Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (1 Viewer)

[jurek]

Where are the nests? Find even an abandoned nest and they claim you can do DNA testing on a feather.

!? They found dozens of tree holes perfect for ivorybill.

I don't know if they looked into them, actually. Apparently not found a feather, though.

 

[buck3m]

best evidence at the time mate

Fair enough. All we can go on is the facts as we understand them. Sometimes the situation and the facts change and it's smart to be open minded.

I wouldn't tell a surgeon operating on me how to go about it, or tell a pilot how to fly etc...

To a point, that's true, but it's a good idea to "trust, but verify." I once corrected a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg. I know a guy who refused to board a small airplane because one engine wasn't running properly. The pilot was disgusted with him, took off, and crashed and burned a few hundred yards off the end of the runway.

Barring some good photographs or video appearing soon, I think we're likely to see a skeptical paper published by other experts in the coming months. At that point I guess people will have to see what evidence each side presents, and decide for themselves which experts are correct.

 

[curunir]

Barring some good photographs or video appearing soon, I think we're likely to see a skeptical paper published by other experts in the coming months. At that point I guess people will have to see what evidence each side presents, and decide for themselves which experts are correct.

Actually, I'd say they'll wait through this winter birding season. There will probably be a pile of birders out there looking with lots of equipment. You'd look awfully foolish if a solid photo turned up just as you're publishing. If nothing turns up this winter I'll have to lower my expectations appropriately.

Cornell had a similar problem, the longer they waited, the more likely a photo would show up. Even a small article with photo could trump their paper.

94%

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

I once corrected a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.

Do you mean that a surgeon who was under the impression he would be operating on a man's left leg the next morning (when it was the man's right leg that needed the surgery) was at your house the evening before the surgery and stated that the USA was 1200 years old and you told him "No, it is 229 years old"? Because that would be, technically, correcting a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.

Many things can sound quite dramatic with the right wording but actually be quite mundane.

 

[buck3m]

Do you mean that a surgeon who was under the impression he would be operating on a man's left leg the next morning (when it was the man's right leg that needed the surgery) was at your house the evening before the surgery and stated that the USA was 1200 years old and you told him "No, it is 229 years old"? Because that would be, technically, correcting a surgeon who was planning to operate on the wrong leg.

Many things can sound quite dramatic with the right wording but actually be quite mundane.

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?

No, the surgeon said, just before they wheeled me into surgery, that they'd be working on my right leg. I told him they were supposed to be working on my left leg. Clear enough?

 

[affe22]

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?

But what are the chances 7 other pilots make the exact same mistake, a few after knowing of the incident?

 

[buck3m]

But what are the chances 7 other pilots make the exact same mistake, a few after knowing of the incident?

Oh, about 100%. He took off despite knowing something was wrong, and stalled in. It's happened scores of times with small aircraft. And it will happen again.

 

[affe22]

Oh, about 100%. He took off despite knowing something was wrong, and stalled in. It's happened scores of times with small aircraft. And it will happen again.

But 7 times at the same airport a few on the same day and all the people knowing that about the crash? You can't just say, oh, small airplanes will crash a bunch. It's not the same odds.

 

[curunir]

But 7 times at the same airport a few on the same day and all the people knowing that about the crash? You can't just say, oh, small airplanes will crash a bunch. It's not the same odds.

Poor analogies if you ask me. Are we saying the giant pecker is akin to a small airplane? Whew, I'm impressed. Let's go back to apples and watermelons.

 

[affe22]

Poor analogies if you ask me. Are we saying the giant pecker is akin to a small airplane? Whew, I'm impressed. Let's go back to apples and watermelons.

Not at all. This is an analogy of experts making mistakes. Come on now, follow along.

 

[Pileated_MO]

Where are the nests? Find even an abandoned nest and they claim you can do DNA testing on a feather.
.

What would they compare it to? A feather from an old specimen, I suppose?
And who is it who is claiming this?

 

[buck3m]

What would they compare it to? A feather from an old specimen, I suppose?
And who is it who is claiming this?

Yes, DNA from old specimens. I think there's many labs that could do this, and here's one that specifically says they can do it.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Ibw

Hello,

I have been reading this thread for quite a while now. Its fascinating, and thought I would contribute, as the thread seems to be gathering steam! The discussion seems to be moving away from what I presume was the original point (ie. the title of the thread) to "who believes who", "who are experts, and who are not", and even "fruit"!!

