Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (8 Viewers)

[MMinNY]

Eskimo Curlew is on the list. You've shifted the terms a little by focusing on the US, and I didn't check Hawaii. The Cozumel Thrasher could just as well be a US bird (no offense to any Mexican readers) in the sense that Cozumel is a small, developed island, albeit with a significant amount of forest, that is within easy reach of the US and is heavily birded.

I first posted the question out of real interest, and want to thank peoole for taking the time to look these things up (the history of that Sucker is so odd - a bunch of the early spec. and notes went missing, it sounds like it was never common and may have escaped detection by being a deep water, river fish who hangs around submerged snags).

It is interesting to note that aside from the rediscovery of IBWO in the US in the 1920s there are no other US birds in this list. Sad, really - cause no matter if you believe the evidence that CLO has put together or not, the prospects for "presumed" or "probable" or "likely" (you can pick the modifier) extinct birds are really grim.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Eskimo Curlew is on the list. You've shifted the terms a little by focusing on the US, and I didn't check Hawaii. The Cozumel Thrasher could just as well be a US bird (no offense to any Mexican readers) in the sense that Cozumel is a small, developed island, albeit with a significant amount of forest, that is within easy reach of the US and is heavily birded.

I didn't shift, I am just pointing out that of the stuff we found, when you look at the US (lower 49 esp.), the outlook seems grim. Nothing nefarious intended.

Why Eskimo Curlew? I don't think that it was ever thought to be extinct, was rediscovered, then disappeared again. There were some reports from Canada of a breeing group 10 years back or so, but that never panned out, bad ID or something like that. What am I missing (honestly)?

 

[humminbird]

I didn't shift, I am just pointing out that of the stuff we found, when you look at the US (lower 49 esp.), the outlook seems grim. Nothing nefarious intended.

Why Eskimo Curlew? I don't think that it was ever thought to be extinct, was rediscovered, then disappeared again. There were some reports from Canada of a breeing group 10 years back or so, but that never panned out, bad ID or something like that. What am I missing (honestly)?

Good grief. To my knowledge, the only photo known of this bird was taken on the Texas coast long after the bird was widely accepted as extinct.

By the way, there are efforts in Texas to detect this bird to with each migratory season. Another waste of effort?

 

[MMinNY]

Check out my more detailed post. There's a link that indicates it was believed extinct beginning in the early 20th-century. On the Curlew, there was a report from Martha's Vineyard a few years ago (from a Massachusetts Audubon Society officer, I believe). It wasn't accepted by the records committe, but it seemed like a pretty good sighting. This is from memory, so I may be off on a fact or two, but I'm pretty confident of the general outline.

I intepret the record a bit differently, and I'm not trying to be combative. I'd say if you count those two and consider the number of bird species that have gone extinct in the lower 49 in the last hundred years, it's not all that grim. Particularly if you consider that the IBWO is unlike the Seaside Sparrows of Florida, in that its range was more extensive, and it was always more elusive; the Heath Hen, which was gradually reduced to a very limited area and was easy to track, or the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Paroquet (which might conceivably have survived after its purported extinction, as there were some reports into the 1930s or '40s). The last were highly social birds that lived in flocks probably depended in part on large numbers for their survival. Among all these, the IBWO strikes me as by far the most likely candidate for survival.

I didn't shift, I am just pointing out that of the stuff we found, when you look at the US (lower 49 esp.), the outlook seems grim. Nothing nefarious intended.

Why Eskimo Curlew? I don't think that it was ever thought to be extinct, was rediscovered, then disappeared again. There were some reports from Canada of a breeing group 10 years back or so, but that never panned out, bad ID or something like that. What am I missing (honestly)?

 

[humminbird]

Check out my more detailed post. There's a link that indicates it was believed extinct beginning in the early 20th-century.

