• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (4 Viewers)

humminbird said:
Wow. I have been actively birding for more than 20 years from Northern Ontario to Texas and with some current members of bird records committees and have NEVER heard or read a description anything like this! Guess those of us on this side of the pond aren't as eloquent in our descriptions.
Click to expand...


**Guess those of us on this side of the pond aren't as eloquent in our descriptions.**

Thanks humminbird! That was exactly what I was trying to point out. I think because Jane is a WRITER vs just birder, she is being extremely picky about how one happens to describe INTO WORDS what they saw. That being the case she can always find fault with how 'field notes' are written. There are so many many ways in which to say the same thing, that no matter how one says it, she can always discount the sighting by changing her demand for 'how it should be written down in field notes.' There just is no way to really please her as she is raising the bar with each new report.

edited to add:

How many birders go out into the field with a Thesaurus and Dictionary in their back-packs??
 
Last edited:
A more convincing way would be:
The bill appeared white in both shade and dark, and in a number of different orientations. It was markedly long, I estimate about equal to the width of the head, including the crest.
Click to expand...

A writer? What about that last sentence? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the choice of punctuation.

A description of the eyes is now necessary? Dorsal stripes? Check. White trailing edge to wings? Check. Ivory-colored bill? Check. All black head? Check. Eyes? Umm.... Darnit! It must have been a pileated!
 
humminbird said:
Wow. I have been actively birding for more than 20 years from Northern Ontario to Texas and with some current members of bird records committees and have NEVER heard or read a description anything like this! Guess those of us on this side of the pond aren't as eloquent in our descriptions.
Click to expand...

timeshadowed said:
**Guess those of us on this side of the pond aren't as eloquent in our descriptions.**

Thanks humminbird! That was exactly what I was trying to point out. I think because Jane is a WRITER vs just birder, she is being extremely picky about how one happens to describe INTO WORDS what they saw. That being the case she can always find fault with how 'field notes' are written. There are so many many ways in which to say the same thing, that no matter how one says it, she can always discount the sighting by changing her demand for 'how it should be written down in field notes.' There just is no way to really please her as she is raising the bar with each new report.

edited to add:

How many birders go out into the field with a Thesaurus and Dictionary in their back-packs??
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. So now the defense of the “Does So Exist!” side of the Ivory-billed debate falls to a couple of people who object to the use of a college level vocabulary? And say birders on this side of the pond don’t use those kind of words?

:eek!: :eek!: :eek!:

That is just plain disgraceful. Yes, many of us do use multi-syllable words, sometimes even in the proper context. You two are not representative of American birders, and let me suggest that you do your side no favors with posts like that.
:storm:
 
John Mariani said:
Birding skills and experience are what they are. They don't have anything to do with whether you grew up in L.A. or LA (interesting, the untrue assumption that growing up in L.A. would mean less exposure to wildlife). Growing up on a farm and exposure to cattle, horses, or even chickens doesn't have anything to do with birding. Being an expert golfer, mathematician, astrophysicist, or (fill in the blank) has nothing to do with experience and skills at bird identification.

I've also spent much of my life outdoors. It doesn't follow that I'm therefore competent in geology, botany, herpetology...or expert at hunting.

This is an insult out of ignorance - to see someone put "birder" in quotes as if it describes something questionable. There are people out there who have spent years of their lives finding, observing, and identifying birds. By concentrating their attention on birds some have developed knowledge and skills that are amazing. Earthy experiences with livestock or camping don't confer the same competence. Why would anyone assume so unless they don't know or appreciate that birding is a science/sport in it's own right?

I'm not an "obstetrician" but I've spent a lot of time camping, grew up in farm country, and have birthed cattle. I'm sure this qualifies me to deliver babies, or at least puts my opinion on par with that of a doctor.

I'm not a birder, but I play one on TV.
Click to expand...

