Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (2 Viewers)

[StonecoldBirder]

What's so compelling about the tap tapes that compels everyone (except Tom) to flip?

Developers use the same tactics to buy large tracts of land, except nobody ends up with a nature preserve, just houses in a flood plain. I think there is a draw for those who don't want to see their property disappear into development.

94%

The calls weres not a White-breasted Nutatch or a Blue Jay but the "tin bugle" "Kent " Kent" calls were the same rythem as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Jim Fitzpatrick plays the call notes of a known Ivory-billed from the Singer tract about 2-3 times and then he plays the call notes that were recorded by the Cornell Team. It matches it to a T! All of us experienced birders were sitting there looking at each other and could not believe what we were hearing. We whispered "those call notes nailed the ID as a IBWO call notes". All of us heard Blue Jays mimic other bird calls, we all know the White-breasted Nutatch call notes and we all gave a thumbs up as a Ivory-billed. What was funny is during lunch two birders who are very well known outside of Minnesota and tells us that tape recording is the reason why birders like David Sibley and others are keeping quiet and NOT butting heads anymore with the Cornell group. Hearing the tapes on a computer is a lot different than hearing the tapes in a auditorium. I cannot explain but it sounds better in a auditorium. Even the double knocks sound very convincing.

Oh by the way I read on Arkansas Refuge Forum a poster who was really upset with all this IBWO discussion said some thing to the effect of "shooting birders in the face" hmmmm OK OK I am sure 99.9% of the duck hunters in Arkansas are good people but hey some of the duck hunters on this forum are some serious head cases.

Also during our discussion after the presentation we were discussing the field notes that were part of the presentation and I was wondering how a birder who viewed a flying by IBWO miss not seeing the neck strips and bill? So I and others came to these conclusions ( which make a lot of sense ). The sketches in the presentation just show the TOP view. It depicts a flatten out woodpecker that was all dark except the two large wing patches on the secondaries. This makes sense because they saw the bird fly away from them. Why did thye not see the white stripes on the sides of the neck coming from the back of the bird? Well I just saw 3 Pileated Woodpeckers in Sax Zim Bog this afternoon and its pretty tough to see them in flight especially when they are flying away from you. So posed this question to a friend of mind who works for Victor Emmanuel Nature Trips, Author of books and numerous articles on Birding and bird Identification and he also told me the same thing that the neck stripes of a Pileated Woodpecker do not stand out in flight and it would be even harder if the bird was flying away from you.

I do not know why they did not see the bill color but its possible they were focusing so much on the white patches they missed their chance to see the bill. Think about it-- you are out birding and you see a Pileated fly away from you- how much of a opportunity do have to see the bill color or focus on the bill. Most if not ALL birders usually see a black bird with white underwing patches and thats it.

If you haven't been to a presentation of a IBWO you should attend one.

OH--I saw this on Tom Nelson's blog abvout why Luneau wasn't jumping up and down when the bird was caught on film.. The answer is and this was mentioned in the presentation of Jim Fitzpatrick-- was Luneau was sitting either on the back of the boat and some other bird was in front of the boat and the camera was pointed directly towards the front left side of the boat and the camera is rolling and right off the boat paddle handle a bird with white patches takes off from a tree and darts away in the swamp because of the arriving boat. The birder in the front of the boat is facing the back of the boat so the birder in front could not see the bird fly away and even the birder in the back never saw the bird as well. ITS only when the tape was being reviewed did they saw the bird and they brought the tape to Cornell where they blew it up. That is why the video is blurry and not clear. When you see the full frame film all you see is a birder in front of the boat facing you and all of a sudden the boat makes a small left turn and if you focus your eyes above the paddle handle you see this bird fly away. The bird was away from them ( do not have a clue how far ) and its pretty eerie seeing the actual video before the blow up of what you see on the Cornell site.

So it would be impossible for these birders to get excited about the bird because they never saw it until after reviewing the film.

I was also disturbed that when Jim Fitzpatrick saw a possible IBWO he was trolling around and BOOM a large woodpecker flies over him and his grabs his compact binoculars-- YES those terrible compact binoculars that no birder I know uses! I am very skeptical what Jim saw and if it wasn't for Driscoll's sighting I would of not believed Jim at all because those binoculars are no good. I like Bobby Harrison notes and I like Sparling's notes. The clincher is the tape recordings.

 

[buck3m]

So it would be impossible for these birders to get excited about the bird because they never saw it until after reviewing the film.

Not true. And I think they weren't excited because they didn't think it was an Ivory-bill. Remember, even after reviewing the video countless times, and hearing the "pitch" from other believers, Luneau himself wasn't convinced the video showed an Ivory-bill for a year.

