Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (16 Viewers)

[James Blake]

some of you who view another webste may have noted I believed Cornell to begin with

Hi Tim

I suspect what caught Tom Nelson's attention was not just that you've changed your opinion (I'm sure lots of people have done that on this issue - for sound reasons) but the way you've directed equally spectacular vitriol ("keep your ramblings to conspiracy websites" indeed!) at both ivorybill sceptics and believers at different times.

You've got to admit it's rather amusing...

atb
James

 

[John Mariani]

There is something ever so slightly creepy about this thread and people's singular obssession with the bird... and therein lie some dodgy sightings!

At the risk of kicking an already much kicked dead horse...

I've been following this thread obsessively from a safe distance for quite a while - hope that doesn't creep you out :eek!: But this was (past tense until proven otherwise) a magnificent bird that warrants special attention. The Ivory-bill and it's Mexican cousin were really in a class of their own. I could be wrong about this, but I think there has been some question about whether the other Campephilus really belong in the same genus - maybe someone can straighten me out on that point. I think everyone, no matter how skeptical, hopes that somewhere, somehow, a few have survived. We want to believe. Unfortunately believing doesn't make it so.

It seems to me that what is called skepticism is really the norm within the ornithological world, where acceptance of rare bird sightings - by a state rarities committee for example - requires proper documentation and records are routinely challenged. Birders who understand the methodology by which rarities committees reject or accept records usually don't take it personally, but to those unfamiliar with the process, and what is expected in the way of documentation, the questioning may seem intimidating and rude. People become defensive. Those doing the inquiry become exasperated. Sound familiar?

Considering the exacting standards that I assume most rarities comittees maintain I am a bit surprised that the Arkansas Bird Records Committee accepted Cornell's Ivory-billed Woodpecker record(s?). I wonder would it have passed muster if that committee had a larger membership.

I live in the Big Thicket of Southeast Texas where some people, myself included, are still looking for Ivory-bills. Some are birders with years of experience observing real birds that can actually be found, but then there are also the "singularly obsessed" Ivory-bill fanatics and even cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot. The local fishermen and hunters are aware of the Ivory-bill because of the history of past searches in the thicket, although they may not know the Pileated Woodpecker by its common name. If you ask them about Ivory-bills they will probably tell you they've seen them. That's why I don't ask. There's no tactful way to question their undocumented claims, and there's already enough grist for the rumor mill.

Sadly I have no Ivory-bill sightings to report, not even a dodgy one. No workings, no kent calls, no knocky-knocks, nothing. But the habitat is interesting and it's too bad more birders don't go trudging in the swamps. There are certainly lots of other things to see in there - Swallow-tailed Kites, Swainson's Warbler, maybe even a Pileated Woodpecker or two. Maybe by some miracle a few Ivory-bills have even survived and lurk somewhere deep in the woods. And there are worse ways to spend your days off.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Tim

I suspect what caught Tom Nelson's attention was not just that you've changed your opinion (I'm sure lots of people have done that on this issue - for sound reasons) but the way you've directed equally spectacular vitriol ("keep your ramblings to conspiracy websites" indeed!) at both ivorybill sceptics and believers at different times.

You've got to admit it's rather amusing...

atb
James

it's hilarious James, just never thought for a second a scientific organisation would do something so incredible as CLO did. I honestly thought in the very early days that anyone decrying the refind must have had an agenda... not so. And when i saw and read the evidence... it was just awful... but i had no qualms about changing my views...

Anybody who takes themselves as seriously as some people do on both sides of the argument deserves at least a bit of vitriol. If not bucketsful. I view it as therapy for them. Free, too.

Tim

Tim

 

[Mike Johnston]

Anybody who takes themselves as seriously as some people do on both sides of the argument deserves at least a bit of vitriol. If not bucketsful. I view it as therapy for them. Free, too.

Tim

You're just such a giver Tim.

 

[EMalatesta]

At the risk of kicking an already much kicked dead horse...

You did hardly that at all. I too have been reading this thread for a long time (maybe since January), and I think you offer a refreshing insight into the issue. Your comments on the process of state record committees, and the reactions of people to them, is perfect. People have to relax a bit when submitting rare bird reports. If the people on those committees have the experience that I have (they usually do), pounding the "pavement" (i.e. dirt trails) every weekend and coming up with zilch for rare birds, they have every reason to view rare bird reports with some skepticism.