Anyway, for what its worth here's how my thoughts have developed on this story over the last few months.

I remember when I first heard about the Cornell paper I was quite excited, and when I saw the video I was amazed. The vision of a presumed extinct bird captured on film gave me goose-bumps and I was ready to fly over to the states, rent a kayak and get in there for as long as it took to see one!!

I e-mailed a friend in the states - an extremely talented field birder - and his immediate reply was "It sure looks like a Pileated to me." This surprised me but I looked into it a bit more and found that I had not realised that Pileated Woodpeckers have extensive white underwings. So, I went back to the video and asked myself, "am I looking at the underwing, the upperwing or both when the extensive white is showing?".

To be honest I can't tell. Maybe its an IBW and maybe it isn't. I hope it is, then at least I've seen a video of one.

So that leaves me with the eye-witness accounts and the sound recordings.

Lets face it, when we talk about eye-witness accounts of a bird we are talking about birding. The only relevant matter is the same dilemma that all bird identification committees have every time they adjudicate on a record
- has the bird been seen well enough to identify it to species. When I read all the cases described in the Science paper I see them as tantalising glances, rather than convincing sightings. Three were without optical aids (one of which was from 100 yds - five times further away than the bird in the video!). No-one described the colour of the bill (only one person even saw the bill) - have you seen the real photos of IBW, the bill is amazing!!. The only notes presented both have field sketches showing birds from above, even though the bird actually flew in front of them. And the only feather detail presented is actually only an "impression" when you read the field nots. These could have been Ivory-billed Woodpeckers but I don't think any of them would convince any local bird records committee to accept the record.

To me, the sound recordings (of the double-raps) are very exciting. They are evocative and seem to differ from the other possible confusion sounds, but even the Cornell people don't claim these as definite evidence of IBW.

So, in my opinion, its a whole list of maybes until someone actually sees a bird properly or photographs one. I hope the IBWs are there (I still think perhaps they might be) and I hope one day I can come over and help look for them (sounds from the website like I need to be a qualified Kayaker to even get a look in).

Best wishes,

Saddinall

[Incidentally I am a scientist and I think it is very dangerous to assume that something is correct just because it is published. Believe me there are many results published in respected journals that turn out to be wrong. The whole point of publishing papers is to allow others to scrutinise your data. Since there is very little actual science in this particular paper (there's some image analysis and bird measurements but essentially this is a report of an extensive bird survey) then I think just about anyone with knowledge of birds is justified in commenting upon it).]

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

How about the pilot that crashed and burned, was that pretty mundane?

I don't know - how many small planes have ever crashed? I suppose it could be considerd a fantastic and extremely rare event. Otherwise, and my sympathies to the victims, a small plane crashing is not a scientifically earth-shattering event.

No, the surgeon said, just before they wheeled me into surgery, that they'd be working on my right leg. I told him they were supposed to be working on my left leg. Clear enough?

Thank you - yes. Now it is clear enough.

 

[buck3m]

Automatic Cameras

What would be the best way to get good photos of an Ivory-bill?

Has anyone seen the documentaries where they were trying to film the very rare and elusive snow leopards and Sumatran tigers? They successfully did so by setting up automatic cameras in areas these animals were thought most likely to frequent. It resulted in great, close range video.

If I were doing the search, I'd first encourage people to report suspected active nesting sites and feeding areas and sift through them to find the most promising reports.

Then I'd invest in dozens of inexpensive automatic digital cameras, the kind hunters use, and set them up in all these places. If the sites were being visited by IBs, you'd almost certainly end up with good photos.

Once an area was confirmed to hold living ivory-bills, you could go in and get good video and photos with human photographers or even replace the "still" cameras with automatic video cameras.

This basic idea was tried by the Cornell team in places that had bark scaling and that were suspected Ivory-bill feeding sites. It came up with plenty of Pileated Woodpecker photos, but no IB photos. I believe this is somewhat damaging to the report. Nevertheless, it seems a likely way to "man" promising areas 24 hours a day with minimal cost and I see no reason that the idea couldn't be used in hundreds of places in several states.

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country. I think thousands of hunters would recognize an ivory-bill if their cameras got a shot of one. Food for thought.

What do you think?

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country.

How big is "Ivory-bill country"?

I thought the supposed sightings were limited to a few geographically isolated patches of forest.

