• 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) (4 Viewers)

MacGillivray's Trout said:
They were all rejected because of lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

No, they were rejected because the Bird is extinct, and therefore there is no reason to look. THe people reporting it were all seeing pileateds, liars, or fools. That was the mind set that has dominated the area.

Evidence has to be judged. When the judge is prejudiced against the case the judge should be thrown out. When people like Steve Sheridan sent letters in to point out that he was sure he saw an IBWO the response was to print it as a joke in the Auklet.

These people never looked, never spoke to him or anyone else, never were on the ground. They knew it all, as they had PhD's, and no one could tell them anything. Arrogance and science are to things that are incompatible. That's why they were rejected not from weighing the evidence, but from preconceived notions.

Were some people wrong? Probably. But 100's of reports are not all wrong. Again, Mason Spencer leaps to mind.

As for excuses, if you wish to come show us all how it is done none of us have a problem. You can search the thousand of acres and proclaim the bird is dead. Show us how easy it is. After all, from your statements you are smarter than the rest of us so it should be easy. As you said, no excuses.

I expect your definitive paper should be out in 2 months.

I'll wait.
 
Tim Allwood said:
so who reviewed them (as you mentioned?) the Navy?

or Cornell/LSU?

If it was Cornell or LSU, it is apparent what they think of them by their lack of follow up

Tim

Tim[/QUOTE

Not all follow up is published...
Click to expand...
 
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
As for excuses, if you wish to come show us all how it is done none of us have a problem. You can search the thousand of acres and proclaim the bird is dead. Show us how easy it is. After all, from your statements you are smarter than the rest of us so it should be easy. As you said, no excuses.

I expect your definitive paper should be out in 2 months.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the bird is extant. Therefore, I am not going to search, and the burden of proof is on you. When one of you shows us something interesting, you'll get more of a response from myself and others. I have a job researching an extant endangered species, and do not have time to chase blurry videos or strange double-knocks.

How about instead of giving excuses for not being able to produce photographs or repeatable observations by independent observers, you entertain the idea that the IBWO really is extinct? I mean, some of you all have looked very, very hard and come up empty-handed. Still waiting for those definitive pics on fishcrow.com.
 
MacGillivray's Trout said:
I don't believe the bird is extant. Therefore, I am not going to search, and the burden of proof is on you. When one of you shows us something interesting, you'll get more of a response from myself and others. I have a job researching an extant endangered species, and do not have time to chase blurry videos or strange double-knocks.

How about instead of giving excuses for not being able to produce photographs or repeatable observations by independent observers, you entertain the idea that the IBWO really is extinct? I mean, some of you all have looked very, very hard and come up empty-handed. Still waiting for those definitive pics on fishcrow.com.
Click to expand...
Don't endangered species researchers have a vested interest in the debunking of the IBWO rediscovery in that until the Cornell study is discredited, funding for other projects will dry up? The money trail seems to say that the burden of proof is NOT on the believers. Am I missing something here?
 
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Were some people wrong? Probably. But 100's of reports are not all wrong. Again, Mason Spencer leaps to mind.
Click to expand...

so there are some bigfeet out there?
and Yetis
and UFO's
and those Hindu cow statues that really do drink milk
and visions of the Virgin Mary

I mean, they can't all have been wrong

extremely poor logic springs to mind over here

...and Mr/Mrs Curunir, you're clutching at very thin straws with that argument
 
This post is starting to read like an episode from the X-Files. If Cornell has information on sightings that support the existence of IBW, they would be published.

If the IBW is there it will be found and supporting evidence will be published. If not the IBW is a ghost-not because anyone wants it to be a ghost but because if science is to have any integrity, proof is demanded.

Mike
 
Tim Allwood said:
so there are some bigfeet out there?
and Yetis
and UFO's
and those Hindu cow statues that really do drink milk
and visions of the Virgin Mary

I mean, they can't all have been wrong

extremely poor logic springs to mind over here

...and Mr/Mrs Curunir, you're clutching at very thin straws with that argument
Click to expand...
It depends on what you're worried about. If you're working with endangered species, you should be worried about your funding, which the believer side doesn't seem to have to worry about, it's a glam bird. If you're worried about IBWO existance then yep, believers have a hurdle to cross. By the way, I hope this search isn't like that guy looking for giant ground sloths in Argentina or Roy Mackal looking for dinos. Not that the IBWO doesn't exist but those guys seem to be weird, especially the ground sloth guy.
 
I find this viciously circular reasoning quite hilarious in the face of recent history. On the one hand we have repeated statements that only very clear video now constitutes convincing evidence, the CLO should never have stood by what they have, and admonishments of "Don't report it if you can't support it." On the other hand, if the CLO or anyone else has any "sightings supporting the existence" they would surely publish it, and suggestions to the contrary belong in X-files land. Clearly the CLO search of the Big Woods prior to Apr 2005 never occurred, since it was supposedly an intense search generating "sightings supporting the existence," yet the search itself was not even officially acknowledged, let alone the sightings or video. The whole thing is clearly a myth created by conspiracy theorists.
 
Questions for Tim

1. What data is needed before you will consider an IBWO report 'reliable'?

2. Please define the word 'reliable' as in 'reliable IBWO report'

3. Must a 'reliable IBWO report' include a clear photo/video of a living IBWO?

4. What data is needed before BirdLife will publish an IBWO reported sighting?

5. What data is needed before Red Book will list the IBWO as a 'threatened bird'?
 
timeshadowed said:
1. What data is needed before you will consider an IBWO report 'reliable'?

2. Please define the word 'reliable' as in 'reliable IBWO report'

3. Must a 'reliable IBWO report' include a clear photo/video of a living IBWO?

4. What data is needed before BirdLife will publish an IBWO reported sighting?

5. What data is needed before Red Book will list the IBWO as a 'threatened bird'?
Click to expand...

Can I answer these too? I think the answers are very similar, from a bird-recording point of view, to the criteria required for a first national record or (in Britain) elveation of a Category B (old records) bird to Category A (recent records). In which case answer 1 is clear

1. As a bare minimum, the bird should be seen well by at least one competent observer.
For IBWO, I would expect that to be a perched bird, at least for part of the time. The description should include all the critical identification features of the bird. The description should be sufficient to eliminate all other possibilities (any other species of native or escapee woodpecker). The description should contain nothing that is absolutely wrong for the species in question. The length and circumstances of observation should be consistent with the collection of that description. These are the criteria we apply for national firsts, and I think it's reasonable to expect similar levels of proof before IBWO is back on the 'extant' list.
Maybe some of the recent sight records fulfil these criteria, though I haven't heard of any.

2. See 1 above.

3. From a bird-recording point of view, no. We accept records of vary rare birds based on single observer sight records only. Not a problem. From a scientific point of view (and in terms of publication in eg Science) YES. For publication in the scientific literature you need to present the data in a way that someone else can objectively reanalyse it and come to the same conclusion. I'm not aware of any IBWO evidence that fulfils that. A specimen would help too. A clear photo or a specimen would lower the burden of proof in 1.

4. Not sure - ask Birdlife.

5. Somewhere between 1 and 3, I would imagine. Likely to need a photo.
 
Docmartin said:
3. From a bird-recording point of view, no. We accept records of vary rare birds based on single observer sight records only. Not a problem. From a scientific point of view (and in terms of publication in eg Science) YES. For publication in the scientific literature you need to present the data in a way that someone else can objectively reanalyse it and come to the same conclusion. I'm not aware of any IBWO evidence that fulfils that.
Click to expand...

Hello Doc - you may or may not be aware that many USA state rarity committees require a photograph or video for a first record of a species to be accepted otherwise it goes onto a "hypothetical" list. I think this is also the case for the national committee in the USA. I've never agreed with this approach (but I have co-found a first state record of a species and provided photos of it - but the description was much more illuminating than the photos!!).

Obviously IBWO is not a first but I do agree with you that for such a rare bird (rare enough for SOME people to think it is extinct) that a similar quality of documentation is required.

None of the recent (this century) records (that I am aware of) come even close to this level of documentation.



Docmartin said:
A specimen would help too.
Click to expand...

Steady !!
 
cheers Martin

agree with all your points

Red Data books will publish 'sightings' in a form something like 'there have been reports of birds in xxxx but so far these reports have not been verified' Such as with Silvery Pigeon (of which i may have seen two in 2000 in the correct habitat: Peat Swamp forest in Sumatra but didn't have suffiecinet observation to document them fully). Unreliable reports will be ignored.

nice to see Timeshadowed is speaking to me again.
 
Posted by DocMartin
post #5296

Can I answer these too? I think the answers are very similar, from a bird-recording point of view, to the criteria required for a first national record or (in Britain) elveation of a Category B (old records) bird to Category A (recent records). In which case answer 1 is clear

1. As a bare minimum, the bird should be seen well by at least one competent observer.
For IBWO, I would expect that to be a perched bird, at least for part of the time. The description should include all the critical identification features of the bird. The description should be sufficient to eliminate all other possibilities (any other species of native or escapee woodpecker). The description should contain nothing that is absolutely wrong for the species in question. The length and circumstances of observation should be consistent with the collection of that description. These are the criteria we apply for national firsts, and I think it's reasonable to expect similar levels of proof before IBWO is back on the 'extant' list.
Maybe some of the recent sight records fulfil these criteria, though I haven't heard of any.

2. See 1 above.

3. From a bird-recording point of view, no. We accept records of vary rare birds based on single observer sight records only. Not a problem. From a scientific point of view (and in terms of publication in eg Science) YES. For publication in the scientific literature you need to present the data in a way that someone else can objectively reanalyse it and come to the same conclusion. I'm not aware of any IBWO evidence that fulfils that. A specimen would help too. A clear photo or a specimen would lower the burden of proof in 1.
-------------------------
All these criteria have been met in detail, except the photo/video
refer to
www.sheridanzoo.com/ivorybill.htm

make sure to download and read the 6 pdf files at the bottom of page, they contain more information, details and illustrations including multiple field marks and one very rarely mentioned field mark.
 
Although this has been discussed before, I would be interested in hearing people's views on the Cuban ivory-bill observations of the 1980's. As I understand it there is ZERO visual documentation, ZERO acoustic documentation. This episode seems to generate litte skepticism from "Skeptics." I have heard the opinion expressed that since there is no other woodpecker in Cuba even close in size, the likelihood of a misidentification is smaller than in the U.S. I agree with this, but if we accept that ivory-bills existed in Cuba at this time it seems to throw a big monkey wrench into the notion that this large, spectacular bird cannot possibly fly under the radar of professional ornithology for decades at a time.
 
like you said, there are no Pileateds in Cuba to confuse an IBWO with, and the area is 100% more remote than anywhere in the southeastern US.

I know everyone likes to think that there are impenetrable large swamps here, but that's just not true. Most of these areas are used by hunters, have highways cut through them, and some even have yearly Christmas Bird Counts. If we were talking about a smaller, more sedentary species, then yes, I could believe it could hide out, but a large, noisy, less sedentary species is much harder to stay hidden.
 
MacGillivray's Trout said:
I don't believe the bird is extant. Therefore, I am not going to search, and the burden of proof is on you. When one of you shows us something interesting, you'll get more of a response from myself and others. I have a job researching an extant endangered species, and do not have time to chase blurry videos or strange double-knocks.

How about instead of giving excuses for not being able to produce photographs or repeatable observations by independent observers, you entertain the idea that the IBWO really is extinct? I mean, some of you all have looked very, very hard and come up empty-handed. Still waiting for those definitive pics on fishcrow.com.
Click to expand...

Having done the research, seen the bird, heard the drummings, observed the habitat, I cannot entertain the idea that the bird is extinct because I know better. Your position would require me to throw out actually observed facts in favor of your position. Unfortunately, it is your position that is unsupported.

Your "standard" of proof is photo only. I do not subscribe to that theory as it is not, nor has it ever been, the burden of proof for any species. Further, it would require me to state that even though five people have observed the bird, in the same area, within the same time frame, none of whom knew each other at the time, is not evidence. Evidence and proof are synonomous. Simply put it would be stupid to ignore such material, and I am not stupid. If you wish to ignore evidence, well...

And again, without taking the time to look, you have declared a species extinct. Very scientific.
 
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.

Similar threads

Mono
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives on...
Replies
1
Views
809
Lisa W
Lisa W
F
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
15K
jurek
jurek
F
  • Locked
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
23K
ZanderII
Z
F
YouTube videos on habitats, Peru, IBWO, 4K, etc.
Replies
2
Views
1K
400+birder
4
M
  • Locked
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued
32 33 34
Replies
662
Views
61K
Steve
Steve

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top