Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (7 Viewers)

[Winterdune]

Sean,

No one is going to refute that video until there is something to refute - namely a publication (Fishcrow knows this, he has 6.02X10ee23 publications). Why? Because until it is published - until the words defining why that bird is not a PIWO are set in stone, reviewed and published, then the vid is just a moving target.

I don't mean in a journal - I just mean here, on the chattering internet. Reasonable birders love to argue the toss. In the UK we say things like "Come off it mate, it's clearly not an X - just take a look at that trailing edge/bill-to-head ratio/stance/tertial patterning/primary projection/jizz/wing-to-body length etc. I'm just surprised no-one wants to do that here. I KNOW the vid is poor quality, but Cinclodes has been, for all his occasional pomposity and OTT quoting of the classics, remarkably consistent about why he thinks his video shows an Ivory-bill, and has, to be fair to him, been totally up-front in his interpretation of his video. And since even I, with only little experience of Pileated, can clearly see it's a big pecker there, which doesn't seem quite right for a Pileated, and can sort of see what he's getting at in his analysis, then my qestion remains why will no-one in the chattering-internet-skeptics-decent-birders camp say "Come off it mate, it's clearly not because..."

Sean

 

[Katy Penland]

Too bad one of the searchers didn't do to one of their IBWO possibilities what searchers did in 2004 to ID both the Manu Road "Kill Bill Tanager" in Peru and the "Smithville Lake" gull in the US:

Just shoot one right out of the sky.

:C

 

[Snowy1]

I think you scared everyone silent, Katy. Either that or they're all watching football.

 

[fishcrow]

Because until it is published - until the words defining why that bird is not a PIWO are set in stone, reviewed and published, then the vid is just a moving target.

Piltdownwoman is on my ignore list, but I noticed the above revealing quote in seanofford's post. I would like to think that most of us are approaching the ivorybill as an important conservation issue. Unfortunately, there are some who regard anyone who claims to see it and any evidence of its existence to be a target.

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

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

People that claim Ivory Bills are extinct because we haven't found one are no different than the people that say there were no WMD in Iraq because we didn't find them.

I am saying (and I apologize for not making this clearer to you) that it amuses me to see people argue that the Ivory Bill is not extinct - but they think not finding WMD means they don't exist.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I happen to find that contradiction delightfully self-serving.

But, to get back on topic - I believe the IBW may yet exist.

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

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.

Not mockery at all - just a gentle reminder to people who might believe in proving a negative when it suits them that such a thing should be evenly applied to other subject areas.

 

[curunir]

Since an ivorybill is so massive, it's thin wings don't provide enough lift to support its body until it gets up to cruising speed. So it's obvious that deep flaps are required at takeoff (unless the flight begins with a downward swoop). Deep flaps are also required for short flights, such as the flight across the fork in the video. This is just basic physics. There are apparently two reasons why ivorybills don't tuck their wings. At takeoff, they are too busy flapping like mad to stay aloft. While crusing, the pintail-like flapping is incompatible with wing tucking. There are classical reports of the sound that ivorybills make in flight. Do these accounts refer to the rapid flaps during takeoff or the pintail-like flaps during cruising? The sounds recorded in 1935 were evidently during takeoff since it was near the nest.

How does a pintail take off? Often straight up! I know there's some stock footage of that. Probably shows some deep deep flaps too.

 

[fishcrow]

How does a pintail take off? Often straight up! I know there's some stock footage of that. Probably shows some deep deep flaps too.

Ivorybill flaps are like pintail flaps while cruising, but the pintail isn't a good model for the takeoff since, as you said, they tend to explode upward. A large raptor taking off in level flight would be a better fit. I will try to get some footage and do some comparisons.

 

[curunir]

Ivorybill flaps are like pintail flaps while cruising, but the pintail isn't a good model for the takeoff since, as you said, they tend to explode upward. A large raptor taking off in level flight would be a better fit. I will try to get some footage and do some comparisons.

The video also seems to show a pretty short flight, could a lot of that have been augmented by a strong take off jump? IWBO legs have to be awfully strong.

 

[curunir]

Too bad one of the searchers didn't do to one of their IBWO possibilities what searchers did in 2004 to ID both the Manu Road "Kill Bill Tanager" in Peru and the "Smithville Lake" gull in the US:

Just shoot one right out of the sky.

:C

Is Katy losing it? The above sounds like a Y chromosome statement to me.

 

[fishcrow]

The video also seems to show a pretty short flight, could a lot of that have been augmented by a strong take off jump? IWBO legs have to be awfully strong.

It does leap a fair distance through the air before the first flap on the short flight across the fork.

 

[MMinNY]

What an utterly bogus analogy. And what an astoundingly pompous and presumptuous "gentle reminder".

Not mockery at all - just a gentle reminder to people who might believe in proving a negative when it suits them that such a thing should be evenly applied to other subject areas.

 

[MMinNY]

On a more on topic note, and for those who missed it, there's a new thread here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=60639&highlight=ivory+bill

Post #7, in particular, is interesting on a number of counts. I'm not taking a position on the accuracy of the claim, but the post is worth reading.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Piltdownwoman is on my ignore list, but I noticed the above revealing quote in seanofford's post. I would like to think that most of us are approaching the ivorybill as an important conservation issue. Unfortunately, there are some who regard anyone who claims to see it and any evidence of its existence to be a target.

Aw c'mon mate, only one day on the ignore list! It was going so well!

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Piltdownwoman is on my ignore list, but I noticed the above revealing quote in seanofford's post. I would like to think that most of us are approaching the ivorybill as an important conservation issue. Unfortunately, there are some who regard anyone who claims to see it and any evidence of its existence to be a target.

Oh yeah, the key wordwas "moving" not "target". Unless you spell it out (like you do with you "other" science all the time according to your CV) and send it to a journal there is nothing to respond to - unless you want to be nice and send it out to some folks to have a look at.


And again, Machiavelli?!!

 

[gws]

Too bad one of the searchers didn't do to one of their IBWO possibilities what searchers did in 2004 to ID both the Manu Road "Kill Bill Tanager" in Peru and the "Smithville Lake" gull in the US:

Just shoot one right out of the sky.

:C

I cringe every time someone makes a reference to doing something like this, even when they are joking.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Too bad one of the searchers didn't do to one of their IBWO possibilities what searchers did in 2004 to ID both the Manu Road "Kill Bill Tanager" in Peru and the "Smithville Lake" gull in the US:

Just shoot one right out of the sky.

:C

For some that has been the only proof acceptable. It has happened at least maybe twice. Spencer in LA, and some farmer near the Big Thicket did it in the 60's early 70's. However, with that report some have told me that the bird shot was actually a pileated. I have seen accounts go both ways.

For most professional ornithologists that seems to be the only proof acceptable which is one of the reasons I am constantly restating this. People need to learn from past mistakes, but clearly are not going to.

The fellow in the Big thicket sounded like a stereotyped redneck southerner (no offense, the guy apparently was just that). Just what we need today. More idiots out shooting the birds because they are so "rare". Too bad much of the "rareness" is also hyped by people that demand proof in the form of a dead carcass.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

I cringe every time someone makes a reference to doing something like this, even when they are joking.

Agreed. Its like joking about cancer in a hospital. It just aint funny, and there are people out there saying they want to bag one. Most are joking. However, I know too many people that would think it was just fine. One idiot was out shooting blue heron the other day just for the heck of it. Big joke. He was shooting birds in a rookery no less.

 

[Steve G]

Agreed. Its like joking about cancer in a hospital. It just aint funny, and there are people out there saying they want to bag one. Most are joking. However, I know too many people that would think it was just fine. One idiot was out shooting blue heron the other day just for the heck of it. Big joke. He was shooting birds in a rookery no less.

& George W. wants the USA to police the world....... errr no thanks! :gn:

 

[Bonsaibirder]

people that demand proof in the form of a dead carcass.

Hi Jesse,

This line appears regularly in one form or another - can you give an example of someone who actually "demands" the shooting of an IBWO in order to prove its existence.