Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

Ah! Vindiction

This from the New York Times this a.m.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02bird.html

You may have to sign on (free)

KCFoggin said:

This from the New York Times this a.m.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02bird.html

You may have to sign on (free)

Click to expand...

so my cynicism seems to be unfounded. One of those times I'm happy to be wrong

Me too Pete

JTF... what kind of proof do you need???? to see one yourself?

Elvis is NOT dead

choupique1 said:

JTF... what kind of proof do you need???? to see one yourself?

Click to expand...

I've always been hopeful since I first read up on this bird from an old National Geographic piece done on the bird in the 60's that somehow this bird survived somewhere.

When the orthonologists who first re-discovered the bird went public with it.. they knew their credibility would be on the line, so they were obviously confident in what they saw and heard.. so I didnt really have a reason to doubt them.

This NYT article detailing about the skeptical scientists now being convinced after listening to the sound recordings would appear to be the final peice of the puzzle.

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus...

Actually, according to a nature.com story, Prum still believes that the bird in the video is a pileated. I find it rather amusing that anyone would withdraw a paper about a video based on audio evidence, which after all is not that difficult to manufacture. Especially now that this bird is in the public eye, there is a danger of frauds and hoaxes. There is always room for doubt. Which brings us right back to the dogma of extinction. Why did we ever think the bird was extinct? What evidence did we have? It was nothing but a theology, which cost us habitat. Every sighting should be taken seriously, and every piece of evidence should be examined critically.

"Why did we ever think the bird was extinct?"

Because the "experts" decided they were, and couldn't be bothered with reported sightings from little people out there in the real world.

That is now all in the past. What is important now is to do everything possible to protect and create habitat.

Which includes making sure the Endangered Species Act remains viable. The greedheads hate that rule and want to weaken it as much as possible.

gws said:

"Why did we ever think the bird was extinct?"

Because the "experts" decided they were, and couldn't be bothered with reported sightings from little people out there in the real world.

That is now all in the past. What is important now is to do everything possible to protect and create habitat.

Click to expand...

Add to that the fact that most bird guides list it as "probably extinct" I wonder how many people saw them and brushed it off as a Pileated as the guide says the IB doesn't exist.

KCFoggin said:

Add to that the fact that most bird guides list it as "probably extinct" I wonder how many people saw them and brushed it off as a Pileated as the guide says the IB doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I think the bird guides were reacting to the "experts" KC.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

I'm certainly not blaming the bird guides Mark ...more an observation but I imagine if I had a fleeting glimpse of one I don't know that I wouldn't have declared it a Pileated based upon what I've read in my guides that the Ivory-billed was no longer around. How many others would do/have done this as well.

Well the IBW "chat activity meter" certainly has risen in the last few days, and with good reason. It looks like there may be 4 IBWs that were seen/heard recently -2 birds in the recording, 1 in the Cache, and Mary Scott's sighting. I believe there are many more pockets in the southeast where the IBW is yet to be found. In fact, a friend of mine today has informed me of 2 birds being seen on private property at an undisclosed location in the "southeast" - not in Arkansas. He will be travelling to verify the sightings shortly. Unfortunately he can't be more specific on the location for obvious reasons. Bottom line, they're out there.

"Bottom line, they're out there."

Right!

All this mental masturbation back and forth in the press between the skeptics, believers, skeptics turned believers, believers now demonstrating skepticism, etc, etc, demonstrate why academics are generally a pretty ineffectual bunch.

Meanwhile, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker still survives despite all that has been done to it.

I suppose a true skeptic might question also the validity of a recording!

At some point you must trust the people who are doing the reporting, whether it is a photograph, a video, a personal sighting or an audio. In other words what are the credentials of the persons who are doing the documenting. Of course, there are sometimes novice birders who can have extraordinary sightings. Perhaps this fact also entered into the equation of the "tale of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker".

Yes, indeed. If the video was no good, then why are the recordings any better? I suppose the answer is that they are "clearer" than the video. But I'm continually troubled that these guys were apparently ready to go to print without examining the best evidence, which means the original and "enhanced" videos and the audio recordings. I don't want to send this thread wildly off-topic, but I know of another area of interest where sensational conclusions are often reached, and a small publishing industry has been created, based almost exclusively on lo-res on-line photos and on highly edited, umpteenth-generation videos. I expect better from distinguished ornithologists.

I have a question -- how does one authenticate any sound recording as to the date of the recording? Isn't this one of the reasons sound recordings of "evidence" aren't admissable in legal proceedings? (Sorry, that was two questions. )

There is a nice article about the return of the Ghost Bird in the August issue of Smithsonian, by Scott Weidensaul.

HGR, I believe you do make some good arguments for us to be skeptical of the alleged Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports (both the visual sightings and the audio recordings). You point out the possibilities of other entities resembling IBWOs could be coming into play.

I have seen statements such as "We believe because we want to believe." And in certain cases I think this may be true. I have always thought that the possibility of the IBWO still hanging on somewhere did exist. And I think that not only have some of the people who are currently involved in the search have seen it, but also some of those other individuals reporting over the last several decades have also seen this elusive bird. I guess it is just a "gut feeling" that I have. I believe!

But it would certainly be nice to have truly "indisputable" evidence of this species's continued existence in the hardwood swamps of the southeastern US.

1. Aside from the Pearl River search of 2002, what "massive search efforts" are you talking about? The total population of Ivory-bills is small. Local populations are probably mobile, scooting from one bottomland forest to the next at any sign of disturbance. I'd suggest that "massive" searches are less likely to see Ivory-bills than lone hunters. For one thing, birders can't seem to shut up if more than one is present, and even the best birders (judged by their life lists) can often be unbelievably noisy and obnoxious in situations that call for quiet and stealth. And if a crew of ornithologists, assistants and grad students descend on a swamp, you can pretty well guarantee that the birds are going to be in the next state by the time these guys get their gear unpacked.

2. Several of the looks in the recent episode were (judging only by what I read in "The Grail Bird") more than fleeting, though the lengthier ones were distant (agreed).

3. WRT the recordings, the charge here is that the researchers would blithely take at face value any chance sounds that resemble Ivory-bill sounds, that they wouldn't consider other possibilities and do some comparative analysis. hgr389: have you heard the recordings? If not, then you are in no position to judge what's on them. I haven't heard them, either, of course. But I'd offer this: one double-tap wouldn't mean much. A double-tap on the Pearl River tapes was ultimately shown to be distant gunshots (so they can tell the difference). But multiple double taps, in close proximity in both time and space, are worthy of further examination. "Kent" calls in association with the double-taps would be further evidence. Other instances of associated double-tap/kent calls could be very significant. I don't know if that's what they have, but I suspect they've done more than just assume that any chance sounds are Ivory-bills.

4. Other sightings since 1944 were probably authentic. The problem isn't that people haven't seen the birds. It's not even that expert ornithologists haven't seen the birds. It's that more than one expert wasn't present at the same time.

fangsheath said:

Actually, according to a nature.com story, Prum still believes that the bird in the video is a pileated. I find it rather amusing that anyone would withdraw a paper about a video based on audio evidence, which after all is not that difficult to manufacture. Especially now that this bird is in the public eye, there is a danger of frauds and hoaxes. There is always room for doubt. Which brings us right back to the dogma of extinction. Why did we ever think the bird was extinct? What evidence did we have? It was nothing but a theology, which cost us habitat. Every sighting should be taken seriously, and every piece of evidence should be examined critically.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, Prum was convinced of the IBWP survival by the sound recording reported on in newspapers the other day. Yes, the bird in the video may still be a Pileated, but I saw the video myself on a website, and am convinced it's an IBWP.