I can't imagine there being over 20,000 automated digital cameras in such small areas! Jesus - the entire woods would look like the set of some horror movie with flashes going off continuosly.

And imagine the poor animals, as they stumble away from one of the 20,000+ cameras densely packed into a few square miles, temporarily blinded and confused they trip 17 more cameras on the way back to their den. The horror!

The horror.......

 

[curunir]

Has anyone seen the documentaries where they were trying to film the very rare and elusive snow leopards and Sumatran tigers? They successfully did so by setting up automatic cameras in areas these animals were thought most likely to frequent. It resulted in great, close range video.

If I were doing the search, I'd first encourage people to report suspected active nesting sites and feeding areas and sift through them to find the most promising reports.

Then I'd invest in dozens of inexpensive automatic digital cameras, the kind hunters use, and set them up in all these places. If the sites were being visited by IBs, you'd almost certainly end up with good photos.

As a matter of fact, there are already tens of thousands of these cameras being used by hunters in Ivory-bill country. I think thousands of hunters would recognize an ivory-bill if their cameras got a shot of one. Food for thought.

What do you think?

I think it took months on a well traveled snow leopard trail to get brief footage of two pussies.

Where can I get some of those cameras. I'd like to see who comes into my back yard to rob me while I'm gone.

 

[buck3m]

How big is "Ivory-bill country"?...

I can't imagine there being over 20,000 automated digital cameras in such small areas! Jesus - the entire woods would look like the set of some horror movie with flashes going off continuosly.

...

IF the bird has survived, there are almost certainly several breeding pairs that range well beyond the search area, especially since there is much better habitat in the U.S. than can be found in the area of the search.

There have been unverifiable reports of ivory-bills seen from across most of the U.S. Obviously, most reports are extremely likely to be untrue because of confusion with Pileated Woodpeckers and because many reports are from areas that have never been IB habitat.

From Cornell: In this country, the bird ranged from the coastal plain of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, large portions of Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, Louisiana, eastern Texas, west Tennessee, and small areas of Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Despite your smart aleck comment, there ARE tens of thousands of automatic cameras used by hunters in that huge area, and if IBs survive they are likely to be photographed by them.

 

[buck3m]

I think it took months on a well traveled snow leopard trail to get brief footage of two pussies.

They have gotten footage of many snow leopards. They were averaging one every 55 days at first and now it's one a week.

 

[affe22]

Despite your smart aleck comment, there ARE tens of thousands of automatic cameras used by hunters in that huge area, and if IBs survive they are likely to be photographed by them.

While I agree there are a lot of automatic cameras out for hunting, I disagree that one would photograph an IBWP for a few reasons.
First, most hunters using the cameras are hunting animals that are quadrupedal so they probably aren't positioning their cameras terribly high off the ground. I'm pretty sure that if you are using one for deer, 3 - 4 feet off the ground is about as high as you'd want the sensor. While we don't know much about IBWP habits, I'd feel fairly safe saying that they spend most of their time at an elevation higher than that.
Second, even if there are 10,000 cameras in this large area, the sensors usually shoot around a 1 in. diameter beam that projects around 20 feet or so. Given those dimensions, each beam would be covering 0.109 cubic feet. Ten thousand would cover around 1,090.37 cubic feet. If you had a forest that was 100 yards by 100 yards by 50 feet high, the area that the forest would cover would be 4,500,000 cubic feet. So with 10,000 units, you couldn't even completely cover this area. What do you think the odds that catching a bird flying through that forest with one automatic unit is?
Third, a lot of the automatic units have delays in them. That is why a lot of people get shots of the butts of deer or nothing at all a lot of the time. There is no chance that a woodpecker flying at full speed is going to get caught by a camera that has a delay in it which is slow enough to miss a walking deer. The really good trail cams have little delay but Jim Bob from the sticks in Mississippi can go to Walmart and get one of $50 instead, which is what a lot of people do.

Oh, the snow leopards took a month or two to find if I remember correctly. It wasn't like, hey, lets set up a trail cam and video some snow leopards. They had to find their routes and even then they weren't having very good luck. And these things only utilize a vertical space of a few feet to move through. Imagine if they had 50 - 100 feet vertically.

Edit: Just because I like doing math, I changed the original numbers from inches to feet. I also calculated that you would be covering about 0.0243% of the forest in my example with your 10,000 cameras. Math is fantastic, isn't it?