Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

lockbreeze926 · Apr 5, 2007

tmguy said:
Not yet, but I can go see the birds any time I wish while you play on "the deen" and watch ruggers and get drunk. It seems the closer one is to a third world country the more rude and uncivili"s"ed one gets. You need to do better on your insult next time scotty. Bill

Well, I originally come from the same "third-world country" as the gentleman to whom you refer and I have to report that most of us have given up living in caves since the fierce "Rugger" was seemingly extirpated in the early 90s. (Social Anthropology note : you can't "play" on a 'Deen - it's a type of cult. if you don't believe me, Google Cults and Aberdeen, you'll see it's true. 175,000 hits!)

On a more IBWO note, I'm next over in Florida in three weeks' time - why don't you PM me and we can go together to see the birds? We can have a laugh at all the kilted peons at the same time, eh? I'm based in Polk county and I've got a completely empty two-week window from the 30th on. I'm happy to go at your convenience : look forward to hearing from you. Seriously.

Scotty.

dafi · Apr 5, 2007

there is an intresting interview with Bobby Harrision over on Birders world .com. You can find it in featured stories , current issue. Well i thought it was intresting anyway.

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 5, 2007

MMinNY said:
TRE's first view was by no means "poor" or "fleeting." He was able to call someone on a cell phone and describe the birds as he watched them. The sighting, from a distance of 35 yards, included "several double taps," and lasted for 6 1/2 minutes with one bird. A second flew in and both flew off. He didn't note the bill color but described the bill as "bigger and more pronounced" than a Pileated's. He didn't document it in a manner that would be accepted by a records committee, but then he didn't know to do that, so there's room for someone to claim what he saw was a leucistic PIWO, despite the double taps and larger bill, but the sighting itself was not poor at all. I wouldn't characterize his second sighting, which took place less than half a mile from the first, as "poor" or "fleeting" either. He reports having watched the bird as it flew for "about 200 yards."

Please be more attentive to the facts when posting.

OK, so now when unexperienced observers see the bird, they get long, good looks. But when someone with a camera sees the bird, they don't even have time to raise the camera. A highly suspicious pattern seems to be emerging.

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 5, 2007

humminbird said:
Have you had opportunity to visit with Sparling at any of the programs he has done in the Houston area? This is not how he would describe himself at all (another of the many criticisms I have had of Gallagher's book). He describes himself as an experienced birdwatcher. He says he knew what he saw immediately and was hesitant to post it to any birding forums because he knew the criticism he would bring.

And I have often attended at locations where rare birds are reported and spent several hours (in one case even going back multiple days) before having to settle for a brief (2-3 second) look at the bird as it flew in. Does that mean that all those birds (Costa's Hummingbird in Rockport Texas, Green-breasted Mango in the Rio Grande Valley, Crimson-collared Grosbeak in the Rio Grande Valley, White-throated Robin also in the Valley, Buff-breasted Flycatcher in the Davis Mountains) were not there because I could not get a good look at them (neither did anyone else there those days, but we were happy with what we saw). By the way, in the case of the Costa's my photos are Luneau quality. The Grosbeak is even worse. The others I was unable to get my camera on! Amazing. Guess I didn't see them after all!

A BRIEF flyby that they were able to get to shore and follow briefly on foot????

So, someone else independently saw these birds before you, and you were able to find them again?

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 5, 2007

timeshadowed said:
Thank you MMinNY, that is exactly what I've been trying to point out. Birding has a 'learning curve' and most new reports of IBWO sightings are coming from those who have not even heard of 'the proper way to take field notes!' That does not mean that their view of the bird was poor! Nor does it mean that they are unable to tell the difference between a PIWO and the IBWO. To discount these sightings just because the 'notes' don't get an 'A' grade mark is not using good judgement in my opinion.

So if they don't know they should be taking field notes, how do you know they know what they should be looking at to distinguish IBWO from PIWO (or anything else)? I'm sure some do, just as I'm sure some don't.

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 5, 2007

humminbird said:
Read the accounts. Very few lasted less than the 2 - 3 seconds most people find sufficient to say "I saw it".

As to the last paragraph - every one has been done in the last 60 years with the exception of DNA to my knowledge - all have been deemed insufficient.

