Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (19 Viewers)

[Edward woodwood]

the Tanager and the woodpecker are different cases

specimens are taken for science - a decision was taken on the tanager by very experienced people. Manu Road (if anyone knows it?) is part of a huge area of forest abutting the Manu Biosphere reserve. There is no reason to suppose that taking a specimen will have any detrimental effect on the species long term survival. It has been covered ad nauseum in a thread already

Mike, as you're a widely published scientist, i am finding it increasingly difficult to understand your laissez-faire approach to bird records. You must realise you need to do something with that video and get something into print?

Tim

 

[Xenospiza]

... shoot one right out of the sky.

That's exactly how the Pohnpei Starling was rediscovered in 1995: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v113n01/p0229-p0230.pdf

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

the Tanager and the woodpecker are different cases

specimens are taken for science - a decision was taken on the tanager by very experienced people. Manu Road (if anyone knows it?) is part of a huge area of forest abutting the Manu Biosphere reserve. There is no reason to suppose that taking a specimen will have any detrimental effect on the species long term survival.

No proof that it wouldn't have a detrimental effect either.

 

[MMinNY]

I'm not aware of anyone who has demanded it, and I suspect Jesse was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. A handful of old-school ornithologists might feel that way, but I can't imagine they'd say so publicly. I do see a significant risk that some people might interpret "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to mean just that.

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.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

I'm not aware of anyone who has demanded it, and I suspect Jesse was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. A handful of old-school ornithologists might feel that way, but I can't imagine they'd say so publicly. I do see a significant risk that some people might interpret "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to mean just that.

And speaking of hyperbole...using Nelson's tag line to suggest that it may make collectors collect is a bit much. His quote does not add "significant risk" to the probablility that this bird would be collected to add to proof. Nelson's tag line is accurate, this bird needs a video that is identifiable - it is just not fair to even suggest that the guy could be rousing the passions of the trigger-happy old-school ornithologists.

If you care, you should find out from USFWS if anyone has a permit to collect an IBWO, and if not, would they issue a permit to either a person or institution to do so.

If they would issue a collection permit, and you really care, write to USFWS them en masse and say that if the bird is re-found that you would protest any collection permits being issued to any one or any institution.

All this presupposes that someone ever finds one again, but if y'all care why not do something constructive about it?

 

[MMinNY]

It's not hyperbole at all. How do you define an extraordinary claim? The survival of the IBWO is not extraordinary. The rediscovery of presumably extinct species is a relatively common occurrence. It's certainly not on a par with the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life, which is what Sagan was talking about (still, it was perhaps the most fatuous thing he ever said, even if it sounded good on TV and was a play on someone else's words).

What's extraordinary evidence? Photos, video, corroborated sightings, field notes -- all of these are ordinary. Suggesting that something more is required in this particular case is the first step onto the slippery slope. Nelson's tagline is soundbite science at its worst (though I don't believe he's the only one to have used that soundbite, and I wasn't thinking of him specifically).

I made it very clear that no ornithologist would suggest this publicly, and nowhere did I imply that any ornithologist's "passions" were being aroused, that anyone would seek a permit or that such a permit would be granted. I chose my words carefully. "Old school ornithologists" who might have private feelings are plainly not "some people" who might interpret the soundbite in a certain way. Had I intended to say anything about the former group, I would have used "they" or repeated the word ornithologists in the next sentence.

You persist in distorting the statements of those with whom you disagree. Perhaps this time you were just being careless. If so, you should have the decency to acknowledge it, as I did just yesterday when Agnostic called my attention to an inaccuracy in one of my posts.

And speaking of hyperbole...using Nelson's tag line to suggest that it may make collectors collect is a bit much. His quote does not add "significant risk" to the probablility that this bird would be collected to add to proof. Nelson's tag line is accurate, this bird needs a video that is identifiable - it is just not fair to even suggest that the guy could be rousing the passions of the trigger-happy old-school ornithologists.

If you care, you should find out from USFWS if anyone has a permit to collect an IBWO, and if not, would they issue a permit to either a person or institution to do so.

If they would issue a collection permit, and you really care, write to USFWS them en masse and say that if the bird is re-found that you would protest any collection permits being issued to any one or any institution.

All this presupposes that someone ever finds one again, but if y'all care why not do something constructive about it?

3

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Just did some googling and found this from an old BIRDCHAT post:

-----------------------------------------


Is the birding community *that* paranoid that *any* of you
*really* think that 'collecting' an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is
still a possibility?

