Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (14 Viewers)

[Curtis Croulet]

I guess cause I have a job. Why aren't the rest of you there?

All anyone is trying to do here is look at the evidence and see if it eliminates PIWO and if it does, does it fit IBWO.

No. That may be your stance, but not that of someone else who's posted here today, e.g. "b) there are no birds there."

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The songs on Fishcrow's web site sound like dead ringers for Blue Jays

Actually, I also thought the calls were Blue Jays.

 

[MMinNY]

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to detail your reasons for believing it's extinct. I'm sure you know the difference. I also asked you to state what would lead you to change your mind. You haven't answered either question; instead, you've changed the subject, and that's why "casual" bothers me.

As to "all over the place", I think that's a significant distortion of what people believe; the most optimistic speculation I've read or discussed privately with posters here is that there are perhaps 100-150 ivory-bills in small, scattered populations (I suspect this is the case, but that's pure guesswork on my part). This hardly amounts to "all over the place". Again, "casual" comes off as glib and condescending at best and disingenuous at worst.

It might be there, i obviously don't know for sure it isn't... but it's mightily difficult to prove a negative isn't it? However, we're inching closer to that proof every day. The Luneau video is dead in the water i reckon.

I post on this thread to counter the twaddle that people might read and think has some backing in the birding world. Discussions on other forums are very different to this one. This appears to be about the only place where people still believe IBWOs are all over the place

Decent field notes from Mike would help of course but if you keep seeing them, don't write field notes on the spot, read too much into blurry videos, have some similar 'issues' regarding records in the past then...

I am very casual, I'm just having fun... while standing behind everything i write

I travel, watch birds, animals, plants, have edited ornthological stuff for OBC - the whole lot, never been big on labels though. We'd never have published that Science travesty though...

Love and Kisses
Tim

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Are you saying you are convinced the ivory-bill is extinct? That seems to go well beyond what most academic skeptics have contended (I don't know about others such as Tom Nelson); I don't think Piltdownwoman would agree either, based on her most recent post.

If that's really what you believe, then I would be interested in reading a thoughtful and comprehensive explanation of your opinion and how you arrived at it. I'm sure I won't agree, as I've ready made it clear I think such a presumption is unfounded. Nevertheless, you've apparently just embraced an extreme view, in a very casual way; I think you should elaborate. It also makes me wonder about a couple of things: since your mind is made up, why do you waste your time with this forum, and just what would it take to persuade you that you're mistaken? Clearly, better field notes from Mike Collins would not be adequate.

Warning, Opinion Contradictory To Most Of The Rest Of You Follows:

I do think that IBWO is extinct, but am absolutely dying to be flat out wrong. This is not an extreme view - an extreme view would be, I think, that there are several breeding populations of this species alive and well in the southeastern US.

I think it is worth looking for the bird because I know I can be wrong with that opinion that the bird is extinct, cause it is only an opinion, and the cost of being wrong about that is very high. I also know that in my lifetime we will never ever see that bird declared extinct.

I think that other people can be wrong too, and I think that sometimes when people really want to see something they make mistakes. I don't think people lie about bird sightings very often (I did know one extrordinary stringer who saw rarities all the time that no one else saw - an exception I think), and I don't think that anyone is lying now. I think dragging out the "lying" is like something a High School kid would do. Documentation stands alone, with nothing personal attached. I also think that there has been no documentation that the bird is extant for a very long time.

I think that there has been lots of searching, I know that people don't laugh at people who report the bird (unless it is at a feeder in Ontario) - after some other reports we ended up with things like the Big Thicket being preserved, but alas, no IBWO. I don't think people who report the bird are nuts. I think that to prove that this critter is alive requires photos or videos.

I post here because you seem to have a lot of what the Pentagon calls "incestuous amplification" - you talk and talk and talk to each other about a very serious claim and if there is no voice for the other side you only hear the sound of one hand clapping. I think that makes your arguments weak, and hurts science and the bird.

I post here because it sharpens my arguments, allows me to re-evaluate my opinions, and makes me understand the landscape better. These claims are not child's play, and if they are made without evidence will pollute the information stream for the rest of my lifetime. I think they have already done that. I think that anyone who claims this bird should have to prove it. I do that for the bird itself (I really don't think it deseves to be killed twice) and for the science that I have lived and loved for twenty-five years.

I am willing to be wrong - would love to be. Me, and the rest of the world wants a video or some photos that are identifiable - it isn't personal.

So go ahead, pick the requested manifesto apart, my spelling, rational, sappy feelings about the bird and about accuracy of the records. Go back to one hand clapping - block my posts, tie me to the fireant nest . This was a magnificent bird and it graced my favorite habitat in the USA. It was the King and Queen. It fell because of greed and war. We should honor it with a demand to do better - which I guess is what I am doing.

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

I post here because you seem to have a lot of what the Pentagon calls "incestuous amplification" - you talk and talk and talk to each other about a very serious claim and if there is no voice for the other side you only hear the sound of one hand clapping. I think that makes your arguments weak, and hurts science and the bird.

Well spoken. But you are right - most people have already filtered you. I think it's a UK thing.

"Proving" an IBWP exists is, for them, choppy video of what looks like a pelican.

Proving one extinct is impossible - that would be proving a negative.

That's why I think it is funny when those same people say there were no WMD in Iraq

(The "Report Bad Post" icon is that little red triangle thing....)

 

[fishcrow]

The songs on Fishcrow's web site sound like dead ringers for Blue Jays

On my website, I fully acknowledge that the call is similar to the Blue Jay bell call, but there are many examples of calls by different species that sound similar. It is worth keeping an open mind about these calls for the following reasons:

* When heard live, the calls sounded more metallic and eerie than the Blue Jay call.

* The calls started immediately after an ivorybill was flushed and came from the spot where it flew. The first series of calls lasted for about three minutes. After getting the camera running, I recorded 15 calls in 2 minutes.

* A few minutes later, 4 more calls came from the area where the bird was then captured on video. So both sets of calls were correlated in time and location with the ivorybill.

* There were no other Blue-Jay-like calls or any other sign of a Blue Jay in the area the entire morning. The ivorybill encounter lasted for more than 12 minutes between the time it flushed and the video was obtained. I kept a close watch on the area where the calls were coming the entire time. It is possible that it was a Blue Jay, but it seems odd that it would remain hidden, especially since the source of the calls was moving around. In all of the thousands of times I have seen Blue Jays, they almost always make themselves visible and give a mixture of calls. The exceptions are the rare times I have heard Blue Jays singing, but even then I saw them. In case anyone is not aware, the Blue Jay actually has a beautiful song that is rarely heard.

* This call was also heard in connection with sightings in another state. I can't go into details since that information has not yet been officially released (but it should be soon).

* There is a high-pitched ivorybill call that was reported by Tanner but never recorded.

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

* This call was also heard in connection with sightings in another state. I can't go into details since that information has not yet been officially released (but it should be soon).

Cool. The world of the IBWP (if it still exits) just got MUCH smaller. That's enough of a clue to get every "eco tourist" out to the very small border region of the park.

 

[MMinNY]

Actually, I didn't request the manifesto from you, but I think you've articulated your position reasonably and well, though I don't agree with you. I'm not going to pick your response apart, but there are two significant points that I do want to address.

First, saying "there are no birds there" or being convinced the ivory-bill is extinct is not the same as saying "I think the IBWO is extinct, but am absolutely dying to be flat out wrong." It is the former statement that I called extreme.

It's a distortion to say that people "don't laugh at people who report the bird". The long history of vilification of people who make reports is well-documented in The Grail Bird, and if that satirical article about sightings (that included Steve Sheridan's) isn't ridicule, I don't know what is.

On edit: The same goes for Terry O'Nolley's snide comments just upthread.

Warning, Opinion Contradictory To Most Of The Rest Of You Follows:

I do think that IBWO is extinct, but am absolutely dying to be flat out wrong. This is not an extreme view - an extreme view would be, I think, that there are several breeding populations of this species alive and well in the southeastern US.

I think it is worth looking for the bird because I know I can be wrong with that opinion that the bird is extinct, cause it is only an opinion, and the cost of being wrong about that is very high. I also know that in my lifetime we will never ever see that bird declared extinct.

I think that other people can be wrong too, and I think that sometimes when people really want to see something they make mistakes. I don't think people lie about bird sightings very often (I did know one extrordinary stringer who saw rarities all the time that no one else saw - an exception I think), and I don't think that anyone is lying now. I think dragging out the "lying" is like something a High School kid would do. Documentation stands alone, with nothing personal attached. I also think that there has been no documentation that the bird is extant for a very long time.

I think that there has been lots of searching, I know that people don't laugh at people who report the bird (unless it is at a feeder in Ontario) - after some other reports we ended up with things like the Big Thicket being preserved, but alas, no IBWO. I don't think people who report the bird are nuts. I think that to prove that this critter is alive requires photos or videos.

I post here because you seem to have a lot of what the Pentagon calls "incestuous amplification" - you talk and talk and talk to each other about a very serious claim and if there is no voice for the other side you only hear the sound of one hand clapping. I think that makes your arguments weak, and hurts science and the bird.

I post here because it sharpens my arguments, allows me to re-evaluate my opinions, and makes me understand the landscape better. These claims are not child's play, and if they are made without evidence will pollute the information stream for the rest of my lifetime. I think they have already done that. I think that anyone who claims this bird should have to prove it. I do that for the bird itself (I really don't think it deseves to be killed twice) and for the science that I have lived and loved for twenty-five years.

I am willing to be wrong - would love to be. Me, and the rest of the world wants a video or some photos that are identifiable - it isn't personal.

So go ahead, pick the requested manifesto apart, my spelling, rational, sappy feelings about the bird and about accuracy of the records. Go back to one hand clapping - block my posts, tie me to the fireant nest . This was a magnificent bird and it graced my favorite habitat in the USA. It was the King and Queen. It fell because of greed and war. We should honor it with a demand to do better - which I guess is what I am doing.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Mike: you may be right about the calls. But when it finally squeezes out of my little computer speaker, it sounds like a Blue Jay. I wouldn't doubt that there are overtones that are completely missing from what I hear, and maybe if I heard them I'd say, "Well, yeah, that is different!"

On edit: The same goes for Terry O'Nolley's snide comments just upthread.

I don't get O'Nolley's point about WMDs. In fact, to me his post #4529 is incomprehensible.

 

[fishcrow]

...an extreme view would be, I think, that there are several breeding populations of this species alive and well in the southeastern US.

This view is consistent with the fact that there have been many sightings (including many by reputable observers) throughout the range over the years. If the species has hung on for so many decades (and I have seen and heard for myself that it has), then there must be several small populations scattered about. This is not an extreme view. It is simply a matter of basic biology and probability. There is no way that an isolated population consisting of few birds could have survived for so long. Many wildlife officials in the U.S. evidently have the same view, as they have launched searches throughout the range. As I mentioned earlier, one of these searches has already hit paydirt.

 

[MMinNY]

It is indeed incomprehensible, but it's clearly intended as mockery, probably of me, since I posted quite some time ago that I never believed that Iraq had WMDs. But perhaps I'm flattering myself.

I don't get O'Nolley's point about WMDs. In fact, to me his post #4529 is incomprehensible.

 

[Grousemore]

First, saying "there are no birds there" or being convinced the ivory-bill is extinct is not the same as saying "I think the IBWO is extinct, but am absolutely dying to be flat out wrong." It is the former statement that I called extreme.

It's a distortion to say that people "don't laugh at people who report the bird". The long history of vilification of people who make reports is well-documented in The Grail Bird, and if that satirical article about sightings (that included Steve Sheridan's) isn't ridicule, I don't know what is.

I think you are quite correct in these statements and I am dubious of the motives of those who are trying to ridicule this situation.

An individual's personal opinion on the existence or otherwise of the IBWO, is really irrelevant if some who do believe are searching in their own time and at their own expense, encouraged by some enthusiastic support on this Thread. What is the point of trying to belittle these efforts?
This sniping from a distance and being boorish in the process is unedifying and speaks more of self-opinion, rather than any serious attempt to determine the status of the IBWO.

 

[tmguy]

birds

For this being "The net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds" I'm surprised by how completely pointless much of the bantering that has occured is.

There are many people involved in searches that have yielded results that wouldn't so much as look at these threads because of the tones let alone share.

There are people in the US Fish and Wildlife service that have seen the evidence, even seen the birds in some cases and simply put, are keeping it to themselves until such time as it becomes nescessary to use that information to protect land and the bird.

Why would anyone keep this to themselves? Why would government officers keep it to themselves? Because the bickering between the percieved highest experts on this species and ornithology in general is no different than the bickering that goes on here. And why would anyone trust this bird's future and it's habitat to the people who have displayed behavior much like two 5 year olds in a sandlot?

The people who need to know do know. And I suppose when there is an arena of intelligent information sharing then this info can be shared but please, don't expect anyone to come rushing to Birdforum, or Cornell, with real evidence.

But I know there are people here who have seen them and I applaud them getting off their duff to find them. I just hope they have the fortitude to use the information they get to do best for the birds and not self glory or a need to bolster their own reputation.

Bill

 

[Snowy1]

Well said. I needn't say more.

For this being "The net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds" I'm surprised by how completely pointless much of the bantering that has occured is.

There are many people involved in searches that have yielded results that wouldn't so much as look at these threads because of the tones let alone share.

There are people in the US Fish and Wildlife service that have seen the evidence, even seen the birds in some cases and simply put, are keeping it to themselves until such time as it becomes nescessary to use that information to protect land and the bird.

Why would anyone keep this to themselves? Why would government officers keep it to themselves? Because the bickering between the percieved highest experts on this species and ornithology in general is no different than the bickering that goes on here. And why would anyone trust this bird's future and it's habitat to the people who have displayed behavior much like two 5 year olds in a sandlot?

The people who need to know do know. And I suppose when there is an arena of intelligent information sharing then this info can be shared but please, don't expect anyone to come rushing to Birdforum, or Cornell, with real evidence.

But I know there are people here who have seen them and I applaud them getting off their duff to find them. I just hope they have the fortitude to use the information they get to do best for the birds and not self glory or a need to bolster their own reputation.

Bill

 

[MMinNY]

Ummm. . .hang on a second. I just sent you a grateful PM, but your handle and your location require me to ask. Are you the same Bill as "Bill Smith" aka "That Magic Guy"?. . .Pretty close to tmguy, and you're in Florida too. You don't make his punctuation errors, and your writing style is generally more lucid, but "Bill Smith" and his way of writing could have been a pose.

If so, it's really time to come clean. What's your story; what's up with the decoy ivory-bill in the orange tree, and what's your agenda?

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but (nota bene skeptics) I'm capable of skepticism myself.

For this being "The net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds" I'm surprised by how completely pointless much of the bantering that has occured is.

There are many people involved in searches that have yielded results that wouldn't so much as look at these threads because of the tones let alone share.

There are people in the US Fish and Wildlife service that have seen the evidence, even seen the birds in some cases and simply put, are keeping it to themselves until such time as it becomes nescessary to use that information to protect land and the bird.

Why would anyone keep this to themselves? Why would government officers keep it to themselves? Because the bickering between the percieved highest experts on this species and ornithology in general is no different than the bickering that goes on here. And why would anyone trust this bird's future and it's habitat to the people who have displayed behavior much like two 5 year olds in a sandlot?

The people who need to know do know. And I suppose when there is an arena of intelligent information sharing then this info can be shared but please, don't expect anyone to come rushing to Birdforum, or Cornell, with real evidence.

But I know there are people here who have seen them and I applaud them getting off their duff to find them. I just hope they have the fortitude to use the information they get to do best for the birds and not self glory or a need to bolster their own reputation.

Bill

 

[timeshadowed]

Ummm. . .hang on a second. I just sent you a grateful PM, but your handle and your location require me to ask. Are you the same Bill as "Bill Smith" aka "That Magic Guy"?. . .Pretty close to tmguy, and you're in Florida too.

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I don't get O'Nolley's point about WMDs. In fact, to me his post #4529 is incomprehensible.

Hi Curtis - I think we agree about something finally !

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Thanks for doing that MMinNY. I was going to ask the same question.

BTW, I'm still hoping for an explanation of the two black areas on the Luneau video from this post:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=608456#post608456

Anyone that thinks the video is an IBWO that is. (those numbers seem to be dropping).

Ummm. . .hang on a second. I just sent you a grateful PM, but your handle and your location require me to ask. Are you the same Bill as "Bill Smith" aka "That Magic Guy"?. . .Pretty close to tmguy, and you're in Florida too. You don't make his punctuation errors, and your writing style is generally more lucid, but "Bill Smith" and his way of writing could have been a pose.

If so, it's really time to come clean. What's your story; what's up with the decoy ivory-bill in the orange tree, and what's your agenda?

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but (nota bene skeptics) I'm capable of skepticism myself.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Mike (aka Fishcrow),

Do you have any idea why no one initiated a 'blitz' into your area after you put the videos and other evidence online? (ignore this question if they did)

In Ark., when a volunteer would get an interesting encounter, the next day, Cornell would saturate the area with the available full-time staff in the hopes of a better sighting. I know you weren't affiliated with Cornell, but it seems that if someone is reporting multiple views over a couple of days, the prudent thing to do would be to send in a dozen observers to quietly work the area hoping to pin down the location of a roost/nest tree.

I know you were/are concerned about disturbance, but I would think Cornell has a pretty big interest in confirming IBWOs anywhere (not just AR).

 

[Edward woodwood]

I guess cause I have a job. Why aren't the rest of you there?

All anyone is trying to do here is look at the evidence and see if it eliminates PIWO and if it does, does it fit IBWO. The suggestions of going back out and getting better video was actually made in good faith. It is posted on the web site as an IBWO and by doing that invites comment (I thought that was what this was all about?) .

Quite,
despite all the 'personal sniping' comments, presumably aimed at me and a couple of others who have been 'banned' from this thread (people always hate you if you tell the truth), I don't actually criticise people FOR searching... that's their business of course but...

just go searching and come back with a decent set of notes and a photo if possible. Until then, all this discussion of blurry videos and dodgy calls, without a fully documented appearance by bird isn't making us look good. Especially those who work in any capacity with endangered birds and need to make a case for any funding.

Tim