Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[Bonsaibirder]

What kind of flight is a bird in as it 'pass'es a decoy? I have no idea - what do you think?

Bonsaibirder

Skeptics have claimed that the bird in the Luneau video was in escape mode, and therefore it would have naturally had a higher-than-normal flap rate. The Harrison video shows a bird making two passes at the decoy, 33 seconds apart. It was not in escape flight. Harrison had departed the area when he first detected the bird, many minutes prior to its appearance in the video.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

What kind of flight is a bird in as it 'pass'es a decoy? I have no idea - what do you think?

Bonsaibirder

Not escape flight.

 

[Goatnose]

What kind of flight is a bird in as it 'pass'es a decoy? I have no idea - what do you think?

Bonsaibirder

The flight is menacing, threatening, a dive toward the victim (the decoy) then pulling out into normal fight other than watching back to insure that the decoy is not responding in an aggressive nature. I have observed Pileated doing this on other Pileated but only in the early spring (in my limited experience). I am assuming the IBWO does the same, just an assumption. Perhaps one could measure the wing beat ratio as the bird is pulled out and flying away but I don’t believe that it would be an escape flight pattern if the decoy did not respond. It would be more of an arrogant brash flight pattern, pompous, like I showed him.

 

[Gamecock]

he's seen four now?

Four since his original sighting = FIVE!

truly he is the chosen one...

It seems natural that the more time put into quietly observing, the more likely one is to observe the bird(s). When compared to others walking noisily in the woods, Bobby has a distinct advantage floating silently in his trolling-motor-powered camo-covered boat. From what I heard, Cornell scoffed that an IBWO would respond to a decoy. But, it appears he was right about that too!

do Cornell know about the videos? - why has there been no mention from them of this remarkable footage?

I am SURE they know about it. It's not nearly as conclusive as David Luneau's video and look how much criticism that has received. They probably think it's just another tantalizing tease...

Bobby now has 3 automatic cameras monitoring specifically-targeted scaled trees and suspected roost holes and he's rotating them. That might be how the first really good photo gets taken - triggered by movement in a good place! With 3 cameras instead of just one, his odds have now gone up 3X.

seems very strange that the videos sound to be inconclusive again... hmmmm.....

Actually, I think it's rather amazing he got a bird on videotape 3 times! But, they came from a camera mounted near one of his decoys - not a hand-held.

I'm not sure Harrison is held in as high esteem these days as you imply (maybe there's a connection here to Cornell's apparent ignoring or lack of knowledge of his videos).

The Cornell team didn't get that video, so they can't claim it for themselves. It's kinda like the competition to get the first clear (Million Dollar) photo. He who tries hardest, is most likely to succeed. No doubt, that is Bobby's goal!

I have to wonder if those who question what Bobby and Tim saw have read "The Grail Bird" book or seen the video of them at the press conference in Washington, DC. Either one should make a believer out of almost anyone!

Video of Tim and Bobby at press conference in Washington, DC

There are 7 other videos from the April 2005 Washington DC press conference available from the page linked above as well. Go take a look!

 

[Gamecock]

When Camp Ephilus reported on the talk by Harrison that he had attended, C.E. quoted "hundreds" of recordings, which was startling enough. But when I pressed C.E. about it, he said that he had downgraded it from the "thousands" Harrison actually stated in a Q&A session.

There are indeed "thousands" of hours of audio recordings and photos (some shot X times per second automatically) that have not been seen or heard by any human. Who knows what may be contained in those? They are using a computer to scan through all that volume to flag parts for humans to review.

No need to argue semantics, but this sounds like a basic misunderstanding...

I hope in time we'll get to hear some of them, in addition to seeing Bobby Harrison's videos.

Of the 3 of his videos I have seen, in my opinion, only one is really worthy of releasing (and, frankly, it is already prepared as a looped animated GIF file). One of the other 2 is only 1/4 of a second long. If you blink at the wrong time, you could miss it! Obviously, that's FAR from being "conclusive proof".

Edited again to add: If we're talking about the "podcast" on the EO website, I've heard that.

Yes, that is what I was talking about (on same same EO page I linked to). It's just an MP3 audio file. But they called it a podcast, so I called it that.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

There are indeed "thousands" of hours of audio recordings and photos (some shot X times per second automatically) that have not been seen or heard by any human. Who knows what may be contained in those? They are using a computer to scan through all that volume to flag parts for humans to review.

No. Not "thousands" of hours. "Thousands" of double-knocks and kents.

Camp Ephilus said: "The fact that the ARU's have recorded double-knocks and 'kent' calls doesn't interest me. What interests me is that they have recorded hundreds and hundreds of them."