John I neither expressed nor implied that being a "birder" is questionable in any form.This was not an insult to anyone.
Not a single one of my posts on this or any other forum ,has sought to discredit or diminish any Birders skills or experiences.You on the contrary have labeled anyone claiming to have seen an IBWO as delusional ,whacko,mistaken or a liar.I was merely trying to illustrate my experience and skill,since it has been called into to question several times.I would theorize that "bird hunters" for the most part are very good at making quick id's on the wing, because they are required to do so.
I did not nor do I claim to be an expert at birding ,geology ,botany or any of the other worthwhile endeavors you mentioned.I was merely trying to point out that birding is not the only sport/science that could help you attain the necessary skills required to id any given bird.As for the "obstetrician and doctor" references ,If you hold a Phd in ornithology then I appologise as you would be infinately more qualified than I.
My original reason for joining and posting on this forum was to gain more knowledge about the subject of "birding"and the "ibwo".Even though I am "ignorant " as you implied I am still smart enough to recognize that and seek help from people more knowledable than I.
 
Last edited:
B Lagopus said:
That is just plain disgraceful. Yes, many of us do use multi-syllable words, sometimes even in the proper context. You two are not representative of American birders, and let me suggest that you do your side no favors with posts like that.
:storm:
Click to expand...

My statement had nothing to do with multisylable words. I personally have a couple of books in publication as well as several brochures, pamphlets, etc. on birding, birds and other wildlife. What I was referring to was the abundance of descriptive writing that was, IMHO excessive. If the wings are stated as white, they were white. If the head was black, it wasn't red. I see no reason to explain why you reached that conclusion in the notes.
 
This is meant as an illustration of the competancy issue,it is not meant to insult or label anyone.

In my job duties I am required on a bi-weekly basis to create and install or repair striping and decals on police,fire and various other vehicles.I am in no way an expert in doing so,since it is not my primary duty.One would assume that at a minimum I am at least competent ,because the cost would be far less to hire a contactor to do it.As opposed to purchasing the equipment and materials and furnishing my salary to do it.

I am just trying to illustrate that competancy on a subject can be derived from multiple processes,not just formal education and some person's narrow minded views.
 
TRE329 said:
John I neither expressed nor implied that being a "birder" is questionable in any form.This was not an insult to anyone.
Not a single one of my posts on this or any other forum ,has sought to discredit or diminish any Birders skills or experiences.You on the contrary have labeled anyone claiming to have seen an IBWO as delusional ,whacko,mistaken or a liar.I was merely trying to illustrate my experience and skill,since it has been called into to question several times.I would theorize that "bird hunters" for the most part are very good at making quick id's on the wing, because they are required to do so.
I did not nor do I claim to be an expert at birding ,geology ,botany or any of the other worthwhile endeavors you mentioned.I was merely trying to point out that birding is not the only sport/science that could help you attain the necessary skills required to id any given bird.As for the "obstetrician and doctor" references ,If you hold a Phd in ornithology then I appologise as you would be infinately more qualified than I.
My original reason for joining and posting on this forum was to gain more knowledge about the subject of "birding"and the "ibwo".Even though I am "ignorant " as you implied I am still smart enough to recognize that and seek help from people more knowledable than I.
Click to expand...

Get it right. Show me where I've called someone whacko, delusional, or a liar (aside from one person out there who may be all three). Simple mistakes and observer bias I think are sufficient explanations.

Why the quotes around "birder"? It's a term no different from than kayaker or hunter. Putting quotes around the term puts it in question or makes it sound like slang or a euphemism, which it is not.

Birding IS the only sport/science that would give you the necessary skills to identify ANY given bird in the field. I don't think it's possible for someone who hasn't spent time really watching/studying birds to competently identify shorebirds, female hummingbirds, Empidonax flycatchers, sparrows, vireos, immature warblers, etc., etc. This doesn't mean that beginners can't correctly identify tough birds, but they frequently don't, and it's largely because they lack comparitive experience.

I'm sure hunters know how to id game birds. I'm also sure that no matter how much time they've spent outdoors they don't know most songbirds (or woodpeckers) by sight or sound unless they have actually spent time watching and identifying them...which would make them birders. This is the crux of the misunderstanding. You seem to think that being able to identify all the birds out there correctly you just need to have brains and a field guide. Experience and knowledge of birds is as valuable to a birder as hunting experience is to that sport. Which brings me to...

The obstetrician reference. If I have never shot a picture before and I buy a disposable camera and click pictures of my family does that makes me a photographer? I may shoot into the sun, get my thumb in half the shots, and not get a single well exposed picture, but I am doing photography. Of course that doesn't make me an expert photographer, but I wouldn't presume to be one, or that photographic skills are meaningless.

And finally, nobody has to have a degree in ornithology to be a good birder. It isn't even relevant really. There are professional ornithologists out there who are not active birders and spend their time working on biological, taxonomic, and behavioral questions. Just because a person has a doctorate doesn't mean that they have field experience in bird identification.
 
"I'm also sure that no matter how much time they've spent outdoors they don't know most songbirds (or woodpeckers) by sight or sound unless they have actually spent time watching and identifying them...which would make them birders."

I am basing this only off of your definition here.I will from now on refer to my self as a birder.You do not of course specify how much time should be spent.I am confident though that someone will adress that in the spirit of discrediting more people.
 
John Mariani said:
Get it right. Show me where I've called someone whacko, delusional, or a liar (aside from one person out there who may be all three). Simple mistakes and observer bias I think are sufficient explanations.

Why the quotes around "birder"? It's a term no different from than kayaker or hunter. Putting quotes around the term puts it in question or makes it sound like slang or a euphemism, which it is not.

Birding IS the only sport/science that would give you the necessary skills to identify ANY given bird in the field. I don't think it's possible for someone who hasn't spent time really watching/studying birds to competently identify shorebirds, female hummingbirds, Empidonax flycatchers, sparrows, vireos, immature warblers, etc., etc. This doesn't mean that beginners can't correctly identify tough birds, but they frequently don't, and it's largely because they lack comparitive experience.

I'm sure hunters know how to id game birds. I'm also sure that no matter how much time they've spent outdoors they don't know most songbirds (or woodpeckers) by sight or sound unless they have actually spent time watching and identifying them...which would make them birders. This is the crux of the misunderstanding. You seem to think that being able to identify all the birds out there correctly you just need to have brains and a field guide. Experience and knowledge of birds is as valuable to a birder as hunting experience is to that sport. Which brings me to...

The obstetrician reference. If I have never shot a picture before and I buy a disposable camera and click pictures of my family does that makes me a photographer? I may shoot into the sun, get my thumb in half the shots, and not get a single well exposed picture, but I am doing photography. Of course that doesn't make me an expert photographer, but I wouldn't presume to be one, or that photographic skills are meaningless.

And finally, nobody has to have a degree in ornithology to be a good birder. It isn't even relevant really. There are professional ornithologists out there who are not active birders and spend their time working on biological, taxonomic, and behavioral questions. Just because a person has a doctorate doesn't mean that they have field experience in bird identification.
Click to expand...


They may not be able to identify them by the proper name John, but what skills would they lack, if they can competently identify a Northern Pintail hen in flight, that would not allow them to competently describe any bird?
 
humminbird said:
They may not be able to identify them by the proper name John, but what skills would they lack, if they can competently identify a Northern Pintail hen in flight, that would not allow them to competently describe any bird?
Click to expand...

Experience, skills, knowledge - all help. And ducks and other game birds are not the only birds out there. I don't think it followas that knowing ducks would mean competency in identifying all birds.

By the way, US Fish & Wildlife once tried to put a seasonal moratorium on hunting Canvasback, because of declining midwest breeding populations. The effort did not result in a decrease in the number of Canvasback taken. From my reading this was explained as resulting from a lack of discrimination by hunters. I'ver personally seen a hunter bring a grebe to a check station not knowing it wasn't a duck, and others throwing away Ruddy Ducks and other species they shot in error. I've also listened to hunters talking about the ones they shot and ditched. So not every hunter is savvy or great at split second ids.
 
These more challenging ids are not analogous. The differences in appearance between the Pileated and the IBWO are far more dramatic than the smaller, "tougher" birds you've listed.

As for the "science". . .read what Geoff Hill has to say about it. I had to get very good at identifying paintings by artist and date, from slides no less, when I took Art History courses in college. My high grade point average in that discipline did not make me a scientist. Birding may not be a crime, but it's not a science either.


John Mariani said:
.

Birding IS the only sport/science that would give you the necessary skills to identify ANY given bird in the field. I don't think it's possible for someone who hasn't spent time really watching/studying birds to competently identify shorebirds, female hummingbirds, Empidonax flycatchers, sparrows, vireos, immature warblers, etc., etc. This doesn't mean that beginners can't correctly identify tough birds, but they frequently don't, and it's largely because they lack comparitive experience.
Click to expand...
 
humminbird said:
What I was referring to was the abundance of descriptive writing that was, IMHO excessive. If the wings are stated as white, they were white. If the head was black, it wasn't red. I see no reason to explain why you reached that conclusion in the notes.
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water......
 
Jane Turner said:
I'd be probably be convinced by a description that described the wing feathers well enough to be certain precisely what was white and what was black, backed up with the dorsal stripe and the bill, with how the observer was able certain about what had been seen.

edit: Reallybe able to say without doubt that you have seen the bird in the middle of this tryptich, not the ones one either side

I suspect a thorough records committee would also like the eye and the structure to be accurately described.
Click to expand...

Jane,

I suspect many here are just giving folks lessons on how to fool a records committee. I'm noticing a lot of parroting going on this forum. Maybe a thread title should be "How to successfully fake an IBWO sighting without a photo." although this one seems to be doing quite well.
 
John Mariani said:
The effort did not result in a decrease in the number of Canvasback taken.
Click to expand...

My memory of this was that there was not decrease in the number of Canvasbacks declared in bags... suggesting that not only did hunters not know what they were shooting in the field, they were also unable to recognise the corpse of a Cavansback up close an personal - there was I believe a fine involved, so presumably quite a few were dumped too!
 
curunir said:
Jane,

I suspect many here are just giving folks lessons on how to fool a records committee. I'm noticing a lot of parroting going on this forum. Maybe a thread title should be "How to successfully fake an IBWO sighting without a photo." although this one seems to be doing quite well.
Click to expand...

We can always hope that some of it rubs off on the people in the field - and they are able to describe what they see, and are capable of looking critically at putative records rather than with ivory-billed-tinted glasses.

The first step is to avoid deluding yourself that you have seen something rarer than you have!
 
Who?

Jane Turner said:
We can always hope that some of it rubs off on the people in the field - and they are able to describe what they see, and are capable of looking critically at putative records rather than with ivory-billed-tinted glasses.

The first step is to avoid deluding yourself that you have seen something rarer than you have!
Click to expand...

And who, precisely, has deluded him/herself recently? Who has described a pileated through ivory-billed tinted glasses?
 
Jane, we've been getting along swimmingly of late, and as I've told you privately, I'm very grateful for your willingness to be clear about your standards for field notes and your approach to the evidence, so this is not intended to be churlish or attacking. . .but I've got to ask: which is rarer, the IBWO (which has been reported dozens of times over the last 60 years, sometimes in considerable detail) or a hypothetical and heretofore undocumented mutant Pileated? According to Lammertink, there's only one report of such a bird that comes close, and there's no photographic evidence to support it, AFAIK.

If there are so many aberrant Pileateds around, why is it that none of the photos thus far produced of leucistic PIWOs even vaguely resembles the IBWO's plumage pattern? Every one I've seen is unambiguous. Pileateds are common and quite easy to photograph, so applying the same standard as has been applied to the IBWO, why no photo?

For my part, I have no intention of faking any field notes; that's just not my thing. I'll post about my experiences in the field. I'll try and get a photo. If I see nothing, I'll say so. If I see or hear something that I think is an IBWO, I'll give as many details as I can. If I get a good look, I'll do my best to write detailed notes about it (though the photo comes first).


Jane Turner said:
The first step is to avoid deluding yourself that you have seen something rarer than you have!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
B Lagopus said:
Wait a minute. So now the defense of the “Does So Exist!” side of the Ivory-billed debate falls to a couple of people who object to the use of a college level vocabulary? And say birders on this side of the pond don’t use those kind of words?

That is just plain disgraceful. Yes, many of us do use multi-syllable words, sometimes even in the proper context. You two are not representative of American birders, and let me suggest that you do your side no favors with posts like that.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but it is you who have mis-read my posts. Firstly, they were addressed only to Jane and no one else.

The reason being that I'm getting tired of the way Jane has kept moving the 'bar of proof' by insisting that non-birders write the way an experienced birder would when writing 'field notes'.

She first stated that field notes taken in the field would be enough to convince her that they had indeed seen an IBWO if they clearly discribed what they had seen - wing pattern, bill, dorsal stripe.

So that was done. But she still rejected the report by saying that the notes needed to be written like XXXX.

So she raised the bar a little by demanding that the description needed to include more details.

So that was done. But she still rejected the report, and gave more instructions on how 'proper' field notes needed to be written.

Her instructions were noted and applied, but she still rejected the field notes and claimed that more details were needed. With each claimed sighting by a non-birder, the field notes of said non-birder improved, but again she was still unhappy with the way it was written and gave more instructions on how lets say the bill should be described.

Now she is even said that a description of the 'eyes' is necessary for her to accept the non-birder's field notes.

Why does she keep moving the field notes 'proof' bar with the passage of time?

I know of no other poster who has done this.

It's all about how a non-birder writes the field notes. It not really about what the non-birder has seen. It seems to be a writing issue with Jane, rather than whether someone has really seen an IBWO or not.
 
Last edited:
In fairness to Jane, I don't think her issue with Ross's notes had to do with the way they were written; she did not feel that he had done enough to rule out other possibilities and also felt that he had provided insufficient detail.

I disagree with her insistence that field notes should rule out every possible alternative explanation, even (as I've been arguing) hypothetical ones. This strikes me as setting an impossibly high standard. At the same time, I think she has been logically consistent, even if she has clarified and elaborated on what she would accept.

timeshadowed said:
Sorry, but it is you who have mis-read my posts. Firstly, they were addressed only to Jane and no one else.

The reason being that I'm getting tired of the way Jane has kept moving the 'bar of proof' by insisting that non-birders write the way an experienced birder would when writing 'field notes'.

She first stated that field notes taken in the field would be enough to convince her that they had indeed seen an IBWO if they clearly discribed what they had seen - wing pattern, bill, dorsal stripe.

So that was done. But she still rejected the report by saying that the notes needed to be written like XXXX.

So she raised the bar a little by demanding that the description needed to include more details.

So that was done. But she still rejected the report, and gave more instructions on how 'proper' field notes needed to be written.

Her instructions were noted and applied, but she still rejected the field notes and claimed that more details were needed. With each claimed sighting by a non-birder, the field notes of said non-birder improved, but again she was still unhappy with the way it was written and gave more instructions on how lets say the bill should be described.

Now she is even said that a description of the 'eyes' is necessary for her to accept the non-birder's field notes.

Why does she keep moving the field notes 'proof' bar with the passage of time?

I know of no other poster who has done this.

It's all about how a non-birder writes the field notes. It not really about what the non-birder has seen. It seems to be a writing issue with Jane, rather than whether someone has really seen an IBWO or not.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Mono
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives on...
Replies
1
Views
806
Lisa W
Lisa W
F
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
15K
jurek
jurek
F
  • Locked
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
23K
ZanderII
Z
F
YouTube videos on habitats, Peru, IBWO, 4K, etc.
Replies
2
Views
1K
400+birder
4
M
  • Locked
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued
32 33 34
Replies
662
Views
61K
Steve
Steve

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top