-
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.
Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fangsheath
- Start date
Birding America website is updated
For those of you that are interested: Mary Scott has updated her web page with some new info, including some stuff about the new report that will be made at the AOU conference in October. She says that up to 9 pairs of IBWO may have been found: http://www.birdingamerica.com/Ivorybill/ivorybilledwoodpecker.htm
For those of you that are interested: Mary Scott has updated her web page with some new info, including some stuff about the new report that will be made at the AOU conference in October. She says that up to 9 pairs of IBWO may have been found: http://www.birdingamerica.com/Ivorybill/ivorybilledwoodpecker.htm
Edward woodwood
Member
cinclodes said:
As one of the undeserving swine (I know who i am!) may i take this opportunity to say thank you very much... and goodbye?
you'll be back
Tim
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
cinclodes said:
It's really too bad that a few posters are allowed to spoil this forum for others who enjoy reading your updates.
Best of luck in your continuing search, Mike.
TimeShadowed
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
HASnyder said:
Almost perfect. Yes. There was a "super secret" (joking) meeting held in S.C. at Congaree several weeks ago. At this meeting put on by Cornell, FWS, and the State of S.C. there was presented several other organisms calls that sound like kent calls with very SLIGHT differences spectrally. This includes blue heron, grey squirrels, crows, and several other organims as well. This is very problematic as the kent calls actually sound very similar and apparently fooled the computers that are going through the arus. Humans listening could apparently hear differences when the calls were put into context.
This makes kent calls to the human ear less reliable as a way to find the bird. However, as I understand it spectrally a difference can still be found if heard in context.
I saw and heard nothing about this conference which apparently included invitations to every state (dnr people) in the historical range of the IBWO.
The information comes to me from a conference participant.
Jesse
cyberthrush
Well-known member
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Steve Holzman posted a bit on here, or maybe it was the other thread, about the conference awhile back. Apparently it was a planning session for the upcoming search season, where participants could plan and share info/ideas. Maybe when Jon Andrew gives his talk this next week at LSU he'll be sharing some of the info... or maybe not.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
The question would be how does one get to be a "participant" -- there apparently was a great deal of info disclosed, much of which still hasn't been made public for no apparent reason that I can discern. Good information sharing might lead to much better results.
Jesse
Jesse
EMalatesta
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
You were casting us "pearls"? Who are you trying to fool? We came here looking for bread, and you gave us stones. We asked for fish, and you gave us serpents.
Common Sense & Egos (and I thought this was supposed to be about the IBW):
I have read these interrelated threads for months; and have resisted any comments. But it is a shame that the potential of this discussion is being lost; and both sides are hindering the higher cause!
1) cinclodes (and others): your efforts are highly commendable and appreciated greatly by many. And we want to hear your observations. But to further advance the cause I suggest that you wise-up: quit playing into "their" hands and if you read the threads you will get a better sense that many believe you are overstating some things - so let those go. You have given us lots of interesting info; and do not need to overstate. But you just can't seem to resist saying things like the "obvious" film you have gotten "proves" sighings of the IBW. Even many (most perhaps) of us that find your comments interesting and the possibilities real, just cannot agree that the views on your film are obvious at all. Then you go and do it again with even less obvious film sightings. Pick your spots with higher quality info and observations; and tone down the "proof" comments (understatement and less is more for now). And why do you keep beating a dead horse like 'no need to take field notes". You should have seen the damage of that a mile away - few can agree with you there and it hurts the cause to get off on that tangent. Field notes are not "proof" as you say; but can't you read that the vast majority believe it is just part of the package - so quit getting us off track on such things.
2) the "other side": you should quit baiting cinclodes - ignore some of the obvious "proof" overstatements and encourage him to bring back more and better info. Your egos have gotten in the way and seem to be focused on being cute rather than the IBW cause. But you are really doing a disservice to the cause. It would be a real shame to discourage cinclodes even if you have doubts. Eventually he will bring back more and higher quality info or he will finally just stop. So we have much more to gain by encouraging cinclodes on the possibilities and should cut out the personal slams.
3) None of this precludes info/observations/discussion or debate; but both sides (unfortunately it has become sides) need to use some common sense as suggested above. You need to refocus on furthering the cause of info on the IBW and habitat protection rather than your egos (both sides egos have gotten in the way).
4) Now let the ego games continue (others have tried to get this back on track and failed; but I'm giving it a shot as the cause is critical)...
I have read these interrelated threads for months; and have resisted any comments. But it is a shame that the potential of this discussion is being lost; and both sides are hindering the higher cause!
1) cinclodes (and others): your efforts are highly commendable and appreciated greatly by many. And we want to hear your observations. But to further advance the cause I suggest that you wise-up: quit playing into "their" hands and if you read the threads you will get a better sense that many believe you are overstating some things - so let those go. You have given us lots of interesting info; and do not need to overstate. But you just can't seem to resist saying things like the "obvious" film you have gotten "proves" sighings of the IBW. Even many (most perhaps) of us that find your comments interesting and the possibilities real, just cannot agree that the views on your film are obvious at all. Then you go and do it again with even less obvious film sightings. Pick your spots with higher quality info and observations; and tone down the "proof" comments (understatement and less is more for now). And why do you keep beating a dead horse like 'no need to take field notes". You should have seen the damage of that a mile away - few can agree with you there and it hurts the cause to get off on that tangent. Field notes are not "proof" as you say; but can't you read that the vast majority believe it is just part of the package - so quit getting us off track on such things.
2) the "other side": you should quit baiting cinclodes - ignore some of the obvious "proof" overstatements and encourage him to bring back more and better info. Your egos have gotten in the way and seem to be focused on being cute rather than the IBW cause. But you are really doing a disservice to the cause. It would be a real shame to discourage cinclodes even if you have doubts. Eventually he will bring back more and higher quality info or he will finally just stop. So we have much more to gain by encouraging cinclodes on the possibilities and should cut out the personal slams.
3) None of this precludes info/observations/discussion or debate; but both sides (unfortunately it has become sides) need to use some common sense as suggested above. You need to refocus on furthering the cause of info on the IBW and habitat protection rather than your egos (both sides egos have gotten in the way).
4) Now let the ego games continue (others have tried to get this back on track and failed; but I'm giving it a shot as the cause is critical)...
Curtis Croulet
Well-known member
gud, your points are excellent and well-taken. I don't see anything "obvious" in most of Cinclodes' pictures, either. Maybe if I sat down with him in front of his computer I'd say, "Well, of course, there it is, how could I miss it?" Short of that, I only see what I see -- er, don't see. But most of this thread has just been wheel-spinning for months. There's nothing to talk about that hasn't been hashed over and over ad infinitum. There's supposed to be a big announcement at the AOU meeting next month. Until then, there's nothing to talk about.
I haven't overstated anything. I have only provided my honest assessment of the data.gud said:
The perched bird has a white stripe in the position of the left dorsal stripe of an ivorybill. The only question is whether this feature is part of the bird. A few frames earlier, the bird was rotated around the branch, and the position where the feature occurs was up against the sky. It is clear from that image that there is no vegetation in that position. So that feature must be part of the bird. In the Pearl River, a large woodpecker with a dorsal stripe can only be one thing.
After studying hundreds of images, I have concluded that the differences between the profiles of ivorybills and pileateds are more than sufficient to conclusively distinguish these species. In particular, the image of the perched bird is sufficiently sharp (even the bill is resolved) to conclude that it is not a pileated. That is my honest belief, and I have no qualms about stating it.
I would encourage anyone interested in the ivorybill to visit a museum that has ivorybill and pileated specimens mounted side by side. I was really struck by the differences when I saw the specimens at LSU. The differences in shape are much greater than depicted in field guides. Besides the movie that is posted on my website, I have considered many other overlays of pileateds with each other and with ivorybills. I have found that pileateds consistently fit each other like a hand in a glove. I was not able to find a pileated that even comes close to fitting an ivorybill.
As I have stated many times, it is my belief that field notes have no value as evidence when the observer knows every field mark of a species. I'm not going to take field notes just because someone believes they should be part of a "package."
HASnyder
Well-known member
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
A participant in the SC meeting told me that double raps have been tracked to a number of other woodpeckers, as well as courting ducks. My husband spent some weeks sitting in a Red-tailed Hawk blind at 6500' in the forest here in AZ last year, and a pair of Hairy Woodpeckers nearby gave powerful double-raps on a number of occasions. He said if he'd heard them in a Florida swamp, he'd have been sprinting toward the source. He's heard lots of other Campephilus double-raps in South America.
For the benefit of the independent searchers, I sure wish the powers that be would offer prompt updates on these critical details as soon as they become apparent. I first heard that bit about the Great Blue Heron giving a perfect kent call over 10 months ago from someone allied with the CLO search.
Last edited:
Edward woodwood
Member
gws said:
I don't believe it has been proved to be extant.
Or rather, it hasn't.
I do hope there's something concrete in the rumours though...
Tim
No, I agree the IBWO has not been conclusively proven extant.
But you'll be dead freaking WRONG when it is!
But you can make amends if you will make a contribution to a worthwhile IBWO recovery fund once confirmation of it's existence is proven.
Afterall, I do believe your heart is in the right place and if you will open your mind, I believe you can be rehabilitated.
pip pip
But you'll be dead freaking WRONG when it is!
But you can make amends if you will make a contribution to a worthwhile IBWO recovery fund once confirmation of it's existence is proven.
Afterall, I do believe your heart is in the right place and if you will open your mind, I believe you can be rehabilitated.
pip pip
Edward woodwood
Member
gws said:No, I agree the IBWO has not been conclusively proven extant.
But you'll be dead freaking WRONG when it is!
But you can make amends if you will make a contribution to a worthwhile IBWO recovery fund once confirmation of it's existence is proven.
Afterall, I do believe your heart is in the right place and if you will open your mind, I believe you can be rehabilitated.
pip pip
wow, you've got some cheek, my freaking heart in the right place...
howabout you send some cash to OBC for already well-documented birds in dire need of help. You folks are sooooooo insular
Tim
Ibwo
I have and continue to derive much pleasure from the IBWO forum and I'm sure like so many birders it never fails to spark an enthusiasm that is probably in most of us? I accept and subscribe to all sides of the argument and respect the knowledge given by our on-the-spot friends in the USA and Canada and indeed from all contributors from wherever. What I do not enjoy is the inane bickering that has crept into this otherwise lively, educational and interesting banter.
Please tell me if I am the only one who finds this inappropriate?
I have and continue to derive much pleasure from the IBWO forum and I'm sure like so many birders it never fails to spark an enthusiasm that is probably in most of us? I accept and subscribe to all sides of the argument and respect the knowledge given by our on-the-spot friends in the USA and Canada and indeed from all contributors from wherever. What I do not enjoy is the inane bickering that has crept into this otherwise lively, educational and interesting banter.
Please tell me if I am the only one who finds this inappropriate?
gws said:No, I agree the IBWO has not been conclusively proven extant.
But you'll be dead freaking WRONG when it is!
But you can make amends if you will make a contribution to a worthwhile IBWO recovery fund once confirmation of it's existence is proven.
Afterall, I do believe your heart is in the right place and if you will open your mind, I believe you can be rehabilitated.
pip pip
Similar threads
