colonelboris
Right way up again
timeshadowed said:
Mermaids.
Err, I guess Tasmanian tiger's a bit of a talking point and giant giant squid.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Mermaids.
Err, I guess Tasmanian tiger's a bit of a talking point and giant giant squid.
MacGillivray's Trout
Well-known member
colonelboris said:
This is true, but there were always bodies of giant squids. I've seen a preserved one--but it wasn't until recently that anyone actually caught a giant giant squid on film.
I don't know anything about the Tasmanian tiger, and I can't think of anything else that controversial (that actually is known to have existed). Talking with a friend, there are some Xiphiod whales that are poorly documented but nothing else like the IBWO. Basically, IF it still exists, it would have to have gone from being really rare and extremely localized (but you could see it, photograph it, record it, follow it--once you finally found one) to being the most elusive vertebrate on the planet. Even more elusive that deep-sea fishes, possibly even more elusive that Rowlett's Owlet.
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Posted by timeshadowed
post #5242
Has there ever been any other bird/mammal/fish that its very existance has been so controversial as that of the IBWO?
-------
I think the same thing has gone on/is going on regarding the Tasmanian Tiger/Wolf. There are recent mentions of sightings, good descriptions, even down to eye glow color and exact number of stripes seen on a reputed male individual. Just no live/dead animal in hand.
This animals recent history seems to have many parallels with the Ivory-bill.
post #5242
Has there ever been any other bird/mammal/fish that its very existance has been so controversial as that of the IBWO?
-------
I think the same thing has gone on/is going on regarding the Tasmanian Tiger/Wolf. There are recent mentions of sightings, good descriptions, even down to eye glow color and exact number of stripes seen on a reputed male individual. Just no live/dead animal in hand.
This animals recent history seems to have many parallels with the Ivory-bill.
colonelboris said:
I fear that the situation has deteriorated so much that a DNA match on a feather would only invite insinuations of plain fraud. It would not be difficult to point out that many searchers are 'well-known to have been handling IBWO skins' perhaps at 'local or regional museums with notoriously poor security'.
Use lots of '...' to avoid actually saying anything actually libellous.
Hey, this stuff is really easy and I didn't even have to get my feet muddy!
You are absolutely correct that "the situation has deteriorated." This is becoming one of the most shameful episodes in the history of science. I have never before witnessed a situation in which scientists are afraid to even discuss data. How did things deteriorate to such a degree? Who is responsible for this mess and what are their motives? After Cornell's announcement last year, I naively thought the controversy was over and it was time to get out in the field and find other populations of this species. Boy was I wrong.kyanite said:
choupique1
Well-known member
London Birder said:
Dr. John.. as in Mac Rebennac..... also an alum of Jesuit HS in N.O.
choupique1
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
hardly... one cannot be a cajun... and a red neck.... also.. most cajuns... live nowhere near a swamp.. never have, never will and never did.... the cajuns.. as the Nova Scotian exiles were later called were acadians, a mix of french and german settlers that came to south louisiana in a mass migration rather than swearing allegiance to england..... they settled in an area roughly bound by just southwest of N.O. to near lake charles, LA bound on the north by Baton Rouge and Alexandria..... the word cajun.. is relaxed anglican for acadian.......nearly all of the acadians established small farming and fishing communities in coastal and coastal prairies of la. very few.. settled in the swamps... as farming in the swamps.. .. is well.... impossible.. also living in swamps.. well... uh.... except for the winter.. was virtually impossible....
a very poor 1970s movie... southern comfort.... painted a grossly wrong picture of cajuns and south la. but... what do you expect from hollywood... one thing the movie did get right was the intensely anti federal attitude most cajuns have(myself included)... by and large... rednecks and cajuns.. don't get along too well..... cajuns... are mostly catholic.... and drink on sundays... rednecks.. well.... you know the story....
choupique1
Well-known member
Peregrinator said:
hmm I wonder how many "birders" purchase duck stamps.......
michaelboustead
Well-known member
As previously posted, “I have lost the thread of this thread”. This is my understanding of where things stand on the IBW.
The most recent ABA checklist lists IBW as a Code 6 Bird:
Code-6: Cannot be found.
The species is probably or actually extinct or extirpated from the ABA Checklist Area, or all survivors are held in captivity (or releases are not yet naturally re-established)
The following birds are also listed as Code 6 (list may not be complete):
Thick-billed Parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha
Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris
Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Labrador Duck Camptorhynchus labradorius
Great Auk Pinguinus impennis
Passenger Pigeon Ectopistes migratorius
Carolina Parakeet Conuropsis carolinensis
Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis
Bachman’s Warbler Vermivora bachmanii
I am not sure of the status of the first 4 listed species, I suspect that they are either highly endangered or in the case of the Condor, not yet naturally re-established. The remaining species are extinct.
An article in the Journal “Science” provided evidence that the IBW had been relocated. The findings of this Article was disputed in a subsequent articles in “Science” and in “AUK”. There has be a rebuttal, but no additional evidence was published in this rebuttal. There have been additional searches for the IBW, but as yet no additional evidence has been published.
The most recent ABA checklist lists IBW as a Code 6 Bird:
Code-6: Cannot be found.
The species is probably or actually extinct or extirpated from the ABA Checklist Area, or all survivors are held in captivity (or releases are not yet naturally re-established)
The following birds are also listed as Code 6 (list may not be complete):
Thick-billed Parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha
Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris
Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Labrador Duck Camptorhynchus labradorius
Great Auk Pinguinus impennis
Passenger Pigeon Ectopistes migratorius
Carolina Parakeet Conuropsis carolinensis
Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis
Bachman’s Warbler Vermivora bachmanii
I am not sure of the status of the first 4 listed species, I suspect that they are either highly endangered or in the case of the Condor, not yet naturally re-established. The remaining species are extinct.
An article in the Journal “Science” provided evidence that the IBW had been relocated. The findings of this Article was disputed in a subsequent articles in “Science” and in “AUK”. There has be a rebuttal, but no additional evidence was published in this rebuttal. There have been additional searches for the IBW, but as yet no additional evidence has been published.
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
choupique1 said:
This is crude, but let's assume that there are three groups of people that buy duck stamps
1: Waterfowl hunters
2: Stamp Collectors
3: Birders / other non-waterfowl hunting natue recreationists
In Louisiana for example there were an estimated 65,000 +/- 9% duck hunters:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/hunting/programs/waterfowl/2005 USFWS Harvest Survey.pdf
and 96,115 duck stamp sales.
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/hunting/programs/waterfowl/2005 USFWS Harvest Survey.pdf
so in Louisina anyway about 30,000 people bought duck stamps that did not hunt that year.
Birder's do buy duck stamps to gain entry to the National Wildlife Refuges, and are actively encouraged to buy them in forums such as BIRDCHAT or by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I couldn't find any study that looked at the breakdown of duck stamp buyers by 'reason for purchasing'.
There has been talk for years about creating a bird conservation stamp, but it hasn't taken off, nor has a Pittman-Robertson type tax on birdseed, feeders, binocs, etc. Both would be a great idea to generate funds for land purchase. It's going SO fast these days. Development is insane almost everywhere in the US.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
kyanite said:
You don't have to get your feet muddy at all. But, you point out the obvious. A feather was sent to the Smithsonian previously late 60's early 70's. It was a match for an IBWO.
Suddenly comments came out that a study specimen was missing the exact wing feather in a Florida museum. The feather came from Flordia. Well, now, no one said "fraud" but then no one credits these guys with finding and observing the bird.
I have handled study skins with almost no security at all. In fact I was just left to them and a pile o pileateds. There should be no need for security. Until someone proves a thief I am rather loath to call someone the same.
For others that is their starting point.
Jesse
choupique1
Well-known member
IBWO_Agnostic said:
the La hunter numbers reflect resident hunters only... LA gets about 25 k nonresident hunters each year..... many of them buy stamps here..... of the 200 or so non residents hunting with us last year... 180 got their stamps from ME... ie.. they did not hunt in their home state..
SueO
Well-known member
As a non-hunter, I didn't even know about this stamp. I would buy it for conservation purposes. IBWO-Agn--, it's too bad the conservation stamp didn't go. Maybe what it needs is a bit of marketing. That way, those who have their own take on conservation issues would be more likely to contribute. I can't agree on the tax thing. People buying seed and bins shouldn't get 'sin' tax. They're probably helping conservation by their love of birds alone; passion is infectious. Park fees, licenses and the like seem a little fairer.choupique1 said:
A little more on the stamps:
Since it's inception in 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated more than $670 million, resulting in the purchase or lease of over 5.2 million acres of waterfwol habitat in the U.S. In fact, more than 44,00 acres at Cache River Wildlife Refuge were purchased using Federal Duck Stamp funding.
Pretty good returns.
I didn't intend to open a can of worms when I wrote about the stamp. (Hayzeus Christo, now the fishermen/non-fisherman debate may begin!). Please don't let this thread disintegrate even farther than it already has with the hunter/non-hunter BS. We've been there, done that. I brought up the Stamp thing because it has bearing on the protection of the IB (or non-exsistent IB)environment.
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
Richard D said:Sasquatch Yeti?
This does not qualify as an answer to my question because this is not a species that has been proven to exist in the past. No one doubts that at one time IBWO's were a living bird.
Last edited:
colonelboris
Right way up again
(psst... I think that's why the winking smiley was there...)
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
Yeah, I know. It's just that . . .well, some like to compare that mythical creature to searching for the IBWO. ocolonelboris said:
cinclodes said:
Many of the first-order features of the initial presentation carried troubling parallels to well-known scientific debacles. Science by news conference has not a particularly good history, marked by Fleischmann-Pons' cold fusion and the infamous NASA Martian meteorite episode. It may well be necessary to hold a news conference to get out ahead of a major story that is about to leak, but in the scientific community there will be instant suspicion. I'm sure the Cornell story carries some of these associations.
Perhaps Cornell went this route with the reasonable expectation that the Killer Photo was imminent and any questions would soon be moot. At that time they had a fair number of good sightings and an idea that those birds were breeding locally, so good field ornithology should quickly lead to photo ops at roost or nest holes.
As the sightings declined rather than increased, undue attention fell on the Luneau video which, (like yours, but maybe not your new unreleased material?) has only enough resolution to be highly suggestive but not conclusive of IBWO. After having been questioned publicly by household names such as Sibley, the Luneau video now carries a certain flavor shared by fetishes of the tinfoil crowd such as the Zapruder film or even the Bigfoot movie. People get very nervous when the zealots fight pixel wars.
With such associations, and a sorry history of other IBWO claims, many minds will be closed to anything less than incontrovertible proof.
But sometimes I wonder if an additional source of resistance may be in the status of IBWO as a iconic failure of wildlife conservation. Could it be that many who were raised on this sad tale are unwilling to consider that the species may have survived after all?
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
kyanite said:
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your statement that the IBWO sitings are decreasing. They are decreasing where Cornell is at, perhaps somewhat, but frankly, what I see is an increase in sitings. No less than 4 people, and maybe as many as 6 have seen the bird within one approx. 10 mile area in the last year.
This is not accurate, either, unforunatley, because no one has had the intelligence over the last 60 years or so to record sitings of IBW unless they were made by Dennis or someone of that level. Thereupon, even those were promptly discarded. Simply put, to state an increase or a decrease we have to have a baseline. We don't have a baseline because the ornithological experts have simply out of hand rejected any sitings at all. Some sitings are more famous then others, and some were published. But they all were evidently rejected for no apparent intelligent reason.
For my daughter :flyaway:
Jesse
Similar threads
