• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
During my sixty years of “Birding” I’ve found “acute” skepticism not uncommon within the birding community. Unsure if that says “more” about the skeptics than the claimants and it does make me wonder about the skeptics “strike” rate of finds in their general birding life?
I’ve lived at my present abode for 38 years, my next door neighbour 20 years, I’m a birder, he’s not!
Our abodes back onto a narrow strip of woodland, we have a joint hedge which has on occasion roosting Tawny Owls, whereupon exiting roost, they often fly behind or over his garden....he’s never seen one in 20 years!
Conversely over the last two years he’s seen a Barn Owl at least four times, on occasion sitting on a tree opposite his back gate...last seen several weeks ago.
I’ve never! seen the latter here in 38 years!...
In fairness Ken, afaia, you have never tried to claim sighting of a bird that hasnt been reliably seen for at least 50 years or so. You or anyone else finding it difficult to get records accepted by the BBRC is not a comparable level of scepticism - did it occur to you btw your non-birding neighbour is actually mistaking your Tawny Owls for Barn Owls ... 😏
You seem to have missed that it has not been that pleasant for others visiting BF who were much more submissive to rudeness than me; they have left not to return. What do you attribute that to? Perhaps the wonderful friends they made here? Or is it the fair shake they got? Or was it all the brilliant ideas and novel suggestions they received? Never saw much wisdom in oneliners outside every fifth fortune cookie. Its fine to say you really don't care and just blame me as the only culprit.
I think as far as the moderating of this thread, you have been given way more latitude than the regular members have here in terms of personal attacks and rudeness or just inappropriate, irrelevant comments.

I really don’t know how you have envisaged your role here? You seem to avoid the questions raised by ecologists and biologists on this thread, have been completely dismissive and rude to people like myself of whom it was repeatedly expected to have ‘experience‘ of the IBWO a failure of which according to you, excluded me from the discussion (even though no one else here has experience of this bird). When it seemed some people were attempting to support you, including posting the Jackson video, you immediately attacked them for having ulterior motives in not posting a better quality version.

If you came to educate, why undermine, bully and belittle your potential students? If it was to engage with fellow ecologist, biologists and conservationists, (including myself!) why condemn your peers as being unprofessional, ill-informed and guilty of all sorts of conspiracies against those claiming recent sightings?

This does not seem like rational discourse to me. I wonder if you may have been better served to use a one-sided platform to share your views, one that does not broker any responses?

I do thank you however, for reminding us (least we become complacent) how fragile species and eco-systems are and also reminding us how tragic it is when species apparently are lost to us without a trace. I hope it makes us all more determined to do whatever we can to help habitats and species survive humanity. Surely at least, that is something we can all agree on because I am sure we all share a sadness about the IBWO whether we believe it extinct or near extinction because it is certainly one or the other 😥
 

Patudo

Well-known member
The latest US Fish & Wildlife Service review, from 2019, is interesting, though sobering reading. Section II.B.3 (page 5) notes the (considerable) search efforts made by wildlife professionals and others in multiple states from circa 2005 to 2013.

Like everyone here I would be glad to be wrong, and hope that as camera and video tech improves, one of the folks out there will get the long hoped for "definitive pic".
 
Last edited:

ZanderII

Well-known member
And as if on cue:

2) made any rules about lying or
truly encouraged tot he best of its ability the talking about birds and tangential issues
avoided vague, poorly defined rules
recognized important subjects and issues to birds demand truthful posting
recognized that ambiguous posting rules do not help the discussion
recognize that conservation demands truthful posting
looking at evidence of rares demands truthful posting
encouraged having the courtesy of looking at evidence
encouraged basic respect for others work in the field or in examining rares evidince
encouraged the basic scientific principles taught in high school
purposely not fostered by allowing gangups
recognize repeating, one lining trolls,
recognizing sarcastic ridicule not based on fact,
recognized the purposeful misquoting of others
recognized purposefully, and persistent gang harassment of posters,
recognized cyber-stalking,
recognized thread stalking with a goal of shutting down a thread by creating to much work for moderators
recognized attempts by cluttering or hampering an exchange of facts,
recognized uneven policing of lies,
uneven censoring of vitriol,
failure to recognize serial low-level vitriol that is hard to see as accumulative,
failure to rec. serial low level synergistic GANG vitriol that is however accumulative,
more

thanks
I have some saved screenshots of your posts which were deleted by mods which violate about every rule of conduct.
 

