Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

Big Phil · Jun 16, 2006

Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Your post quotes mine.

I see - I thought the entire post was Steve's I didn't see he was quoting you.

My point stands though - if the species has in the past occured in back yards - won't it do so again?. I totally agree that photographing it in snake infested swamps is going to be nigh on impossible.

Piltdownwoman · Jun 16, 2006

Hey Fellas,

Lets put those things away before we hurt ourselves!

While I think it is important to come up with possible reasons for why an IBWO Photo/Video Prize is such a bad idea, I don't think anythin insurmountable has been raised. Private property needs to be honored - as always, birds and habitats need to be treated with respect.

The upshot would be that we'd have more people looking, have an a priori method for evaluating photos/videos, and would be able to get some closure on this. The idea that they are too hard to photograph doesn't fly with this skeptic.

So, why else would this be a bad idea?

Curtis Croulet · Jun 16, 2006

Piltdownwoman said:
The idea that they are too hard to photograph doesn't fly with this skeptic.

What is your experience with bird photography? Have you tried to photograph any in a swamp?

fangsheath · Jun 17, 2006

In my opinion offering financial incentives is a terrible idea in this case. They have worked well for certain herps, which can generally be readily captured unharmed. But offering a reward for imagery is an invitation to fraud. If someone submitted a photo comparable to the one below (the original is apparently color) and you were on the committee to decide whether to give the reward, how would you vote? There is no way in my view to determine whether this photo is genuine or a fake. It could easily be a model on the side of a tree. Yet many would consider it unequivocal, and if the committee refused to give the reward, on what basis? A refusal would quickly destroy the credibility of the reward process and we would be right back at square one.

http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

MMinNY · Jun 17, 2006

Thanks Fang. I think this frames the problem in particularly stark terms, leaving aside questions of habitat disruption, etc. It calls the Lewis photos to mind, even though the bill is visible in your image. There's always going to be room to dispute a photograph, and in the end, what are we left with but our individual ways of evaluating the evidence?

That's not to suggest I don't hope for a better photo from someone (Mike or whomever), just that even the best photo is likely to be challenged in certain quarters. The scenarios are easy to envision.

fangsheath said:
In my opinion offering financial incentives is a terrible idea in this case. They have worked well for certain herps, which can generally be readily captured unharmed. But offering a reward for imagery is an invitation to fraud. If someone submitted a photo comparable to the one below (the original is apparently color) and you were on the committee to decide whether to give the reward, how would you vote? There is no way in my view to determine whether this photo is genuine or a fake. It could easily be a model on the side of a tree. Yet many would consider it unequivocal, and if the committee refused to give the reward, on what basis? A refusal would quickly destroy the credibility of the reward process and we would be right back at square one.

http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

naples · Jun 17, 2006

fangsheath said:
In my opinion offering financial incentives is a terrible idea in this case. They have worked well for certain herps, which can generally be readily captured unharmed. But offering a reward for imagery is an invitation to fraud. If someone submitted a photo comparable to the one below (the original is apparently color) and you were on the committee to decide whether to give the reward, how would you vote? There is no way in my view to determine whether this photo is genuine or a fake. It could easily be a model on the side of a tree. Yet many would consider it unequivocal, and if the committee refused to give the reward, on what basis? A refusal would quickly destroy the credibility of the reward process and we would be right back at square one.

http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

What about a clear video?

Jesse Gilsdorf · Jun 17, 2006

Clear video, hmmmm. Just how much money do you intend to spend on a video camera? No, financial rewards are not needed. Simply put, there is a large enough financial reward already. Witness Gallagher et al giving speeches all over. Do you think they do it for free?

Doctored photos can be determined as I understand it fairly easily. But once we go to "video only" I can tell you we will never get the job done. Even Mike's video shows that. Try and get the sucker in the view screen and follow it. You have to be at a minimal zoom or that bird will be out of the picture immediately unless it does not know you are there.

You have very little time to do anything. Auto focus is almost not usable even a fast one like mine because you have to nail the bird immediately with the camera. He just doesn't sit still like a Kingfisher will. I practice by trying to take shots, freehand, of barn swallows, just to try to be able to have the speed necessary. It helps with other wildlife as well.

I have shot white egrets in flight that have come out clear as a bell because the bird flew straight and level for about 4 seconds. I just don't think you will have a chance like that with this bird. It hitches around trees, plays hide and seek around trees with you -- keeping the tree between you and it, moves off fast if it sees you and knows you have seen it, moves laterally first (see Mike's video) which means you have to swing and follow it, and then heads away from you. I don't think you will see a close up video -- ever-- unless someone finds a nest cavity.

fishcrow · Jun 17, 2006

fangsheath said:
http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

That's one of my favorite ivorybill photos. That tree and cavity look a lot like a tree and cavity in an area where I heard a double rap and kents. Here's a photo...

http://www.fishcrow.com/cavity.jpg

I heard the double rap at dusk and was out there before dawn the next day, but the cavity didn't seem to be in use. I heard kents from that location four days later.

fishcrow · Jun 17, 2006

Jesse Gilsdorf said:
I practice by trying to take shots, freehand, of barn swallows, just to try to be able to have the speed necessary.

An approach that I have found effective is to adjust the zoom so that the scene appears to be the same size as it does in your other eye. This allows you to blend what you see in your left eye with what you see in your right eye. I have found that it's easy to track moving birds with this approach, and the quality is pretty good since there's a partial zoom. All you have to do is concentrate on the bird and rotate your entire head along with the camera, trying to keep the bird in the center of your field of view. I used this approach when taking data on flying pileateds.

Jesse Gilsdorf · Jun 17, 2006

Mike: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I have a defect in my left eye, still 20/20, but because of the defect my left eye does not focus nearly as rapidly as my right. It doesn't bother me because I have lived with it my whole life -- except when I am looking through binoculars. I have to close the left eye to look, or the right eye. But if I close the right the left still takes too long to focus.

I am sure that if I tried it I would end up dizzy or on the ground. I know it sounds strange. Given time, and I mean 5 seconds or so, my left eye will come to focus if the right is closed. Otherwise I think it just is in a "pan" type of mode. I am not sure how to explain it better, but I think my right does more than the normal amount of work even for a predominantly right handed person.

It does not effect depth perception, or affect me in any other way. I used to be able to hit any type of pitch thrown, catch anything thrown, etc.

fishcrow · Jun 17, 2006

Big Phil said:
I totally agree that photographing it in snake infested swamps is going to be nigh on impossible.

Snakes aren't a problem during the prime searching season. Being in a swamp isn't all that bad either. In fact, the water makes it possible to move around relatively stealthily. The difficulties are very simple. You have to spend many hours of searching for every second of observation time. Since your arms are needed to make the kayak move and keep it from getting caught up in fallen trees, it's impossible to be ready with a camera at all times. This is why I recommend putting the camera away until you find an area with ivorybills. That was my goal initially. I figured it would be hard enough just to see an ivorybill and never dreamed of getting a photo.

fishcrow · Jun 17, 2006

Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Mike: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I have a defect in my left eye, still 20/20, but because of the defect my left eye does not focus nearly as rapidly as my right.

It might still be worth a try. Have you ever tried it with the zoom adjusted as I suggested? This is not the same as using binoculars. Your left eye will be looking directly at the object, rather than through an eyepiece.

fangsheath · Jun 17, 2006

As Jesse has indicated, getting good video is extremely difficult. The financial outlay for really good quality is enormous. Offering rewards is not going to put money in people's pockets up front.

The fact is, "bounty hunter" types are already out there trying to get a killer shot. The perception, right or wrong, is that it is worth a good deal. Others who really care about the bird, like Mike and Jesse, are already doing their best. At this point I don't see that vastly more people in prime areas at prime times is necessarily going to produce better results. And I firmly believe that collectively we will succeed.

Mike, have you looked into trolling motors? A trolling motor with a foot control would eliminate paddle flashes and bangs and free up the hands. Good motors are extremely quiet. Not cheap, but may be worth the price.

Edward woodwood · Jun 17, 2006

Xenospiza said:
Did you search for the critically endangered lapwing on Java Tim? 'Cause I am very cynical that one's still around... (it's in the "extinct birds" section of Naturalis, the Dutch Natural History Museum in Leiden, well worth a look if you're ever in the Netherlands).

Anyway, for stunning photos of a very difficult to observe rediscovered bird, go to http://www.kolkatabirds.com/wrenbabbler.htm (how did I oversee that page?)
And I forgot to mention Large-billed Reed-Warbler (Acrocephalus orinus), known from 1 specimen, which was caught in Thailand (I think I read that in the most recent Dutch Birding, I can't find a reference on the web!) Still not a "viewable" species though!

Hi Xeno

i did look for Javanese Lapwing but not seriously, it may be there.... there have been the odd reports but there's not much habitat left and any population must be very small. No one really looking although I think OBC recently funded a survey

thanks for the laffs over the last 48 hours folks

Tim

Piltdownwoman · Jun 17, 2006

fangsheath said:
In my opinion offering financial incentives is a terrible idea in this case. They have worked well for certain herps, which can generally be readily captured unharmed. But offering a reward for imagery is an invitation to fraud. If someone submitted a photo comparable to the one below (the original is apparently color) and you were on the committee to decide whether to give the reward, how would you vote? There is no way in my view to determine whether this photo is genuine or a fake. It could easily be a model on the side of a tree. Yet many would consider it unequivocal, and if the committee refused to give the reward, on what basis? A refusal would quickly destroy the credibility of the reward process and we would be right back at square one.

http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

I still don't find these arguments any harder to deal with the current chaotic situation. As I said before, there is already a big payoff for whoever gets the first proof that this bird is extant - but there is no formal team to evaluate the quality of the evidence.

If it is private money and the rules are well established and well known, I think you'd be able to deal all the fraud type issues - heck, we have those issues and there is no one group set up to jury the photos/videos! I think the team of evaluators would have to be unanimous to vet the video/photo, and I can't see how rejecting a photo would be a problem. People would grumble, but if it was fair (remember fairness) I don't see what the problem of the review would be.

I am also sure that if this bird is found it will be re-sighted over and over. I think we are all lulled in a belief that these birds are "wnadering loners" with only fleeting glimpses. That is the CLO model for their excuse of not refinding the bird. I don't believe that.

I think the bird wasn't "refound" because it was never found in the first place. But there is a good chance that if a real IBWO is found, that it will be refound and refindable (I think that is why Fishcrow gets so much attention, he says he refound birds).

And, oh Curtis, I spent seven years doing research on fish and birds in swamps. I do understand the difficulties, probably beter than most. I never said it was easy. But these are extraordinary claims and right now there is no logical way to evaluate them - especially when people won't publish.

Its possible that some people wouldn't want a prize because they don't want to subject their work to outside review, but this process would weed them out. Outside review is necessary, I think we'd all agree.

humminbird · Jun 17, 2006

Piltdownwoman said:
I am also sure that if this bird is found it will be re-sighted over and over. I think we are all lulled in a belief that these birds are "wnadering loners" with only fleeting glimpses. That is the CLO model for their excuse of not refinding the bird. I don't believe that.

I think the bird wasn't "refound" because it was never found in the first place. But there is a good chance that if a real IBWO is found, that it will be refound and refindable (I think that is why Fishcrow gets so much attention, he says he refound birds).

Somebody needs to re read Dennis' work. The ONLY time he refound birds easily was when he had been shown to an active nest site. Then, he was able to relocate the birds readily.

On several occasions that he reports, he was told of birds recently found in several locations across multiple states. Even when guided in by people who had recently seen the birds he, and they, could not refind the birds.

Read Mike's work. What is his opinion - it has not been established yet so he also states I "believe" or "I think".

If the conditions are right, we will refind the bird (by the way, multiple sightings in the same area amount to refinding the bird, but of course some are not convinced the bird was ever seen so...). Maybe someone can find a roost or better yet a nest cavity. Then the birds will be easily refound.

Piltdownwoman · Jun 17, 2006

humminbird said:
Somebody needs to re read Dennis' work. The ONLY time he refound birds easily was when he had been shown to an active nest site. Then, he was able to relocate the birds readily.

On several occasions that he reports, he was told of birds recently found in several locations across multiple states. Even when guided in by people who had recently seen the birds he, and they, could not refind the birds.

Read Mike's work. What is his opinion - it has not been established yet so he also states I "believe" or "I think".

If the conditions are right, we will refind the bird (by the way, multiple sightings in the same area amount to refinding the bird, but of course some are not convinced the bird was ever seen so...). Maybe someone can find a roost or better yet a nest cavity. Then the birds will be easily refound.

Do you mean Tanner, or Dennis?

Difficulty refinding birds may not be the result of their warriness, but rather the resilt of rarity. Five-striped Sparrows in AZ are hard to find not because they are wary, but because they are only found in a very specific habitat - but once you get to the right spot they are, like most sparrows, pretty easy to find.

There are other pople working on the Prize idea as we write. One of the ideas is to eliminate the photo/video reward, and have the reward for information that leads to the dicovery of an individual or group. That is an interesting approach, as it eliminates the hoaxing, eliminates the need for lots of expensive video quipment, and is indisputable.

Grist for the mill.

MMinNY · Jun 17, 2006

Just to add, the birds have been repeatedly "re-found" in the Pearl over the last 7 years. The failure of the first organized search does not negate the fact that there's a steady history of sightings from that vicinity, and as Mike's account makes clear, people with knowledge of the area were able to point him in the right direction.

Is it possible that Kullivan, Mike and the others who've reported sightings or auditory encounters there in recent years are all wrong or lying or some combination of the two? Yes (although I'm absolutely convinced that Mike is a person of integrity), but the record suggests that there is, at least, a significant possibility that a breeding population exists in the Pearl region (some of which is closed to the general public). It also suggests that Mike may have devised the most effective method of searching, since he did manage to see the birds repeatedly, assuming his identification is correct. I hope the skeptics can agree on that.

I had hoped we could banish the word "extraordinary" from the discussion. It's a matter of opinion whether its dictionary definition applies; its use in the context of the Sagan quote is polarizing and somewhat insulting to those who are convinced, since it tends to lump us together with alien abductees. While I have tried to demonstrate why it's inapposite, I have also been trying to find some common ground. I think Piltdownwoman has as well. I hope this will continue.

humminbird said:
Somebody needs to re read Dennis' work. The ONLY time he refound birds easily was when he had been shown to an active nest site. Then, he was able to relocate the birds readily.

On several occasions that he reports, he was told of birds recently found in several locations across multiple states. Even when guided in by people who had recently seen the birds he, and they, could not refind the birds.

Read Mike's work. What is his opinion - it has not been established yet so he also states I "believe" or "I think".

If the conditions are right, we will refind the bird (by the way, multiple sightings in the same area amount to refinding the bird, but of course some are not convinced the bird was ever seen so...). Maybe someone can find a roost or better yet a nest cavity. Then the birds will be easily refound.

fishcrow · Jun 17, 2006

fangsheath said:
Mike, have you looked into trolling motors? A trolling motor with a foot control would eliminate paddle flashes and bangs and free up the hands. Good motors are extremely quiet. Not cheap, but may be worth the price.

That would be nice, but money is always a factor. I don't even want to know how much I have shelled out for a boat, cameras, camo, and other equipment (including replacements after my kayak capsized), gas for three round trips between D.C. and Stennis (it's hard not to notice the high gas prices when traveling), living expenses for three months (always a lot higher when you're on the road), car repairs (the shop screwed up what should have been a minor repair and it cost me about $1000 to get it straightened out), hospital bills (I got sick and ended up in the ER),...

Edward woodwood · Jun 17, 2006

this discussion needs to get over this farcical notion that these birds are not seen becuase they are incredibly wary. And when they are seen, they are not seen well and then not seen again (or they are, without much difficulty, as fishcrow says). Or they turn up in back yards. Strange that they just disappear from people but call a lot, and when you get there... oh dear it's gone. Or they fly through branches and it's a possible but when you get there... oh dear it's gone. If there is one in an area it will surely be seen repeatedly. In my opinion to pretend othersise, and to think you need full camo suits etc to see one, is, for want of a better phrase, total bollocks

Many of us have birded many countries looking for incredibly rare birds (Gurney's Pitta, Sumatran Cochoa, Rusty-bellied Shortwing, the list is very long....) and we find them. They ain't huge, vocal Campephilus peckers. They're very skulky, unobtrusive birds that need a hell of a lot of skill to find, often in wet, inhospitable forest with leeches all over you, but it's possible

Even the most die hard 'believer' must be losing faith in the Luneau video - esp after Docmartins comparisons last week.A sad and sorry saga is getting more embarrassing bythe day. LSU seem to only have Remsen left believing now...so aside from Cornell with an obvious interest there's almost no-one, apart from well-meaning amateurs, left now?

And yeah, let one of those gun toting good ole boys bag one of those IBWO they keep seeing then we can explain why it's a Pileated and get on with our lives

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread