Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (1 Viewer)

curunir said:

Anybody ever notice that the video seems to show a woodpecker low on a tree that gets scared off when the boat gets too close? Will woodpeckers hide on the far side of a tree like a squirrel will?

Click to expand...

Is that the stills captured from the video, that are shown in The Paper?

If anyone hasn't seen the paper, or seen those captures of the PERCHED BIRD, check it out. Would you have the remotest clue that they were a bird, let alone an ivory-bill, if they didn't tell you so? Seriously!

Maybe you're talking about a third woodpecker in the video??

Yup, woodpeckers will hide on the far side of the tree sometimes.

I must have fantastic luck finding dead animals, because I've found scores of dead deer, also caribou, moose, geese, eagles and hundreds and hundreds of other birds. Not always the whole critter, but identifiable parts. No cougars, though.

timeshadowed said:

Why didn't the 'experts' follow-up on some of the 'sightings' by hunters/fishermen???

TimeShadowed

Click to expand...

The experts *have* followed up on hundreds and hundreds of sightings by hunters and fisherman. From James Tanner to George Lowery to Jerome Jackson, experts have spent an enormous amount of time on this very activity. As you know, an apparently credible sighting by a hunter in Louisiana in 1999 was followed by one of the most intense scientific bird searches of all time.

Of course, in 61 years, all these searches have resulted in zero authenticated Ivory-bill sightings.

Look at all this evidence!
---
The search has been going on for many years, and although we don't have definitive proof yet, the evidence just continues to pile up. Thousands of people say they've seen the species, and some of these people are quite credible. An avid hunter with 30 years of experience noted the fieldmarks at a distance of 140 feet. A lawyer searching extensively for the species was finally rewarded with a close-range (15 feet) sighting. There have been recent sightings in Arkansas and Lousiana, and reports from Texas as well.

In addition to all those sightings, we have plenty of other evidence. We have some pictures, but unfortunately these are so fuzzy that not everyone agrees on the species shown. We also have audio recordings, but those are ultimately inconclusive, since we can't be 100% certain of the origin of the sounds. In some areas where the sightings have been concentrated, we also have markings on trees that we cannot attribute to any other source.

Although none of the current searchers has notched an authenticated sighting, noted experts in related species strongly believe in the evidence. Among the searchers, it is common knowledge that their quarry is very elusive and wary to an extreme. Remote cameras and video surveillance systems are now being used, and it can only be a matter of time before the definitive images are finally captured.

Until we have those images, of course there will be naysayers, but to many, it's clear that the accumulated evidence just cannot be denied.
---

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Here's a related link:
http://theshadowlands.net/bfarticles.htm

buck3m said:

In reply to my question: "Let's establish this: do you believe that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" My quote is generally attributed to Carl Sagan, but has been a generally accepted scientific principle for a long time. If you don't accept that basic idea, it will do little good to debate using facts and logic.

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed my point. It was not the basic idea that I was objecting to, but rather that the quote be applied to the claims of seeing an IBWO.

Why do you consider the claim "that the IBWO is ALIVE and well" extraordinary in the first place??

The answer to that question must be:
Because the IBWO was considered to be already extinct!
Therefore, if you claim to have seen one, you must produce "extraordinary" proof of that sighting.

Here is another example:
The Calif Condor population is very small. If that bird were not visible soaring in the open skies, just how many birds do you think would have been be seen if they inhabited only the large deep swamps that the IBWO does?

Dare I suggest that if that were the case, the Calif Condor would also have been labled extinct!

It is only because the habitant of the Calif Condor is the wide OPEN SKIES and OPEN RANGE that it CAN bee seen.

How many Calif Condors would have been located ON THE GROUND eating their prey (in dense swampland), if not FIRST located soaring ABOVE the prey?

TimeShadowed

hgr389 said:

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Click to expand...

Here you are comparing apples to unicorns!

There is absolutly Zero PROOF that Bigfoot has EVER existed!

However there IS proof that the IBWO was a living creature.

Where are your bigfoot 'skins'? There ARE IBWO 'skins'.

Your logic here is faulty, HGR.

TimeShadowed

:clap:

BarbaraM said:

You sceptics do know, don't you, that there were about 9 people, in several different groups, at different times, on different days, who identified IBW as part of the recent "rediscovery"? Not all of them were even part of the Cornell "team". Did they all experience hallucinations? Barbara

Click to expand...

Nice work. This is exactly my point as to why the rediscovery is now certain. If this had not happened (ie 1 or 2 sightings only with no recordings or video) we would not have a confirmation. But we do.

After David Kullivan's sighting I travelled to the Pearl for a group expedition in 2001. We saw glimpses of wary Pileateds through the trees and with each one I considered the possibility of an Ivorybill. However, I NEVER jumped to the conclusion that it/they WERE Ivorybills. Never. We hoped they would be, but if the view we had was all but a glimpse, I wouldn't just assume "Ivorybill". That would be unprofessional. I believe an even higher degree of scrutiny was used by Cornell and others in determining whether their particular sightings were, in fact, Ivorybills.

When you put together the following - in my opinion - you have evidence:
1) Multiple sightings
2) Multiple observers - many professional
3) Different days/months/years
4) Recordings
5) Video (placed last because even without the video, the above 4 points would be enough - the video was an Ivorybill but very unclear)

You can never satisfy a hungry skeptic.

From Fitzpatrick et. al (2005)

"Several field marks suggested that the bird was a male ivory-billed woodpecker."

"We considered and rejected the hypothesis that the sightings and video can be explained by a "piebald" or partially leucistic pileated woodpecker with symmetric white patches on wings and back approximately matching the pattern of an ivory-billed woodpecker... We are unaware of any examples of extensively and symmetrically piebald pileated woodpeckers in museum collections or the literature."

Seems to me that this says at least one observer saw multiple marks (I imagine this means more of the color patterns, bill, etc.) of an IBWP and that they already looked into the birds having some sort of symmetric plummage miscoloration and that is straight from the horse's mouth.

affe22 said:

From Fitzpatrick et. al (2005)

"Several field marks suggested that the bird was a male ivory-billed woodpecker."

"We considered and rejected the hypothesis that the sightings and video can be explained by a "piebald" or partially leucistic pileated woodpecker with symmetric white patches on wings and back approximately matching the pattern of an ivory-billed woodpecker... We are unaware of any examples of extensively and symmetrically piebald pileated woodpeckers in museum collections or the literature."

Seems to me that this says at least one observer saw multiple marks (I imagine this means more of the color patterns, bill, etc.) of an IBWP and that they already looked into the birds having some sort of symmetric plummage miscoloration and that is straight from the horse's mouth.

Click to expand...

This is touched on in the available summaries from Cornell of the seven leading sightings- crown and neckstripe are referred to but not bill colour, which does not amaze me as much as it amazes hgr389.

Of course one of the seven sightings is the Sparling one- I don't think I have seen a detailed breakdown of all of the features he saw (or claimed if anyone prefers it to be put that way) but I think it was much more than a flash of wing pattern- hence the level of follow-up it triggered. May even have included some of the more sophisticated features, like shape of crest and pale base to the red crown feathers.

As it happens, I prefer to see the sightings so far described as very probable rather than absolutely certain- but so what? For me and many others they are by some margin enough to justify a major last-ditch search and conservation effort.

Hello to All

Hello, My name is William, I am 46 years old and I live in central florida. I have been interested in the Ivory Bill since my teen years when a neighbor lady of mine told me all about them. Since then, I have studied them extensively and I hope to see a live specimen one day(as I'm sure most birders would).

I mean no offense here,,truly I do not. I have been amused by the bantor about the "rediscovery". Really, all any of us has to go on is 4 books, and assorted articles here and there about possible rediscoveries. Regarding Arkansas, Tim Gallagher's book gives detailed information about the sighting's he's made, and in depth discussion of the sightings that his associates have made. So I don't think that we should be quick to discount his story,,but we can surely debate it. He describes his encounter in detail,,along with the emotions and excitement of the moment,,how they were surprised and how his shouting scared the bird off in a different direction.

If you read Tanner's book, he himself uses the word "rediscovery" at his time. That term is used in Hooses' book. I am sad to say that I have not read Jackson's work, although I have had three conversations with him. The thing regarding the old photos and encounters with "the bird" in the past is that they shouldn't be regarded as "tame" birds as many have stated here. Nor were they easy to find. The singer tract birds were "rediscovered" in 1935 only because of Mason Spencer, a man who bragged about seeing them and ultimately he shot one. Cornell didn't just stumble upon them,,indeed, at the time they were searching in florida and followed up on the Spencer lead,in Louisiana,and when it came time for them to find the alleged birds it took 3 days to be guided there by a local who "knew" where they were. I doubt they would have found them as easily without being guided. In arkansas, the territory is larger, and there is no one guiding them to the "spot". Regarding them being tame,,Audobon and Tanner himself were very wary about disturbing them in fear of them abandoning the nest. They did as most large birds do when their nest is being bothered,,they defend it. Tanner had no close encounters with "tame" during non nesting season,,he had to chase them through the forest,,he hid in blinds,,,they weren't tame.

No one has found a nesting or roosting location yet today,,so we do not know how today's birds act when approached, so I find it difficult to make this common comparison to discount the birds.

One point I would like to make is that there are many many sightings of this bird that go the wayside because of skeptics. In recent years I have been interested in finding them in florida because many good sightings occur, I have talked with wildlife officials in suwannee and ocala and other places that get dozens of reports a year and no one is following up on them. The game/wildlife people simply state that they are extinct and that pileateds are the bird they see. I have started to speak with people who have seen the bird and their stories can be compelling. So I do not buy into this belief that they do not exist because no one sees them,,many people claim to see them,,but they are not birders. They are people who find themselves in the swampy rivers of florida either hunting fishing or for recreation. they have no cameras aimed,,,they aren't trying to find the birds. Very few people are making real attempts to find the bird. The areas here in florida where they might be are very vast, and harsh. and if a bird flys into view along a waterway, who's ready to photograph it??? No one,,and hence the bird is extinct.

Some people claim they are extinct because Tanner looked for them. He is one man. He spent relatively very little time(by his own admission in his book), looking for them. One man can only cover a very small area,,and he was comparing areas to the Singer tract,,,and no one really knows if the birds could or could not live in a different habitat today.

He stated in his book that he "believed" they existed in many other areas in florida and south carolina,,but he couldn't prove it. Does that make them extinct?

People still reported them,,and even Tanner himself was quick to dismiss them. Why?

Here on the forums there was a post about a woman who had a picture in her resturant. A year after that post and after the rediscovery I went to visit her. She does not display the picture in fear that someone will find the birds. She states that many people have called and visited her and have been very indignant. I believed her. She is a smart business woman,,not a flake,,or as someone here posted"a ufo nut". She saw how people reacted to the rediscovery in arkansas and she has no desire for the area that she sees the birds in to be inundated with both scientists and birders and bird killers. I believe her.

One point about the pearl river fiasco. Only David Kulivan knows if he is lying. He did not report his sighting on April 1st as an april fools joke. He waited. He may still have been lying,,but people who previously easily discounted good sightings were suddenly believers,,so he must have been an impressive witness. The pearl was inundated with hoards of birders by local hunter's accounts. the local hunting population was worried that their hunting would be restricted,,indeed, lumbering was stopped so why wouldn't they believe that they would be chased out as well? Isn't it ironic that Mr. Kulivan is now a lobbyist for the NRA? I belive the birds were shot and killed and will not be found in the pearl. That is my belief and the belief of many others. If restrictions are placed on the land in arkansas then the same thing will happen there. Hunters love their land. Hunters are loyal to themselves and their livelyhood and most do not want to be kept out of their land by a government they do not trust. If the birds are ultimately not found then the hunters will live in peace.

Where is all of this going? No where I think, lol. I believe the birds do exist but I do get amused at how detailed a debate can get when there is so little information available. Read Gallagher's book and you will see all there is to see regarding this bird in arkansas. There is no conspiracy,,there hasn't been any lies,,,just a bunch of Cornell nerds tromping through an area looking for a needle in a haystack,,,and if they are lucky we'll have our proof in the fall and winter. Bill

Hi, Bill! I see this is your first post on BirdForum, so let me wish you a warm welcome on behalf of the entire staff. :t:

buck3m said:

To paraphrase Occam's Razor: "The simplest explanation is the best."

Click to expand...

The simplest explanation for the images in the Science paper by Fitzpatrick and others is that it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that was videographed.

The authors of the Science article point out 5 diagnostic features that led to their conclusion. One, size, was obtained by identifying the tree in the video from where the woodpecker takes off. Then the section of the trunk where the bird was perched was identified and measured to yield a yard stick to measure the lenght of the bird in the video still. This is illustrated by figure 1 of the paper. This video still also shows the bird to be a woodpecker due to the manner it is perched on the almost vertical trunk of the tree. The other four diagnostic features have to do with the patterns of black and white displayed by the bird in the video.

Summarizing:

1) Size - the estimated size of the bird exceeds all known comparable values for Pileated Woodpecker and are compatible with the upper ranges of values for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

2)Wing pattern at rest - compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker. Fig. 1 of the paper.

3)Wing pattern in flight - Video still reproduced in Fig. 2A show a patttern compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker.

4)White plumage in dorsum - clearly visible in one of the stills reproduced in Fig. 2C of the paper . You have to go slowly frame by frame to see this in the Web distributed video. Again compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker.

5) Black-white-black pattern of perched bird. Again compatible with IVWO not compatible with Pileated Woodpecker. This is in Fig. S5 of the supplementary online materials that can be downloaded free of charge from the Science site (unlike the paper).

Evidently the above arguments were judged good enough by the referees for the article to appear in Science.

The alternative explanation of the bird being an aberrantly plumaged PIWO fails Occam's razor test because it demands too much: this aberrantly plumaged PIWO must have the extra white feathers arranged in such a way as to give the impression of a IVWO and it must be a giant among the PIWOs. Birds that are partially leucistic, as any PIWO would have to be to show as much white as the bird in the video, usually do not exhibit symmetric patterns. Thus the special requirements of extraordinary size and extraordinary plumage anomalies make it unlikely that the bird in the video is a PIWO. Thus the bird in the video is either a IVWO or a hitherto undiscovered species of large black-and-white woodpecker. Again the simplest explanation is IVWO as this species was known to occur in the region where the sightings and video were made.

Dalcio

white-back said:

This is touched on in the available summaries from Cornell of the seven leading sightings- crown and neckstripe are referred to but not bill colour, which does not amaze me as much as it amazes hgr389.

Of course one of the seven sightings is the Sparling one- I don't think I have seen a detailed breakdown of all of the features he saw (or claimed if anyone prefers it to be put that way) but I think it was much more than a flash of wing pattern- hence the level of follow-up it triggered. May even have included some of the more sophisticated features, like shape of crest and pale base to the red crown feathers.

Click to expand...

Here's what the Cornell paper says:
----
11 February 2004 sighting. Field marks noted by G. Sparling were the bird's unusually large size compared to pileated woodpecker, peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge, long neck, and extensive white on lower half of folded wings showing slight yellowish tinge along edges "like parchment paper."
----
Again, four of five key field marks separating IBWO from Pileated were not mentioned. These are the white dorsal stripes, the white neck stripe ending before the bill, the longitudinal black stripe on the white wing underside, and the pale bill itself.

If you're claiming you saw an IBWO, it's not very helpful to say that the bird looked large, that it had a peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge, that its neck looked long, that it "didn't fly like a Pileated", or that it had a white neck stripe. Any or all of these characteristics could quite easily fit a glimpse of a completely normal Pileated.

Two key observers are Bobby Harrison and Gene Sparling. Neither are ornithologists. Harrison teaches art and photography, and Sparling is an "entrepreneur". Of course, Sparling had the initial sighting that sparked this entire thing. On page 146 of "The Grail Bird", there's this interesting exchange:
---
After a long talk with Gene, Bobby told him "It sounds to me like you've seen an ivory-billed woodpecker."
"You think so?" said Gene. "I don't have enough confidence to make that call, but I'm glad to hear you say that".
----
On page 230, Gallagher writes about yet another claimed sighting by Harrison:
---
Of course, this sighting didn't sit well with some of the other searchers. Bobby had had a lot of sightings, and people were starting to doubt him.
---

If you've seen the Luneau video, you may be interested in what Tim Gallagher says about it in "The Grail Bird", pages 224 and 225:
---
In the blown-up film, I could see what appeared to be a large bird with a black-crested head and a white bill peering out from behind a tupelo...I was completely floored. Virtually all of the ivory-bill's major field marks were there, albeit fuzzy.
---

Curtis--you've seen the DVD. Did you see a white bill, and virtually all of the ivory-bill's field marks?

By the way, it looks like Gene Sparling is now offering to guide you in your search for Arkansas Ivory-bills, with "deluxe" packages priced at $1300 or $2300 per person!

http://birdingisnotacrime.blogspot.com/2005/08/tours-to-search-for-ivory-billed.html

The evidence, and probability, is slightly better than for UFOs containing aliens.

It's so easy to make a point with quotes out of context. "I don't have enough confidence to make that call, but I'm glad to hear you say that". Gene Sparling is quite familiar with pileated woodpeckers,,he has them on his land in arkansas and knows what they look like. He has never seen an ivory billed woodpecker and this is why he made this statement.

Regarding Sparling's description of the bird he saw,,he was not out to prove the existance of the IBWP. He merely reported on a kayaking forum that he had seen an unusual bird along with many other facts about his trip,,it was only through alot of coaxing that his story was followed up on. It's very easy to armchair critique peoples' observations,,but you must look at the whole story to get at facts,,not pick apart conversations to find a sentence that supports your point.

"In the blown-up film, I could see what appeared to be a large bird with a black-crested head and a white bill peering out from behind a tupelo...I was completely floored. Virtually all of the ivory-bill's major field marks were there, albeit fuzzy."

I am with you on this,,,,I read this passage in my copy and was perplexed by his description of the video.

It is interesting to note that Bobby Harrison, albeit an art and photography proffessor, has been studying the IBWP most of his life,,I do not consider him a layman,,,indeed he probably has more "street knowledge" of the woods and bird than most Cornell people.

Regarding his tour business? I sighed when I read that,,,he needs the money,,I know that,,a very sick wife,,,a bad hobby that taxes his time and finances,,,,I don't blame him,,but I do find it tacky,,,I hope he finds peace in his concious about doing that. Bill

dacol said:

The alternative explanation of the bird being an aberrantly plumaged PIWO fails Occam's razor test because it demands too much:

Click to expand...

The issue must be considered as a whole, therefore Occam's Razor must be applied to the debate as a whole.

Very poor video is easy to misinterpret, even by experts. Other birding experts, including, apparently, Prum and Jackson, have studied the video and said they believe the video shows a Pileated woodpecker. I'm sure they had a checklist of points with "proof" of their own.

What it comes down to, again, is that claiming you've refound the ivory-bill, or that you have video showing an ivory-bill, are both extraordinary claims. If the video is so poor (and it is) that top birding experts don't agree on what species it shows, it is, in the words John Fitzpatrick, one of the authors of the science paper, "crummy" not extraordinary.

Thank you, thatmagicguy, for being a voice of reason. There truly are two sides to the issue, and it hasn't been proven one way or another. That's why a reasoned debate is so important.

As far as taking things out of context, it is standard practice to quote the relevant part of what someone has said, and then cite the source, and that is what hgr389 did. The point is that in some of these sightings people WEREN'T 100% sure what they had seen.

dacol said:

The simplest explanation for the images in the Science paper by Fitzpatrick and others is that it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that was videographed.

Dalcio

Click to expand...

A few comments:

--I'm completely unconvinced that the bird in the video is larger than a normal Pileated Woodpecker. When I look at images A and B on page 9 of the Supporting Online Material, it actually makes me feel a little sad. The "woodpecker" is just a smudge that's not composed of a whole lot of pixels. The researchers believe the smudge is a woodpecker because they went back to the tree, and they found no black-and-white mark on the bark. Given that smudge, I don't believe that there is any way to calculate a useful "wrist-to-tailtip" measure.

---Regarding the perceived white plumage on the bird, I think this is a key sentence in the Cornell paper: "With these distances and light conditions, bleeding tends to exaggerate the apparent extent of white in the wings." I'm unconvinced that the bird in the video has white plumage on the dorsum. On some frames, it apparently does, and on other frames, it apparently does not.

--I think you can access Cornell's paper for free if you go to answers.com, type in "ivory-billed woodpecker", then click on the link where it says "Sciencexpress" down near the bottom.

It's still taking a quote out of context. That is why sound bites on the news always fit the way the news wants the story to look. See, I can do it to:

Look what buck3m said about hgr389's skeptical views on the IBWP, "I was skeptical of HIM..."

He seems to agree about the possible existence, look "I believe the ivory-bill MAY live..."

HGR389 even seems to agree on his blog, "This spring, when news reports announced that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was alive, I was thrilled!!"

Occam's Razor (again)

buck3m said:

Thank you, thatmagicguy, for being a voice of reason. There truly are two sides to the issue, and it hasn't been proven one way or another. That's why a reasoned debate is so important.

As far as taking things out of context, it is standard practice to quote the relevant part of what someone has said, and then cite the source, and that is what hgr389 did. The point is that in some of these sightings people WEREN'T 100% sure what they had seen.

Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, Occam's Razor demands the simplest answer based on the evidence available. Dacol has given an excellent review of the evidence with that in mind. While I don't have the advantage of having seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, there can be little doubt that the evidence points to the existance of at least one Ivorybill in Arkansas. Applying Occam's Razor, the bird clinging to the tree trunk in the video is either an Ivorybill or a pileated woodpecker. In order for it to be a pileated, we must postulate a bird well outside the known size range of the species, and in addition it needs to be leucistic (or piebald). It seems to me this fails the test miserably, and in fact amounts to the kind of extraordinary claim discussed in several posts in this thread. There is, by the way, no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, for a giant, leucistic pileated woodpecker.

In regard to the evidence from the reported sightings, the summer 2005 Living Bird again summarizes the sight records; at least one observer did record the white dorsal lines (It is also unlikely that these summaries constitute the set of entire notes taken by the observers - others may have recorded similar markings). While there is no doubt observers can see what they are expecting to see (e.g., the Sibley example), the simplest explanation for several independent observers, well aware that pileated woodpeckers were present, reporting ivorybilled woodpeckers is that they saw ivorybilled woodpeckers. Or did they all see our giant, leucistic friend.

The Summer 2005 edition of the Living Bird (a Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology publication) is devoted entirely to the ivorybill, and has among other items a piece by James T. Tanner that is worth reading (or re-reading).