KenM

Well-known member
In fairness Ken, afaia, you have never tried to claim sighting of a bird that hasnt been reliably seen for at least 50 years or so. You or anyone else finding it difficult to get records accepted by the BBRC is not a comparable level of scepticism - did it occur to you btw your non-birding neighbour is actually mistaking your Tawny Owls for Barn Owls ... 😏
Debs Hi,
If I had any doubts as to the veracity of my neighbour’s claim, it wouldn’t concern his ability to seperate B.Owl from T.Owl, which I suspect most nursery children could do (after having the differences pointed out to them). However having me needlessly “fixated” on his rear garden space for an inordinate amount of time...might just appeal to his sense of humour. ☹️

Back to topic, a question for the protagonists on this thread past and present. What percentage of the “posters” have actually journeyed by canoe to the “remnant” “bottom wood creeks” of the Deep South and looked for IBW?
From the comfort of my armchair, I would imagine that the “remnant” bottom woods, would be not insubstantial?
Throw in the relative humidity, insect bites, poisonous snakes, inquisitive alligators and ease of getting lost, whilst attempting to catch a glimpse of the holy grail...I might suggest not for the feint hearted on a long weekend field trip?
I understand the science that suggests that once a population falls beneath a given level, then it would lead to a downward spiral of inbreeding and eventual extinction.
However when populations of a given species are under threat from another species (man hunting and logging), are there not alternate drives ie evolving different survival strategies in order to function. Would it be possible to use the “existing forested corridors” to enable the species to hang on in...just?
I am of course assuming that most of the “bottom lands“ are very lowly populated?
FWIW this is on the back of me finding a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker this am. 😮👍

Cheers
 

Sangahyando

Well-known member
Back to topic, a question for the protagonists on this thread past and present. What percentage of the “posters” have actually journeyed by canoe to the “remnant” “bottom wood creeks” of the Deep South and looked for IBW?
What is your point?

From the comfort of my armchair, I would imagine that the “remnant” bottom woods, would be not insubstantial?
I'm sure it's easy to find out via the internet, if you're interested in getting an answer.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
It's a forum, a place for discussion and debate, maybe someone on the site has been there and can answer his perfectly valid comment?
I haven't been there but I did take the trouble to sit through the entire presentation built around the Luneau video, which included a number of slides mapping traditional and modern extents of the woodland tracts involved. They are not insubstantial (though much smaller than they were, and by common consensus hugely degraded from their condition when IBWO still existed).

The big problem with the presented evidence is that in reality what little exists is absolutely insubstantial and, as Sherlock Holmes said, "when a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation" (in this case that means none of it excludes Pileated Woodpecker). Nevertheless the areas within the huge region that once formed IBWO range where the insubstantial evidence was gathered have been searched thoroughly, and the big, big problem is that when they existed Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were not hard to find - whereas now the remaining believers are forced to claim that surviving IBWO have completely changed their habits and become harder to find than anything imaginable: so that where one has been claimed, it cannot ever be relocated. Ever. This, even without anything else, indicates firmly that the trail is long cold and so is the last IBWO.

John
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
I haven't been there but I did take the trouble to sit through the entire presentation built around the Luneau video, which included a number of slides mapping traditional and modern extents of the woodland tracts involved. They are not insubstantial (though much smaller than they were, and by common consensus hugely degraded from their condition when IBWO still existed).

The big problem with the presented evidence is that in reality what little exists is absolutely insubstantial and, as Sherlock Holmes said, "when a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation" (in this case that means none of it excludes Pileated Woodpecker). Nevertheless the areas within the huge region that once formed IBWO range where the insubstantial evidence was gathered have been searched thoroughly, and the big, big problem is that when they existed Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were not hard to find - whereas now the remaining believers are forced to claim that surviving IBWO have completely changed their habits and become harder to find than anything imaginable: so that where one has been claimed, it cannot ever be relocated. Ever. This, even without anything else, indicates firmly that the trail is long cold and so is the last IBWO.