Curtis said: "Where does the "hundreds" number come from?

Camp Ephilus said: "From a Q&A session with Bobby Harrison. He actually used the term "thousands", but I was being conservative.

"The actual quote from my audio of the lecture:

"BH: "We now actually have ... actually picking up thousands of double-knocks and what we think are kent calls, they are just so numerous....""

This is on p.165 of this thread.

 

[70ivorybill78]

Bonsaibirder
What kind of flight is a bird in as it 'pass'es a decoy? I have no idea - what do you think?
------
Goatnose
The flight is menacing, threatening, a dive toward the victim (the decoy) then pulling out into normal fight other than watching back to insure that the decoy is not responding in an aggressive nature. I have observed Pileated doing this on other Pileated but only in the early spring (in my limited experience). I am assuming the IBWO does the same, just an assumption. Perhaps one could measure the wing beat ratio as the bird is pulled out and flying away but I don’t believe that it would be an escape flight pattern if the decoy did not respond. It would be more of an arrogant brash flight pattern, pompous, like I showed him.
-------------


I personally believe way too much is being placed on flight type, especially since the Ivory-bill is not only capable of very fast direct "Pintail duck" flight, but is also capable of slow leisurely flight that is not always perfectly straight.

In addition, the Pileated can have straight direct flight (possibly with slower wingbeats than the Ivory-bill when both are spooked).

The undulating flight of the Pileated is not it’s only flight pattern, nor is the “Pintail duck” flight of the Ivory-bill it’s only flight pattern.

 

[pavo]

I really can't speak for the author, but beyond the title (maybe created by an editor) and one sentence invoking the 13 ways, the articles are quite different, and the Jack Hitt article does not use the device of numbered sections 1-13.



---


Hello, Agnostic. I wrote the piece for the Memphis Flyer (which originally appeared in the Arkansas Times, where I am employed). Just to clear the record here, the NYT article did not number the sections -- it used 13 little ivory-billed woodpecker head to set its sections apart. You had to see the print version to know this.
Jack Hitt called me and apologized, not for plagiarism, but for coincidence. He said he had not read the article, which was published a year ago in May, and no doubt he was telling the truth. The Times ombudsman said if it was guilty of anything it was cliche, which was a rather rude way to respond, but then they're the New York Times and we're just the Arkansas Times.

Re the post on whether TNC was pulling cerulean warblers out of the air to defend the expenditure of money in the Big Woods: TNC has worked for 20 years in the Big Woods, buying land, working on legislation that helps private landowners manage the land, working with timber companies in lands swaps, and most importantly working (years ago) with duck hunters to stop the Corps of Engineers from ditching the Cache River.
I apologize if I missed posts that acknowledged TNC's long involvement in the Big Woods -- there are just too many posts to read!


Carry on,

Leslie Peacock

 

[Katy Penland]

Hi, Leslie! I see this is your first post, so a warm welcome to you from all of us on staff here at BirdForum! :t:

 

[fangsheath]

I have finally had the opportunity to read the response of Fitzpatrick et al. to Jackson's paper in the recent issue of The Auk. To call it withering I think would be an understatement. I will not go into it in detail, there is so much there, this passage will perhaps give a sense of the tone:

"We are baffled by Jackson's statement (p. 12) that our ARUs produced data of 'minimal value,' followed immediately by his advice that we intensify our searching in areas where our units revealed double-rap displays. He calls for the very efforts we are engaged in as a follow-up to our published evidence, while deploring these same efforts as minimally valuable and unjustified by evidence."

One passage I found quite illuminating is this one:

"Jackson is incorrect and naïve in suggesting (p. 5) that scientific efforts to locate Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the 'aftermath of a reported discovery' are not hampered by public attention. Every individual who contributed to intensive search efforts in the Pearl River area of Louisiana (January-March 2002) knows that the process was enormously impeded by persistent and energy-diverting requests for background information, visits, tours, and interviews, and by stray members of the public. We had similar experiences following announcement of the rediscovery, and continue to face the problem 11 months later."

There are all kinds of reasons for secrecy, but I find this revealing about the way the CLO views the issue.

I strongly recommend that people read the paper.

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

 

[timeshadowed]

I have finally had the opportunity to read the response of Fitzpatrick et al. to Jackson's paper in the recent issue of The Auk. . . I strongly recommend that people read the paper.

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

How can one obtain a copy of this article to read since it is not on line?

