Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (10 Viewers)

affe22 · Sep 14, 2005

Are you sure about the Arizona thing because I found on their website a page of limits and that the state restricts the tags to like 100 or so and I'm pretty sure it said you could kill them. I remember finding it when I was trying to go to graduate school there and was researching hunting seasons and such.

Edit: I stand corrected. Just looked and it is only a capture season. Need to read more carefully next time. Imagine my shock the first time thinking people were killing raptors!

thatmagicguy · Sep 14, 2005

Hi Affe, my take on the secrecy has to do with intentions,,,Cornell's secrecy was strictly based on finding evidence to make a proper announcement of the rediscovery. It had zip to do with saving a bird,,they wanted to hide it from birders so THEY could make the announcement rather than have a layperson contact National Geographic about it. The fact is, if the bird is really there, then it has lived there in peace without help of Cornell or the "Nature Conservancy". Intent and motives have everything to do with everything. In Gallagher's book, he himself portrays the members of Cornell as people who would fire him if they didn't believe him. He was afraid for his job,,,,he said,,even in interviews after the fact that there is a climate of complete disregard for non cornell people,,,this is all the evidence I need to demonstrate that they were in it for themselves,,,and if the people that have come forward since and said they saw it are telling the truth then that stance is even more cemented.

Ask Jerome Jackson about Cornell and why he, being one of the most knowledgeable people on the bird has been left out. He isn't in their club.

Being associated with the Cornell team doesn't make anyone an expert,,it doesn't mean they have better credentials for surveying. I personally think that any group that has participated in Audobon Christmas counts are far more qualified to survey an area,,,,,

The fact remains,,and I stand by my belief, that the bird would be far better off without the attention of Cornell and TNC. Bill

P.S. Just for the record, I do agree that Fishing may be a nobody who is fabricating a story,,,,,,but on the other hand,,easily dismissing him/her as you have is exactly what has been done in the past by the university experts and has probably why so many people do not come forward. Bill

fishing4clues · Sep 14, 2005

affe22 said:
I'm sorry to say it depends on what you are shooting. In most states, shooting a coyote for nothing more than a skin is a perfectly acceptable activity. People used to be given money (maybe they still are) for bringing in groundhog ears. I know Arizona has a limited raptor season and I imagine that people aren't doing much with these either. Most of these people would consider themselves hunters as they also shoot more familiar game animals for food.

Fishing4clues, what is your name? I'm not sure you have mentioned it yet just in case people want to know who you are and talk to the other people about you.

I didn't relize my info wasn't listed. My name is Wanda Ellis. I have lived in and around the Brinkley area all of my 37 yrs. I agree without evidence why should you believe a nobody. Would a polygragh do???? I am willing if you supply the test site. I have nothing to gain in what I have told you and all the other readers. My husband and I own 70 acres of land all of it wooded except about 12. We've been married 12 years. I have 1 child. We take pride in taking care of the wildlife in the winter months we put out over 500lbs of food each year. Everything from cracked rice to planting food plots to buying field corn by the super hopper bag. My husband helped with the recovery of a wounded Bald Eagle in Dec. of 99 and that is why the wmf was at my place of work to get the report. It happened on the PineTree Experimental Station located about 3 miles North of where I live. When do you plan to come to Brinkley? I can meet with you and take you to the site and you can check out the trees themselves. I don't really know what your wanting of me I have tried to be a nice person about this whole situation that I find myself in. I am serious about the polygraph. I may be a "nobody" but I know what I saw and when I saw it and who the players are. I am not a rude person and I'm not asking you personally to believe me, as I said before some will believe me some of course will not.

thatmagicguy · Sep 14, 2005

Well now we know more about Wanda Ellis than we do of Gene Sparling,,,,and what makes Mr Sparling more reputable than Ms Ellis? He associates with Cornell people?
This story annoys me. There are many Ms Ellises out there and my search for the bird here in florida has revealed many people like her that have been intimidated by university and wildlife people into believing they are idiots,,,,,Bill

affe22 · Sep 14, 2005

Actually, if you read The Grail Bird you learn a lot more about Gene Sparling than has been stated in this thread. I don't want anything from you Mrs. Ellis outside of your name so I can do some follow-up on what you are saying. Hopefully Dr. Gallagher will email me back with the honest answer. If what you are saying is true, why don't you go public with the accusation that Dr. Gallagher and Gene Sparling are guilty of publishing misinformation? I imagine that it goes against some sort of printing law to publsih false events.

