humminbird
Well-known member
A heck of an anecdote indeed but without something to back it up it remains as much an anecdote as any of the other stories we have seen.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
A heck of an anecdote indeed but without something to back it up it remains as much an anecdote as any of the other stories we have seen.
lewis20126
Well-known member
No, I prefer to suggest that Hicks and Guthrie made honest mistakes ("stringing") .... and the Ivory-bill is still extinct.
What happened to MMiNY? Hope he hasn't disappeared with that OBC money....
How do you make an honest mistake with this, seen well in profile:
- a very large woodpecker perched on the side of a tree
- a "glowing" white bill
- a black crest
- a dorsal stripe leading from the head down the neck to the back
- lower back (of perched bird) bright white
It is way, way, beyond credulity to suggest this is a mistaken identification.
humminbird
Well-known member
Better look back in the forum. I believe you will find an answer.
humminbird
Well-known member
It is indeed a very convincing anecdote. But what do we have to support it?
Obviously, Hicks' sightings (nor Kulivan's or other very good ones) don't give us indisputable evidence. We have sound recordings, again not conclusive, but in some cases these are associated with sightings. At this point, if we are to make a judgment (either extant or extinct) about the Ivory-bill, it is a judgment about the skill and veracity of the people reporting them, including Hicks, Kulivan, Gallagher, Harrison, Fitzpatrick, LaBranche, Driscoll, Taylor, Hill, and Guthrie. There are others, of course, but these at least have staked their professional reputations on their sightings. All of them know the seriousness of their reports and are certain of their identifications. I don't know any of them personally, but I respect their experience and professionalism enough to consider them highly credible. It's not as satisfying as watching a video would be, but I still fall on the "believer" end of the scale because I do not see a logical scenario by which none of the most credible observations and recordings are really Ivory-bills.
humminbird
Well-known member
I would have to state I am in the "don't know" category, and I do know some of these gentlemen personally. All of them are indeed very competent, very respectable birders and yes, if I had to stake a position based on their reputation and my knowledge of their skills I would say the bird is probably extant. But my knowledge of their skills and their reputations can not come into the question. We have to look strictly at what we have in front of us. I know this is different from what I have stated previously, I wanted to look at the question of their skills but we can not let that influence the record.
What we have right now is a lot of very competent men claiming to have seen something that may or may not be there. Have we been there before? Yes. Dennis for one was ridiculed and he MAY have been right.
Should we be ridiculing these claims? NO.
Should we stop the search? NO
Should we examine these claims carefully? YES
Should we examine them any more carefully than others? I am still not convinced we should.
Should VERY GOOD field notes suffice? I am still not convinced they should not IF there is good corroboration. What that would consist of short of a photo, I don't know.
Imaginos
Well-known member
So, let's get this straight...Once again we have a single-person sighting, despite others being around Hicks is the only person able to get close enough to see it, again he sees the bird for the briefest time ("couple of seconds"). Aware that the primary goal must be to get some sort of photo-any photo-he takes his camera, lo & behold! the camera "failed us" I find I am not surprised-is that wrong?
Surely even a fifth rate photographer engaged in a search for a bird that clearly requires documentary evidence to prove its existence would have preset his camera to a setting where it doesn't take more than a "couple of seconds" to focus.
Any camera users out there able to give an estimate on the amount of time an autofocus needs to focus on an area 40 feet away?
Also I refer back to a few posts I made earlier about the ability of the mind to see things that aren't there if you want to see them (if it happens to experienced entomologists studying an insect at leisure under a microscope I'm sure it can happen to experienced birders seeing a bird for "a couple of seconds")
Jane Turner
Well-known member
We still haven't had the first hand account of this sighting. So all is conjecture at present.
DEREK CHARLES
Well-known member
I consider myself at best a fifth rate photographer and for a variety of reasons keep my camera on autofocus most of the time. It would take two or three seconds at most to get a "good record shot" of an Ivorybill Woodpecker at 40 feet away. It would only take a second or two more if the camera was on manual focus. All it would require are some steady nerves exactly the same steady nerves that would be required to get a full description of the same woodpecker at the same range.
It just doesn't add up, the people looking are either competent or incompetent. If they claim they can get a good description of an Ivorybill Woodpecker then there is no reason why a good photograph/video can not be produced.
Derek
It just doesn't add up, the people looking are either competent or incompetent. If they claim they can get a good description of an Ivorybill Woodpecker then there is no reason why a good photograph/video can not be produced.
Derek
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
Please could you point me to details of Tyler Hick's close, eye level view of a perched bird noting all the field marks. The only two I'm aware of are (a) of a bird seen relatively briefly in flight in which only the white trailing edges of the wing were reported except for during only one downward beat of the wings (i.e. c. 1/16th of a second) when the next stripes reported and he thinks he thinks he "caught a glimpse of the pale bill". Red colouration was not noted. The fieldnotes state that the bird was in flight for the entire duration of the observation, but the range is not given. (b) A brief view of a bird 50 yeards away from a canoe and without binoculars in which only the underwing was seen.
p.s. Jane - they are now available here:
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/scie...ty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/FieldNotes2006.pdf
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Being what I consider a half-decent birder but a woeful photographer I would take issue with some recent comments. I recently tried to photograph a Stonechat which perched on the top of a concrete fence post, 20 yards away, for at least 30 seconds. Using autofocus I failed to get a single shot off. The camera couldn't decide whether to focus on the post or the vegetation behind it. SO for a good 20 seconds or so it went back and forth over and over again until I decided to switch to manual and finally got a few pictures before it flew off. None of these pictures were in focus :-@ which is the reason I had set it to autofocus in the first place. All this proves is that I am rubbish at photography and that autofocus doesn't necessarily help. I would imagine this is particularly the case in dense forest.
On one hand, I think if I was going after IBWOs as part of an official search I might get some proper training with my camera. On the other, if an IBWO was sat in front of me I would just watch it and enjoy!
With respect to the Hicks sighting, I think it is perfectly possible for a young ambitious birder who is absolutely desperate to see IBWO, to see things that aren't actually there when confronted with a short sighting of a large woodpecker in unfamiliar habitat. I'm not saying that is what happened just that it is entirely possible. It is also possible that he saw an IBWO.
Cheers,
On one hand, I think if I was going after IBWOs as part of an official search I might get some proper training with my camera. On the other, if an IBWO was sat in front of me I would just watch it and enjoy!
With respect to the Hicks sighting, I think it is perfectly possible for a young ambitious birder who is absolutely desperate to see IBWO, to see things that aren't actually there when confronted with a short sighting of a large woodpecker in unfamiliar habitat. I'm not saying that is what happened just that it is entirely possible. It is also possible that he saw an IBWO.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Ilya Maclean; said:
Alas not including the most recent "gleaming beak", "millisecond" view.
humminbird
Well-known member
I have personally had situations where the bird or snake has been there longer than a few seconds and I have been unable to get the $#%$ autofocus to stop.
humminbird
Well-known member
While I have several problems with your description of a) I find neither of these anything like what has been reported of the famous Hicks sighting either. What has happened? Did Hicks observe a perched bird or is this a figment of someone's imagination?
By the way, one of the dates in the link provided is right for the well discussed Hicks supposed sighting!
colonelboris
Right way up again
Despite my previous threat/whinge not to post....
I sympathise to an extent with the autofocus bit. If my P850 doesn't want to focus, then it's a real bugger to persuade otherwise (and the manual focus is not good on this thing). However, even a moderately blurry shot (given enough pixels) should show some of the salient features? I've presented some shocking photos where two species look similar and people on here have been able to tell which it is. One of a bird that was 6" long at 35-40 ft was picked up on straight away (even I felt quite confident about it), so a dirty great big pecker at 40 ft, some of the features would show through. Better a somewhat blurry shot than nothing (asuming it's more than 10 pixels)....?
(f'rinstance: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=80907 )
I sympathise to an extent with the autofocus bit. If my P850 doesn't want to focus, then it's a real bugger to persuade otherwise (and the manual focus is not good on this thing). However, even a moderately blurry shot (given enough pixels) should show some of the salient features? I've presented some shocking photos where two species look similar and people on here have been able to tell which it is. One of a bird that was 6" long at 35-40 ft was picked up on straight away (even I felt quite confident about it), so a dirty great big pecker at 40 ft, some of the features would show through. Better a somewhat blurry shot than nothing (asuming it's more than 10 pixels)....?
(f'rinstance: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=80907 )
Last edited:
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
Why do you have several problems of my description of (a)? OK the underwing was seen too, and some flight actions are described and my estimation of the length of the view is based on reported "IBWO" wingbeat rates not on PIWO wingbeat rates. Would suggest that anybody who thinks my description is biased should follow the link and read the descriptions for themselves.
I think my initial confusion about Tyler's sightings is that I've subsequently discovered he's actually had three. The two for which field notes are provided and a third, also on Christmas Eve, but in 2006 for which there is only a second hand description:
As he came around a bend in the channel, he saw an ivorybill on the trunk of a tupelo. It was only about 40 feet away. Tyler could clearly see the “ivory-white” bill on the bird—he said the pale bill “glowed” against the dark trunk of the tree. The crest of the bird was black. He’s sure. No red. The bird presented a profile so he saw one dorsal stripe running from the head to the back. The lower portion of the back of the perched bird was brilliant white. The bird paused on the tree for just a second and then fled. As it launched off the trunk and flew off Tyler could clearly see the broad white trailing edge covering the secondaries and innermost primaries of the dorsal wing surface. In flight, it had a long pointed tail and a long neck which he described as “like a pintail duck”.
It would be nice to see a first hand description of this third sighting
Last edited:
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
From the link posted by Ilya :
"On the final down stroke the bird climbed through canopy affording a better view of the bird dorsally. The bird appeared long (almost loon-like) in flight. The large white wing patches were clearly visible and the white lines running from the neck down the flank were visible as well. "
If I remember correctly the white on an IBWO neck goes onto the back, not down the flank. This could make you question whether it was it a PIWO with white in the wings or an IBWO with aberrant white coloration on the neck.
I find it very hard to believe that someone of Tyler Hicks apparent reputation as a birder, describing an IBWO, would make such an error of terminology when describing one of IBWOs diagnostic features.
So, is the description or the observation mistaken?
Cheers,
"On the final down stroke the bird climbed through canopy affording a better view of the bird dorsally. The bird appeared long (almost loon-like) in flight. The large white wing patches were clearly visible and the white lines running from the neck down the flank were visible as well. "
If I remember correctly the white on an IBWO neck goes onto the back, not down the flank. This could make you question whether it was it a PIWO with white in the wings or an IBWO with aberrant white coloration on the neck.
I find it very hard to believe that someone of Tyler Hicks apparent reputation as a birder, describing an IBWO, would make such an error of terminology when describing one of IBWOs diagnostic features.
So, is the description or the observation mistaken?
Cheers,
Wildwood
Well-known member
If you're already focused at, or near, 40 feet away, and in favourable conditions, not time at all! But..
You’re in a heavily wooded area, so it follows probably quite dark in there. So forget autofocus, and set your camera on manual focus. Firstly because crossing branches and twigs could fool autofocus (even in bright light), and secondly because autofocus is not as efficient in low light (it hunts). You focus on a tree say 20 yards away, and use this as you’re reference so you can instinctively decided which way to turn the focus ring, depending on whether your subject is closer or further away from that reference point (as you may do with binoculars). After some practice it becomes automatic.
The further away the subject, the less accurate you need to be with focusing in order to get good depth of field.
OK, so that’s probably telling many of you to suck eggs, but even so it may be worth passing it on to the searchers. One less excuse for alleged missed shots.
humminbird
Well-known member
My comments are based on a first hand reading of the account. I question how you are assuming this was a "relatively brief" observation when we have no indication of how long the bird was in view.
As to the second, my question is, is there in fact a third observation by Hicks or is it the figment of repeated comments with no source of origin. It would be very surprising, odd, unusual, inappropriate, and I don't know what other adjective to use, for Auburn to choose to publish all but this amazingly good set of field notes IF they exist.
Similar threads