 

[fangsheath]

It is a problem. Many university libraries used to offer cards to non-students. You could have the same access to the library as a student for a very reasonable fee (less than $30/year). I don't know if this is still generally true, I know it isn't true at the local university. It offers students free on-line access to many scientific journals, but non-students can't even pay for access. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for on-line access to many scientific journals.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Years ago I belonged to an alumni association that gave me check-out privileges to the university library.

 

[Katy Penland]

Don't need direct access to university libraries. I've been able to obtain articles via inter-library loan through my public library system -- and most of the things I've requested in the past 4 years have ended up coming from university libraries anyway. The "lending" library, rather than loan the journal, will sometimes prefer to make a photocopy of the desired article and mail it to you. Sometimes they charge for this, sometimes they don't. Also, some reference desks in libraries will be glad to make copies and mail/fax them -- again sometimes for free, sometimes not. Depends on how busy they are and what each individual library's policy is. :t:

 

[slobyn]

I have also read the article. I agree that it is well worth a read.

I have finally had the opportunity to read the response of Fitzpatrick et al. to Jackson's paper in the recent issue of The Auk. To call it withering I think would be an understatement. I will not go into it in detail, there is so much there, this passage will perhaps give a sense of the tone:

"We are baffled by Jackson's statement (p. 12) that our ARUs produced data of 'minimal value,' followed immediately by his advice that we intensify our searching in areas where our units revealed double-rap displays. He calls for the very efforts we are engaged in as a follow-up to our published evidence, while deploring these same efforts as minimally valuable and unjustified by evidence."

One passage I found quite illuminating is this one:

"Jackson is incorrect and naïve in suggesting (p. 5) that scientific efforts to locate Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the 'aftermath of a reported discovery' are not hampered by public attention. Every individual who contributed to intensive search efforts in the Pearl River area of Louisiana (January-March 2002) knows that the process was enormously impeded by persistent and energy-diverting requests for background information, visits, tours, and interviews, and by stray members of the public. We had similar experiences following announcement of the rediscovery, and continue to face the problem 11 months later."

There are all kinds of reasons for secrecy, but I find this revealing about the way the CLO views the issue.

I strongly recommend that people read the paper.

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

 

[drongo]

There is a copy of Cornell's Auk article here
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...0921&ctrlInfo=Round20:Mode20d:DocG:Result&ao=

The URL is quite long - if it doesn't work, there is a link to it from here
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i/ivorybil.asp

 

[humminbird]

There is a copy of Cornell's Auk article here
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...0921&ctrlInfo=Round20:Mode20d:DocG:Result&ao=

The URL is quite long - if it doesn't work, there is a link to it from here
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i/ivorybil.asp

Definitely a very interesting and enlightening read.

 

[timeshadowed]

Thanks, drongo, for supplying that url!

I found the following quotes very interesting in light of several postings to BirdForum that have stated that the IBWO search in AR has 'stolen' funds that were ear-marked for other KNOWN species reseach:

"Jackson (p. 7) is incorrect in stating that funds allocated by federal agencies toward the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
recovery effort represented 'a re-allocation of funds from
other budgeted projects, including ongoing efforts on behalf of other endangered species (Dalton 2005), resulting in cutbacks to those projects.' " . . .

"We consulted the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Southeast Region (S. Hamilton pers. comm.); the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team Leader and Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge system, Southeast Region (J. Andrew pers. comm.); and the senior science advisor to then Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton (J. Tate pers. comm.), among other sources. All agree that no funds previously allocated for other endangered species projects by the USFWS were ever reallocated to the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker project, and no endangered species
project suffered "cutbacks." The above-named sources
explained that unallocated funds available for preventing
extinctions, species recovery, law enforcement, and migratory bird management within the USFWS FY 2005 budget-and not earmarked for other species -were allocated to initiate Ivory-billed Woodpecker recovery efforts."

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I wish I'd seen this article earlier. It renews my confidence in the CLO rediscovery, and it elucidates the emptiness of most of the skeptics' claims.

 

[timeshadowed]

"Who, exactly, is compromising science with sound bites here? "

Here is another quote from the AUK article by Cornell that I find interesting in light of several past posts here on BirdForum:


"Jackson (p. 6) equates legitimate attention to a remarkable
news story by not-for-profit institutions and by the news
media with compromising the scientific process. He cites five "anonymous" authors in arguing that science was
compromised, but these were opinion pieces written by
journalists and bloggers. None purported to be presenting a
scientific case, and none was presented by anyone directly
involved in scientific research. We agree with Jackson's
statement that "sound bites must not pass as science." This is why we were flabbergasted by Jackson's own use of the
phrase "faith- based ornithology" in referring to our work.
Who, exactly, is compromising science with sound bites here?"

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs