Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (11 Viewers)

[Edward woodwood]

All these people who keep saying 'It can't have been a mistake' are so far out of the loop of bird identification it's unreal. Why do we have to listen to these fools spout off about something that they patently know very little about. Once anyone says those words, they betray an immense amount about their attitude to bird identifcation. The more experience you get, the more you realise just how possible it is. Especially when idiots like these lot in the Choctawhatchee are involved.

Interest is dwindling as more folks are becoming aware of the real situation. John Wall was spot on. To the gullible dudes who still post every unsupported Ivorybill "sighting" to unrelated bird lists, like the idiotic virus warning messages of a few years ago: Please stop! You're only making fools of yourselves and filling e-mailboxes with unrelated rubbish. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker became extinct in the U.S. long ago, when the last breeding habitat was destroyed. There have been no credible reports since 1944.

Harsh maybe. But spot on.

Tim

 

[Docmartin]

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.

Thanks Steve, just catching up with posts.
I noticed that too, in a post to the Secret Freezer here last autumn, and am still puzzled why no one made more of it. At the time, in those halcyon days of IBWO naiveity I assumed it was an honest slip. But I can't believe any birder would be so careless as to screw up a description of such a rare bird so badly, in a report that would be read worldwide. I mean, 'doh!'. And 'doh!' again. If this came before a rarities committee it would kill the record dead, and if it was changed now it would kill it even more.

Interesting, reading back through that old post I'd forgotten what I said, viz that there was no point scrutinising these records too hard, because if IBWOs really existed in Florida the photo would come out this (now last) winter. I guess there's a day left?

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I mean, 'doh!'. And 'doh!' again. If this came before a rarities committee it would kill the record dead, and if it was changed now it would kill it even more.

Apart from the word "flank" killing this record dead, my real point - which I didn't make clearly enough (judging from comments here and on Tom Nelson's Blog) - was that any competent birder would NOT have published this particular description as an IBWO observation.

• If they saw white on the flanks and they were honest, they would NOT have claimed IBWO.
• If they saw white on the flanks and they were not honest, they would have missed that out of the description.
• If they didn't see white on the flanks, they would have checked their written description properly.

So my implication was that this description suggests incompetence. Or as you so concisely put it - "doh!"

I'll get my coat ....

Steve

 

[ntbirdman]

I was surprised to have missed that crucial detail in the 27-May-05 Hick's sighting about the back vs. flank striping. Upon reviewing the field notes http://www.auburn.edu/academic/scie...ty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/FieldNotes2006.pdf
, the text seems very damning. Stripes running down the flank, and the back was black. However, Hick's field sketch clearly shows the stripes in the correct IBWO position, he notes 'white stripes carried onto back'. My guess is that this is a (stupid! incredibly stupid!) error in transcription in typing up the notes. Has anyone directly questioned him about this?

Cheers,
Nick

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Yesterday I got a mailing from National Audubon looking for money. It starts off:

<quote>
Something extraordinary happened recently: In the marshy woods of Arkansas, one birder whispered to another, "Do you see what I see?"

"Ohhh," gasped a companion. "It is! It really is!"

They had spotted an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, last seen in 1994 and long considered extinct! <end quote>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this never ACTUALLY happened did it? The only time two people saw the bird at the same time was Gallagher and Harrison, and they simply shouted "IVORY-BILL". So should we just consider this 'theater', 'hyperbole', 'marketing', or perhaps revisionist history?

 

[humminbird]

Yesterday I got a mailing from National Audubon looking for money. It starts off:

<quote>
Something extraordinary happened recently: In the marshy woods of Arkansas, one birder whispered to another, "Do you see what I see?"

"Ohhh," gasped a companion. "It is! It really is!"

They had spotted an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, last seen in 1994 and long considered extinct! <end quote>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this never ACTUALLY happened did it? The only time two people saw the bird at the same time was Gallagher and Harrison, and they simply shouted "IVORY-BILL". So should we just consider this 'theater', 'hyperbole', 'marketing', or perhaps revisionist history?

I am no fan of National Audubon, and they are notorious for the theatrics, but it could just be that this is one of many reports that have not gotten any attention except to a records committee where they need to get the attention.

 

[Xenospiza]

last seen in 1994

I guess you didn't copy/paste it then?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

I was surprised to have missed that crucial detail in the 27-May-05 Hick's sighting about the back vs. flank striping. Upon reviewing the field notes http://www.auburn.edu/academic/scie...ty/webpages/hill/ivorybill/FieldNotes2006.pdf
, the text seems very damning. Stripes running down the flank, and the back was black. However, Hick's field sketch clearly shows the stripes in the correct IBWO position, he notes 'white stripes carried onto back'. My guess is that this is a (stupid! incredibly stupid!) error in transcription in typing up the notes. Has anyone directly questioned him about this?

Cheers,
Nick

One thing that strikes me about the drawing is its apparent dissimilarity in terms of posture with what one would actually expect to see in the field. Was Tyler standing on top of a tree or did the woodpecker take of from the ground? The sketch looks very typical of one done after the event with the aid of a field guide are one done specifically to highlight key Ivory-billed woodpecker features. It does not look like a sketch done whilst observing the bird or from memory based on actual observation of the bird he saw.

 

[Russ Jones]

One thing that strikes me about the drawing is its apparent dissimilarity in terms of posture with what one would actually expect to see in the field. Was Tyler standing on top of a tree or did the woodpecker take of from the ground? The sketch looks very typical of one done after the event with the aid of a field guide are one done specifically to highlight key Ivory-billed woodpecker features. It does not look like a sketch done whilst observing the bird or from memory based on actual observation of the bird he saw.

Some people have difficulties putting what they are seeing/have seen on paper in an accurate way. I presume this is due to lack of artistic ability more than anything else. I'd like to see some of your field sketches sometime Ilya.

Cheers,

Russ

 

[humminbird]

Some people have difficulties putting what they are seeing/have seen on paper in an accurate way. I presume this is due to lack of artistic ability more than anything else. I'd like to see some of your field sketches sometime Ilya.

Cheers,

Russ

Have to agree Russ. Not everyone (yours truly especially) is adept as an artist.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

I guess you didn't copy/paste it then?

Nope, it was an actual PAPER piece of mail. make that 1944.

 

[MMinNY]

Just for the record. I've made good on my promise. I've been busy with other things and don't feel there's much to add in any case. . .I mean Baudrillard? I got my B.A. before post-modernism was all the rage; philosophy was never my metier anyway; in later years, I dropped out before getting an interdisciplinary Ph.D., but I did get a dose (pardon the expression) of Foucault et al. (I do admire Foucault, though I take issue with some of his ideas, so bloody French and not in a good way. Still sexuality is my thing and he had a lot of important insights). Wittegenstein, well, he was a beery swine who was just as soused as Schlelgel. . .Anyhoo, there hasn't been anything new IBWOwise, hence my silence. My professional projects have been. . .well. . .interesting, but I've got bronchitis, and that is no fun. . .at all.

Probably won't be adding much until there's something new to discuss.

What happened to MMiNY? Hope he hasn't disappeared with that OBC money....

 

[Jane Turner]

Hope you recover from your Bronchitis quickly.

 

[colonelboris]

Hope you get over it soon, MM.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Some people have difficulties putting what they are seeing/have seen on paper in an accurate way. I presume this is due to lack of artistic ability more than anything else. I'd like to see some of your field sketches sometime Ilya.

Cheers,

Russ

I don't think you need to be a particularly good artist to attempt to draw what you see. If you don't draw what you see, the best case scenario is theat your field sketches add very little to a description (and thus time would be better spent looking at the bird or focusing on writing a better description). The worst case scenario is that you draw what you think should be seen, features included.

I haven't got my notebook to hand, but I'll post my Black Kite field description up in the next few days and you can fire at will

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I haven't got my notebook to hand, but I'll post my Black Kite field description up in the next few days and you can fire at will

If anyone is seriously interested I can post my Radde's Warbler and Greenish Warbler descriptions from 2005. Both were essentially single observer and both have yet to be accepted by BBRC (so probably wont be!!). Both descriptions have (poor) sketches. How did your Black Kite get on?

Cheers,

 

[Ilya Maclean]

How did your Black Kite get on?

Cheers,

Only got round to submitting it quite recently. Still under review

 

[Jane Turner]

There is a thread on field sketches here

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=11943

 

[humminbird]

There is a thread on field sketches here

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=11943

Jane:
Looking at those wonderful drawings certainly has not encouraged me to submit any of mine to a records committee! Thankfully the few records committee reports I have submitted have either been accompanied by a photo or have been VERY detailed notes. I see no drawings there that I could hope to replicate on a brief (3 - 5 second or less) encounter which is going to be typical of all species in the areas where these searches are concentrated.

 

[Jane Turner]

Very brief records of rare birds are almost invariably not acceptable by rarities committees. I'm wondering what the briefest acceptable sighting of a national rarity actually is. I know mine was a 5 seconds in clear view, 3 mins silhouetted and calling Greenish Warbler (no longer a national raritity). It had the benefit of two other observers though.