From The Grail Bird:

At that instant, a large black and white woodpecker burst from the other side of a tupelo, just a couple of feet above the water, and flew straight away from them. With the paddle in his hands, David didn't have time to grab the camcorder, but he swung the canoe to the left, trying to keep the bird in view.

"What was that?" he asked.

"I don't know," said Robert. "I sure wish I could see it again".

 

[buck3m]

Also during our discussion after the presentation we were discussing the field notes that were part of the presentation and I was wondering how a birder who viewed a flying by IBWO miss not seeing the neck strips and bill?

One obvious way would be if it wasn't an Ivory-bill. What you DON'T see is as important as what you DO see. In one sighting they had "a superb view of the back" and in another a "clear view" of the back. No dorsal stripes, no Ivory-bill.

I think it's only rational to conclude that, at least in the two above referenced cases, they weren't looking at Ivory-bills or their observations were seriously flawed. Certainly flawed enough that there would be no way to verify they weren't looking at an aberrant Pileated.

 

[StonecoldBirder]

One obvious way would be if it wasn't an Ivory-bill. What you DON'T see is as important as what you DO see. In one sighting they had "a superb view of the back" and in another a "clear view" of the back. No dorsal stripes, no Ivory-bill.

I think it's only rational to conclude that, at least in the two above referenced cases, they weren't looking at Ivory-bills or their observations were seriously flawed. Certainly flawed enough that there would be no way to verify they weren't looking at an aberrant Pileated.

Having documented a lot of birds I missed seeing a tail projection, the color of the flanks and ect.. my bird or birds were still accepted based on other strong ID field marks I included in my reports.

Like I said even on Pileated Woodpeckers the neck stripes are not easily seen on a flying individual. I also saw the full film and not one time did I see someone who sat in front swung around to see what flew behind them. Maybe the birder who sat in back facing the direction they were going may of saw the bird flush off BUT NOT the person in front!!!

So tell me why would either one of them even go as far as document this sighting or sign on to it as Luneau did a year later? They in my opinion new this was not a Pileated Woodpecker. Again if I was sitting on a records committee I could not vote YES as to accepting this bird as a Pileated but if you take all the other evidence and wrap it around the sound recordings then YES most birders of high experience said they would of voted in favor of a Ivory-billed Woodpecker existing in Arkansas.

 

[gws]

Why don't you just TUNE THEM OUT, as some others have done long ago?

The Ivorybill EXISTS. Believe it. There is really no need for this thread. It is going a-round and a-around, like a dog chasing his tail.

If you want to learn about the ivorybill, there is another active ivorybill thread that is quite interesting, with some great contributors.

 

[affe22]

OK Buck if your brother is so highly active then why in the hell everytime I mention his name to those who are like myself who are highly active in the birding community do not have clue know who he is because they never heard of him before. He is not even a footnote to Minnesota birding. I asked several birders who sit on the MOU board or those that I know who are very active on the records committee and no one knows about him or his blog.

Stonecold, you're a little high on your horse there pal. So you have to be known to the entire birding community of the state you live in to be highly active, huh? Interesting. I was very highly active last spring in this state and if you asked most of the "birding elite" here they'd probably have no clue who I was. That's because I went with two of my friends from school and no one else. I kept reports to myself for the most part and didn't post a whole lot on the listserve until I was about ready to leave. Was I the best birder in the state? No, but I am pretty decent at IDing a lot of stuff and I was going at least two times a week for hours at a time, which seems pretty active to me. I don't agree with Tom or Buck's view of the situation but I'm not going to start a personal vendetta against them and slander them on some stupid internet forum. Your views on hunting are way off base and I can see that you probably are an anti-hunter with little knowledge of it or the people that are involved in it. That is how you present yourself on here anyway. People presenting themselves the way you have on this thread are what made me leave my state listserve and decide to take on birding as a solo activity. This whole, I'm elite and you're a nobody attitude makes birding really suck. Sorry this post is off topic or whatever, but I wanted to get that out there.

I have to agree that the moderators need to step in here. I do not feel that Buck or Tom have really crossed any big lines here and that the elite, best of the best, know all there is to know Stonecoldbirder has done nothing but used personal attacks. I don't understand why no action has been taken.

 

[choupique1]

dat's true... I a virtually unknown to all but 1% of the birding community in my state... yet....uh.......it is the right 1% and uh... I kinda have their respect.......I am not gonna name names.. buy ya'll know them.. or at least their names......

 

[StonecoldBirder]

Stonecold, you're a little high on your horse there pal. So you have to be known to the entire birding community of the state you live in to be highly active, huh? Interesting. I was very highly active last spring in this state and if you asked most of the "birding elite" here they'd probably have no clue who I was. That's because I went with two of my friends from school and no one else. I kept reports to myself for the most part and didn't post a whole lot on the listserve until I was about ready to leave. Was I the best birder in the state? No, but I am pretty decent at IDing a lot of stuff and I was going at least two times a week for hours at a time, which seems pretty active to me. I don't agree with Tom or Buck's view of the situation but I'm not going to start a personal vendetta against them and slander them on some stupid internet forum. Your views on hunting are way off base and I can see that you probably are an anti-hunter with little knowledge of it or the people that are involved in it. That is how you present yourself on here anyway. People presenting themselves the way you have on this thread are what made me leave my state listserve and decide to take on birding as a solo activity. This whole, I'm elite and you're a nobody attitude makes birding really suck. Sorry this post is off topic or whatever, but I wanted to get that out there.

I have to agree that the moderators need to step in here. I do not feel that Buck or Tom have really crossed any big lines here and that the elite, best of the best, know all there is to know Stonecoldbirder has done nothing but used personal attacks. I don't understand why no action has been taken.

Actually Missouri birders are quite nice people. I guided about 25 birders last winter and a lot of them are really great poeple and its to bad you did not allow yourself to get to know these people. I go on MOBirds a lot and yes they argue a lot but hey its no different than any other listserve. I have a lot of respect for Missouri birders and if I had to move I wouldn't mind moving to Missouri.

Being active in your birding community is something most birders should do. Sharing bird reports, sightings, doing a seasonal report form is something all birders should be involve in. I am NOT a anti hunter as my in laws are geese/deer hunters and I even ask if I could go out with them next year and shoot some geese. I wish more people would deer hunt as the deer are ruining my plantings. So the more I see dead deer lying near my road the bigger the smile I have on my face.

In all hobbies regardless if its a garden club or stamp collecting club there will always be politics. There is always going to be a barrier between those that are consider *elites* and those that are not. Doesn't matter where you escape to politics/debating will always be part of groups or clubs.

Sharing and being part of the birding community has a lot of positives vs. birding alone. You can learn a lot from others, you can learn places you never heard of before, you can pick up tips on birding gear, and so much more. So suit yourself I guess and do what makes you happy. :t:

 

[affe22]

Never said that everyone in the state was that way. Maybe you shouldn't misquote things. I said that people acting the way you do made me leave the listserve. There are many nice people that bird in the state, but a handful of them tend to act like they're better than others and it got old fast. I said my piece and left. I still read their posts on birdingonthe.net but refuse to have my email flooded daily with some of the stuff that went on there. I have my small birding community that I keep up with here but no one around the area I now live in and it doesn't bother me one bit. I've learned and benefited more from that small group this site than I ever did on that listserve.

As for the seperation between the "elites" and those that aren't, in many hobbies I have there is not that barrier that seems to exist in some birding communities. People with a lot of knowledge and talent in those areas are usually more friendly and helpful and are usually deemed elite by their peers instead of themselves or some silly list they keep. The ones that are rude and arrogant are usually not looked kindly upon.

 

[KC Foggin]

The thread title references "Debate". Debate the subject and not personal feelings towards another poster. If the personal attacks continue then the thread will be shut down until cooler heads prevail. This is a final warning.

 

[KC Foggin]

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply moderate the thread than shut it down?

We can't appoint a staff member to sit on this thread. Not with the amount of posters we have on this entire forum. You and a few others post solely on this thread. The staff members have hundreds of threads to watch each day. It's simple. Keep it decent and the thread continues.

 

[mountain man]

Having now run to 17 pages, I'm a little bit lost with this thread. Anyone fancy giving me a summary of the current majority view in the USA of whether these IBW are for real...?

 

[KC Foggin]

Perhaps the "update" thread in "Rare Birds" will give you some answers Tom. This thread is just a tug of war right now

 

[TexasFlyway]

Been following this thread for some time and in this case I really have a problem with this assumption of competence by reputation or years of birding experience.

In this case I submit that the most neophyte birder has as much experience with an IBW as anyone who has not personally seen one. Basically none.

Both can look at the same films, listen to the same tapes, and consult the same research and historical information but neither has any actual field experience with this bird.

 

[buck3m]

Having now run to 17 pages, I'm a little bit lost with this thread. Anyone fancy giving me a summary of the current majority view in the USA of whether these IBW are for real...?

Hi Tom,

I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the USA accept as fact that the Ivory-billed woodpecker exists. I think most of them don't realize there is any controversy.

Most people in the birding world also believe the IBWO exists. The confidence in the evidence runs from complete to 5% or less. I think it's safe to say that most birders are "reasonably sure" the IBWO exists. I also think it's safe to say that the skepticism will grow if a good photo or video isn't produced soon.

Rather than reading through the entire thread, if you want the skeptic's point of view you'll find a good summary on The Ivory-bill Skeptic. If you want the "believers" point of view, you can see the Cornell Paper or the Ivory-bill Updates thread on this forum.

 

[TexasFlyway]

Having now run to 17 pages, I'm a little bit lost with this thread. Anyone fancy giving me a summary of the current majority view in the USA of whether these IBW are for real...?

For those that care, birders, conservationists, and a few people in the area who might be positively economically impacted, I think the feeling is the bird does exist.

However, if another year goes by without some more positive proof I think opinion may start changing. After all, this renewed interest has put a virtual army of people in the Southeast and west into East Texas on bird alert.

Even hunters I know are carrying video equipment. One would assume that sooner rather than later more proof will arise. If not, I believe more people will question the existence of the bird. Right now the only real evidence seems to be the taped calls, as none of the other evidence is conclusive.

By the way, I watched a large bird fly over me a few days ago, not enough time to get the bins up, and I swear its bill was light colored, it landed in a copse of trees not 50 feet away and from the landing it was obviously a woodpecker. It hopped around the back of a tree and I lost sight of it. For the next 10 minutes or so it double tapped on various trees 22 different times, and triple tapped once. He finally flew to a tree 25 feet away and about 30 feet up, and I had a good view at a very nice pileated woodpecker and the bill was dark. Now, if he had never shown himself, would I have enough for an IBW sighting? I doubt it. I knew this woodpecker and have seen him in this location many times; but if I honestly reported what I saw, it would not be a lot different than Cornell, except for that audio tape.

 

[StonecoldBirder]

Hi Tom,

I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the USA accept as fact that the Ivory-billed woodpecker exists. I think most of them don't realize there is any controversy.

Most people in the birding world also believe the IBWO exists. The confidence in the evidence runs from complete to 5% or less. I think it's safe to say that most birders are "reasonably sure" the IBWO exists. I also think it's safe to say that the skepticism will grow if a good photo or video isn't produced soon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with this quote "I also think it's safe to say that the skepticism will grow if a good photo or video isn't produced soon

The reality is that most birders will not care if a photo is produced or not. Most birders are not aware of all the debating that is going on with the Arkansas sightings. Most birders will just go on with their lives and only the skeptics will be jumping up and down and say things like " I told you so -- you wasted all this money and still there is no proof of a IBWO "

We are just going to have to wait to see what happens after all the birders and teams finish up their searches in Arkansas. I know if nothing is found the tape recordings that Cornell got in 2004 are enough to keep birders searching the Big Woods for sometime.

 

[choupique1]

hunters and birders.. check this out...

http://bbs.shootingsportsman.com/viewtopic.php?t=25881

 

[StonecoldBirder]

Hey I had to post some recent events on the IBWO. There is a blog carnival hosted by the Skeptic's Circle. This blog carnival has a lot of serious critical thinkers in a variety of topics and one of the carnival bloggers asked me a week or so ago to counter a blog sent in by the "Ivory-billed Skeptic" so they sent me the blog that was going to be used in that carnival and asked me to respond and I did. Then this other guy who hosted the carnival emailed me and told me that the "Ivory-billed Skeptic" does not have a clue I will be countering his blog entry. I asked "why not?" and one of the organizers told me they and many of their peers feel the "Ivory-billed Skeptic" is blowing smoke up birders a**es" Of course I chuckled and sent in my counter.

Here is the site of the carnival: http://circadiana.blogspot.com/ These blog sites receives some serious hits per day from readers!! One of the people who got me involve in this, told me my blog "Mike's Soapbox" will be visited by A LOT of people. So I am honored to be part of their blog even if "Ivory-billed Skeptic" was set up by people who are not birders by nature but serious critical thinkers & skeptics. The skeptic's Circle is a site where they try to take events and try to prove thru debate and discussion either they are hoaxes or not. I guess the skeptics are questioning the "Ivory-billed Skeptic" reasoning on the IBWO.

Thought I share this and ALSO this is NOT a attack on anyone but merely sharing a event that involves people who have been debating the sighting in this forumn. If it sounds like I am attacking then I apologize for that was not my intent.

 

[curunir]

For those that care, birders, conservationists, and a few people in the area who might be positively economically impacted, I think the feeling is the bird does exist.

However, if another year goes by without some more positive proof I think opinion may start changing. After all, this renewed interest has put a virtual army of people in the Southeast and west into East Texas on bird alert.

This makes sense. A well respected organization puts it's reputation on the line and says Ivorybills exist. Belief goes way up. A year or two goes by with that organization and others feverishly looking for the bird with negative or tepid results. Belief goes down. Kinda like gas prices. Now somewhere in the future (assuming no bird and intensive searching) belief goes down below where it was if the Cornell report didn't exist. Or maybe, like gas prices, belief will stay up.