If so, you are totally, completely out of your minds.

I can imagine a good ole boy bagging one, without even knowing
it is anything other than a big flashy bird and a tempting
target; but -- speaking as someone who has collected more birds
than you'll ever want to know about -- I can assure you that no
living museum scientist would have any interest whatsoever
in collecting an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

The law would not allow 'collecting' an Ivory-bill either.
But, the reason it would not happen would be, pure and simple,
revulsion at the thought, even on the part of those *do* collect
specimens for research.

There would be quite a few museum ornithologists who would be
as interested as you would in seeing one, but that's another
story. I would *hope* that should something like this come true,
the birding community would retain some sanity and think first
about the best interests of the bird itself, but, frankly, I
wouldn't expect that to be the case.

I don't think there are any Ivory-bills out there anyway --
but, even as skeptical as I am, I would *not* demand 'specimen
evidence' to prove me wrong, and neither would anyone else.


Thomas S. Schulenberg
Environmental and Conservation Programs
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago IL 60605
&
Rapid Assessment Program
Conservation International
1015 18th. Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20036"
---------------------------------------------

 

[pattiwhite]

what ever happened to that fella here who said he had heard or seen these while fishing with his dad and was going to post photos? was a few months ago and i cant find the post now
pw

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

what ever happened to that fella here who said he had heard or seen these while fishing with his dad and was going to post photos? was a few months ago and i cant find the post now
pw

was it in this thread?
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=32628&highlight=Ivorybill

 

[MMinNY]

Just to be clear, I'm more worried about some yahoo with a gun and perhaps a beef with the ESA than any scientist.

My comment about old school ornithologists was purely speculative and based on the current debate about collecting, some of which is reflected upthread.

I still maintain that there's something very problematic about that Sagan quote and its implications.

Just did some googling and found this from an old BIRDCHAT post:

-----------------------------------------


Is the birding community *that* paranoid that *any* of you
*really* think that 'collecting' an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is
still a possibility?

If so, you are totally, completely out of your minds.

I can imagine a good ole boy bagging one, without even knowing
it is anything other than a big flashy bird and a tempting
target; but -- speaking as someone who has collected more birds
than you'll ever want to know about -- I can assure you that no
living museum scientist would have any interest whatsoever
in collecting an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

The law would not allow 'collecting' an Ivory-bill either.
But, the reason it would not happen would be, pure and simple,
revulsion at the thought, even on the part of those *do* collect
specimens for research.

There would be quite a few museum ornithologists who would be
as interested as you would in seeing one, but that's another
story. I would *hope* that should something like this come true,
the birding community would retain some sanity and think first
about the best interests of the bird itself, but, frankly, I
wouldn't expect that to be the case.

I don't think there are any Ivory-bills out there anyway --
but, even as skeptical as I am, I would *not* demand 'specimen
evidence' to prove me wrong, and neither would anyone else.


Thomas S. Schulenberg
Environmental and Conservation Programs
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago IL 60605
&
Rapid Assessment Program
Conservation International
1015 18th. Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20036"
---------------------------------------------

 

[Edward woodwood]

No proof that it wouldn't have a detrimental effect either.

this has been covered already in the other thread.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=21875&page=1&pp=25&highlight=tanager+manu

Rasmus, as usual, explains things better than i ever could. He's a patient boy

Tim

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

For those who need "proof" of my statements and everything else:

Mason D. Spencer, attorney and State legislator had to shoot an IBW because the "authorities" would not believe him. He did it out of frustration, clearly, of being called a liar or a fool.

It happens every time someone says "I saw an IBW", no matter who they be, if not one of the "Gods" of ornithology, the bashing begins. Dennnis had it, numerous "liitle people", people with photos are faking them, people with feathers (that the smithsonian confirms are IBW) are stealing them.

I guess many folks are right. We needn't worry about "bubba" shooting one. Then again, we needn't worry about bridges burning in the White River Area, either.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I'm not aware of anyone who has demanded it, and I suspect Jesse was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. A handful of old-school ornithologists might feel that way, but I can't imagine they'd say so publicly. I do see a significant risk that some people might interpret "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to mean just that.

Several times I have said that only a "bloody carcass" will do. If someone else wants to take credit for inaugurating the phrase in this forum, that's fine with me. I can't quickly find a reference to the original "bloody carcass" incident, which I think was in the 1920s (someone here will give us chapter and verse).

The point is that we are unlikely, in the near future, to get a photograph or video good enough to be immune from challenge. It'll be easier to shoot a bird than to get a good picture of it.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

People do bad things. Even worse things than shooting an IBWO. We will never stop this. Does that mean, we lower our standards for accepting bird records...because we don't want someone to be driven to shoot one. That's ridiculous. The person that shoots an IBWO will do so because he is a sociopath, not because he wants to prove IBWOs exist. He'd be crucified (and prosecuted) for doing it. This is a red herring (MMinNY will probably be able to tell me if I used that term correctly).

I, for one, will be perfectly happy to conclude IBWOs live if I see a photo, and it's not obviously doctored, and it's accompanied by field notes. That's it. It's not really that extraordinary. Hell, for me personally, I'll accept a sighting by someone I know personally that has proven themselves to be a competent birder and emotionally stable. (but remember that's just me)...I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept it.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

It's not hyperbole at all. How do you define an extraordinary claim? The survival of the IBWO is not extraordinary. The rediscovery of presumably extinct species is a relatively common occurrence. It's certainly not on a par with the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life, which is what Sagan was talking about (still, it was perhaps the most fatuous thing he ever said, even if it sounded good on TV and was a play on someone else's words).

What's extraordinary evidence? Photos, video, corroborated sightings, field notes -- all of these are ordinary. Suggesting that something more is required in this particular case is the first step onto the slippery slope. Nelson's tagline is soundbite science at its worst (though I don't believe he's the only one to have used that soundbite, and I wasn't thinking of him specifically).

I made it very clear that no ornithologist would suggest this publicly, and nowhere did I imply that any ornithologist's "passions" were being aroused, that anyone would seek a permit or that such a permit would be granted. I chose my words carefully. "Old school ornithologists" who might have private feelings are plainly not "some people" who might interpret the soundbite in a certain way. Had I intended to say anything about the former group, I would have used "they" or repeated the word ornithologists in the next sentence.

You persist in distorting the statements of those with whom you disagree. Perhaps this time you were just being careless. If so, you should have the decency to acknowledge it, as I did just yesterday when Agnostic called my attention to an inaccuracy in one of my posts.



3

An extraordinary claim is one that is not ordinary. Saying you have seen a bird that no one has been able to document for 60 years is extaordinary.

It is not "relatively common" to rediscover an extinct species of anything, and rediscovering an presumed extinct vertebrate in North America - now lests see how many of those there are. Anyone, anyone?????

ET? c'mon. Stay focused here. The tagline fits all sorts of "discoveries" - it is a measure of the rarity to evidence ratio - simple as that.

Extraordinary evidence in this case just seems to be anything that is identifiable for Pete's Sake. No one but you has suggested that it is collecting. No one is suggesting that more than identifiable video evidence is required. It seems that in this birds that request isn't just extraordinary - it is downright impossible.

You are actually saying that you were not thinking of Nelson whan you wrote that. Well for that I do apologise. I only figured that since he is the anti-Ivory-bill, and has that as the tagline under the name of his blog!!!! that you just may have been thinking of him. It must be someone else, I am so sorry.

Here is how the story went...bonsai wanted to know who might be demanding collecting the birds.

You replied with:
I'm not aware of anyone who has demanded it, and I suspect Jesse was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. A handful of old-school ornithologists might feel that way, but I can't imagine they'd say so publicly. I do see a significant risk that some people might interpret "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to mean just that.

Now you say, what, that you weren't suggesting that the Nelson-type tagline would add a significant risk to people demanding that the bird is collected???? It is not distorted, and wasn't careless. You just keep tearing off the kid gloves and slapping everyone - disgusted and enraged - you never even responded to the "meat" of the post.

My post was made to direct pople's energies toward what they could do if they wanted to have a voice outside of this blog -which oddly enough they may want to know. Lots of people don't know that you need special permits to collect birds, and T&E species require more permitting. So, if y'all want your voices heard, be sure to tell USFWS that you don't want anyone to be issued a permit for IBWO.

 

[MMinNY]

No need to be snide. . .I would contend that it's not a red herring for the reasons I articulated above. The demand for "extraordinary evidence" seeks to raise the standard, not lower it, and as I noted, it's a step onto a slippery slope. Since it leaves the question of just how high unanswered, I find it very troubling. How far does a person have to go? Would someone disturb a nest to get that "extraordinary evidence"? And what would that evidence be? Droppings? A feather? An egg? Of course, this is hypothetical, but it's no less valid for being so.

More importantly, there has been "chatter" on certain websites about the behavior you define as sociopathic. The initial and most important point was that it's not a good idea even to joke about this particular subject. I fully concur with that.

People do bad things. Even worse things than shooting an IBWO. We will never stop this. Does that mean, we lower our standards for accepting bird records...because we don't want someone to be driven to shoot one. That's ridiculous. The person that shoots an IBWO will do so because he is a sociopath, not because he wants to prove IBWOs exist. He'd be crucified (and prosecuted) for doing it. This is a red herring (MMinNY will probably be able to tell me if I used that term correctly).

I, for one, will be perfectly happy to conclude IBWOs live if I see a photo, and it's not obviously doctored, and it's accompanied by field notes. That's it. It's not really that extraordinary. Hell, for me personally, I'll accept a sighting by someone I know personally that has proven themselves to be a competent birder and emotionally stable. (but remember that's just me)...I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept it.

 

[curunir]

Just to be clear, I'm more worried about some yahoo with a gun and perhaps a beef with the ESA than any scientist.

My comment about old school ornithologists was purely speculative and based on the current debate about collecting, some of which is reflected upthread.

I still maintain that there's something very problematic about that Sagan quote and its implications.

I think you should be more worried about the developer who wants to develop his land and has an ESA species hanging about. He'd be more than willing to pay someone to get rid of the bird and pay the fine IF he gets caught. Mainly because it's been done before and the fine was minimal.

 

[MMinNY]

So, you'll take the Sagan quote out of context to defend your position and continue to misrepresent my words. As for "tearing off the kid gloves", I think you came after me first, at least on this subject. I'm not going to dignify the rest of your post with a rebuttal; since you can't be honest in your rejoinders, there's no point. I've made my views very clear in a couple of other posts today. I stand by everything I've written.

On edit: I said nothing about North America or vertebrates, but to name two recent North American (I'm counting Mexico as North America) rediscoveries, Cozumel Thrasher and Robust Redhorse, and I only did some cursory research; I'm sure there have been others. That's certainly common -- relative to proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. And in the case of the Cozumel Thrasher, we're dealing with a bird endemic to a well-developed island that is also a tourist center. World wide, rediscoveries have happened many times, and there's no need to cite chapter and verse. There's nothing extraordinary about such events, certainly not in the sense that Sagan intended

An extraordinary claim is one that is not ordinary. Saying you have seen a bird that no one has been able to document for 60 years is extaordinary.

It is not "relatively common" to rediscover an extinct species of anything, and rediscovering an presumed extinct vertebrate in North America - now lests see how many of those there are. Anyone, anyone?????

ET? c'mon. Stay focused here. The tagline fits all sorts of "discoveries" - it is a measure of the rarity to evidence ratio - simple as that.

Extraordinary evidence in this case just seems to be anything that is identifiable for Pete's Sake. No one but you has suggested that it is collecting. No one is suggesting that more than identifiable video evidence is required. It seems that in this birds that request isn't just extraordinary - it is downright impossible.

You are actually saying that you were not thinking of Nelson whan you wrote that. Well for that I do apologise. I only figured that since he is the anti-Ivory-bill, and has that as the tagline under the name of his blog!!!! that you just may have been thinking of him. It must be someone else, I am so sorry.

Here is how the story went...bonsai wanted to know who might be demanding collecting the birds.

You replied with:
I'm not aware of anyone who has demanded it, and I suspect Jesse was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. A handful of old-school ornithologists might feel that way, but I can't imagine they'd say so publicly. I do see a significant risk that some people might interpret "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to mean just that.

Now you say, what, that you weren't suggesting that the Nelson-type tagline would add a significant risk to people demanding that the bird is collected???? It is not distorted, and wasn't careless. You just keep tearing off the kid gloves and slapping everyone - disgusted and enraged - you never even responded to the "meat" of the post.

My post was made to direct pople's energies toward what they could do if they wanted to have a voice outside of this blog -which oddly enough they may want to know. Lots of people don't know that you need special permits to collect birds, and T&E species require more permitting. So, if y'all want your voices heard, be sure to tell USFWS that you don't want anyone to be issued a permit for IBWO.

 

[MMinNY]

You're probably right about that. I understand that Wal-Mart plowed under some Gopher Tortoises in Florida and got off with a slap on the wrist.

I think you should be more worried about the developer who wants to develop his land and has an ESA species hanging about. He'd be more than willing to pay someone to get rid of the bird and pay the fine IF he gets caught. Mainly because it's been done before and the fine was minimal.

 

[naples]

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 hope it never happens but,
think of the cloning potential.