There is a video of more than a few pixels? Where?

emupilot · Apr 5, 2007

MacGillivray's Trout said:
OK, so now when unexperienced observers see the bird, they get long, good looks. But when someone with a camera sees the bird, they don't even have time to raise the camera. A highly suspicious pattern seems to be emerging.

Actually, the pattern is really simple. The way to get an extended look is to have the bird find you. TRE and Kulivan got extended looks (when not looking for IBWO) by being quiet and camouflaged next to a tree and then they got lucky. Of course, this is something hunters do, not birders. If an IBWO is aware of someone (as they will tend to be if a moving person happens upon one), it leaves. Searchers debate the best method of finding the bird, between being still in a good spot or to keep moving. One way you have to be patient and get lucky, and the other way you need to be a quick draw with the video camera.

Russ Jones · Apr 5, 2007

MacGillivray's Trout said:
OK, so now when unexperienced observers see the bird, they get long, good looks. But when someone with a camera sees the bird, they don't even have time to raise the camera. A highly suspicious pattern seems to be emerging.

What are you suspicious of? Please elaberate...

Russ

timeshadowed · Apr 5, 2007

John Mariani said:
Anyone can . . . talk with an expert or look at illustrations and convince themselves that they saw one. Then they can draw a picture of what they saw after talking to an expert or looking at the pictures. . .

I agree and it doesn't help the id problems ascociated with the IBWO to learn that some illustrations in 'field guides" were made by taking the outline of a PIWO and drawing the color markings of the IBWO on a PIWO body!

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 6, 2007

emupilot said:
Actually, the pattern is really simple. The way to get an extended look is to have the bird find you. TRE and Kulivan got extended looks (when not looking for IBWO) by being quiet and camouflaged next to a tree and then they got lucky. Of course, this is something hunters do, not birders. If an IBWO is aware of someone (as they will tend to be if a moving person happens upon one), it leaves. Searchers debate the best method of finding the bird, between being still in a good spot or to keep moving. One way you have to be patient and get lucky, and the other way you need to be a quick draw with the video camera.

How does this fit in with the remote cameras? They have yet to photograph an IBWO. In fact, they photograph lots and lots of things using the cavities that aren't IBWO.

MacGillivray's Trout · Apr 6, 2007

timeshadowed said:
I agree and it doesn't help the id problems ascociated with the IBWO to learn that some illustrations in 'field guides" were made by taking the outline of a PIWO and drawing the color markings of the IBWO on a PIWO body!

Could you distinguish between a painting of an IBWO and an outline of a PIWO painted like an IBWO?

emupilot · Apr 6, 2007

MacGillivray's Trout said:
How does this fit in with the remote cameras? They have yet to photograph an IBWO. In fact, they photograph lots and lots of things using the cavities that aren't IBWO.

Can you direct me to a site where anyone with remote cameras lists what they got photos of (and how many of each)? I expect such cameras would get far more of other stuff (which is orders of magnitude more common than IBWO), but I do think those cameras are one of the more likely scenarios whereby we get photos of IBWO.

timeshadowed · Apr 6, 2007

MacGillivray's Trout said:
So if they don't know they should be taking field notes, how do you know they know what they should be looking at to distinguish IBWO from PIWO (or anything else)? I'm sure some do, just as I'm sure some don't.

No, I'm not saying that they don't know they should be taking field notes. What I'm saying is that they are unaware of the technichal language - compare and contrast - that they should be using to describe what they are seeing.

TRE"s second sighting notes were much improved over his first sighting notes. But if you will go back and read Jane's comments up-thread regarding his second set of field notes, you can see what I'm trying to say. Most non-birders and new birders do not know that they are expected to write field notes that EXCLUDE all other birds that may have similar markings.

Examples:

wrong way - The bird had a large white bill

right way - The bird's bill was white, not black in appearance as the PIWO's bill is. The bill was much larger than that of the PIWO.

bitterntwisted · Apr 6, 2007

tmguy said:
...while you play on "the deen" and watch ruggers and get drunk.

Sounds like a wholesome and fulfilling pursuit to me, particularly when put next to making models of woodpeckers as a hobby. But "chacun a son gout" in the free world. If you wanna play puppet theatre on your own in the woods you go play, Bill.

Graham

timeshadowed · Apr 6, 2007

MacGillivray's Trout said:
Could you distinguish between a painting of an IBWO and an outline of a PIWO painted like an IBWO?

Yes. Just compare the 1935 IBWO photos with that of a PIWO photo yourself. The body shape of the IBWO is nothing like that of the PIWO.

Edited to add:

Why compare painting to painting?? Why not compare photo to photo?

curunir · Apr 6, 2007

Let me pose a question to the group. If an irrefutable picture or body is found. Will most or only some of the individuals claiming sightings be validated.

dave_in_michigan · Apr 6, 2007

Hello all! Just found this site today... Wow, you guys have some fun here, don't you?

emupilot said:
A "credible" observation is one which includes an unequivocal description of field marks distinctive to Ivory-billed Woodpecker from an observer who is familiar with what is and is not a Pileated Woodpecker. With such an observation, there is good reason to think that the observer really did see (and in some cases also hear) an Ivory-bill. Not all credible observations have been made by highly experienced birders, but thankfully neither the Ivory-bill nor its field marks are subtle, so it is not necessary to be an experienced birder to notice and describe one. Following is an incomplete list of credible observers. Some have a problem with a few of these, but to suggest every single one is delusional says more about the accuser than the accused.

David Kulivan, Gene Sparling, Tim Gallagher, Bobby Harrison, Jim Fitzpatrick, Melinda LaBranche, Melanie Driscoll, Casey Taylor, Mike Collins, Geoff Hill, Tyler Hicks, Brian Rolek, Bob Anderson, TRE329, Jesse Gilsdorf, choupique

Hmmm, I'm disappointed I didn't make your list, emupilot (but not surprized - no worries! ;-)... For those who haven't seen it, I claim to have seen a pair of IBWO's fly across in front of me outside of Orlando. You can see my report here: http://www.dcibwo.net/index.htm

I put it out there as a piece of information, nothing more. It's not irrefutable and I'm not perfect, it just is what it is. I don't think it proves anything any more than I think all the other sightings, recordings, or the Luneau video prove anything. I'm all in favour (spelling just for you Brits) of a good skeptical approach, and I see plenty of it here.

So never mind the bollocks, just give me the good stuff. What do you think?

- dave

[edit 05apr07: report moved to dcibwo.net]

dave_in_michigan · Apr 6, 2007

curunir said:
Let me pose a question to the group. If an irrefutable picture or body is found. Will most or only some of the individuals claiming sightings be validated.

I don't think it would validate any of them. It may make them less likely to have been mistaken, but nothing more. I believe I saw a pair of IBWO's fly in front of me. If tomorrow someone takes a clear photo of a pair of IBWO's at the exact same spot, then the likelyhood of my sighting being true goes pretty high, but it doesn't prove I didn't actually see Pileateds and make a mistaken report. There is no way to go back in time and "validate" a one-time event (observation).

timeshadowed · Apr 6, 2007

dave_in_michigan said:
Hello all! Just found this site today - dave

Welcome to BirdForum Dave! I've read your posts over at ibwo.net. Glad you made it over here, but be prepared to defend your sighting here on BF. Some who post here feel that every IBWO report should be backed up by 'field notes' that have been written while observing the bird 'in the field' and not an hour later at the kitchen table. These 'field notes' must also have been written in such a detailed manner that they would be acceptable to a 'rare birds committee'.

I will repeat my example that I gave up-thread:

wrong way - The bird had a large white bill

right way - The bird's bill was white, not black in appearance as the PIWO's bill is. The bill was much larger than that of the PIWO.

I could also add that these field notes must be so clearly written that they will eliminate every other possible bird with similar markings.

Again, welcome to the world of BirdForum, Dave.

sclateria · Apr 6, 2007

dave_in_michigan said:
I don't think it would validate any of them. It may make them less likely to have been mistaken, but nothing more. I believe I saw a pair of IBWO's fly in front of me. If tomorrow someone takes a clear photo of a pair of IBWO's at the exact same spot, then the likelyhood of my sighting being true goes pretty high, but it doesn't prove I didn't actually see Pileateds and make a mistaken report. There is no way to go back in time and "validate" a one-time event (observation).

Agreed. Exactly my response to the question posed.

Thanks for sharing your notes Dave, I'm sure they'll generate some lively chatter (and perhaps even discussion) on the forum.

cheers

Brad

ps. Canadians too spell favour with a 'u'

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Graham Howard Shortt

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread