AmpelisChinito
Cedar Waxwing Chairman
cyberthrush said:
Well put, cyberthrush. Take that, Team Skeptic!
-
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) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Well put, cyberthrush. Take that, Team Skeptic!
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
So the bird wasn't found in the past because 'sceptics' prevented enough searching. And the bird isn't being found now because 'sceptics' are causing too much searching. Brilliant. :clap:cyberthrush said:
PS - There are currently 2005 bird species endangered worldwide. I'm sure Birdlife International et al are grateful that you rate their conservation efforts so highly.
Last edited:
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
And the Oscar for best writing, best mantra, and the most B.S. in a Web-based melodrama goes to...choupique1 said:
Your characterizations are somewhat distorted. The argument that skeptics have prevented serious searching in the past is well-founded. We've been over that ground before, but suffice it to say there weren't many serious searches prior to 2000, due in no small part to the conventional (skeptical) wisdom.
The issue with regard to more recent searches is whether the emphasis on procuring a photo above anything else (for which the climate of skepticism is largely responsible) and the methods used in searching have been counterproductive. I'm not convinced this is true, but it is not an unreasonable idea.
I don't think Cyberthrush had any intention of dissing Birdlife International or anyone else. He was making a broader point about the global environmental crisis (climate change in particular), and while the statement may have been a bit hyperbolic, I'm afraid his general point is well-taken. We're likely to see a rapid acceleration in the rate of extinction over the next century.
On edit, since I'm being criticized and quoted out of context elsewhere on the net (not unlike the recent implication that I was spreading false rumors, when I was merely reporting on a notification I had received from amazon.com), I want to clarify. Obtaining good photographs is clearly an important objective, and I've said as much. What I find objectionable is the insistence thereon, and the climate of intimidation surrounding that insistence, the climate that led the Auburn team to refrain from publishing the images they did obtain last year. I am willing to be patient, and I think it would be preferable to treat photos as something to be obtained in the course of a broader and more comprehensive process of observation and documentation, not as a goal to be pursued to the exclusion of anything else. Fangsheath's recent comments about his trip to Louisiana reflect what I consider to be an exemplary approach.
My broader point, and the more important one, is that these recent salvos from the skeptics, here and elsewhere, misrepresent the objections raised by Mike Collins and others, but then intellectual honesty doesn't seem to be the strong suit among certain skeptics.
The issue with regard to more recent searches is whether the emphasis on procuring a photo above anything else (for which the climate of skepticism is largely responsible) and the methods used in searching have been counterproductive. I'm not convinced this is true, but it is not an unreasonable idea.
I don't think Cyberthrush had any intention of dissing Birdlife International or anyone else. He was making a broader point about the global environmental crisis (climate change in particular), and while the statement may have been a bit hyperbolic, I'm afraid his general point is well-taken. We're likely to see a rapid acceleration in the rate of extinction over the next century.
On edit, since I'm being criticized and quoted out of context elsewhere on the net (not unlike the recent implication that I was spreading false rumors, when I was merely reporting on a notification I had received from amazon.com), I want to clarify. Obtaining good photographs is clearly an important objective, and I've said as much. What I find objectionable is the insistence thereon, and the climate of intimidation surrounding that insistence, the climate that led the Auburn team to refrain from publishing the images they did obtain last year. I am willing to be patient, and I think it would be preferable to treat photos as something to be obtained in the course of a broader and more comprehensive process of observation and documentation, not as a goal to be pursued to the exclusion of anything else. Fangsheath's recent comments about his trip to Louisiana reflect what I consider to be an exemplary approach.
My broader point, and the more important one, is that these recent salvos from the skeptics, here and elsewhere, misrepresent the objections raised by Mike Collins and others, but then intellectual honesty doesn't seem to be the strong suit among certain skeptics.
Mike Johnston said:
Last edited:
Sidewinder
Well-known member
Mike Johnston said:
Some who have modeled extinction rates have reached a dire conclusion as well. Consider the following (very sobering) abstract:
Sekercioglu, C. H., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101:18402-18047.
We present a general framework for characterizing the ecological and societal consequences of biodiversity loss and applying it to the global avifauna. To investigate the potential ecological consequences of avian declines, we developed comprehensive databases of the status and functional roles of birds and a stochastic model for forecasting change. Overall, 21% of bird species are currently extinction-prone and 6.5% are functionally extinct, contributing negligibly to ecosystem processes. We show that a quarter or more of frugivorous and omnivorous species and one-third or more of herbivorous, piscivorous, and scavenger species are extinctionprone. Furthermore, our projections indicate that by 2100, 6–14% of all bird species will be extinct, and 7–25% (28–56% on oceanic islands) will be functionally extinct. Important ecosystem processes, particularly decomposition, pollination, and seed dispersal, will likely decline as a result.
Last edited:
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Sidewinder said:
Yes, if nothing or little is done. But it is not an inevitable conclusion. The current number of endangered species does amount to about 20% of all bird species. But their study also concludes:
Investments in understanding and preventing declines in populations of birds and other organisms will pay off only while there is still time to act.
However, Cyberthrush wrote:
A century from now I would expect ALL current endangered avian species to be gone, so from that standpoint maybe all such efforts are ludicrous.
Implying that all current, and future, conservation efforts will amount to nothing.
Edward woodwood
Member
MMinNY said:
As in inverterate intellectually dishonest idiot i'd like to agree with you MMinny. Has the emphasis on getting a photo been counterproductive? Has it bollocks. You're right. What a load of guff. 'We can't find it cos we're trying to photograph it'.
First, find your woodpecker.
It should be part of a population, even if it's a small one.
It won't be bollocking all over the southern states, it'll have a territory, so...
You should be able to locate it. With a tape lets say. And watch it for a while.
And get others to see it. Then do it again the next day with more people present ready with cameras.
Unless it really is hyper hyper wary.
Which it isn't
Tim
Edward woodwood
Member
back to the latest sightings...
Tim
Tim
lewis20126
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
I assume you mean the birds in the Singer Tract?
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Interview with Bobby Harrison in Birder's World. Hard to know where to start really! How about this:
I will tell you that if I do stumble upon a nest — and I think that's the only way it'll happen is to stumble upon it or a roost — I would set up video cameras, try to get the image that way first. I would then try to get a still. I would never tell a soul. I would never tell a scientist, because I tell you right now, they will destroy the bird. They will cause the nest to fail if there's a nest, and they will do it under the name of science and say it's OK. I've learned that.
I'll get the proof, but I won't tell anybody where it's at. And if there's nothing that doesn't indicate whether it was Florida or Arkansas, I wouldn't tell about either one.
I will tell you that if I do stumble upon a nest — and I think that's the only way it'll happen is to stumble upon it or a roost — I would set up video cameras, try to get the image that way first. I would then try to get a still. I would never tell a soul. I would never tell a scientist, because I tell you right now, they will destroy the bird. They will cause the nest to fail if there's a nest, and they will do it under the name of science and say it's OK. I've learned that.
I'll get the proof, but I won't tell anybody where it's at. And if there's nothing that doesn't indicate whether it was Florida or Arkansas, I wouldn't tell about either one.
Sidewinder
Well-known member
How about this (refering to Nancy Tanner's defense of the bird's wariness at Singer Tract):
And I got an email from Nancy Tanner: "Those birds were not tame. They were very wary of people." ... Nancy said they had to get in a blind to get photos of those birds. It was never said in any of the writings. I just assumed that they were able to walk up to the tree and take the photos. They even observed them from a great distance. You've seen the photo of Allen looking through those big binoculars, so they had to be some distance away.
And I got an email from Nancy Tanner: "Those birds were not tame. They were very wary of people." ... Nancy said they had to get in a blind to get photos of those birds. It was never said in any of the writings. I just assumed that they were able to walk up to the tree and take the photos. They even observed them from a great distance. You've seen the photo of Allen looking through those big binoculars, so they had to be some distance away.
Recently-discovered IBWO images from 1940s/50s Cuba over at Cornell here.
(Thanks to Cyberthrush for alerting these on his blog)
Two views of a captive tethered IBWO on a stick are bizarre though a little sad: it appears to have no tail.
Since a woodpecker's tail is a fairly essential feature I'm curious as to how it became to be sans tail: lost naturally and this made it easy to capture (weakened), or lost in the process of being captured (gun)?
Fascinating pictures, though not the more contemporary ones we're hoping for!