I intepret the record a bit differently, and I'm not trying to be combative. I'd say if you count those two and consider the number of bird species that have gone extinct in the lower 49 in the last hundred years, it's not all that grim. Particularly if you consider that the IBWO is unlike the Seaside Sparrows of Florida, in that its range was more extensive, and it was always more elusive; the Heath Hen, which was gradually reduced to a very limited area and was easy to track, or the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Paroquet (which might conceivably have survived after its purported extinction, as there were some reports into the 1930s or '40s). The last were highly social birds that lived in flocks probably depended in part on large numbers for their survival. Among all these, the IBWO strikes me as by far the most likely candidate for survival.

Why are we ignoring the bird that is the basis of this forum. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was widely accepted as extinct then rediscovered at least once, if not more frequently, before this most recent discovery. Do these occurences not indicate that it is possible for a large, "easily identifiable" vertebrate, or even more specifically, bird, to go undetected, be declared extinct and be rediscovered even in the heavily birded Americas?

 

[MMinNY]

I don't mean to ignore it. I think we're making the same point; I'm just coming at it from a different angle.

Why are we ignoring the bird that is the basis of this forum. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was widely accepted as extinct then rediscovered at least once, if not more frequently, before this most recent discovery. Do these occurences not indicate that it is possible for a large, "easily identifiable" vertebrate, or even more specifically, bird, to go undetected, be declared extinct and be rediscovered even in the heavily birded Americas?

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Why are we ignoring the bird that is the basis of this forum. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was widely accepted as extinct then rediscovered at least once, if not more frequently, before this most recent discovery. Do these occurences not indicate that it is possible for a large, "easily identifiable" vertebrate, or even more specifically, bird, to go undetected, be declared extinct and be rediscovered even in the heavily birded Americas?

Yes, it is possible for this bird to go undetected.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there are a whole host of people who do not believe that there is proof that the bird was rediscovered in 2004 and/or 2005.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Check out my more detailed post. There's a link that indicates it was believed extinct beginning in the early 20th-century. On the Curlew, there was a report from Martha's Vineyard a few years ago (from a Massachusetts Audubon Society officer, I believe). It wasn't accepted by the records committe, but it seemed like a pretty good sighting. This is from memory, so I may be off on a fact or two, but I'm pretty confident of the general outline.

I intepret the record a bit differently, and I'm not trying to be combative. I'd say if you count those two and consider the number of bird species that have gone extinct in the lower 49 in the last hundred years, it's not all that grim. Particularly if you consider that the IBWO is unlike the Seaside Sparrows of Florida, in that its range was more extensive, and it was always more elusive; the Heath Hen, which was gradually reduced to a very limited area and was easy to track, or the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Paroquet (which might conceivably have survived after its purported extinction, as there were some reports into the 1930s or '40s). The last were highly social birds that lived in flocks probably depended in part on large numbers for their survival. Among all these, the IBWO strikes me as by far the most likely candidate for survival.

It seems that Bachman's Warbler is at least as good a case as any of the above.

 

[MMinNY]

It's certainly up there. Slipped my mind.

It seems that Bachman's Warbler is at least as good a case as any of the above.

 

[Andigena]

FYI: Hunters have essentially no reports of IBWO even thought the area is extensively hunted in the fall.[/QUOTE]

Does this refer to hunters in Arkansas? How do you know? Who is interviewing the duck hunters about this? The squirrel hunters? The turkey hunters? Is there a cash reward out for information? If not, why would the hunters tell anyone even if they did see an ivorybill?

What we do know, in Louisiana, is that numerous credible reports of ivory-bills have come in from hunters.....1) Fielding Lewis, duck hunter, who produced 2 photographs in the 1970s. 2) David Kullvan, Pearl River, turkey hunter---best sighting details in recent years, 1999. 3) Choupique-multiple sightings while hunting in LA (go back in this thread and look it up)......4) Kenn Duke, hunter, Pearl River, multiple sightings, etc. etc.