No offense to Mrs. Ellis but I believe that since the announcement people have to be even more discerning than they were before about IBWP sightings. Not that it is the case here but a person may falsify a sighting for a number of reasons and it would be easier to believe now.

thatmagicguy · Sep 14, 2005

Hi Affe, Actually, everything we know of Mr Sparling is in the book and the press releases and are contrary to what Mrs Ellis is telling us,,,I hope you will share Mr Gallagher's response with us,,,,,I'd also love to speak with him,,feel free to pass along my e-mail addy, [email protected] I don't think there are any laws about misinforming in books,,,many people do it,,with no consequenses. Bill

affe22 · Sep 14, 2005

thatmagicguy said:
Hi Affe, Actually, everything we know of Mr Sparling is in the book and the press releases and are contrary to what Mrs Ellis is telling us,,,I hope you will share Mr Gallagher's response with us,,,,,I don't think there are any laws about misinforming in books,,,many people do it,,with no consequenses. Bill

I'd hope there is something against completely fabricating a story that contradicts the true events especially in a nonfiction book. Generally people will at least publically argue it if they know the events published were not true. I plan on sharing Dr. Gallagher's response if he sends one. I'm not really too hopefully though.

thatmagicguy · Sep 14, 2005

I'm just thinking of the video on the cornell press release site that has Mr Sparling sitting in his kayak telling everyone how he was "just drifting along, thankful that he was in this sublime place,,,"or something very close to that,,,perhaps he should have said,,,"I was kayaking along for the umpteenth time to find this bird that Mrs Ellis saw a few years ago,,,so I can make a bunch of money taking tourists out to see it,,,,,,," one of two people is lying,,,and it's either Mr Sparling or Wanda Ellis,,,,,,,take your pic,,,I've taken mine. Bill

affe22 · Sep 14, 2005

Well, you do have a point. Sparling was one of the only people who kayaked the area repeatedly. That was stated by Gallagher in his book. Maybe he just liked the place and found it agreeable to kayak in though. I guess we may never know.

gws · Sep 14, 2005

Maybe there are IBWOs far away from Arkansas that are quietly breeding in the deep swamps. If so, and if found, I sure wish mankind would leave them the hell alone. I'm out in the woods a good bit and if I ever see the Phantom, I think I'm going to smile, keep it to myself and walk away.

This guided tour business doesn't quite have a good feel to it, imho. I also wish people were not out there nailing up IBWO decoys to trees, playing audio tapes all over the place, etc. Leave a magnificent creature alone, and be content with the knowledge that it still carries on in spite of all we did to it. We all don't have to see it just so we can add it to some list.

On the other hand, if you really want to help the bird, donate money, write the politicos, and stay involved. Stopping this White River diversion mess by a bunch of engineers with too much time on their hands would be a good place to start.

Protect and expand habitat, connect the corridors as best as possible, reassure and work with the hunter groups, and trust the bird. That's the ticket.

Terry O'Nolley · Sep 14, 2005

curunir said:
Trophy hunting for mounted heads, etc. It's all hunting. Not good or bad but it exists.

I never passed judgement on it either way. I just called it what it is. If the people doing it don't like the way it sounds then maybe they should quit doing it.

If you kill animals for any reason other than food then you are killing for the sake of killing. If you choose to hack the head off the creature and put it on your wall then that's what you do after you destroy the animal.

I am a hunter. Any non-vegetarian that has a problem with hunting, every wearer or user of leather goods that has a problem with hunting is a hypocrite. I am not an anti-hunter screecher. I just think you should eat what you kill. Otherwise you are no different than a 12 year old with his first BB gun shooting birds off of his Mother's bird feeder or shooting his neighbor's cat.

Pileated_MO · Sep 14, 2005

thatmagicguy said:
P.S. Just for the record, I do agree that Fishing may be a nobody who is fabricating a story,,,,,,but on the other hand,,easily dismissing him/her as you have is exactly what has been done in the past by the university experts and has probably why so many people do not come forward. Bill

Agreed on that. I may not be sold on Fishing's story myself...but I do believe that way too much dismissing of convincing sightings has been done.

Strandman · Sep 14, 2005

Pileated_MO said:
Agreed on that. I may not be sold on Fishing's story myself...but I do believe that way too much dismissing of convincing sightings has been done.

I'm glad to see that Fishing4clues does not seem put off by honest scepticism (or by the off-thread hunting discussion- can't that be had someplace else?).

There may be perfectly good reasons for Cornell not to tell the world what that pre-2002 history is in all its detail- but unless Gene Sparling was indeed kayaking without a thought of IBWO in his mind, the simple story of rediscovery told on announcement needs some public correction or qualification.

Andy Bright · Sep 14, 2005

white-back said:
I'm gald to that Fishing4clues does not seem put off by honest scepticism (or by the off-thread hunting discussion- can't that be had someplace else?).

Yep, please keep this thread on-topic.

Andy
BF Admin

humminbird · Sep 14, 2005

affe22 said:
If what you are saying is true, why don't you go public with the accusation that Dr. Gallagher and Gene Sparling are guilty of publishing misinformation? I imagine that it goes against some sort of printing law to publsih false events.

No offense sir, but it has been going on for centuries in every country in the world. Look at the conflicting stories on Pearl Harbor, D-Day, the Kennedy assassination, Princess Diana and others. Look at the conflicts, published and oral, over discoveries and naming of organisms. Look at the discussions over inventions and who should rightly hold patents. To assume there is a law against fabrication and fiction is beyond me.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

KC Foggin · Sep 14, 2005

Okay, I'm Raising My Voice Here Because No One Seems To Be Reading The Post From Admin A Few Posts Up.

Puleeze, Use This Thread For Discussion On Updates Of The Ivory-billed And Start Another Thread(s) For All Other Topics That Might Be Relevant But Have Nothing To Do With Updates.

thatmagicguy · Sep 14, 2005

There are no updates,,We're discussing relevant information that may be "an update" if said info is true,,,,,,,I'm confused. And why is a thread in an online forum so important that voices need to be raised? This isn't rocket science,,we're some individuals talking about a bird,,,seriously,,,,,it doesn't have to be taken sooooo seriously,,right?

Strandman · Sep 14, 2005

thatmagicguy said:
There are no updates,,We're discussing relevant information that may be "an update" if said info is true,,,,,,,I'm confused. And why is a thread in an online forum so important that voices need to be raised? This isn't rocket science,,we're some individuals talking about a bird,,,seriously,,,,,it doesn't have to be taken sooooo seriously,,right?

Isn't KCs message aimed more at the hunting and field guide side threads?

I'm reading update as "new information", which I'm sure is intended to allow posting of unproven potential new information, of which there has recently been such a fascinating flurry.

affe22 · Sep 14, 2005

An email from Tim Gallagher

"Dear Jeff:
Her name (Wanda Ellis) doesn't ring a bell with me. The person whose sighting got me interested in Arkansas was Mary Scott, who saw one there in March 2003.
Tim"

Katy Penland · Sep 14, 2005

thatmagicguy said:
There are no updates,,We're discussing relevant information that may be "an update" if said info is true,,,,,,,I'm confused. And why is a thread in an online forum so important that voices need to be raised? This isn't rocket science,,we're some individuals talking about a bird,,,seriously,,,,,it doesn't have to be taken sooooo seriously,,right?

The point is, we try to keep this (and all threads) on topic so that someone wanting to read what the latest info is can find it in this thread. This thread was started by KC for official updates, news reports and ensuing discussion about those items. There is already another thread started where the existence of the IBWO, the merits of the video quality, etc., etc., are being debated. This is for updates only. If there are no updates, then any other IWBO discussions should take place in other threads.

White-back's right, the latest request to keep on topic was due to all the posts about field guides and hunting, the latter of which is absolutely not allowed on BirdForum regardless of taxa.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (10 Viewers)

Well-known member

Member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Guest

Cow-headed Jaybird

Native Missourian

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

Very, very long time member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread