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

[Terry O'Nolley]

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.

I believe there are 20,000+ auto cameras. I never disputed that. in fact, my "smart aleck comment" acknowledged your figure of tens of thousands explicitely. My beef was in the small area of "IB country" having that many cameras.

Obviously, if we expand "IB Country" to include a huge chunk of the continental USA then your statement seems less than credible for the opposite reason: An area that large would need millions of cameras to randomly capture an IBW, not a measely 20,000.

 

[buck3m]

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.

Contrary to all the excuses, Ivory-bills are not magical birds that are impossible to photograph.

Allen said Audubon states that “it seldom comes near the ground"; but the birds we have watched behave no differently from pileated woodpeckers in this respect, sometimes working high up in the trees but at other times within five or ten feet of the ground. The female of the Florida pair which we watched for over an hour on a 'burn" sometimes got down on the ground around the seared, prostrate trunks of the saw palmettos, hopping like a Flicker, while her mate stayed on the trunks of the pines five to ten feet up. We never saw the Louisiana birds on the ground but there was plenty of evidence, both in Florida and Louisiana, that a bird will continue scaling the bark from recently killed trees for the beetle larvae beneath, clear to the base of the tree, until the tree stands absolutely naked with the bark piled around its base.

It's interesting that on this page Cornell had at least two of the cameras a few feet off the ground. Obviously that's where they expected to see Ivory-bills.

You'll also notice in the third picture down it appears that a squirrel has tripped the camera and there happened to be a Pileated Woodpecker there. It would have worked the same way with an Ivory-bill. Trail cameras take millions of photos a year. They not only take photos of the targeted animals, they take photos of everything within view of the camera no matter how high it is. Many trail cameras trip almost immediately, but even with the ones that don't it wouldn't matter if the Ivory-bill was feeding within the camera's view or even happened to be flying through.

Bottom line: if it will work for Pileateds, and it does, it will work for Ivory-bills. If they exist.

 

[buck3m]

An area that large would need millions of cameras to randomly capture an IBW..

That's your opinion. They may capture a photo tomorrow. But here's a fact: If you have no Ivory-bills, you'll NEVER get a good photo.

I notice that both of you have totally ignored the main part of my suggestion which was to target high-probability areas, such as suspected feeding sites and nests near credible reported sightings.

If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

 

[affe22]

I notice that both of you have totally ignored the main part of my suggestion which was to target high-probability areas, such as suspected feeding sites and nests near credible reported sightings.

I wasn't responding to that part of your statements. I was responding to the part where you said a hunter's cam would pick it up. So I guess that kind of clarifies that part. As for where the cameras are positioned, again looking at where hunters place them, no one would have a camera out in the middle of the water like the ones pictured. They would be on dry land over a game trail about 3 to 4 feet off the ground at the most. They wouldn't be aimed at specific trees unless they had been worked by game and those trees probably aren't very tempting to woodpeckers. The instant photo comment you made is also false. No remotely triggered camera is instant. Some are faster than others. If you buy a cheap one you're going to have delay. It's a fact. That's why people pay for the top end ones. They have shorter delays and are more sensitive. The digital cameras that go with the traps aren't instant either, just like all cheaper digital cameras. I have a FinePix A210 and when you press the trigger button there is a focus pause and then it takes the pictures. I imagine the Walmart brand ones aren't better than this camera.

You have some interesting logic in your arguments. You keep talking probability about people getting a good picture if they are alive, etc., but then you refuse to admit the extremely low probability of a HUNTER'S autocam catching the IBWP after you stated they probably would. Come on now, what is the probability that A) an IBWP flies through an autocam covering such a tiny area or B) that an individual of an already low population just happens to be sitting on a tree in view of the camera when a deer walks by? That's probably even lower than the first.

 

[buck3m]

The camera would have taken the exact same squirrel/Pileated photo had it been over dry land. That part of the argument is just that, an argument.

Give me all the stats and times that you want, but trail cams have effectively taken some of the very best photos of some of the rarest creatures there are, many of them by random chance, and trail camera usage is increasing rapidly. For those that haven't seen it, check out this randomly captured shot of a cougar stalking a deer or how about this dramatic shot of a raptor and squirrel.

I'm not going to debate this angle any more, because we both agree that there will likely never be an Ivory-bill photo taken by a "trail cam."

Also, please don't misquote me. You said: The instant photo comment you made is also false. I said: "Many trail cameras trip almost immediately," which is true.

Making an argument for arguments sake

 

[Edward woodwood]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?

Tim

 

[affe22]

Give me all the stats and times that you want, but trail cams have effectively taken some of the very best photos of some of the rarest creatures there are, many of them by random chance, and trail camera usage is increasing rapidly. For those that haven't seen it, check out this randomly captured shot of a cougar stalking a deer or how about this dramatic shot of a raptor and squirrel.

Neither of those is all that random really. They can both be explained quite easily. Obviously you knew the deer would travel the game trail you set it on, you just got lucky that a cougar was following it. This does seem to me to show the delay in trail cams since the deer is already past the camera unless you set the sensor on the right of the trail cam. The squirrel was just more lucky but which tripped the camera, the squirrel or the hawk? Either way, in every instance there is a quadrupedal mammal in the photo and the hawk is a predator of squirrels. IBWPs don't exactly travel a game trail on the ground or prey on rodents. I don't really understand what you were trying to say with your photos? As for "misquoting" you, I do not feel that I did. I just took it a different way than you intended it I suppose. Seems like a common mistake by both sides in this thread and I guess if we are going to call this "misquoting" we all need to look back at some of the other things that were called "misquoting" and accept them as that as well.

 

[affe22]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?
Tim

Don't know about one per week, but I know of one group that got video a few times a month over a field season in the Himalayas, that is, after the first month or two they never even saw the cats.

 

[buck3m]

where are snow leopards being photographed at one per week?

Tim

In Northern India Tim. Man, would I love to get a good look at a wild snow leopard. Or an Ivory-bill for that matter.

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

how about this dramatic shot of a raptor and squirrel.

I wonder if the person that set up the camera ticked the raptor....

 

[curunir]

In Northern India Tim. Man, would I love to get a good look at a wild snow leopard. Or an Ivory-bill for that matter.

According to the article in the 01-02 season, the group caught a leopard on average every 55 days, two months, I don't believe it mentioned if they had some totally empty seasons. It took until the 03-04 season to reduce that to every week. I expect to see a few gooder sightings of big woodie in 05-06 and some better stuff in 06-07. I don't suspect Cornell will give up unless they're ready to retract.

 

[timeshadowed]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!

TimeShadowed

Sun, Sep. 25, 2005
ST. PAUL
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/12726681.htm
Ivory-billed woodpecker gets the spotlight

Gene Sparling, who saw an ivory-billed woodpecker that was presumed to be extinct in an Arkansas swamp last year, and John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, will talk about the discovery in a Thursday program, sponsored by the Science Museum of Minnesota, from 7:30 to 9 p.m. The event includes comments on steps taken to ensure the survival of the rare breed from Scott Simon, director of the Arkansas chapter of the Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental organization. Cost is $10 ($8 for seniors and $5 for students). For tickets, call 651-221-4513 or e-mail [email protected]. The museum is at 120 W. Kellogg Blvd.
© 2005 St. Paul Pioneer Press and wire service sources

 

[hgr389]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!

Thanks, Timeshadowed. Actually, it's been quite easy to find the email addresses of many search team members. I've already emailed specific questions to many of them. I've received quite a few responses, but I'm not at all satisfied with the answers.

Tom
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/09/ivory-bill-skeptic-home.html

 

[curunir]

Gene Sparling & John Fitzpatrick to speak at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Thursday night.

Here you go Tom Nelson. This is YOUR chance to ask the "team" your own questions!!

TimeShadowed

According to the Laura blog, the event appears to be sold out.

 

[buck3m]

A response to fangsheath

In trying to keep debate on this thread, I'm going to respond here.

It is very apparent to me that ivory-bills today have very little in common behaviorally with Tanner's birds. They are stunningly quiet, even at breeding time, and very wary. We have seen how the legendary Sapsuckers failed to get a look at Elvis in early 2004.

This strikes me as fundamentally flawed logic. Why do people believe that Ivory-billed behavior is different than it once was? Is this based on observation? NO! So why this conclusion?

To me, it's obvious: Our knowledge on Ivory-bills is based on the reports of people that we know saw and carefully observed and documented Ivory-bill behavior. The trouble is, based on those reports, we would expect to be seeing and hearing similar things now if there ARE Ivory-bills alive today.

We would expect it to be sometimes difficult, but not impossible, to get a few really good looks at Ivory-bills in areas we "know" they are living in.
We'd expect it would sometimes be easy to find Ivory-bills.
We would expect to get a few good photos.
When spotted, we'd expect to commonly see them in pairs.
We'd expect to hear them frequently calling when spotted.
We'd expect to hear their unusually noisy wingbeats.
We'd expect people to be commenting on the dramatic ivory-colored bills.
We'd expect SOME people to be ticking off all the field marks.

The trouble is, NONE of this is happening, even though, reportedly, the Cornell team had numerous sightings.

But we WANT to believe. So how do we explain it when things don't add up in the Cornell study?

Ivory-bills SOUND differently these days.

They ACT differently these days.

So why don't we believe they LOOK differently these days?

There is too much focus on getting a better picture of an ivory-bill.

I think you are very much mistaken in that statement. I am certain that the confidence of the public, the birding world, the USFWS and most other parties will sink steadily if a good photo isn't taken this winter. If there are no good photos in a few years, I think history will consider the Cornell Report to be just another case of mistaken identity and the situation will be right back to where we were in 2003.

Somebody needs to get a good photo and I guarantee that that will be the #1 priority again in this year's search.

Juliana Simpson said this when telling about her role in the search:

Thanks to cell phones, Simpson was able to contact Sparling to report the sighting and the location.

Sparling told them their first job was to try to get a photo.

“In the bird world, that confirms everything,” Simpson explained.

He also told them their second job and their third job was to get a photo.

Sparling was right about that.

What we need now are data, data, and more data. Data on tree scaling and excavation, data on roost and nest holes, data on distribution and abundance of beetle larvae.

Tree scaling and excavation by what species? How is anyone going to know if it's the work of Pileated Woodpeckers or Ivory-bills without photos or good looks at birds? Cornell got good photos, of Pileated Woodpeckers, at what they suspected was Ivory-bill scaling.

Yes, Jerome Jackson THINKS there are Ivory-billed woodpeckers out there somewhere. (He also thinks the video shows a Pileated.) But, as a scientist, he doesn't KNOW that Ivory-bills exist. To quote him again:

The methods of science are clear. Scientific progress is made on the basis of data that are unequivocal to other scientists. Did I see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker along the Noxubee River in Mississippi in 1973? Did I hear an Ivory-billed Woodpecker near Vicksburg in 1987? Were those Ivory-bills I heard and saw in Cuba in 1988? Did David Kulivan see Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the Pearl River swamp in 1999? Did Ivory-billed Woodpeckers make the loud "bams" heard by searchers there? Did Ivory-bills scale the trees that the team photographed? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We all think we know what we saw or heard, but science does not advance by undocumented observation, speculation, or opinion polls. It advances by hard facts.

This is one thing I admire about Dr. Jackson; he can separate his HOPES as a birder from hard FACTS he can study as a scientist.

 

[curunir]

I think you are very much mistaken in that statement. I am certain that the confidence of the public, the birding world, the USFWS and most other parties will sink steadily if a good photo isn't taken this winter. If there are no good photos in a few years, I think history will consider the Cornell Report to be just another case of mistaken identity and the situation will be right back to where we were in 2003.

Wrong, the situation will not be where it was in 2003. There will have been much more extensive investigation and, if the giant pecker isn't found, it will be assumed (and correctly) that the estimates of IBW extinction are better than previously thought. Such will give new justification (along with a weakened ESA) to those who would either log or develop IBW habitat. Not those areas already purchased by the government or NGOs but marginal areas. In addition, procurement of new habitat will be curtailed.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

IBW/logging

Wrong, the situation will not be where it was in 2003. There will have been much more extensive investigation and, if the giant pecker isn't found, it will be assumed (and correctly) that the estimates of IBW extinction are better than previously thought. Such will give new justification (along with a weakened ESA) to those who would either log or develop IBW habitat. Not those areas already purchased by the government or NGOs but marginal areas. In addition, procurement of new habitat will be curtailed.

I really hope you are wrong curunir. If it is so difficult to protect habitat in the USA that conservationists need to rely on the existence of a very rare species to make the case, then we are all in trouble. As soon as that species is gone then the case for conservation fails. If evidence used to make the case turns out to be unreliable then conservationists will open themselves up to accusations of fraud, thus helping the loggers/developers.

At the very least, this habitat seems to be full of Pileated Woodpeckers (Cornell birders saw them daily). I know nothing about the area but I presume it is also populated by other birds, mammals, reptiles and plants which are all worthy of protection. Surely a case can be made regardless of whether the IBW survives or not?

Regards,

Saddinall

 

[Katy Penland]

Sadly, Saddinall, the rediscovery of a species formerly considered extinct in such terribly fragmented habitat could also be used by special interest groups to lobby for continued fragmentation of wildlands for "sustainable use." (The word "sustainable" is nothing more than a politically correct hedge word for "exploitation.")

The developers/lawmakers/special insterests use rationalizations like, "Fragmentation or loss of habitat isn't the big bugaboo environmentalists have been saying it is" as the green light to reduce, chop up, or ease regulations on other important habitat areas.

I've been in scoping meetings (not just bird-related) where various versions of this have been said, so it's not just my natural political cynicism speaking here. I can almost hear members of the Bush Administration saying, "See, the Ivory-bill has come back from the dead. No reason why those caribou and birds in the ANWR couldn't as well if we opened up that area to a little oil drilling. Oh, and we probably don't need the Endangered Species Act anymore, either, so we can gut that while we're at it."

 

[buck3m]

Will they get a good photo this winter?

Not likely. The only photographic evidence was taken on April 25, 2004. That was the brief, fuzzy video that may or may not show an Ivory-bill.

It's been 17 months since then, including one major search season.

My guess is that by next May, there will have been more tantalizing glimpses reported, more "if only my camera had been ready" quotes. But there won't be any good looks by any team members, nor will there be any good photos taken by anyone, anywhere. There will be a paper critical of the Cornell paper published by mid-summer. There will be a growing realization that it was all apparently another "false alarm."

 

[buck3m]

Trying to make the evidence fit

...Thus out of thousands of hours of recordings we have only 2 candidate vocalizations, both on days of pretty miserable weather. I find this interesting and potentially significant, given Tanner's statement that "all the ivory-bills I have ever seen I located first by hearing them call."

Cornell said: No observer has positively heard or recorded nasal "kent" notes that are typical of the species

It doesn't add up.

...I can't report that or the time I heard 1 call near by and the Jays , several Jays immediatly mimicked...well I can't report that either or the time I saw a definite Peliated with more white... darn I can't report that either.

So here we have another person hearing Blue Jays mimicking an Ivory-bill call. To Cornell and many others, the audio tapes are powerful evidence, if not proof, of living Ivory-bills. We KNOW Cornell and others have been playing recordings of Ivory-bills. We KNOW Blue Jays are "playing them back." To me, ALL the audio is based mostly on wishful thinking unless it is directly associated with a good sighting. It doesn't add up.

Why wouldn't you report a pileated with unusual markings?

The Cornell team saw and photographed at least one aberrant Pileated woodpecker. Why didn't they report it? Would that be relevant to know? Of course.

In the report they said "The only comparably large white patch anywhere on a pileated woodpecker is the underwing lining." There was at least one large patch of extra white on a Pileated woodpecker IN THE STUDY AREA. I don't think they forgot to mention this aberrant Pileated. I think they purposely omitted it from their report because it would damage their claim. It doesn't add up.

The report also said:
During 14 months of nearly continuous fieldwork by dozens of observers, pileated woodpeckers were encountered virtually daily throughout the study region, where they are common and noisy residents occupying permanent territories. We would expect any strikingly plumaged leucistic individual in the study area to have been observed regularly.

There may or may not have been a strikingly plumaged leucistic Pileated Woodpecker in the area, but if so, how would we know? They didn't get a good look OR a good photo of either one.

And why is it Cornell would expect that individual Pileated to be seen regularly, but yet they didn't see their Ivory-bill(s) regularly? It doesn't add up.

I think Cornell and others are working way too hard to try to force the pieces of the puzzle to fit. I think if the evidence was good, they'd fall into place nicely.

It just doesn't add up.