figure out where repeatedly seen birds were. Obviously they weren't that easy to find outside of knowing where the birds may be nesting. If that Cornell team had no idea of that area, their search may been quite similar to more recent ones.

[affe22]

One more thing, if you don't like the coelacanth example, how about the Cuban solenodon. Thought to be extinct since it was last known from zoos in 1969 until rediscovered two or three years ago.

If you don't like that one I'm sure I can find many more.

[curunir]

And most of these "discoveries" are discoveries to science, but not to local people.


If you look through the pertinent threads, there seem to be a lot of local people swearing up and down that they've seen the big woodie.

I'm ticked off, I actually spellchecked a word in this posting. Now I'm going to be wasting time bothering with spelling.

[buck3m]

On the Calayan Rail's discovery team...

The team took photographs and video footage of the birds in the wild, and of one young female in the hand, together with detailed measurements.

They're not going to have trouble with skeptics.

Your comment on the 1935 Ivory-bill search...


It took about a week to figure out where repeatedly seen birds were.
Wow, it took them a whole WEEK to start getting all that good footage? I don't think that helps your case.

In the most recent search the team apparently DID know EXACTLY where to look, because they reportedly found them over and over.

And for every example you can give an an animal presumed extinct that has been refound, you can find 1,000 examples where they are "still dead."

From the Cornell Daily Sun:

“Science advances on the basis of evidence that can be scrutinized by other scientists,” Jackson said.

Like many ornithologists, including Fitzpatrick, Jackson wants to see high-definition images of the woodpecker; recordings and personal sightings are hardly irrefutable.

[affe22]

Wow, it took them a whole WEEK to start getting all that good footage? I don't think that helps your case.

Sure it does. The Cornell team stated they believed that they were not in the birds natural home range, which would put them outside the birds nesting site for sure. If it takes a week to find the bird at a reliable spot and get good footage of it, how hard is it to get them at a spot where they just pass through. Think about it. How much video and sound did they get before they found the nest sight? That's correct, none of both.


And for every example you can give an an animal presumed extinct that has been refound, you can find 1,000 examples where they are "still dead."

That is kind of a moot point. Of course you can find 1,000s of examples of things presumed extinct that still are. You know why? Because there are more species extinct than extant. So really, that statement is kind of ridiculous. Now, if you want to get into species presumed extinct, searched for and determined still extinct, I feel that 1,000s might be a bit of an over estimate, unless you count things like the giant ground sloth (searched for by the Corps of Discovery).

[Tim Allwood]

are some people willfully misunderstanding the points about incredibly rarely seen birds known to exist?

Kill Bill Tanager discovered last year on the well travelled Manu Road - a bright yellow bird! Where's that been the last 100 years?

Tim

[curunir]

And for every example you can give an an animal presumed extinct that has been refound, you can find 1,000 examples where they are "still dead."

You're comparing Apples with large unknown fruit. Dinosaurs are presumed extinct by all (except bird freaks), they'll probably never be found. IBW are presumed extinct by some and not by others. Better comparison, presumed extinct but still covered under the Endangered Species Act. 1,000 to one appears to be quite excessive.

94%

[buck3m]

We can argue fruits all we like, but I think an objective person would have to agree that the Ivory-bill/Cornell/1935 to Ivory-bill/Cornell/2004 comparison is unquestionably more valid than comparing the Ivory-bill hunt to someone stumbling upon a Rail in the Philippines or a tanager in the Peruvian jungle.

The "other extinct creatures have been refound" argument is not "evidence." If it is, it is evidence to point out that the Dodo, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon, Giant Moa, and Elephant Bird were, and are, believed extinct. The only merit either argument has is that it is important to keep an open mind.


If it takes a week to find the bird at a reliable spot and get good footage of it, how hard is it to get them at a spot where they just pass through.
That Ivory-bill the team saw was apparently passing through mighty slowly. He was reportedly seen in the area repeatedly from February 2004 to February 2005. Most or all sightings occurred in an area 3 km across. With an area that small with all that coverage and all those sightings, it was really, really unlucky no one got a good look.

Where are the nests? Find even an abandoned nest and they claim you can do DNA testing on a feather.


IBW is 99.99% extinct BirdForum, 16 June, 2004.

How sure are you now, Tim?

Hey curunir, I wish I never would have mentioned spelling. Now I'M spell-checking.

[sparrowbirder]

Just come to this thread a bit late,fascinating stuff,,must admit when the news first came out I was really excited by the discovery,just a little worried now though that my initial euphoria may have been premature!!
It really worries me about the lack of sightings over the last 12 months,despite having the whole of last winter to search the area,and why leave the discovery a whole year before releasing the info,on the eve of a new book being published..coincidence!!
The fact that things seem to have gone a bit quiet is worrying,are Cornell having second thoughts,thinking they may have released the news a bit early,if no more sightings are made,ever,nobody can prove that Cornell still werent right,it may have been the last IBW they saw,or hunters may have gone in and killed any birds remaining..they are hardly going to admit they were wrong are they,too much credibility to lose,so id expect everything to just "go quiet" and fade away,but im still hoping to see some more footage in the coming winter,,if only for the birds sake!!!

[affe22]

That Ivory-bill the team saw was apparently passing through mighty slowly. He was reportedly seen in the area repeatedly from February 2004 to February 2005. Most or all sightings occurred in an area 3 km across. With an area that small with all that coverage and all those sightings, it was really, really unlucky no one got a good look.

Woodpeckers, like bats and many other species, use travel corridors to get from roost to other places like feeding areas. I do believe that is what they are saying the area where most of the sightings took places is. Plus, I wouldn't call 8 sightings in a year moving slowly since most were around the same days in their respective field season.

Weren't the last sightings in the winter/spring of 2005? That is only last field season.

[Tim Allwood]

BirdForum, 16 June, 2004.

How sure are you now, Tim?

Hey curunir, I wish I never would have mentioned spelling. Now I'M spell-checking.

best evidence at the time mate

it was good enough for the people at BirdLife Internatinal and IUCN although it was thought possible to be in the Siearra Maestre mountains of Cuba - and still is. I have seen the Cornell stuff, know of the people involoved and have chatted to BirdLife emloyees about. I see absolutely no reason to doubt it. As i have tried to mention above MANY birds are around at very low density/numbers and incredibly hard to see let alone photgraph - some of the doves in the philippines for example...

I am more than willing to believe the people who have done the work, as i am in most fields of life. I wouldn't tell a surgeon operating on me how to go about it, or tell a pilot how to fly etc...

Tim

[curunir]

One thing that baffles me somewhat is that F&W Service and whomever are supposed to be building a viewing area and platform in AR? What are they expecting? It's not like the whooping crane that you can see across miles of marsh.

[affe22]

One thing that baffles me somewhat is that F&W Service and whomever are supposed to be building a viewing area and platform in AR? What are they expecting? It's not like the whooping crane that you can see across miles of marsh.

They're expecting a lot of people to go, "Oh, a viewing platform, lets go there." I figure they are trying to funnel people to places they want them to be. Also, people think the Ivory-billed flies up higher when traveling distances, so maybe it will give a better view of this area.

[jurek]

Where are the nests? Find even an abandoned nest and they claim you can do DNA testing on a feather.

!? They found dozens of tree holes perfect for ivorybill.

I don't know if they looked into them, actually. Apparently not found a feather, though.

[buck3m]

best evidence at the time mate

Fair enough. All we can go on is the facts as we understand them. Sometimes the situation and the facts change and it's smart to be open minded.


I wouldn't tell a surgeon operating on me how to go about it, or tell a pilot how to fly etc...

To a point, that's true, but it's a good idea to "trust, but verify." I once corrected a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg. I know a guy who refused to board a small airplane because one engine wasn't running properly. The pilot was disgusted with him, took off, and crashed and burned a few hundred yards off the end of the runway.

Barring some good photographs or video appearing soon, I think we're likely to see a skeptical paper published by other experts in the coming months. At that point I guess people will have to see what evidence each side presents, and decide for themselves which experts are correct.

[curunir]

Barring some good photographs or video appearing soon, I think we're likely to see a skeptical paper published by other experts in the coming months. At that point I guess people will have to see what evidence each side presents, and decide for themselves which experts are correct.
Actually, I'd say they'll wait through this winter birding season. There will probably be a pile of birders out there looking with lots of equipment. You'd look awfully foolish if a solid photo turned up just as you're publishing. If nothing turns up this winter I'll have to lower my expectations appropriately.

Cornell had a similar problem, the longer they waited, the more likely a photo would show up. Even a small article with photo could trump their paper.

94%

[Terry O'Nolley]

I once corrected a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.
Do you mean that a surgeon who was under the impression he would be operating on a man's left leg the next morning (when it was the man's right leg that needed the surgery) was at your house the evening before the surgery and stated that the USA was 1200 years old and you told him "No, it is 229 years old"? Because that would be, technically, correcting a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.

Many things can sound quite dramatic with the right wording but actually be quite mundane.

[buck3m]

Do you mean that a surgeon who was under the impression he would be operating on a man's left leg the next morning (when it was the man's right leg that needed the surgery) was at your house the evening before the surgery and stated that the USA was 1200 years old and you told him "No, it is 229 years old"? Because that would be, technically, correcting a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.

Many things can sound quite dramatic with the right wording but actually be quite mundane.

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?

No, the surgeon said, just before they wheeled me into surgery, that they'd be working on my right leg. I told him they were supposed to be working on my left leg. Clear enough?

[affe22]

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?

But what are the chances 7 other pilots make the exact same mistake, a few after knowing of the incident?

[buck3m]

But what are the chances 7 other pilots make the exact same mistake, a few after knowing of the incident?

Oh, about 100%. He took off despite knowing something was wrong, and stalled in. It's happened scores of times with small aircraft. And it will happen again.

[affe22]

Oh, about 100%. He took off despite knowing something was wrong, and stalled in. It's happened scores of times with small aircraft. And it will happen again.

But 7 times at the same airport a few on the same day and all the people knowing that about the crash? You can't just say, oh, small airplanes will crash a bunch. It's not the same odds.

[curunir]

But 7 times at the same airport a few on the same day and all the people knowing that about the crash? You can't just say, oh, small airplanes will crash a bunch. It's not the same odds.

Poor analogies if you ask me. Are we saying the giant pecker is akin to a small airplane? Whew, I'm impressed. Let's go back to apples and watermelons.

[affe22]

Poor analogies if you ask me. Are we saying the giant pecker is akin to a small airplane? Whew, I'm impressed. Let's go back to apples and watermelons.

Not at all. This is an analogy of experts making mistakes. Come on now, follow along.

[Pileated_MO]

Where are the nests? Find even an abandoned nest and they claim you can do DNA testing on a feather.
.

What would they compare it to? A feather from an old specimen, I suppose?
And who is it who is claiming this?

[buck3m]

What would they compare it to? A feather from an old specimen, I suppose?
And who is it who is claiming this?

Yes, DNA from old specimens. I think there's many labs that could do this, and here's (http://www.vetdnacenter.com/bird-dna-sexing.html) one that specifically says they can do it.

[Bonsaibirder]

Hello,

I have been reading this thread for quite a while now. Its fascinating, and thought I would contribute, as the thread seems to be gathering steam! The discussion seems to be moving away from what I presume was the original point (ie. the title of the thread) to "who believes who", "who are experts, and who are not", and even "fruit"!!

Anyway, for what its worth here's how my thoughts have developed on this story over the last few months.

I remember when I first heard about the Cornell paper I was quite excited, and when I saw the video I was amazed. The vision of a presumed extinct bird captured on film gave me goose-bumps and I was ready to fly over to the states, rent a kayak and get in there for as long as it took to see one!!

I e-mailed a friend in the states - an extremely talented field birder - and his immediate reply was "It sure looks like a Pileated to me." This surprised me but I looked into it a bit more and found that I had not realised that Pileated Woodpeckers have extensive white underwings. So, I went back to the video and asked myself, "am I looking at the underwing, the upperwing or both when the extensive white is showing?".

To be honest I can't tell. Maybe its an IBW and maybe it isn't. I hope it is, then at least I've seen a video of one.

So that leaves me with the eye-witness accounts and the sound recordings.

Lets face it, when we talk about eye-witness accounts of a bird we are talking about birding. The only relevant matter is the same dilemma that all bird identification committees have every time they adjudicate on a record
- has the bird been seen well enough to identify it to species. When I read all the cases described in the Science paper I see them as tantalising glances, rather than convincing sightings. Three were without optical aids (one of which was from 100 yds - five times further away than the bird in the video!). No-one described the colour of the bill (only one person even saw the bill) - have you seen the real photos of IBW, the bill is amazing!!. The only notes presented both have field sketches showing birds from above, even though the bird actually flew in front of them. And the only feather detail presented is actually only an "impression" when you read the field nots. These could have been Ivory-billed Woodpeckers but I don't think any of them would convince any local bird records committee to accept the record.

To me, the sound recordings (of the double-raps) are very exciting. They are evocative and seem to differ from the other possible confusion sounds, but even the Cornell people don't claim these as definite evidence of IBW.

So, in my opinion, its a whole list of maybes until someone actually sees a bird properly or photographs one. I hope the IBWs are there (I still think perhaps they might be) and I hope one day I can come over and help look for them (sounds from the website like I need to be a qualified Kayaker to even get a look in).

Best wishes,

Saddinall

[Incidentally I am a scientist and I think it is very dangerous to assume that something is correct just because it is published. Believe me there are many results published in respected journals that turn out to be wrong. The whole point of publishing papers is to allow others to scrutinise your data. Since there is very little actual science in this particular paper (there's some image analysis and bird measurements but essentially this is a report of an extensive bird survey) then I think just about anyone with knowledge of birds is justified in commenting upon it).]

[Terry O'Nolley]

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?
I don't know - how many small planes have ever crashed? I suppose it could be considerd a fantastic and extremely rare event. Otherwise, and my sympathies to the victims, a small plane crashing is not a scientifically earth-shattering event.

No, the surgeon said, just before they wheeled me into surgery, that they'd be working on my right leg. I told him they were supposed to be working on my left leg. Clear enough?
Thank you - yes. Now it is clear enough.

[buck3m]

What would be the best way to get good photos of an Ivory-bill?

Has anyone seen the documentaries where they were trying to film the very rare and elusive snow leopards and Sumatran tigers? They successfully did so by setting up automatic cameras in areas these animals were thought most likely to frequent. It resulted in great, close range video.

If I were doing the search, I'd first encourage people to report suspected active nesting sites and feeding areas and sift through them to find the most promising reports.

Then I'd invest in dozens of inexpensive automatic digital cameras, the kind hunters use, and set them up in all these places. If the sites were being visited by IBs, you'd almost certainly end up with good photos.

Once an area was confirmed to hold living ivory-bills, you could go in and get good video and photos with human photographers or even replace the "still" cameras with automatic video cameras.

This basic idea was tried by the Cornell team in places that had bark scaling and that were suspected Ivory-bill feeding sites. It came up with plenty of Pileated Woodpecker photos, but no IB photos. I believe this is somewhat damaging to the report. Nevertheless, it seems a likely way to "man" promising areas 24 hours a day with minimal cost and I see no reason that the idea couldn't be used in hundreds of places in several states.

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country. I think thousands of hunters would recognize an ivory-bill if their cameras got a shot of one. Food for thought.

What do you think?

[Terry O'Nolley]

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country.

How big is "Ivory-bill country"?

I thought the supposed sightings were limited to a few geographically isolated patches of forest.

I can't imagine there being over 20,000 automated digital cameras in such small areas! Jesus - the entire woods would look like the set of some horror movie with flashes going off continuosly.

And imagine the poor animals, as they stumble away from one of the 20,000+ cameras densely packed into a few square miles, temporarily blinded and confused they trip 17 more cameras on the way back to their den. The horror!

The horror.......

[curunir]

Has anyone seen the documentaries where they were trying to film the very rare and elusive snow leopards and Sumatran tigers? They successfully did so by setting up automatic cameras in areas these animals were thought most likely to frequent. It resulted in great, close range video.

If I were doing the search, I'd first encourage people to report suspected active nesting sites and feeding areas and sift through them to find the most promising reports.

Then I'd invest in dozens of inexpensive automatic digital cameras, the kind hunters use, and set them up in all these places. If the sites were being visited by IBs, you'd almost certainly end up with good photos.

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country. I think thousands of hunters would recognize an ivory-bill if their cameras got a shot of one. Food for thought.

What do you think?

I think it took months on a well traveled snow leopard trail to get brief footage of two pussies.

Where can I get some of those cameras. I'd like to see who comes into my back yard to rob me while I'm gone.

[buck3m]

How big is "Ivory-bill country"?...

I can't imagine there being over 20,000 automated digital cameras in such small areas! Jesus - the entire woods would look like the set of some horror movie with flashes going off continuosly.

...

IF the bird has survived, there are almost certainly several breeding pairs that range well beyond the search area, especially since there is much better habitat in the U.S. than can be found in the area of the search.

There have been unverifiable reports of ivory-bills seen from across most of the U.S. Obviously, most reports are extremely likely to be untrue because of confusion with Pileated Woodpeckers and because many reports are from areas that have never been IB habitat.

From Cornell: In this country, the bird ranged from the coastal plain of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, large portions of Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, Louisiana, eastern Texas, west Tennessee, and small areas of Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Despite your smart aleck comment, there ARE tens of thousands of automatic cameras used by hunters in that huge area, and if IBs survive they are likely to be photographed by them.

[buck3m]

I think it took months on a well traveled snow leopard trail to get brief footage of two pussies.


They have gotten footage of many snow leopards. They were averaging one every 55 days at first and now it's one a week.

[affe22]

Despite your smart aleck comment, there ARE tens of thousands of automatic cameras used by hunters in that huge area, and if IBs survive they are likely to be photographed by them.

While I agree there are a lot of automatic cameras out for hunting, I disagree that one would photograph an IBWP for a few reasons.
First, most hunters using the cameras are hunting animals that are quadrupedal so they probably aren't positioning their cameras terribly high off the ground. I'm pretty sure that if you are using one for deer, 3 - 4 feet off the ground is about as high as you'd want the sensor. While we don't know much about IBWP habits, I'd feel fairly safe saying that they spend most of their time at an elevation higher than that.
Second, even if there are 10,000 cameras in this large area, the sensors usually shoot around a 1 in. diameter beam that projects around 20 feet or so. Given those dimensions, each beam would be covering 0.109 cubic feet. Ten thousand would cover around 1,090.37 cubic feet. If you had a forest that was 100 yards by 100 yards by 50 feet high, the area that the forest would cover would be 4,500,000 cubic feet. So with 10,000 units, you couldn't even completely cover this area. What do you think the odds that catching a bird flying through that forest with one automatic unit is?
Third, a lot of the automatic units have delays in them. That is why a lot of people get shots of the butts of deer or nothing at all a lot of the time. There is no chance that a woodpecker flying at full speed is going to get caught by a camera that has a delay in it which is slow enough to miss a walking deer. The really good trail cams have little delay but Jim Bob from the sticks in Mississippi can go to Walmart and get one of $50 instead, which is what a lot of people do.

Oh, the snow leopards took a month or two to find if I remember correctly. It wasn't like, hey, lets set up a trail cam and video some snow leopards. They had to find their routes and even then they weren't having very good luck. And these things only utilize a vertical space of a few feet to move through. Imagine if they had 50 - 100 feet vertically.

Edit: Just because I like doing math, I changed the original numbers from inches to feet. I also calculated that you would be covering about 0.0243% of the forest in my example with your 10,000 cameras. Math is fantastic, isn't it?

[Terry O'Nolley]

From Cornell: In this country, the bird ranged from the coastal plain of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, large portions of Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, Louisiana, eastern Texas, west Tennessee, and small areas of Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Despite your smart aleck comment, there ARE tens of thousands of automatic cameras used by hunters in that huge area, and if IBs survive they are likely to be photographed by them.

I believe there are 20,000+ auto cameras. I never disputed that. in fact, my "smart aleck comment" acknowledged your figure of tens of thousands explicitely. My beef was in the small area of "IB country" having that many cameras.

Obviously, if we expand "IB Country" to include a huge chunk of the continental USA then your statement seems less than credible for the opposite reason: An area that large would need millions of cameras to randomly capture an IBW, not a measely 20,000.

[buck3m]

First, most hunters using the cameras are hunting animals that are quadrupedal so they probably aren't positioning their cameras terribly high off the ground. I'm pretty sure that if you are using one for deer, 3 - 4 feet off the ground is about as high as you'd want the sensor. While we don't know much about IBWP habits, I'd feel fairly safe saying that they spend most of their time at an elevation higher than that.

Contrary to all the excuses, Ivory-bills are not magical birds that are impossible to photograph.

Allen said Audubon states that “it seldom comes near the ground"; but the birds we have watched behave no differently from pileated woodpeckers in this respect, sometimes working high up in the trees but at other times within five or ten feet of the ground. The female of the Florida pair which we watched for over an hour on a 'burn" sometimes got down on the ground around the seared, prostrate trunks of the saw palmettos, hopping like a Flicker, while her mate stayed on the trunks of the pines five to ten feet up. We never saw the Louisiana birds on the ground but there was plenty of evidence, both in Florida and Louisiana, that a bird will continue scaling the bark from recently killed trees for the beetle larvae beneath, clear to the base of the tree, until the tree stands absolutely naked with the bark piled around its base.

It's interesting that on this page (http://www.ibwo.org/remote.html) Cornell had at least two of the cameras a few feet off the ground. Obviously that's where they expected to see Ivory-bills.

You'll also notice in the third picture down it appears that a squirrel has tripped the camera and there happened to be a Pileated Woodpecker there. It would have worked the same way with an Ivory-bill. Trail cameras take millions of photos a year. They not only take photos of the targeted animals, they take photos of everything within view of the camera no matter how high it is. Many trail cameras trip almost immediately, but even with the ones that don't it wouldn't matter if the Ivory-bill was feeding within the camera's view or even happened to be flying through.

Bottom line: if it will work for Pileateds, and it does, it will work for Ivory-bills. If they exist.

[buck3m]

An area that large would need millions of cameras to randomly capture an IBW..

That's your opinion. They may capture a photo tomorrow. But here's a fact: If you have no Ivory-bills, you'll NEVER get a good photo.

I notice that both of you have totally ignored the main part of my suggestion which was to target high-probability areas, such as suspected feeding sites and nests near credible reported sightings.

If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

[affe22]

I notice that both of you have totally ignored the main part of my suggestion which was to target high-probability areas, such as suspected feeding sites and nests near credible reported sightings.

I wasn't responding to that part of your statements. I was responding to the part where you said a hunter's cam would pick it up. So I guess that kind of clarifies that part. As for where the cameras are positioned, again looking at where hunters place them, no one would have a camera out in the middle of the water like the ones pictured. They would be on dry land over a game trail about 3 to 4 feet off the ground at the most. They wouldn't be aimed at specific trees unless they had been worked by game and those trees probably aren't very tempting to woodpeckers. The instant photo comment you made is also false. No remotely triggered camera is instant. Some are faster than others. If you buy a cheap one you're going to have delay. It's a fact. That's why people pay for the top end ones. They have shorter delays and are more sensitive. The digital cameras that go with the traps aren't instant either, just like all cheaper digital cameras. I have a FinePix A210 and when you press the trigger button there is a focus pause and then it takes the pictures. I imagine the Walmart brand ones aren't better than this camera.

You have some interesting logic in your arguments. You keep talking probability about people getting a good picture if they are alive, etc., but then you refuse to admit the extremely low probability of a HUNTER'S autocam catching the IBWP after you stated they probably would. Come on now, what is the probability that A) an IBWP flies through an autocam covering such a tiny area or B) that an individual of an already low population just happens to be sitting on a tree in view of the camera when a deer walks by? That's probably even lower than the first.

[buck3m]

The camera would have taken the exact same squirrel/Pileated photo had it been over dry land. That part of the argument is just that, an argument.

Give me all the stats and times that you want, but trail cams have effectively taken some of the very best photos of some of the rarest creatures there are, many of them by random chance, and trail camera usage is increasing rapidly. For those that haven't seen it, check out this randomly captured shot of a cougar stalking a deer (http://www.emidwestbasstournaments.com/hunitngphotocougar.jpg) or how about this dramatic shot (http://www.camtrakker.com/03/5th_large.jpg) of a raptor and squirrel.

I'm not going to debate this angle any more, because we both agree that there will likely never be an Ivory-bill photo taken by a "trail cam."

Also, please don't misquote me. You said: The instant photo comment you made is also false. I said: "Many trail cameras trip almost immediately," which is true.


Making an argument for arguments sake

[Tim Allwood]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?

Tim

[affe22]

Give me all the stats and times that you want, but trail cams have effectively taken some of the very best photos of some of the rarest creatures there are, many of them by random chance, and trail camera usage is increasing rapidly. For those that haven't seen it, check out this randomly captured shot of a cougar stalking a deer (http://www.emidwestbasstournaments.com/hunitngphotocougar.jpg) or how about this dramatic shot (http://www.camtrakker.com/03/5th_large.jpg) of a raptor and squirrel.

Neither of those is all that random really. They can both be explained quite easily. Obviously you knew the deer would travel the game trail you set it on, you just got lucky that a cougar was following it. This does seem to me to show the delay in trail cams since the deer is already past the camera unless you set the sensor on the right of the trail cam. The squirrel was just more lucky but which tripped the camera, the squirrel or the hawk? Either way, in every instance there is a quadrupedal mammal in the photo and the hawk is a predator of squirrels. IBWPs don't exactly travel a game trail on the ground or prey on rodents. I don't really understand what you were trying to say with your photos? As for "misquoting" you, I do not feel that I did. I just took it a different way than you intended it I suppose. Seems like a common mistake by both sides in this thread and I guess if we are going to call this "misquoting" we all need to look back at some of the other things that were called "misquoting" and accept them as that as well.

[affe22]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?
Tim

Don't know about one per week, but I know of one group that got video a few times a month over a field season in the Himalayas, that is, after the first month or two they never even saw the cats.

[buck3m]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?

Tim

In Northern India (http://www.snowleopardconservancy.org/ladaknotes3.htm) Tim. Man, would I love to get a good look at a wild snow leopard. Or an Ivory-bill for that matter.

[Terry O'Nolley]

how about this dramatic shot (http://www.camtrakker.com/03/5th_large.jpg) of a raptor and squirrel.

I wonder if the person that set up the camera ticked the raptor....

[curunir]

In Northern India (http://www.snowleopardconservancy.org/ladaknotes3.htm) Tim. Man, would I love to get a good look at a wild snow leopard. Or an Ivory-bill for that matter.
According to the article in the 01-02 season, the group caught a leopard on average every 55 days, two months, I don't believe it mentioned if they had some totally empty seasons. It took until the 03-04 season to reduce that to every week. I expect to see a few gooder sightings of big woodie in 05-06 and some better stuff in 06-07. I don't suspect Cornell will give up unless they're ready to retract.

[timeshadowed]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!

TimeShadowed

Sun, Sep. 25, 2005
ST. PAUL
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/12726681.htm
Ivory-billed woodpecker gets the spotlight

Gene Sparling, who saw an ivory-billed woodpecker that was presumed to be extinct in an Arkansas swamp last year, and John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, will talk about the discovery in a Thursday program, sponsored by the Science Museum of Minnesota, from 7:30 to 9 p.m. The event includes comments on steps taken to ensure the survival of the rare breed from Scott Simon, director of the Arkansas chapter of the Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental organization. Cost is $10 ($8 for seniors and $5 for students). For tickets, call 651-221-4513 or e-mail sgross@smm.org. The museum is at 120 W. Kellogg Blvd.
© 2005 St. Paul Pioneer Press and wire service sources

[hgr389]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!



Thanks, Timeshadowed. Actually, it's been quite easy to find the email addresses of many search team members. I've already emailed specific questions to many of them. I've received quite a few responses, but I'm not at all satisfied with the answers.

Tom
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/09/ivory-bill-skeptic-home.html

[curunir]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!

TimeShadowed

According to the Laura blog, the event appears to be sold out.

[buck3m]

In trying to keep debate on this thread, I'm going to respond here.


It is very apparent to me that ivory-bills today have very little in common behaviorally with Tanner's birds. They are stunningly quiet, even at breeding time, and very wary. We have seen how the legendary Sapsuckers failed to get a look at Elvis in early 2004.
This strikes me as fundamentally flawed logic. Why do people believe that Ivory-billed behavior is different than it once was? Is this based on observation? NO! So why this conclusion?

To me, it's obvious: Our knowledge on Ivory-bills is based on the reports of people that we know saw and carefully observed and documented Ivory-bill behavior. The trouble is, based on those reports, we would expect to be seeing and hearing similar things now if there ARE Ivory-bills alive today.

We would expect it to be sometimes difficult, but not impossible, to get a few really good looks at Ivory-bills in areas we "know" they are living in.
We'd expect it would sometimes be easy to find Ivory-bills.
We would expect to get a few good photos.
When spotted, we'd expect to commonly see them in pairs.
We'd expect to hear them frequently calling when spotted.
We'd expect to hear their unusually noisy wingbeats.
We'd expect people to be commenting on the dramatic ivory-colored bills.
We'd expect SOME people to be ticking off all the field marks.

The trouble is, NONE of this is happening, even though, reportedly, the Cornell team had numerous sightings.

But we WANT to believe. So how do we explain it when things don't add up in the Cornell study?

Ivory-bills SOUND differently these days.

They ACT differently these days.

So why don't we believe they LOOK differently these days?


There is too much focus on getting a better picture of an ivory-bill.
I think you are very much mistaken in that statement. I am certain that the confidence of the public, the birding world, the USFWS and most other parties will sink steadily if a good photo isn't taken this winter. If there are no good photos in a few years, I think history will consider the Cornell Report to be just another case of mistaken identity and the situation will be right back to where we were in 2003.

Somebody needs to get a good photo and I guarantee that that will be the #1 priority again in this year's search.

Juliana Simpson said this when telling about her role in the search:

Thanks to cell phones, Simpson was able to contact Sparling to report the sighting and the location.

Sparling told them their first job was to try to get a photo.

“In the bird world, that confirms everything,” Simpson explained.

He also told them their second job and their third job was to get a photo.

Sparling was right about that.


What we need now are data, data, and more data. Data on tree scaling and excavation, data on roost and nest holes, data on distribution and abundance of beetle larvae.

Tree scaling and excavation by what species? How is anyone going to know if it's the work of Pileated Woodpeckers or Ivory-bills without photos or good looks at birds? Cornell got good photos, of Pileated Woodpeckers, at what they suspected was Ivory-bill scaling.

Yes, Jerome Jackson THINKS there are Ivory-billed woodpeckers out there somewhere. (He also thinks the video shows a Pileated.) But, as a scientist, he doesn't KNOW that Ivory-bills exist. To quote him again:

The methods of science are clear. Scientific progress is made on the basis of data that are unequivocal to other scientists. Did I see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker along the Noxubee River in Mississippi in 1973? Did I hear an Ivory-billed Woodpecker near Vicksburg in 1987? Were those Ivory-bills I heard and saw in Cuba in 1988? Did David Kulivan see Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the Pearl River swamp in 1999? Did Ivory-billed Woodpeckers make the loud "bams" heard by searchers there? Did Ivory-bills scale the trees that the team photographed? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We all think we know what we saw or heard, but science does not advance by undocumented observation, speculation, or opinion polls. It advances by hard facts.

This is one thing I admire about Dr. Jackson; he can separate his HOPES as a birder from hard FACTS he can study as a scientist.

[curunir]

I think you are very much mistaken in that statement. I am certain that the confidence of the public, the birding world, the USFWS and most other parties will sink steadily if a good photo isn't taken this winter. If there are no good photos in a few years, I think history will consider the Cornell Report to be just another case of mistaken identity and the situation will be right back to where we were in 2003.

Wrong, the situation will not be where it was in 2003. There will have been much more extensive investigation and, if the giant pecker isn't found, it will be assumed (and correctly) that the estimates of IBW extinction are better than previously thought. Such will give new justification (along with a weakened ESA) to those who would either log or develop IBW habitat. Not those areas already purchased by the government or NGOs but marginal areas. In addition, procurement of new habitat will be curtailed.

[Bonsaibirder]

Wrong, the situation will not be where it was in 2003. There will have been much more extensive investigation and, if the giant pecker isn't found, it will be assumed (and correctly) that the estimates of IBW extinction are better than previously thought. Such will give new justification (along with a weakened ESA) to those who would either log or develop IBW habitat. Not those areas already purchased by the government or NGOs but marginal areas. In addition, procurement of new habitat will be curtailed. I really hope you are wrong curunir. If it is so difficult to protect habitat in the USA that conservationists need to rely on the existence of a very rare species to make the case, then we are all in trouble. As soon as that species is gone then the case for conservation fails. If evidence used to make the case turns out to be unreliable then conservationists will open themselves up to accusations of fraud, thus helping the loggers/developers.

At the very least, this habitat seems to be full of Pileated Woodpeckers (Cornell birders saw them daily). I know nothing about the area but I presume it is also populated by other birds, mammals, reptiles and plants which are all worthy of protection. Surely a case can be made regardless of whether the IBW survives or not?

Regards,

Saddinall

[Katy Penland]

Sadly, Saddinall, the rediscovery of a species formerly considered extinct in such terribly fragmented habitat could also be used by special interest groups to lobby for continued fragmentation of wildlands for "sustainable use." (The word "sustainable" is nothing more than a politically correct hedge word for "exploitation.")

The developers/lawmakers/special insterests use rationalizations like, "Fragmentation or loss of habitat isn't the big bugaboo environmentalists have been saying it is" as the green light to reduce, chop up, or ease regulations on other important habitat areas.

I've been in scoping meetings (not just bird-related) where various versions of this have been said, so it's not just my natural political cynicism speaking here. I can almost hear members of the Bush Administration saying, "See, the Ivory-bill has come back from the dead. No reason why those caribou and birds in the ANWR couldn't as well if we opened up that area to a little oil drilling. Oh, and we probably don't need the Endangered Species Act anymore, either, so we can gut that while we're at it." ;)

[buck3m]

Not likely. The only photographic evidence was taken on April 25, 2004. That was the brief, fuzzy video that may or may not show an Ivory-bill.

It's been 17 months since then, including one major search season.

My guess is that by next May, there will have been more tantalizing glimpses reported, more "if only my camera had been ready" quotes. But there won't be any good looks by any team members, nor will there be any good photos taken by anyone, anywhere. There will be a paper critical of the Cornell paper published by mid-summer. There will be a growing realization that it was all apparently another "false alarm."

[buck3m]

...Thus out of thousands of hours of recordings we have only 2 candidate vocalizations, both on days of pretty miserable weather. I find this interesting and potentially significant, given Tanner's statement that "all the ivory-bills I have ever seen I located first by hearing them call."

Cornell said: No observer has positively heard or recorded nasal "kent" notes that are typical of the species

It doesn't add up.


...I can't report that or the time I heard 1 call near by and the Jays , several Jays immediatly mimicked...well I can't report that either or the time I saw a definite Peliated with more white... darn I can't report that either.

So here we have another person hearing Blue Jays mimicking an Ivory-bill call. To Cornell and many others, the audio tapes are powerful evidence, if not proof, of living Ivory-bills. We KNOW Cornell and others have been playing recordings of Ivory-bills. We KNOW Blue Jays are "playing them back." To me, ALL the audio is based mostly on wishful thinking unless it is directly associated with a good sighting. It doesn't add up.


Why wouldn't you report a pileated with unusual markings?

The Cornell team saw and photographed at least one aberrant Pileated woodpecker. Why didn't they report it? Would that be relevant to know? Of course.

In the report they said "The only comparably large white patch anywhere on a pileated woodpecker is the underwing lining." There was at least one large patch of extra white on a Pileated woodpecker IN THE STUDY AREA. I don't think they forgot to mention this aberrant Pileated. I think they purposely omitted it from their report because it would damage their claim. It doesn't add up.

The report also said:
During 14 months of nearly continuous fieldwork by dozens of observers, pileated woodpeckers were encountered virtually daily throughout the study region, where they are common and noisy residents occupying permanent territories. We would expect any strikingly plumaged leucistic individual in the study area to have been observed regularly.

There may or may not have been a strikingly plumaged leucistic Pileated Woodpecker in the area, but if so, how would we know? They didn't get a good look OR a good photo of either one.

And why is it Cornell would expect that individual Pileated to be seen regularly, but yet they didn't see their Ivory-bill(s) regularly? It doesn't add up.

I think Cornell and others are working way too hard to try to force the pieces of the puzzle to fit. I think if the evidence was good, they'd fall into place nicely.

It just doesn't add up.

[timeshadowed]

Buck,

Can you tell me WHY many duck hunters have reported seeing IBWO's lately??

Oh, wait, I think that fangsheath just answered that question for you.

"I think it is fair to say that birders are generally quite scarce in the swamp under such conditions."
(See the quote below)

But if vocalization is as rare as it appears to be, one may have to endure a lot of nasty conditions to have a reasonable chance of hearing it. Added to this is the fact that water levels are often high in late winter and floodplain roads virtually impassable. I think it is fair to say that birders are generally quite scarce in the swamp under such conditions. Duck hunters, by contrast, often seek them out. Lo and behold, many ivory-bill reports have come from duck hunters.



TimeShadowed

[buck3m]

Can you tell me WHY many duck hunters have reported seeing IBWO's lately??



Probably for the same reason they've been reported in yards and at birdfeeders from Maine to California. The Ivory-bill has gotten huge press, Pileated Woodpeckers look very much like Ivory-bills, people WANT to see Ivory-bills, and people are often mistaken.

I guarantee that there would have been a big flurry of "Ivory-bill sightings" one way or another, whether or not they exist.

There's been a flurry of reports, but not a flurry of photographs.

[choupique1]

3/4 of the most reliable IBWO sightings are NOT by birders.......think about how we go through the woods..... quiet, slow and stealthy.. as for photos....

hard to hold a camera ready in those conditions.....



particularly.. when.. you could care less about getting a photo of a suposedly extinct bird......

and why attract.... that much attention to your area.........which is why most hunter's sightings are never made public.....

[Bonsaibirder]

Hi Choupique1,

What is your definition of a "reliable" IBWO sighting?

............ and why so many dots?!!

By the way, a good field birder should also be "quiet, slow and stealthy", however its interesting that on the 'IBWO updates' forum, birders are being advised to wear bright orange jackets!! So it sounds like birders have a choice - keep quiet and stealthy and have a chance of seeing something before you get shot, or make a noise, wear fluorescent jackets and have absolutely no chance of seeing anything, even an IBWO.

Saddinall

3/4 of the most reliable IBWO sightings are NOT by birders.......think about how we go through the woods..... quiet, slow and stealthy.. as for photos....

hard to hold a camera ready in those conditions.....

particularly.. when.. you could care less about getting a photo of a suposedly extinct bird......

and why attract.... that much attention to your area.........which is why most hunter's sightings are never made public.....

[choupique1]

i would only wear orange while traversing around waterfowling areas - at all times where deer hunters(gun) are present. while actually in the "zone" i would forego orange.

as for a reliable report - one which stokes the interest of the experts.

why so many dots..... dunno

[choupique1]

a good field birders may well should be stealthy.

I have yet to see or hear ANY that I would call stealthy.

For starters - lilly white faces, walking with the wind, noisy as all billy hell.

[Bonsaibirder]

Point taken - I don't often see birders with camouflage paint on their faces but some good birders are very quiet.

Cheers,

Saddinall :cool:

[choupique1]

tan skin, boonie hat.... glance up before looking up..

[jeepnut]

I know nothing of ivory billed woodpeckers.

I grew up and have lived in the mountains of western Montana for 50+ years – camping, photographing, hunting, fishing, hiking, back-packing, jeeping, collecting fire wood, etceteras.

I have seen in my life a couple dozen black bears, maybe 10 grizzlies, 2 mountain lions, 1 bobcat, 1 wolverine, 1 marten and never have I seen or met anyone who has ever found a skeleton or other remains of any of those quite common animals, just try to find the skull of a so-what bull elk or mountain goat, or even something as common as a doe mule deer.

How many ardent outdoorsman have ever seen a cougar, wolverine, bobcat or marten? -- answer, very few -- some animals are very secretive -- you have to spend a lot of time out in the great outdoors, and then you might gety lucky, and somebody else might get lucky on thier first outing!

None of you really want dead remains as proof of a presumably endangered animal's continued survival. Not having recent remains of a "specimen" is a frequent argument put forth by skeptics. How many skeptics are able to say that they have found remains, in the field, of anything less common than water foul or cattle?

respectively, jeepnut

[timeshadowed]

I have seen in my life a couple dozen black bears, maybe 10 grizzlies, 2 mountain lions, 1 bobcat, 1 wolverine, 1 marten and never have I seen or met anyone who has ever found a skeleton or other remains of any of those quite common animals, just try to find the skull of a so-what bull elk or mountain goat, or even something as common as a doe mule deer.


How many ardent outdoorsman have ever seen a cougar, wolverine, bobcat or marten? -- answer, very few -- some animals are very secretive -- you have to spend a lot of time out in the great outdoors, and then you might gety lucky, and somebody else might get lucky on thier first outing!



How many skeptics are able to say that they have found remains, in the field, of anything less common than water foul or cattle?. . . -How many skeptics are able to say that they have found remains, in the field, of anything less common than water foul or cattle?-

respectively, jeepnut


Good points there, jeepnut!!!


TimeShadowed