Personally, I look at the IBW report (or reports) the same way I view other reports of ultra-rare or unusual bird reports. Unless the bird is successfully staked-out for other birders, or a good photograph is taken, I'm always skeptical about it, especially if the report is of a non-migratory (or summer) bird. The only exception is when I personally know the birder is very reliable (i.e., they have a good track record of staking-out other rare birds). As for non-birders, you can't trust them at all. Not that they're "stupid, lying, or crazy" (the familiar buzzwords of the fanatical IBW believers), but it's just that non-birders lack the experience to appreciate differences in size, shape, colors, behavior, habitat, etc., that are critical in making accurate identifications. Not that they're always wrong, but you can't place much weight on their reports.

As to the AK records committee, I think they just got sucked into all the hype, and they didn't want to spoil the party. Also note that it was not a unanimous decision. I personally think changing a bird's status from extirpated/extinct should require a unanimous vote, but I guess that wasn't a requirement with the AK committee.

Good luck with your quest. I'd be out there too if I lived in the South, but I'd actually be a lot more interested in the slim chance of finding a Bachman's Warbler. I keep praying that one of the IBW searchers accidentally bumps into one. That would truly be awesome.

 

[humminbird]

You did hardly that at all. I too have been reading this thread for a long time (maybe since January), and I think you offer a refreshing insight into the issue. Your comments on the process of state record committees, and the reactions of people to them, is perfect. People have to relax a bit when submitting rare bird reports. If the people on those committees have the experience that I have (they usually do), pounding the "pavement" (i.e. dirt trails) every weekend and coming up with zilch for rare birds, they have every reason to view rare bird reports with some skepticism.

Personally, I look at the IBW report (or reports) the same way I view other reports of ultra-rare or unusual bird reports. Unless the bird is successfully staked-out for other birders, or a good photograph is taken, I'm always skeptical about it, especially if the report is of a non-migratory (or summer) bird. The only exception is when I personally know the birder is very reliable (i.e., they have a good track record of staking-out other rare birds). As for non-birders, you can't trust them at all. Not that they're "stupid, lying, or crazy" (the familiar buzzwords of the fanatical IBW believers), but it's just that non-birders lack the experience to appreciate differences in size, shape, colors, behavior, habitat, etc., that are critical in making accurate identifications. Not that they're always wrong, but you can't place much weight on their reports.

As to the AK records committee, I think they just got sucked into all the hype, and they didn't want to spoil the party. Also note that it was not a unanimous decision. I personally think changing a bird's status from extirpated/extinct should require a unanimous vote, but I guess that wasn't a requirement with the AK committee.

Good luck with your quest. I'd be out there too if I lived in the South, but I'd actually be a lot more interested in the slim chance of finding a Bachman's Warbler. I keep praying that one of the IBW searchers accidentally bumps into one. That would truly be awesome.

Someone from the US of A who has the Ivory-billed in Alaska (AK) does not strike me as reliable.

 

[fishcrow]

I live in the Big Thicket of Southeast Texas where some people, myself included, are still looking for Ivory-bills. Some are birders with years of experience observing real birds that can actually be found, but then there are also the "singularly obsessed" Ivory-bill fanatics and even cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot.

It would be interesting to know what makes you someone "looking for Ivory-bills" while others are "cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot."

 

[Edward woodwood]

It would be interesting to know what makes you someone "looking for Ivory-bills" while others are "cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot."

common sense

any chance of a video grab of that 'other' IBWO?

I went out for a beer thinking there'd be a pic of the IBWO sitting there...

Tim

 

[humminbird]

It would be interesting to know what makes you someone "looking for Ivory-bills" while others are "cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot."

Mike:
There is a huge group of bigfoot fans in Texas. I get email from them at the office all the time. Almost as common as the email from people claiming to have seen evidence of a chupacabara.

 

[Mike Johnston]

It would be interesting to know what makes you someone "looking for Ivory-bills" while others are "cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot."

One need only look at websites like THIS or THIS one, which explicitly link the IBWO search to searches for Bigfoot, lake monsters, etc. to realise the difference.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Someone from the US of A who has the Ivory-billed in Alaska (AK) does not strike me as reliable.

The guy was only trying to make a perfectly valid point about reporting rarities. I don't think he deserved that.

 

[humminbird]

The guy was only trying to make a perfectly valid point about reporting rarities. I don't think he deserved that.