(Thanks to Cyberthrush for alerting these on his blog)
Two views of a captive tethered IBWO on a stick are bizarre though a little sad: it appears to have no tail.
Since a woodpecker's tail is a fairly essential feature I'm curious as to how it became to be sans tail: lost naturally and this made it easy to capture (weakened), or lost in the process of being captured (gun)?
Fascinating pictures, though not the more contemporary ones we're hoping for!
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Geoff Hill says the following in an interview:
He is so protective of his credibility that he refuses to wear a T-shirt or ball cap bearing the likeness of an ivory-billed - even in his own home.
"We avoid anything that smacks of the lunatic fringe," he says.
Lunatic fringe? Who on earth could he be referring to, I wonder?
He is so protective of his credibility that he refuses to wear a T-shirt or ball cap bearing the likeness of an ivory-billed - even in his own home.
"We avoid anything that smacks of the lunatic fringe," he says.
Lunatic fringe? Who on earth could he be referring to, I wonder?
Russ Jones
Well-known member
Mike Johnston said:Geoff Hill says the following in an interview:
He is so protective of his credibility that he refuses to wear a T-shirt or ball cap bearing the likeness of an ivory-billed - even in his own home.
"We avoid anything that smacks of the lunatic fringe," he says.
Lunatic fringe? Who on earth could he be referring to, I wonder?
You just can't help adding your 2 cents worth of crap huh, give it a rest would you?
Russ
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Hey, I've as much a right to post crap here as anybody else! :bounce:Russ Jones said:
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Well here's a piece of definite 'non-crap'. Our very own Docmartin (who noted on this thread the similarities between recorded Florida 'kents' and White-tailed Deer bleats) has announced the imminent publication of a paper on the IBWO in BMC Biology. Should be interesting - Docmartin is a lecturer in Genetics at Aberdeen University, convenor of the British Ornithologists Union Taxonomic Sub-Committee, and a member of the editorial board of the journal British Birds. Look forward to it.
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
Intellectual honesty?
I'd be interested to know whom specifically and for what you were referring to when you accuse sceptics of being intellectually dishonest? It strikes me as just a tad hypocritical. I can think of quite a few examples of intellectual dishonesty amongst believers presenting evidence. To mention a couple:
Cornell’s use of the word modelling in their Science reply, to imply that they were doing something rather more complex than filming wooden cut-outs.
Cornell’s inexplicable use of a Franklin’s Gull to demonstrate that a fleeing Piliated’s dorsal wing surface should be predominantly visible when viewed from behind
Hill to his credit, tends to be a bit more honest
Although members of our search group are convinced that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist in the swamp forests along the Choctawhatchee River, we readily concede that the evidence we have amassed to date falls short of definitive. Definitive evidence will come in the form of a clear, indisputable film, digital image, or video image of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker or perhaps from a fresh feather or DNA sample. No such indisputable evidence has been gathered since photographic images of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were made in the Singer Tract of Louisiana in the 1930s..
Although of course, if this whole thing does turn out to be cases of mistaken identity it would be the mother of all examples of intellectual dishonesty!
MMinNY said:
I'd be interested to know whom specifically and for what you were referring to when you accuse sceptics of being intellectually dishonest? It strikes me as just a tad hypocritical. I can think of quite a few examples of intellectual dishonesty amongst believers presenting evidence. To mention a couple:
Cornell’s use of the word modelling in their Science reply, to imply that they were doing something rather more complex than filming wooden cut-outs.
Cornell’s inexplicable use of a Franklin’s Gull to demonstrate that a fleeing Piliated’s dorsal wing surface should be predominantly visible when viewed from behind
Hill to his credit, tends to be a bit more honest
Although members of our search group are convinced that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist in the swamp forests along the Choctawhatchee River, we readily concede that the evidence we have amassed to date falls short of definitive. Definitive evidence will come in the form of a clear, indisputable film, digital image, or video image of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker or perhaps from a fresh feather or DNA sample. No such indisputable evidence has been gathered since photographic images of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were made in the Singer Tract of Louisiana in the 1930s..
Although of course, if this whole thing does turn out to be cases of mistaken identity it would be the mother of all examples of intellectual dishonesty!
Last edited:
Similar threads