These are just the hunters that ended up talking to bird watchers and museum people.....there are undoubtedly many hunters who would never contact authorities with a sighting.

On the other related topic: rediscovery, definitely the coolest NA vertebrate rediscovery is the black-footed ferret, which disappeared for many years before being found in Wyoming......why didn't the wildlife biologists crawling all over the West find that critter? Because the countryside is huge, and lightly populated, and the critters were on private land. It was found by a ranching family, and their dog.

So no, I don't think that scientists and casual birdwatchers are necessarily the most likely to see the remnant ivory-bill, unless they are really looking hard, like some contributors here on this thread........we should be encouraging these searchers, not denigrating their efforts, and the partial evidence they have found. And maybe we should be offering rewards to hunters provide clues...

 

[MMinNY]

Okay, this is kind of off topic, but not totally:

http://tinyurl.com/q5v6t

Maybe "extraordinary evidence" means the critter's tame.

Andigena, can you flesh out the details on the Black-footed Ferret? Was it rediscovered more than once?

 

[fishcrow]

What we do know, in Louisiana, is that numerous credible reports of ivory-bills have come in from hunters.....1) Fielding Lewis, duck hunter, who produced 2 photographs in the 1970s. 2) David Kullvan, Pearl River, turkey hunter---best sighting details in recent years, 1999. 3) Choupique-multiple sightings while hunting in LA (go back in this thread and look it up)......4) Kenn Duke, hunter, Pearl River, multiple sightings, etc. etc.

You can add to that list a turkey hunter who works at Stennis. This guy has practically lived in the Pearl for the past twenty years. He saw an ivorybill in the same area where I had my sightings. Like Kulivan, he was sitting quietly in camo. He knows the Pearl like you and I know our living rooms. He told me about a peninsula of hardwoods that extends down into the cypress-tupelo zone. I had a possible sighting on my second trip down there.

 

[humminbird]

Yes, it is possible for this bird to go undetected.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there are a whole host of people who do not believe that there is proof that the bird was rediscovered in 2004 and/or 2005.

You specifically asked for vertebrates that have been considered extinct and been rediscovered. Here is probably your most appropriate example.

 

[Xenospiza]

Andigena, can you flesh out the details on the Black-footed Ferret? Was it rediscovered more than once?

"Only" once; read the story here:
http://www.blackfootedferret.org/timeline.html
It makes an exciting story (I've seen a program about it).

 

[Edward woodwood]

where do you lot get your info?

Cozumel Thrasher was never declared extinct

When i went there in 2003 i thought i might find one - the last sighting then, was in 1995, and it was seen again in 2004... wouldn't you know it!

Classified as lower risk until 2000 then upgraded to Critically Endangered.

http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=22015


Tim

 

[MMinNY]

I didn't say it was declared extinct. From the research I did online, it was last sighted before Hurricane Roxanne and was widely believed to be extinct after that (until it was rediscovered of course). Since the question was about animals presumed to be extinct, I think it falls into that category. Even if it doesn't (quite), I think its history is relevant to the discussion and the question of whether rediscovering the IBWO is "extraordinary".

Please read more carefully before commenting. This is the second time in as many days that you've addressed something I wrote, misunderstood it and, at least today, written something disparaging. The problem is not lack of clarity on my part.

where do you lot get your info?

Cozumel Thrasher was never declared extinct

When i went there in 2003 i thought i might find one - the last sighting then, was in 1995, and it was seen again in 2004... wouldn't you know it!

Classified as lower risk until 2000 then upgraded to Critically Endangered.

http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=22015


Tim

 

[Piltdownwoman]

FYI: Hunters have essentially no reports of IBWO even thought the area is extensively hunted in the fall.

Does this refer to hunters in Arkansas? How do you know? Who is interviewing the duck hunters about this? The squirrel hunters? The turkey hunters? Is there a cash reward out for information? If not, why would the hunters tell anyone even if they did see an ivorybill?

What we do know, in Louisiana, is that numerous credible reports of ivory-bills have come in from hunters.....1) Fielding Lewis, duck hunter, who produced 2 photographs in the 1970s. 2) David Kullvan, Pearl River, turkey hunter---best sighting details in recent years, 1999. 3) Choupique-multiple sightings while hunting in LA (go back in this thread and look it up)......4) Kenn Duke, hunter, Pearl River, multiple sightings, etc. etc.

These are just the hunters that ended up talking to bird watchers and museum people.....there are undoubtedly many hunters who would never contact authorities with a sighting.


So no, I don't think that scientists and casual birdwatchers are necessarily the most likely to see the remnant ivory-bill, unless they are really looking hard, like some contributors here on this thread........we should be encouraging these searchers, not denigrating their efforts, and the partial evidence they have found. And maybe we should be offering rewards to hunters provide clues...[/QUOTE]

Again, thanks to everyone for the coments on extinct critters.

So, what seems to happen is that once a species is rediscovered people actually are able to document it with pictures and/or specimens, and in the case of the phayngael-toothed fishy who requires special bait and disssection, they actually go out and find more POPULATIONS of the fishy.

Please consider that we still need identifiable pictures of the IBWO, and that there have been the most rigorous, focused searches for this animal that there have any been in the history of ornithology.

One poster suggests that I'm denigrating the searchers - not so. Searches need to happen, but we need identifiable photos.

Same poster sugests we need to pay attention to hunters...CLO doesn't cite any info in the WR or CR of sightings by hunters, that is what I base it on...I wonder why? Maybe they are not interviewing hunters.

But I do disagree with the notion that the search CLO has done will not find the birds, I think there search is finding the birds - it is just that the birds are Pileated Woodpeckers. There is a trap that their search is wrong if they don't find what they are looking for. They may not find IBWO because it is not there, not because their methods are wrong.

The bounty idea is GREAT_.We need a high bounty for identifiable photos and or videos of this bird. CLO has spent millions, USFWS has spent millions. There could easily be a team of video reviewers set-up to review the videos/photos, standards could be set a priori. It is a great idea, and one that has been tossed around in the skeptic world for a long time.

So, what do you all think about the bounty idea (try not to pick on the rest of the post please, you know I'm a skeptic, so can we put that to rest and agree that we need good evidence).???

 

[Edward woodwood]

Please read more carefully before commenting. This is the second time in as many days that you've addressed something I wrote, misunderstood it and, at least today, written something disparaging. The problem is not lack of clarity on my part.

you used a bird that wasn't extinct, or even 'widely believed' to be extinct to make a point about 'extinct' birds. Seemed strange to me.

'widely believed' to be extinct isn't a long way from 'declared' extinct and i presume you implied that people in the birding/conservation community thought it WAS extinct when they didn't... hence the critically endangered status. It was supposed that the remaining population was possibly very small, that's all.

I think you were as clear about what you really meant as every IBWO video or field description i've ever seen or read

Tim

 

[MMinNY]

I have mixed feelings about the bounty idea. It might produce the desired result or provide an incentive for someone with one of those rumored photos to come forward.

However, and I'm assuming the birds are there somewhere, breeding, it could cause some disruption and be detrimental; I've expressed concern about Cornell's methods in this regard, and a possible influx of bounty seeking amateurs does not strike me as a good thing. Leaving the question of the IBWO aside, such people often don't know how to behave in the woods and could do other kinds of damage. It also could encourage hoaxes and thereby generate even more controversy.

This is all speculation, of course. I'm still very optimistic that, bounty or no, proof that satisfies all but the most conspiracy-minded skeptics (no one specific here, just thinking of those who don't believe in the Moon landing) will be found within the next 1-3 years (probably sooner). It wouldn't surprise me at all if Mike Collins is the one to get it; If I were a gambler, I'd put my money on him, not Cornell.

Does this refer to hunters in Arkansas? How do you know? Who is interviewing the duck hunters about this? The squirrel hunters? The turkey hunters? Is there a cash reward out for information? If not, why would the hunters tell anyone even if they did see an ivorybill?

What we do know, in Louisiana, is that numerous credible reports of ivory-bills have come in from hunters.....1) Fielding Lewis, duck hunter, who produced 2 photographs in the 1970s. 2) David Kullvan, Pearl River, turkey hunter---best sighting details in recent years, 1999. 3) Choupique-multiple sightings while hunting in LA (go back in this thread and look it up)......4) Kenn Duke, hunter, Pearl River, multiple sightings, etc. etc.

These are just the hunters that ended up talking to bird watchers and museum people.....there are undoubtedly many hunters who would never contact authorities with a sighting.


So no, I don't think that scientists and casual birdwatchers are necessarily the most likely to see the remnant ivory-bill, unless they are really looking hard, like some contributors here on this thread........we should be encouraging these searchers, not denigrating their efforts, and the partial evidence they have found. And maybe we should be offering rewards to hunters provide clues...

Again, thanks to everyone for the coments on extinct critters.

So, what seems to happen is that once a species is rediscovered people actually are able to document it with pictures and/or specimens, and in the case of the phayngael-toothed fishy who requires special bait and disssection, they actually go out and find more POPULATIONS of the fishy.

Please consider that we still need identifiable pictures of the IBWO, and that there have been the most rigorous, focused searches for this animal that there have any been in the history of ornithology.

One poster suggests that I'm denigrating the searchers - not so. Searches need to happen, but we need identifiable photos.

Same poster sugests we need to pay attention to hunters...CLO doesn't cite any info in the WR or CR of sightings by hunters, that is what I base it on...I wonder why? Maybe they are not interviewing hunters.

But I do disagree with the notion that the search CLO has done will not find the birds, I think there search is finding the birds - it is just that the birds are Pileated Woodpeckers. There is a trap that their search is wrong if they don't find what they are looking for. They may not find IBWO because it is not there, not because their methods are wrong.

The bounty idea is GREAT_.We need a high bounty for identifiable photos and or videos of this bird. CLO has spent millions, USFWS has spent millions. There could easily be a team of video reviewers set-up to review the videos/photos, standards could be set a priori. It is a great idea, and one that has been tossed around in the skeptic world for a long time.

So, what do you all think about the bounty idea (try not to pick on the rest of the post please, you know I'm a skeptic, so can we put that to rest and agree that we need good evidence).???[/QUOTE]

 

[MMinNY]

Okay, three sources, two minutes on google:

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34252

http://www.abcbirds.org/media/releases/cozumel_thrasher_release.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozumel_Thrasher

Maybe you can quibble with the term 'widely believed', but the press release from the American Bird Conservancy makes it clear that at least some scientists believed that, contrary to your assertion. Moreover, I was responding to a specific question from Piltdownwoman. I was not making a point about 'extinct' birds. That should have been clear to you, not only from reading my posts but from reading hers. I also never said it was "declared extinct", which is what you first alleged.

We've been civil to each other lately, and it's unfortunate that you've chosen to resort to using insults.

The analogies to the IBWO are evident from the recent sightings history, including this one:

December 2003: sighting of single bird, at Cozumel Golf Club; documented by video, but digital video file subsequently lost.

Here's the link to the sightings history:

http://oikos.villanova.edu/cozumel/status.html

you used a bird that wasn't extinct, or even 'widely believed' to be extinct to make a point about 'extinct' birds. Seemed strange to me.

'widely believed' to be extinct isn't a long way from 'declared' extinct and i presume you implied that people in the birding/conservation community thought it WAS extinct when they didn't... hence the critically endangered status. It was supposed that the remaining population was possibly very small, that's all.

I think you were as clear about what you really meant as every IBWO video or field description i've ever seen or read

Tim