John
Debs Hi,
If I had any doubts as to the veracity of my neighbour’s claim, it wouldn’t concern his ability to seperate B.Owl from T.Owl, which I suspect most nursery children could do (after having the differences pointed out to them). However having me needlessly “fixated” on his rear garden space for an inordinate amount of time...might just appeal to his sense of humour. ☹️

Back to topic, a question for the protagonists on this thread past and present. What percentage of the “posters” have actually journeyed by canoe to the “remnant” “bottom wood creeks” of the Deep South and looked for IBW?
From the comfort of my armchair, I would imagine that the “remnant” bottom woods, would be not insubstantial?
Throw in the relative humidity, insect bites, poisonous snakes, inquisitive alligators and ease of getting lost, whilst attempting to catch a glimpse of the holy grail...I might suggest not for the feint hearted on a long weekend field trip?
I understand the science that suggests that once a population falls beneath a given level, then it would lead to a downward spiral of inbreeding and eventual extinction.
However when populations of a given species are under threat from another species (man hunting and logging), are there not alternate drives ie evolving different survival strategies in order to function. Would it be possible to use the “existing forested corridors” to enable the species to hang on in...just?
I am of course assuming that most of the “bottom lands“ are very lowly populated?
FWIW this is on the back of me finding a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker this am. 😮👍

Cheers
Hello Ken, here is a partially completed map we were working on, adapted from a USFWS map. There is approx 8,000,000 acres of upland and bottomland forest remaining in IBWO former range. Used a different map as a template and never filled in the upland forest here below so it only shows the ~ 4,000,000 acres of bottomland in green.

Note INSIDE the "small" red circle is ~ 100,000 acres in Florida where IBs were found by Auburn and seen, heard and recorded by many for years. Locals knew of the location but really had better things to do while some though some were males some females. See upthread for peer reviewed paper links by one of the top SE US ornithologists around and a habitat picture. There is plenty of acres, some of very good quality, the problem in several hundred thousand acres is not that it is degraded, it is much more subtle than that. IMHO the population is not one hundred or more as some claim. There are reasons why the bird is not doing well but these conditions and problems are not being addressed even though they can. There is no pressing need to rush an extinction Guess since there are almost surely some birds left per a good fraction of those in the field more than a week with some skills and knowledge. Getting on an IBWO is not birding, it is much more like hunting and you do not bag a bird every week.

Numerous researchers have evidence that the bird is "hard to get on" due to several hundred being shot for museums and many more killed for other reasons when the population was already below ~ 2,000. It's is extremely common for animals and populations to change their behavior in days let alone decades in the face of lethal anthropogenic input even if it is only very loud gunshots. A. T. Wayne noticed IBs were harder to shoot and even approach after one prior year of hunting and killing ~ 12, then they couldn't easily kill one of the several that were still said to be around, detected at over one hundred yards. It is all in the literature. There is nothing unusual about animals getting hard to see, or locate or photograph in short periods of time. There are pictures and videos but their quality is not good enough for some. I have no idea what's wrong with the recordings of 120 thunderous double knocks and single knocks and IB kents (not jays or hatches) heard and recorded only in areas where people report IBs or get videos of the oddest Campephilus-like Pileateds I have ever seen.

Much of the upland forest is in silviculture; when there are fires. these forests can provide short term ephemeral feeding acres for IBWO. Ecologically large fires in uplands were likely very important to periodic growth in IB populations. Today we control fires and cutting regimes are too short to give the IB the help it needs from this habitat but it is used to move around for minor resources and as corridors, as the IB sees fit.

Hope that helps.


FORESTS IVORY BILLED.jpg
 
Last edited:

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
You seem to avoid the questions raised by ecologists and biologists on this thread, have been completely dismissive and rude to people like myself of whom it was repeatedly expected to have ‘experience‘ of the IBWO a failure of which according to you, excluded me from the discussion (even though no one else here has experience of this bird). When it seemed some people were attempting to support you, including posting the Jackson video, you immediately attacked them for having ulterior motives in not posting a better quality version.

Nevertheless the areas within the huge region that once formed IBWO range where the insubstantial evidence was gathered have been searched thoroughly,

Deb saw your post, your thoughts on all we have lost is unfortunately right on.

I did not miss any sincere questions I hope. If I did if was not done on purpose. Also some peoples post I have on ignore.

Also if a person shows continued badgering, stalking, refusal to acknowledge factual counter arguments already made, way behind on the subject on purpose, ignoring already made upthread concise responses, more, I classify them as not worth the time. Please show me what I missed if anything. tks

Also you say I left you out of some exchange above about experience; I was accused of singling you out at. You made that claim against someone else. MOTiHEAL, it was not me. Soon after he left.

Also your recollection of the conversation between someone posting a video an allegedly helping me is very parsed and truncated to the point of inaccuracy. My objection was made because his two mistakes were synergistic and additive to only one side of the discussion. He was blatantly biasing the viewers in two key ways. He posted the poor quality video on purpose and his biasing word about Pileated being the null species confirms his bias and attempt at biasing. Is was a binary situation/question. A bit insulting to most who likely know the two species are Pileated or IB. I have more evidence this person was trying to bias people. He is not a victim of rudeness or helping me like you erroneously state while using that as evidence of me being rude . There are better examples of me being rude, but try to not take my comments out of context of the prior 10 posts not mine, of which 8 were likely rude to me.

You seem to be very aware if not mistaken at times, when someone might have stepped on your toes but oblivious that the Ivory-billed and some posters are outnumbered 16 to one here. They each then take 1.5 on average major or minor rude shot at me and then I send one post back with two rude remarks and I am the rude one. Yet I just absorbed 24 rude remarks.

And it was not the Jackson video as you state. It was the video that accompanied a peer reviewed article authored by 17 good, hard working people, not one of them being Jackson. Jackson is the subject of several posts above and he is the one that is very jealous of being left out by the 17 authors and the rediscovery, some he had a pre-publication, acceptable relationship with.

tks

JF your entire post is 99.9% waffle. The part about an area being thoroughly searched is farcical on multiple levels and it not worth my time (see right above). You would not last 2 days before our field work would be interrupted as we explained to the Statey 20 miles down at the first pullout:

Me "we saw him on the opposite bank as we took our canoe up Black Snake Creek, we did a survey point and returned in 45 mins to where we saw him. But he was gone!"

Statey: Ennneey ideeas what happpened, any bears or leatherbellies in area?

Me: " Jeez, there were 2 decent size gators....right there on the shoreline and none were there when we got back!! Officer, At 11 AM on a nice day like today after rain yesterday shouldn't have they still been there warming up?

My other friend whispers in my ear-----: "I told you he was going to slow done the team, but I didn't expect this!!". "Not good...its hard enough to cover 10 square miles in a 7 days. The place is 100 square miles you know TS!!

Me: This won't go over well on BF......some of them might make up that I planned it, there is evidence we had run ins on BF !!!! Screw-it....lets go we need to pick up the pace. j

peace
 
Last edited:

KenM

Well-known member
Apologies, I should have clarified (remiss of me) the assumption of “low population levels” in the Southern bottomland forests, I was referring to the human population not IBW!
Eight million acres is an enormous area, I hadn’t realised it was that extensive! I’m sure that there might well be more attempts to hunt “the grail”....and the best of luck to those going...for it!👍
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
Also you say I left you out of some exchange above about experience; I was accused of singling you out at. You made that claim against someone else. MOTiHEAL, it was not me. Soon after he left.
No it wasn’t you that specifically addressed me on my lack of experience with IB but you certainly continued the theme suggesting that those who have no experience have no credible standing upon which to judge the evidence you present ...
There has been minimal field data either negative or positive presented by the other 25 posters. Most of these posters do not seem to have any experience at all in searching for IBs or Pileateds and may be listers and/or feeder birders
and this below, directed at myself as if my only interest is in playing to the gallery rather than having a genuine interest in the conservation issues raised by the IB narratives.
I object to the unfair way you two gauge sentiment and evidence in the last 2 IB threads. In these threads of 22 pages there have only been 5 or 6 people having actual IB search field experience ; All say the bird is:

EXTANT and have listed various experiences, points, evidence, and studies ....

And upon that evidence, for which I each time anxiously watch videos and read your peer reviewed links up thread, in the hope of something definitive and amounting to certainty that the IB remains with us even now, I remain disappointed:

Just a couple of points - On the kent calls (another example of ‘evidence’ for the 2006 IB discoveries)

“Allen and Kellogg recorded kent calls from Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana in 1935 (Tanner
1942). These calls were recorded from a breeding
pair at their nest and the vocalizing birds appeared
to have been agitated by the humans making the
recordings. Thus, any comparisons between our
recordings and the Allen and Kellogg recordings
must be treated cautiously
because of likely
differences in the context in which the calls were
produced. Nevertheless, the putative kent calls that
we recorded share similarities in fine structure to
the Allen and Kellogg recordings, being composed
of short, harmonically rich syllables“


The same research paper, to which you link in your supporting ‘evidence’ on this thread that the IB is extanct: https://www.researchgate.net/public...kers_Campephilus_principalis_Exist_in_Florida

concludes on p.13

5C76E00D-7421-4A6B-B804-069E6D277511.jpeg
I don’t think you can ask any more than healthy scepticism from the people on this thread when IB researchers themselves seem to accept that evidence of putative kent calls, putative cavities and putative sightings don’t in themselves equate with definitive evidence that the IB is extanct, only that, it may be.

(PS Apologies, I meant the link of the Fitzpatrick lecture video, but the point is the same)
 
Last edited:

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Apologies, I should have clarified (remiss of me) the assumption of “low population levels” in the Southern bottomland forests, I was referring to the human population not IBW!
Eight million acres is an enormous area, I hadn’t realised it was that extensive! I’m sure that there might well be more attempts to hunt “the grail”....and the best of luck to those going...for it!👍
Hello K, yes know your talking about humans, can't answer all things and fend off some of these posters from swallowing me.

In the US you get a diminished regulatory fight to calling a wetland species endangered than an upland one endangered, populations being equal.

Why? You cant develop wetlands, you will sink, you cant put up a house via code and even if you did you would find a muddy swimming pool where your couch use to be every one to 30 years over and over. There are very few buildings in these bottomlands and according to flood plans and flood insurance maps/regs. sometimes you cant build within the 100 year floodplain which is well beyond the green in that map, on the horizontal in many places .

Therefore few live in these areas although there can be on average a small, seasonal house boat every 1 to 5 miles. Farmland call also be in areas that flood occasionally.

The map I sent you has no upland forests colored on it. Point is when you see ribbons of green in that map and its all a large anastomosing (branching) bottomland the areas not colored in between the digitized green branches, can be very good for IBs. The IB will get a greater selection of trees and foods in a habitat block that has both wetlands and uplands. So this is not even shown on that map as a large block of good to excellent habitat but it is.

Two hurricanes just hit prime IB habitat in LA 202, many trees snapped. There you have had various teams of varying methods, veracity and skills for years. Many game cams are lost when water rises 1 to 20 feet in days. Worse for IB searches the ecology can change and IBs can move to a different patch. They are not territorial more nomadic, an evolutionary response to the heterogenous distribution of concentrated, recently senescent trees.

Point is IBs can move after you have been working out where the nest or roost is for years. They are also noted to be very quiet around the nest or roost. Only a few nests were found after 1900 and most of them were shot. The Singer tract was a refuge were no shooting of IBs was allowed for ~ 15 years or more. The birds habitual locations and general preferred nesting areas took JJ Kuhn many years to work out. They are relatively smart birds.
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
No it wasn’t you that specifically addressed me on my lack of experience with IB but you certainly continued the theme suggesting that those who have no experience have no credible standing upon which to judge the evidence you present ...

and this directed at myself as if my only interest is in playing to the gallery rather than having a genuine interest in the conservation issues raised by the IB narratives.


And upon that evidence, for which I each time anxiously watch videos and read your peer reviewed links up thread, in the hope of something definitive and amounting to certainty that the IB remains with us even now, I remain disappointed:

Just a couple of points - On the kent calls (another example of ‘evidence’ for the 2006 IB discoveries)

“Allen and Kellogg recorded kent calls from Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana in 1935 (Tanner
1942). These calls were recorded from a breeding
pair at their nest and the vocalizing birds appeared
to have been agitated by the humans making the
recordings. Thus, any comparisons between our
recordings and the Allen and Kellogg recordings
must be treated cautiously
because of likely
differences in the context in which the calls were
produced. Nevertheless, the putative kent calls that
we recorded share similarities in fine structure to
the Allen and Kellogg recordings, being composed
of short, harmonically rich syllables“


The same research paper, to which you link in your supporting ‘evidence’ on this thread that the IB is extanct: https://www.researchgate.net/public...kers_Campephilus_principalis_Exist_in_Florida

concludes on p.13

View attachment 1365815
I don’t think you can ask any more than healthy scepticism from the people on this thread when IB researchers themselves seem to accept that evidence of putative kent calls, putative cavities and putative sightings don’t in themselves equate with definitive evidence that the IB is extanct, only that, it may be.

(PS Apologies, I meant the link of the Fitzpatrick lecture video, but the point is the same)
Well thanks for dropping out your accusation that I was rude to someone allegedly helping me out when they were not.
Also you did not address who I allegedly did not answer. I asked "Please show me what I missed if anything. tks"

You consistently and religiously think you are being singled out or parsed out when its not true. Occasionally you may be or may think you have been placed in that terrible group (not) of 7 billion people and 25 here with no neotemperate or neotropical, IB field experience, Campephilus experience and no Drycopus experience. You are confusing pertinent facts that come out often with rare IDs and written RBC submittals, who asked experience questions, with an imagined and non-existent pejorative of 7 billion people. You seem to be opining a sighter's species unique morphological, ecological, bird community, audio detection, physiological, SE US field, etc. experience is meaningless. Or the real pertinence of past experience is all made up when distinguishing confusement species or in looking at roosts holes, hearing kents, or DKs and judging video evidence and audio evidence of all the latter.

Per Rules IMHO if you want to talk about e.g. "Importance of experience with rares" or "IB search, best types of experience to have" as you do over and over, then please start a new thread and advise us of its name/existence and I may join in. High-jacking of threads is frowned upon.

As far as your more important and pertinent points and above inserts, to this thread: Please advise me if you are accepting of the Hill Mennill Abstract and paper as written or are you parsing out a few sentences and agree with those sentences only? Also below Qs. I will then address it all again and the other insert.

I have spoken to all the players. Are you aware of the temporal context of when that paper was written and what was being said about Cornell by some in competing arenas? And are you aware whose homestate the evidence of IBs were found in and who is friends with Hill from that state? And are you aware who advised Hill on how to write the paper? Are you aware that Hill has over 370 publications, grad students, heavy obligations, and there may be reason for him to take the calm road, and avoid less melodrama and controversy to maintain his work output?

Also just because Hill phrases his abstract the way he does (~ Evidence of IB in FL) how does that change the other 3 or 4 IB peer reviewed papers by 17, 1, 1, and 1 authors that have abstracts that say the IB Persists or new call of the IB found or flight dynamics of the IB, etc ?. In other words why does Hill's two sentences and paper negate the others' evidence, proof, and abstract including well studied and well reviewed videos ,stills, measurements of the bird via corollaries,, DKs, and other data sets ?

thanks
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
Well thanks for dropping out your accusation that I was rude to someone allegedly helping me out when they were not.
Actually I didn’t drop anything - the poster in question who posted the Fitzpatrick video, did so because my requests to you to post recent video evidence of the last 15 years was not answered
You consistently and religiously think you are being singled out or parsed out when its not true.
I have no idea what you mean by this sweeping statement, I only quoted posts above that were directed towards me in this respect. Again, your response is to personally attack those who dare challenge, contradict or even ask of you further questions regarding your research and/or attempt to bury them in a mountain of online ‘paperwork’ in the manner of an opposing legal team attempting to obfuscate the evidence or lack thereof.
You are confusing pertinent facts that come out often with rare IDs and written RBC submittals with an imagined and non-existent pejorative of 7 billion people. You seem to be opining a sighter's species unique, ecological, bird community, audio detection, physiological, SE US field, etc. experience is meaningless. Or it's all made up that its pertinent in distinguishing confusement species or in looking at roosts holes or hearing kents or DKs and judging evidence of all the latter.
I am not confusing anything - least of all opining that that the experience of IB (re)searchers is meaningless - please point me to where I say that. This is your interpretation- it is your posts that suggest the experience of BF members as being insufficient to judge the evidence you present, not the other way round. Which begs the question ‘what value is it therefore for you to be presenting it to us in the first place if that is how you feel?
you do over and over then please start a new thread and advise us of its name/existence and I may join in. High-jacking of threads is frowned upon.
Unbelievable - it is OK for you to be rude, belittle and dismiss the ornithological experience of others but if I point out that this is what you do, I am hijacking your thread? 😲

Clearly, anyone voicing an opinion different to your own is met with confrontational diatribe and personal ridicule (as your response above indicates).

As for ‘experience’, I will say this, of all the many years working in conservation and the environmental policy arena, I have never experienced such adolescent rattle shaking or debates around the issues of conservation matters conducted in such a toxic environment as you are determined to create here. I have lost the desire to converse with you further.

Also just because Hill phrases his abstract the way he does (~ Evidence of IB in FL) how does that change the other 3 or 4 IB peer reviewed papers by 17, 1, 1, and 1 author that have abstracts that say the IB Persists or new call of the IB found or flight dynamics of the IB, etc ?. In other words why does Hill's two sentences and paper negate the others' evidence and abstract including well studied and well reviewed videos ,stills, measurements of the bird, DKs, and other data sets ?

Btw. The text I quoted was not from the abstract but from the concluding body of the paper - Hill is not the only author either, the paper has 5:

1. Geoffrey Hill
2. Daniel Mennill
3. Brian Rolek
4. Tyler Hicks
5. Kyle Swiston

1Truthseeker said:
As far as your more important and pertinent points and above inserts, to this thread: Please advise me if you are accepting of the Hill Mennill Abstract and paper as written or are you parsing out a few sentences and agree with those sentences only? .

I have read the paper in full and am in agreement with it’s conclusions that ‘definitive evidence’ remains forthcoming. I also agree based on the results of the research, ie putative cavities, putative calls etc and the fact that someone may have seen an IB, that there may be enough to warrant further funding to continue the search in the hope just one IB can be found but my opinion counts for little in this regard I imagine.

The merit of a peer reviewed research paper should not be contingent on other research papers to either prove it’s veracity or be used to validate another piece of independent research - it should be read as a stand alone presentation of independent research. You make it sound as if I deliberately selected a few sentences out of context from this paper in order to misrepresent its findings but it was the authors’ own conclusions that summarise the work as lacking ‘definitive evidence’ and only enough to merit further funding to continue the search that one IB can be found. If you feel this particular paper does not support your arguments that the IB is definitely extant, why include it in your list of supporting authorities up thread?

Ps completely off topic if one were purely talking about political leaders or high management but attempts to silence ones opponents with social media/forum attacks on their reputations, personalities, qualifications, and/or generally vitriolic remarks so they become too intimidated to contradict you is a form of bullying imo.
 
Last edited:

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
The latest US Fish & Wildlife Service review, from 2019, is interesting, though sobering reading. Section II.B.3 (page 5) notes the (considerable) search efforts made by wildlife professionals and others in multiple states from circa 2005 to 2013.

Like everyone here I would be glad to be wrong, and hope that as camera and video tech improves, one of the folks out there will get the long hoped for "definitive pic".
Its upthread by various posters and in last thread. The survey methodology, a bit unique for the IB was really screwed up by Cornell and one person in particular. In addition skeptics, to get them to begrudgingly temper their hissy fits on spending a few million, were involved in loading on non-IBWO centric field duties.

And I don't think the mobile survey teams staffed with ~ 20 year olds were experienced enough and were certainly not made aware of the proper way to survey for IBs by the elders. It was all a good time in the field for some. At least two more major flaws with the survey design and bad assumptions . In conclusion the survey produced all false negatives out side of the points where they were detections. A few researchers have better response rates with better methods.

thanks
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
This seems like a pretty good summary of where things stand to me (unless Kaufman is also to be discredited and dismissed as lacking qualification to comment)


“Year after year, we see no clear photos or videos, we hear no convincing, diagnostic recordings. Of course, it’s impossible to prove that the bird is gone—you can’t prove an absence of something—but after a while, you can start to make reasonable assumptions...”

Kaufman goes on to say he ‘believes’ the IBWO is extinct - I would say put ‘belief’ aside - one can believe or disbelieve independent of factual ingredients - one has to decide whether the facts being presented are enough to amount to an unequivocal position that the IB is extant or an unequivocal position that it does not. Since we can not prove a negative, it is right that those claiming recent sightings should support their claims with incontrovertible evidence to convince the sceptics, even just the hopeful, that the assumption the IB is extinct is incorrect.
 
