Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

[Goatnose]

Well... What do y'all think of the 60 minutes report on the Lord God Bird?

Short and sweet, straddled the fence, there is so much going on that was not mentioned.

 

[KC Foggin]

Yeah, I was disappointed as well. Nothing shown or stated that hasn't already been out there.

 

[Katy Penland]

I felt the same way. Some of our members here know and have shared more than that report. It was, however, good to hear the voices and see the faces of some of the players.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I was disappointed. It was nice to see the swamp and (agreeing with the preceding post) to see and hear some of the personnel involved. But I'm disappointed they didn't spend more time with the video and audio, and I'm disappointed that they didn't show the rumored shot of an Ivory-bill seen from a chopper. Going in, I expected to be annoyed if they talked to some of the skeptics, but now I think they should have, since it would have forced them to look at the evidence more closely. As it was, there was mainly just a lot of self-congratulation.

 

[dacol]

Well... What do y'all think of the 60 minutes report on the Lord God Bird?

It was OK for a short piece. Big omission was a little bit on the history of how the Cache River NWR and other protected areas there came to be preserved. The role played by duck hunters, anglers and other Arkansas conservationists, Rex Hancock and the Arkansas Fish and Game Commission. Had those folks not put up quite a struggle the Cache and White Rivers would have been transformed into tame channels and the habitat and wildlife would have been gone forever.

I also saw the original video [instead of the slowed and enlarged version] for the first time in a large screen. Even though it was a very short view the trailing white edge of the upper wings of the fleeing bird was very clearly visible. Better than I expected from seeing just the version prepared for analysis available from the Science site.

Dalcio

 

[marcus]

That football game was really making me nervous at first, and I was really happy that Sixty Minutes still came on.
I wonder if other people who are not interested in birds found the report worthy to have Sixty Minutes show it.
But as far as I'm concerned, the report was just not long enough. I certainly would like it if there an entire program covering the 'rediscovery' of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

 

[Snowy1]

I echo most people's thoughts but I wasn't surprised it was so short. I think 15 minutes didn't do the story justice and even a 1 hour show wouldn't be enough to fully cover this story from beginning to end. The one thing I took away from it was the video analysis - that was the clearest I've seen to date. I had also not seen the section of 1935 video showing 2 Ivorybills interacting outside the nest hole. It was nice to watch with the family - gives them an visual reference of what I've been up to the last 4 years!

 

[fishcrow]

Mary Scott has posted yet another interesting report from eastern Arkansas, this one from Jesse Gilsdorf.

He talks about climbing trees to inspect cavities. I think that's a really bad idea. It seems like something that should be left to the professionals.

 

[curunir]

Professionals

He talks about climbing trees to inspect cavities. I think that's a really bad idea. It seems like something that should be left to the professionals.

This is exactly what a lot of people were worried about, the intrusion into the life of the remaining ivorybills. Even professionals or those under the supervision of professionals screw up big time at times. Poking around pecker holes should probably be left to peckers.

 

[fangsheath]

It is also a very risky thing to do. It is easy to overlook the risks Tanner took to get the data he got. Climbing 50 feet, or even 30, up a snag in the middle of nowhere is a very dangerous proposition. Those who would be tempted to try it should probably acquaint themselves with the literature describing injuries of hunters and others who have fallen 20 feet or less. Deer stands are rarely more than 20 feet off the ground, yet many falls have resulted in permanent spinal cord injury. Nuff said.

 

[rikntracy]

Well... What do y'all think of the 60 minutes report on the Lord God Bird?

It certainly wasn't brilliant but it was a lot better than the Sunday Morning piece that aired a couple of weeks ago. I felt that the person who did that story (forgive me but I can't remember his name) was all but making fun of birders. I understand that some people may not fully understand the interest/reverence/love that others have for the Ivorybill, but I didn't think it was necessary to make light of the efforts that are going into trying to help it.

Maybe I just got the wrong end of the stick but I don't think he presented the Ivorybill story in a favorable light.

Did anyone else see the show? (Sunday Morning)

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Last spring, on the morning following the official news conference, I watched the story as presented by Miles O'Brien on CNN. Most of his report was taken up with Woody Woodpecker jokes and cartoon clips.

 

[Tz'unun]

About the "60 Minutes" story: I was disappointed that it didn't include anything about the CBS videographer's sighting, but I thought it did a fair job of representing the passion this bird inspires in people and the lengths they're willing to go to catch a glimpse of this creature. John Fitzpatrick's description of weeping at hearing other people's descriptions of their sightings moved me to tears (not a terribly difficult thing to do, actually). The coverage of the birding economics angle and area residents' embrace of the bird as an attraction was relatively respectful, too. (BTW, I was on screen for about 4 seconds, teaching a workshop at the ABA convention in Tucson.)

I'm sorry to have missed the "CBS Sunday Morning" story, but it sounds like the diss-the-nerdy-birdwatchers approach that's SOP for American mainstream media. The CNN piece was simply embarassing (for CNN, not us) - I hope they got a lot of mail from birders on that (they did from me).

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I thought that was you. I said to Linda, "Hey, isn't that Sheri?"

WRT the story itself: I fully appreciate that I (and some others here) look at this story from a birder's/ornithologist's viewpoint. We want detail and analysis. Let's see Jackson, Prum, et al, up against Fitzpatrick and Gallagher to discuss the evidence. Maybe get David Sibley to take a swing at it, too. But newspeople like to concentrate on the "human angle," and they certainly did that with this story. A lifetime dream has been achieved, and stuffy scientists emote. It's a "feel good" story amidst terrorist threats and scandals. I'll be looking for the story again when they have reruns next summer. Maybe there'll be some exciting updates by then
.

 

[choupique1]

hmm.... interesting the media.. disses birders as nerdy... much like hunters are all rednecks....

makes their job easier....LOL

 

[mattpau]

60 Minutes:

I tend to cringe when journalists do a story on a topic I know something about. There are often some pretty bad errors. But the 60 minute piece on the ivorybill was pretty error-free, I thought, and on the whole I felt they did a good job. As has been pointed out, this was for a general audience, not for birders who want the latest, breaking news. It was nice to see the habitat, some of the people involved that I'd read about, and especially the famous video on a (fairly) large TV screen (27") as opposed to a small computer monitor. It was the first time I'd heard the calls, as well.

One thing bothered me, though. Fitzpatrick pointed out how the underside of the bird's wing in the video had no black trailing edge. But my field guides show the ivorybill as having a black strip down the centre of the underwing, and one certainly couldn't see that either. If a black centre strip (implying ivorybill) could get "blurred out", why couldn't a black trailing edge (implying pileated) as well?

 

[Curtis Croulet]

and especially the famous video on a (fairly) large TV screen (27") as opposed to a small computer monitor.

You can buy a DVD copy of the video through David Luneau's website. The sounds are available on Cornell's website.

 

[Goatnose]

I thought that was you. I said to Linda, "Hey, isn't that Sheri?"

WRT the story itself: I fully appreciate that I (and some others here) look at this story from a birder's/ornithologist's viewpoint. We want detail and analysis. Let's see Jackson, Prum, et al, up against Fitzpatrick and Gallagher to discuss the evidence. Maybe get David Sibley to take a swing at it, too. But newspeople like to concentrate on the "human angle," and they certainly did that with this story. A lifetime dream has been achieved, and stuffy scientists emote. It's a "feel good" story amidst terrorist threats and scandals. I'll be looking for the story again when they have reruns next summer. Maybe there'll be some exciting updates by then
.

Rumor is that Dr. Jackson will be at the "Large Woodpecker Symposium" in Brinkly Arkansas on October 31st and I must assume that Fitzpatrick will be there also. These two will meet and greet, that is a given. My only concern is that the mosquitos are really bad right now in Arkansas. These guys may be discouraged from hitting the field in these conditions. Hope with me for favorable conditions. If these scientist are to come together then it will be in the field not on the podium. Will these guys bring their field equipment with them? Well yea, that is a given also.

 

[fangsheath]

It isn't a question so much of what could be "blurred out." On some frames you can barely tell there is any bird there. The issue is explaining what IS clear. Take a look at these photos of a pileated wing:

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/museum/PIWOwing1.jpg
http://www2.ups.edu/biology/museum/PIWOwing2.jpg

Then look at illustrations of the ivory-bll wing. As with any fuzzy video, there will never be complete agreement about what it shows. I deal in working hypotheses, not certainties. Certainties are a dangerous illusion in my book, and those who would require them before taking action will be left in the dust of history.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I agree with Fangsheath - just because the evidence is sketchy doesn't mean you shouldn't protect the habitat.

It isn't a question so much of what could be "blurred out." On some frames you can barely tell there is any bird there. The issue is explaining what IS clear. Take a look at these photos of a pileated wing:

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/museum/PIWOwing1.jpg
http://www2.ups.edu/biology/museum/PIWOwing2.jpg

Then look at illustrations of the ivory-bll wing. As with any fuzzy video, there will never be complete agreement about what it shows. I deal in working hypotheses, not certainties. Certainties are a dangerous illusion in my book, and those who would require them before taking action will be left in the dust of history.