And I do not think the AR committee deserves the shot they took either.

 

[Mike Johnston]

And I do not think the AR committee deserves the shot they took either.

"it was not a unanimous decision. I personally think changing a bird's status from extirpated/extinct should require a unanimous vote, but I guess that wasn't a requirement with the AK (sic) committee."

Hardly a shot. Just stating something a lot of people are thinking. The fact that it wasn't unanimous, even in the face of the 'might' of Cornell, is very telling. And now Cornell itself is being questioned. One might consider the committee as having acted just a tad hastily.

 

[John Mariani]

It would be interesting to know what makes you someone "looking for Ivory-bills" while others are "cryptozoology types who are as likely to spend their spare time hunting for bigfoot."

I was only trying to distinguish between those who have a wider interest in birds (you might call them birders) and those who are really only interested in this one iconic species. Maybe I do belong in the crypto camp because the bird I'm looking for is most likely extinct (although admitting that point puts me very much outside their camp in spirit). But there is obviously a difference between looking for Ivory-bills and hunting for bigfoot. For starts we have conclusive evidence that Ivory-bills once existed.

 

[John Mariani]

Good luck with your quest. I'd be out there too if I lived in the South, but I'd actually be a lot more interested in the slim chance of finding a Bachman's Warbler. I keep praying that one of the IBW searchers accidentally bumps into one. That would truly be awesome.

That would be awesome! Sadly I think the chances of anyone finding a Bachman's in this century are very slim indeed. First Bachman's Warblers would have to be able to find each other, at least often enough to keep a breeding population going. Since nobody is finding them their numbers must be tiny, and during migration those few birds would disperse into the vastness of the southern states...chances of a pair ever meeting and making a love connection don't look good. Of course the same issue can be raised concerning Ivory-bills, even without the migratory aspect.

 

[kyanite]

The Ivory-bill and it's Mexican cousin were really in a class of their own. I could be wrong about this, but I think there has been some question about whether the other Campephilus really belong in the same genus

The recent genetic study does support a rather strong differentiation between other S. American Campephilus and the
C. imperialis/principalis/bairdii clade. They conclude that the measured amount of genetic separation, expecting a normal mutation rate, is consistent with the known dates for the opening and closing of the Isthmus of Panama over the past several million years and thus the separation of the N. American and S. American groups. Guatemalensis though now living in N. America belongs with the S. Americans and is probably a more recent colonist.

So yes, the N. American ones are different. Genus? That's just a word.

 

[John Mariani]

The recent genetic study does support a rather strong differentiation between other S. American Campephilus and the
C. imperialis/principalis/bairdii clade. They conclude that the measured amount of genetic separation, expecting a normal mutation rate, is consistent with the known dates for the opening and closing of the Isthmus of Panama over the past several million years and thus the separation of the N. American and S. American groups. Guatemalensis though now living in N. America belongs with the S. Americans and is probably a more recent colonist.

So yes, the N. American ones are different. Genus? That's just a word.

Thanks for the clarification. Comparing my limited experience with Pale-billed Woodpecker to the film footage of the Singer Tract birds my impression is not of their similarity but that they are so different...based on outward appearances I would not have thought them to be closely related. In size and character Guatemalensis didn't strike me as all that different from a Pileated or Lineated (which it can easily be mistaken for if you don't get a good view of the head).

 

[humminbird]

"it was not a unanimous decision. I personally think changing a bird's status from extirpated/extinct should require a unanimous vote, but I guess that wasn't a requirement with the AK (sic) committee."

Hardly a shot. Just stating something a lot of people are thinking. The fact that it wasn't unanimous, even in the face of the 'might' of Cornell, is very telling. And now Cornell itself is being questioned. One might consider the committee as having acted just a tad hastily.

"As to the AK records committee, I think they just got sucked into all the hype, and they didn't want to spoil the party."

That sir, was in my mind a shot that they are not here to defend themselves in the face of. Implication is that they jump at every opportunity to make the popular call.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Someone from the US of A who has the Ivory-billed in Alaska (AK) does not strike me as reliable.

Wow, you dismantled his entire argument with that.

Cinclodes, would you be so kind as to answer my questions now? You haven't even TRIED to convince me your interpretations are correct.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Hi All,

I thought readers of this forum might be interested in this from Cyberthrush's blog. Plenty of food for thought and points for discussion: