• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (6 Viewers)

The point has been made on this thread many times, but well done for reiterating it. The most high profile and most widely believed report of IBWO in the recent "rediscovery" is based on 1 feature and field-sketches that dont include the head or the tail and are inconsistent with either IBWO or PIWO.

Unless its a PIWO like this one - posted by Arkie! A photograph captured by an auto camera in great physical and temporal proximity to a compelling IBWO record in Arkansas
 

Attachments

  • leucistic Pileated woodie arkansas.JPG
    leucistic Pileated woodie arkansas.JPG
    17.4 KB · Views: 161
Apologies Bonsaibirder if this has all been said before. As for the idea above, that is why one can compare what Eckelberry depicted of a bird he watched in flight. Also, the overhead shot that I showed is most comparable, and the white extends right out the wings. This is true also in the specimens that offer a spread or semi-spread posture (see slightly bent wing on ANSP specimen on my website). Nope, I think their sketch and description is wrong for the appearance of a IBW in flight.

Eckelberry's sketch (do you mean the one shown here?) certainly conforms to the overhead photo in that he shows the wings in the full forward position. If he witnessed that female in a glide (e.g. just before lighting), I'd expect that posture to be the most vivid image to reproduce. However if the bird is only seen in continuous flapping, then I wouldn't expect a captured mental image to necessarily represent the wings so far forward.

A heavy part of your criticism is that their sketches show the white "curving posteriorly", but that is also what I see in the ANSP specimen on your page...??? Unless there is some non-Euclidic birding usage for "straight" and "curving" I'm unfamiliar with... (I hope you'll tolerate some smart-ass comments this lovely Friday morning ;)– I mean them light-heartedly.)

You can argue that they should have observed things that they didn't, but that hardly seems a valid argument against not including unobserved details in the sketches. I'd be more concerned if they had.

Also, since they obviously didn't observe the birds from overhead (the vantage point of the sketches), I take it they were only trying to illustrate the location of the white patches that they did observe on a sprawled representation, not as a strict rendering of flight posture observed.

As for the general anatomical correctness of their sketches... I think their artistic skill level is clear. So trying to argue how far into the primaries the white extends on a sketch like that seems a bit... well, sketchy.

kind regards to you,
Dave
 
Last edited:
A scketch doesn't prove anything. I can make one right now if you want to.

A half reasonable video or photograph would. We don't have none. The IBWO is extinct.
 
Another "auto-focus ate my Ivory-bill Photo"

Another Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting has been reported from the "Choc" (see Hill's update for 6 March 2008). One observer saw it at very close range and had an excellent digital SLR with 300mm telephoto lens at the ready, but just did not quite get the shot. As Snoopy would say, Curses, foiled again! This is another in a long line of missed opportunities to photograph the late 20th and early 21st century Ivory-billed Woodpecker--the phenomenon I call "auto-focus ate my Ivory-bill photo"--see an accounting of all these missed opportunities here.

Of course, we have an explanation:

(The observer) had a digital SLR in his hands but did not take a picture. He explains: "So why didn't I get off a shot? For the same reasons that no one else has managed to do it. The glimpses are fleeting--a few seconds of fly-by in a dense swamp forest, and hesitation because of skepticism and thinking that it was a Pileated Woodpecker at first glance."

Here we have two classic Ivory-bill Excuses (TM). (I am working up a taxonomy of these excuses for eventual publication.) The first is what I call a Type 3 excuse-"bird too wary". Specifically, I identify it as the classic:
Type 3b-Bird won't sit still, always just flies by.

The second, is, a real prize, a new excuse. While skeptics have been blamed, in the past, for hindering conservation of the bird by demanding photographic proof of its existence, they have not previously been blamed for hindering the documentary process itself. So we have a new variant of "Type 5-No photo excuse":
5f-nervousness of photographer (due to possibility of criticism, or creeping internal skepticism) caused him/her not to get a photo. This can happen due to delay in being ready with the camera, or excessive nervousness, such as causing one to operate it incorrectly.

On the happy side...
Observers did note the large size of the suspected IBWO, and, of course, the white trailing edge of the wing (a de rigeur field mark for 21st century Ivorybills). Thank goodness for hope! And curses to the skeptics, whose infectious bad attitude is now interfering with documentation of the Living Lord God Bird.
 
Speedy

Thank you for the quick update. My, you were as fast off the mark as a speedy glimpse!
And while you do make an attempt at sarcastic scepticism, I think your credulous humour shines through.
In any case, thank you for the links which I found to be quite encouraging.



Another Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting has been reported from the "Choc" (see Hill's update for 6 March 2008). One observer saw it at very close range and had an excellent digital SLR with 300mm telephoto lens at the ready, but just did not quite get the shot. As Snoopy would say, Curses, foiled again! This is another in a long line of missed opportunities to photograph the late 20th and early 21st century Ivory-billed Woodpecker--the phenomenon I call "auto-focus ate my Ivory-bill photo"--see an accounting of all these missed opportunities here.

Of course, we have an explanation:

(The observer) had a digital SLR in his hands but did not take a picture. He explains: "So why didn't I get off a shot? For the same reasons that no one else has managed to do it. The glimpses are fleeting--a few seconds of fly-by in a dense swamp forest, and hesitation because of skepticism and thinking that it was a Pileated Woodpecker at first glance."

Here we have two classic Ivory-bill Excuses (TM). (I am working up a taxonomy of these excuses for eventual publication.) The first is what I call a Type 3 excuse-"bird too wary". Specifically, I identify it as the classic:
Type 3b-Bird won't sit still, always just flies by.

The second, is, a real prize, a new excuse. While skeptics have been blamed, in the past, for hindering conservation of the bird by demanding photographic proof of its existence, they have not previously been blamed for hindering the documentary process itself. So we have a new variant of "Type 5-No photo excuse":
5f-nervousness of photographer (due to possibility of criticism, or creeping internal skepticism) caused him/her not to get a photo. This can happen due to delay in being ready with the camera, or excessive nervousness, such as causing one to operate it incorrectly.

On the happy side...
Observers did note the large size of the suspected IBWO, and, of course, the white trailing edge of the wing (a de rigeur field mark for 21st century Ivorybills). Thank goodness for hope! And curses to the skeptics, whose infectious bad attitude is now interfering with documentation of the Living Lord God Bird.
 
thanks, forgot another important update

Thank you for the quick update. My, you were as fast off the mark as a speedy glimpse!
And while you do make an attempt at sarcastic scepticism, I think your credulous humour shines through. In any case, thank you for the links which I found to be quite encouraging.

I'm glad you appreciate the humor (or humour)--it is tough, balancing between credulous and incredulous humor. I forgot to mention that an important Ivory-bill Gastronomic Search (TM) update has just been posted by Cornell here.
It warms my heart to know that the Cornell team is enjoying pizza, homemade wine, and Scrumptious Chocolates. I, for one, will let no skepticism derail my hope that Ivory-bill searchers will continue to enjoy fine cuisine in between bouts of searching and paid lectures. Long live the Ivory-bill Gastronomic Search! And here's a big Raspberry to the skeptics who want the searchers to give up their quest for fine cuisine in the former range of Campephilus principalis!
 
Jan '08 Choc report

Hmmm... large, dark woodpecker flew toward him from 20 yards away, 15 feet over his head, sun above and behind the observer, also seen by second observer and both independantly identified as IBWO.

He reports and sketches dark wing linings (incorrect for IBWO), but that can be explained by the sun's position, placing that part of the wing in shadow. Just look how dark the wing linings are on the only available photo of IBWO from that vantage point -- the header photo at Cornell's site.

I wouldn't expect the white patch location on PIWO to be "brightly lit" or "brilliant" with the sun in that position. Certainly not "translucent".

Still; no photo, no status change.
 
Last edited:
Feast

I'm glad you appreciate the humor (or humour)--it is tough, balancing between credulous and incredulous humor. I forgot to mention that an important Ivory-bill Gastronomic Search (TM) update has just been posted by Cornell here.
It warms my heart to know that the Cornell team is enjoying pizza, homemade wine, and Scrumptious Chocolates. I, for one, will let no skepticism derail my hope that Ivory-bill searchers will continue to enjoy fine cuisine in between bouts of searching and paid lectures. Long live the Ivory-bill Gastronomic Search! And here's a big Raspberry to the skeptics who want the searchers to give up their quest for fine cuisine in the former range of Campephilus principalis!

Well I don't begrudge Abe Borker and the boys and girls an occasional decent meal after days and weeks in the sweaty woods. As the advertisement says, "Life is too short for lousy chocolate."
And they are surely teasing those who are easily annoyed by references to such culinary delights.
I prefer to focus (if that is the word) on the fact that John Agnew had a sighting from only fifteen feet away; and that Sally Wolliver saw what was probably the same bird. And that the Auburn group have had several sightings in the same general area.
That's what I call a veritable feast of positivity!
 
swamp still frigid, steamy next month

Well I don't begrudge Abe Borker and the boys and girls an occasional decent meal after days and weeks in the sweaty woods.
Well, right now the swamp is still frigid, refer to the previous Cornell description of the trying conditions faced by intrepid searchers from February 2006, though it seems to refer to early winter:
With cat-like quickness and agility I pop out of the canoe and into the frigid waters of the Bayou de View. (Did I mention all the ice on the river?) ...

In just a few weeks the swamps will be steamy and infested with killer mosquitoes and deadly cottonmouths as conditions were described by another Arkansas searcher in September, 2005. At some point, probably in May, the swamp will change from frigid to steamy. (Funny, I live in a climate similar to Arkansas', and I usually find the winters pleasant, even when out in a swamp.) But in Ivory-bill Land, it's never pleasant--just like the water level is never right for searching--always too high for walking or too shallow for boats.

As the advertisement says, "Life is too short for lousy chocolate."
Yes, and I feel the USFWS staff time for endangered species is too limited to keep wasting on this nonsense. The Arkansas Ivory-bill chocolate, after four years in the steamy and/or frigid swamps, has definitely gone rancid.

And they are surely teasing those who are easily annoyed by references to such culinary delights.
My interpretation is that they have nothing else to report. Heck, even Cyberthrush complains about that Cornell Arkansas Team update, calling it:
Reminiscent of some of the Mobile Team posts, it's a bit long on dietary information and a tad short of anything much Ivorybill-wise!
What about the expensive helicopter searches? Didn't they find it? Oh well--no more grant money left, better luck next funding cycle.

I prefer to focus (if that is the word) on the fact that John Agnew had a sighting from only fifteen feet away; and that Sally Wolliver saw what was probably the same bird. And that the Auburn group have had several sightings in the same general area. That's what I call a veritable feast of positivity!
Yes, it is like the heady days back in 05-06 described by Hill here, sightings in "May, July, and December 2005, and January, February, April, and May 2006," for a total of thirteen sightings. And now the Lord God is getting closer--fifteen feet--perhaps the IBWO is losing its famed wariness? Will we soon have reports of the bird landing on the head of a bedazzled searcher? Too bad its magnificence still causes photographer paralysis. Maybe that will be in the next grant proposal.

Maybe Cornell and Auburn can stop their sniping at each other and get together on a winning search strategy. I'm sure the bird can be lured into a position for photography with some of that luscious chocolate, or a carafe of homemade wine!
 
Last edited:
Milk Tray

The sweaty woods indeed! Why, PCoin, I do believe you take me more seriously than I do myself.
The "sweaty", like the transferred epithet which it is, refers of course to the irate commentators who work themselves into a lather over the alleged huge costs of chocolate, cameras and helicopter rides.;)

As I've said before (and been censored for) there are worse things that incredibly vaster amounts could be spent on.

And seriously, your chocolate bait is worth a try. And if it works, and if the IBWO that is attracted to the scrumptious chocolate has no red crest, why, it gives a whole new meaning to the old slogan:
"And all because the lady loves Milk Tray."



Well, right now the swamp is still frigid, refer to the previous Cornell description of the trying conditions faced by intrepid searchers from February 2006, though it seems to refer to early winter:
With cat-like quickness and agility I pop out of the canoe and into the frigid waters of the Bayou de View. (Did I mention all the ice on the river?) ...

In just a few weeks the swamps will be steamy and infested with killer mosquitoes and deadly cottonmouths as conditions were described by another Arkansas searcher in September, 2005. At some point, probably in May, the swamp will change from frigid to steamy. (Funny, I live in a climate similar to Arkansas', and I usually find the winters pleasant, even when out in a swamp.) But in Ivory-bill Land, it's never pleasant--just like the water level is never right for searching--always too high for walking or too shallow for boats.


Yes, and I feel the USFWS staff time for endangered species is too limited to keep wasting on this nonsense. The Arkansas Ivory-bill chocolate, after four years in the steamy and/or frigid swamps, has definitely gone rancid.


My interpretation is that they have nothing else to report. Heck, even Cyberthrush complains about that Cornell Arkansas Team update, calling it:
Reminiscent of some of the Mobile Team posts, it's a bit long on dietary information and a tad short of anything much Ivorybill-wise!
What about the expensive helicopter searches? Didn't they find it? Oh well--no more grant money left, better luck next funding cycle.


Yes, it is like the heady days back in 05-06 described by Hill here, sightings in "May, July, and December 2005, and January, February, April, and May 2006," for a total of thirteen sightings. And now the Lord God is getting closer--fifteen feet--perhaps the IBWO is losing its famed wariness? Will we soon have reports of the bird landing on the head of a bedazzled searcher? Too bad its magnificence still causes photographer paralysis. Maybe that will be in the next grant proposal.

Maybe Cornell and Auburn can stop their sniping at each other and get together on a winning search strategy. I'm sure the bird can be lured into a position for photography with some of that luscious chocolate, or a carafe of homemade wine!
 
Last edited:
Another Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting has been reported from the "Choc" (see Hill's update for 6 March 2008). One observer saw it at very close range and had an excellent digital SLR with 300mm telephoto lens at the ready, but just did not quite get the shot. As Snoopy would say, Curses, foiled again! This is another in a long line of missed opportunities to photograph the late 20th and early 21st century Ivory-billed Woodpecker--the phenomenon I call "auto-focus ate my Ivory-bill photo"--see an accounting of all these missed opportunities here.

Visitors to the Auburn site should follow the link to http://www.angelfire.com/id/wildscenes/IvoryBilledWoodpecker.html

where there is a sketch *drawn from memory 2 days after the sighting* (does anyone EVER learn?) which shows an underwing pattern entirely wrong for IBWO - in a 3-4 second view I cannot see how anyone would not notice any white in the primaries, and/or, as a wildlife artist, not notice there is something wrong here. Also see the quote:

"Watch for my painting of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I've been told that I am the first wildlife artist to see a live Ivory Bill since Don Eckleberry in the 1930's!" - i wonder if the plimage features will have been corrected by then??
 
The circumstances surrounding the reporting of that sighting are so ridiculously stupid that it absolutely beggars belief.

Three years into the search effort and despite the controversy, Hill has the balls to claim one of his searchers had a sighting, and then links to sketch that is completely inconsistent with an IBWO?? WTF? Does the guy not care about his career or doesn’t he know what one looks like? And WTF is he doing employing searchers that don’t know what IBWOs look like?

In 20-years of birding and 10-years of science I’ve never encountered such complete incompetence.

Hill et al. - pack up and go home. You're a joke!
 
The crest was noted as red... but the bill didn't stand out as noticeable. Hmmm! At least the red rules out Velvet scoter!
 
Last edited:
The circumstances surrounding the reporting of that sighting are so ridiculously stupid that it absolutely beggars belief.

Three years into the search effort and despite the controversy, Hill has the balls to claim one of his searchers had a sighting, and then links to sketch that is completely inconsistent with an IBWO?? WTF? Does the guy not care about his career or doesn’t he know what one looks like? And WTF is he doing employing searchers that don’t know what IBWOs look like?

In 20-years of birding and 10-years of science I’ve never encountered such complete incompetence.

Hill et al. - pack up and go home. You're a joke!

Have to agree with your conclusion on THAT sketch Ilya
 
I think he'll correct it!

Visitors to the Auburn site should follow the link to http://www.angelfire.com/id/wildscenes/IvoryBilledWoodpecker.html



"Watch for my painting of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I've been told that I am the first wildlife artist to see a live Ivory Bill since Don Eckleberry in the 1930's!" - i wonder if the plimage (sic) features will have been corrected by then??

Yes, doctor, he will almost certainly correct it. He might, for example, prefer the word "plumage"!;)
 
Yes, doctor, he will almost certainly correct it. He might, for example, prefer the word "plumage"!;)

He might also go with "Ivory-billed" rather than "Ivory Bill", "Ivory Billed", or "IvoryBilled" (from the URL). Or he could at least pick one wrong way to spell to it, and stick to it. :)

/i have been known to drop the caps myself in urls, but random caps is bird of another feather
// hmm . . . bird of another feather . . .
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top