Last edited:

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
This seems like a pretty good summary of where things stand to me (unless Kauffmann is also to be discredited and dismissed as lacking qualification to comment)


“Year after year, we see no clear photos or videos, we hear no convincing, diagnostic recordings. Of course, it’s impossible to prove that the bird is gone—you can’t prove an absence of something—but after a while, you can start to make reasonable assumptions...”

Kaufman goes on to say he ‘believes’ the IBWO is extinct - I would say put ‘belief’ aside - one can believe or disbelieve independent of factual ingredients - one has to decide whether the facts being presented are enough to amount to an unequivocal position that the IB is extant or an unequivocal position that it does not. Since we can not prove a negative, it is right that those claiming recent sightings should support their claims with incontrovertible evidence to convince the sceptics, even just the hopeful, that the assumption the IB is extinct is incorrect.

You are on ignore after this. You have again brought up this obsession you have with resumes even though it was just mentioned you do this every chance you get. You also accused me again of some nebulous offense.

How will this come out well for a poor stranger not here to respond when you place him an artist, who has not reviewed the literature, not reviewed the evidence, with major flaws in his interview, against Julie. His summary is how you feel about the evidence? Start a new thread and you might reconsider. And you have not even seem most of the evidence. Not a boo from you on any of the videos, or wing beat. And what will one artist dueling against another possibly gain for your premature judgement of the evidence? That was rhetorical.

All the evidence is not yet even presented here and summarized. The evidence is voluminous. Please look at the evidence per event if I ever do it or not when in and organized, matters not.

If possible time wise come up with YOUR OWN detailed opinion or not. Saying "its all not convincing" over and over is not really a scientific review. Or maybe it is, matters not. You saying Hill et al. relates their evidence is very suggestive of IB and agreeing with that was a start.

But you keep yelling at me; accusing me of ignoring this or that biologist's question. I say, sorry, it was unintentional and if it happened please show me the misses and I never see them. I tell you it wasn't me that said you are unqualified to participate, you say you are right it wasn't you it was someone else who allegedly abused you, ignored you, and then proceed to seamlessly accuse me of it all again. You accused Motiheal of misogyny and lumped me with him. I want a divorce! lol

I ask you YOU good questions and you send me KKs words. You force these conversations on everyone; its like looking through my splayed fingers at a bad car crash.

This will NOT happen again, you can have the kids and obviously your pet, black widow.

I will go with Julie Z any day in this situation; its not close. Harvard biologist and professionally trained artist. Easy when one knows she has worked with the IB and has actually commented publicly on the IB evidence. KK has not reviewed all the evidence; he may have looked at the pictures.

She has done all the things KK can not. Nice fella, spoke to him on the boardwalk, but here is just a small list.

1) She has heard of phenotypic plasticity
2) Understands it
3) Understands ecology
4) made public comments in the peer reviewed literature that evidence looks like IB
5) Knows IB flight characteristics
6) Knows body proportions of IB
7) doesn't need KK's psychobabble or (Sibleys) to explain the situation
8) visited the IB playing field
9) published and contracted for multiple covers and other work on the IB
10) Harvard trained in Biology and Art
11) has looked at and heard of Pennychuick, Nudds and Tobalskes work
12) more

Julie Zickefoose is a widely published natural history writer and artist. Educated at Harvard University in biology and art, she worked for six years as a field biologist for The Nature Conservancy before turning to a freelance art career. Her observations on the natural history and behavior of birds stem from more than three decades of experience in the field. She has presented illustrated lectures for nature organizations and festivals across the country, and exhibited her paintings at universities, museums, galleries, and in juried shows. Illustration credits include The New Yorker, Smithsonian, Spider, Cricket, and Ladybug. She has written and illustrated articles for Country Journal, and Bird Watcher's Digest has published more than 30 of Julie's articles and 17 of her cover paintings since 1986.​


And finally I see you could not answer this: "Please advise me if you are accepting of the Hill Mennill Abstract and paper as written or are you parsing out a few sentences and agree with those sentences only?

Nice knowing you .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top