• 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.

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Nice mature and rational response where you totally don't look like a tool. Honest. How about a mature response regarding your evidence and DNA profiling of the feathers? Or have they conveniently been lost?
This is upthread dawdleson..............please be considerate............or no coupons for you. Go find the feather YOURSELF, its already IDed by those WITH ACTUAL STANDING (LEGAL TERM). NOTHING IS LOST, you can tickle yourself with it if needed assuming you do not bust into the museum with a hint of laziness and entitlement .

Do not forget the roost. Perhaps they will let you stick your finger into the cavity to prove its all not some odd conspiracy theory ...........................a kinda reward....No? :love:
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
Calm down. You have shown rehabilitation (IBWO) it's a potential great rebirth of our relationship. Do you forgive me?
Yes.

But I would still like to know what your objectives are here. Do these debates have an endgame or do they just continue with the ‘searchers’ declaring they already have the evidence that IBWO is extant and the birding community on BF asking for a different type of evidence that you simply don’t have?
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Yes.

But I would still like to know what your objectives are here. Do these debates have an endgame or do they just continue with the ‘searchers’ declaring they already have the evidence that IBWO is extant and the birding community on BF asking for a different type of evidence that you simply don’t have?
I like how you think, motives, reasons, seriously. I would PM you with the honest answer but the two times I PMed people they turned me in....you know, rats.

Of course I had been wary and had given them info that the invasion would be at Calais. (they actually thought i thought they were trustworthy; these are not chess players, maybe darts).

BF people are highly trained though; no doubt selection pressure from some past events.

There are multiple interrelated reasons mixed with ideas for being here but effectiveness is hampered if I comply with every request for a loose oral sphincter.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
This is upthread dawdleson..............please be considerate............or no coupons for you. Go find the feather YOURSELF, its already IDed by those WITH ACTUAL STANDING (LEGAL TERM). NOTHING IS LOST, you can tickle yourself with it if needed assuming you do not bust into the museum with a hint of laziness and entitlement .

Do not forget the roost. Perhaps they will let you stick your finger into the cavity to prove its all not some odd conspiracy theory ...........................a kinda reward....No? :love:
Are you calling this a roost (a possibly occasional overnight stop) or a nest cavity (a specifically dug out by IBWO cavity for nesting in, to a set of rough dimensions possibly distinctive to the species)? Has any attempt been made to age the remains of either cavity or feather? (Don't bother, I looked it up: the feather can't be conclusively aged and is not thought to represent evidence of persistence of IBWO beyond when it was known to be around anyway.)

BTW it appears in referring recently to the ESA you forgot to mention this:

"A 2019 five-year review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the ivory-billed woodpecker be removed from the Endangered Species List due to extinction."

Go and get a photo. We're agog to see one.

John
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Btw you are the second IBWO proselyte that has shut me down and refused answer me on this thread and now just being fricking RUDE.

Come back with a photo - until then accept the incredulity, scepticism having your ‘evidence‘ questioned and suck it up.

Good Day.
Damn right and it' 'expedience', not 'expediency'................................!
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi,

My job is done here until and if something that imitates coherent thought pops out of the brush kinda like another over-taped, critically rare species is forced to by listers.

Regarding coherent thinking, there are is an un-addressed point I keep bringing up, without getting anything like an intelligent answer:


I am totally a fan of coherent thought, but I'm afraid I have to point out that the entire Ivory-Billed Woodpecker "community" here on this forum so far hasn't mustered enough of it to address this rather serious criticism of one of their central arguments about the significance of their best-documented sighting.

There also mention of "numerous modern reports" of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and its flight distance here:


I have to admit that I'm quite curious if that claim is covered by any publication, because it seems rather extraordinary all-around.

Regards,

Henning
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
"A 2019 five-year review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the ivory-billed woodpecker be removed from the Endangered Species List due to extinction."
Maybe you have heard of political science. MaYBE YOU HAVE HEARD that the US President is not exactly into regulations that impede development. I have already mentioned the power of the ESA so naturally political powers attack that............................ the nexus is exactly where I told you prior to knowing you would wade in again over your head. Note that no one is attacking the ABA, the AR RBC or the LA RBC of BF etc.

Thanks for emphasizing my recent point (even if were unaware of your help) that the ESA/USFWS has the power here not the little ABA, AOU or BF gangs. I guess getting to 16,000 posts requires just typing and sometimes unknowingly helping others is just collateral damage on the way to fish and chips coupons.

Unfortunately the lack of science standards by BF gangs does small, incremental damage by helping the timber industry in various ways.

The word here is it the IB will not be taken off the list and AGAIN IT IS SQUARELY ON THE LIST NOW. removal is only a recommendation...............but the paper and timber industry are very powerful. Also most timberland is privately owned, having IB on the ES List is not welcomed by them or accepted.

You seem gleeful that the bird was proposed for removal via extinction declaration. You are a great person, not. The Wise USE groups, climate change deniers and other destroyers of natural resources embrace silly IB posters and their abuse of actual healthy skepticism. Actual scientific skepticism is not conflating of the extremely unlikely explanation often twined with ridiculous conspiracy theories. Then the barely possible somehow elevated over many evidentiary data sets consistent with the presence of a keystone or umbrella species.
 
Last edited:

dwatsonbirder

Well-known member
This is upthread dawdleson..............please be considerate............or no coupons for you. Go find the feather YOURSELF, its already IDed by those WITH ACTUAL STANDING (LEGAL TERM). NOTHING IS LOST, you can tickle yourself with it if needed assuming you do not bust into the museum with a hint of laziness and entitlement .

Do not forget the roost. Perhaps they will let you stick your finger into the cavity to prove its all not some odd conspiracy theory ...........................a kinda reward....No? :love:
Great to hear it is not lost, I look forward to seeing the peer reviewed paper in Nature/Ibis/ABA journal showing DNA analysis conclusively proving the feathers belong to Ivory billed woodpecker.

Good look with the gaffa-taped 9MP video camera on an oar method.
 

dwatsonbirder

Well-known member
Actual scientific scepticism is not conflating of the extremely unlikely explanation often twined with ridiculous conspiracy theories over many evidentiary data sets consistent with the presence of a keystone or umbrella species.
Quite.

A bit like continued assertions that an extinct species with no photographs or field sightings from competent birders still persists in heavily degraded habitat in the third most populous country...

Now, where did I put my salt and vinegar?
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Hi,



Regarding coherent thinking, there are is an un-addressed point I keep bringing up, without getting anything like an intelligent answer:


I am totally a fan of coherent thought, but I'm afraid I have to point out that the entire Ivory-Billed Woodpecker "community" here on this forum so far hasn't mustered enough of it to address this rather serious criticism of one of their central arguments about the significance of their best-documented sighting.

There also mention of "numerous modern reports" of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and its flight distance here:


I have to admit that I'm quite curious if that claim is covered by any publication, because it seems rather extraordinary all-around.

Regards,

Henning
Henning it's unintelligible what you are asking. Can you form your own question in your own words if able w/o all the links to pages and pages of good work ? We are not mind readers or a free research center. If you need to contract Phd mathematicians explain what you need.

Again what equations have you USED and what are your plug in values for all the variables and why these values with sources?

Regardless ask Tobalske or see grad students under the esteemed UK researcher who led the research on flight dynamics if you are confused. You were nicely asked to provide a bit of work last time before requesting others do gratis work for you. You gain have come back w/o your home work or any draft paper.
 
Last edited:

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi,

Knowledge is not belief. Ignorance may be though.

This really cracks me up ... I'm reading Epstein's "Range" right now:


In chapter 10, "Fooled by Expertise", he writes:

"[The psychologist and politic scientist Philip Tetlock] decided to put exper predictions to the test. With the Cold War in full swing, he began a study to collect short- and long-term forecasts from 284 highly educated experts (most had doctorates) who averaged more than twelve years of experience in their specialties. [...]

The average expert was a horrific forecaster. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, academic degrees, and even (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting, bad at long-term forecasting, and bad at forecasting in every domain. [...]

Many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment, even in the face of their results. [...]

Incredibly the hedgehogs [narrowly specialized experts] performed especially poorly on long-term predictions within their domain of expertise. [...] The more information they had to work with, the more they could fit any story to their worldview."

Sums it up very nicely!

Regards,

Henning
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Quite.

A bit like continued assertions that an extinct species with no photographs or field sightings from competent birders still persists in heavily degraded habitat in the third most populous country...

Now, where did I put my salt and vinegar?
You are so unscientific and obtuse. Does anyone have any respect for these sophomoric attempts to mislead by utilizing total human population of a country rather than square mile density of the subject population and then drawing some illusionary corelate to a birds detection function.

You r ridiculous and insult everyone here. I do not find you much of a challenge.
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi.

Henning it unintelligible what you are asking. Can you form your own question in your own words if able w/o all the links to pages and pages of good work ?

If you actually click on the links, you will be taken to a specific post adressing the exact post I'm referring to.

There's no stuff for PhD mathematicians, and I'm not asking a question. I'm telling Mike that both his understanding of aerodynamics and of mathematics are flawed at a very basic level that doesn't require any expert knowledge to recognize.

Regards,

Henning
 

cajanuma

Well-known member
I'm quite open to the idea of a few Ivory-billed Woodpeckers having persisted for a few years or even decades after those in the Singer Tract disappeared. I even think that the most parsimonious explanation for the Fielding Lewis photos from Louisiana in the early 1970s is that he did in fact photograph a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker. But even that was 50 years ago!

If we are discussing the claims from the last 15-20 years, then any sane person would conclude that despite an abundance of claimed smoke, there has been exactly zero conclusive evidence produced. Surely that's the crux of the matter?
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Caj. were you on any of the multiple committees that accepted the recent sightings after extensive review of the evidence in several data sets?
 
Last edited:

Sangahyando

Well-known member
BF people are highly trained though; no doubt selection pressure from some past events.
Yes, there's no shortage of crazies when it comes to conservation issues, and we've had to adapt to that.

Maybe you have heard of political science. MaYBE YOU HAVE HEARD that the US President is not exactly into regulations that impede development.
Which one, the one-term president who's already on his way out and who's so unpopular with his peers that most of his policies will probably be overturned anyway, or the next guy who I'm sure is open to negotiations, seeing as he has no principles?

The word here is it will not be taken off the list and AGAIN IT IS SQUARELY ON THE LIST NOW. It is only a recommendation...............but the paper and timber industry is very powerful.
If your goal is to conserve this specific habitat and don't have sufficient proof for IBWO, why not look for other endangered species which have been proven to still exist in this kind of habitat? Seems like a better strategy to me, especially since you'd probably have a long list of candidates, including plants. Otherwise, you're just going into court with IBWO as the flagship species and the opposition is going to shred whatever "evidence" you have.
 
Last edited:

Sandy73

Well-known member
Caj. were you on any of the multiple committees that accepted the recent sightings after extensive review of the evidence in several data sets?
Evening all.

Apologies, just found the thread. Which committees have accepted the recent sightings (honestly don’t know, hence the question)? Obviously there must be solid evidence for the sightings to be accepted. Has it been published/ peer reviewed?

Could this be a similar case as the famous Night Parrot? There was a lot of negative comments until a live population was found. Hard to sustain an arguement when presented with recent photo’s, eye witness statements, locations (suitable large enough to protect the actual location) and feathers.

Regards
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
You want to be rude? Fine.

If you are trying to discuss survey detection rates of birds or detection functions then please do so without bringing in unrelated and dishonest flubbery like total human population number of the subject country. Population density is heterogenous in the US. 80 % of the population lives on the coasts or cites.

Oh my, so much whinging and crying. Don't act as if you have been knackered when you are caught in the act of blatant dishonesty by yelphelping.

Describe the US IB habitats correctly, do not mislead.

You are embarrassing yourself again; not unusual for you I suppose. You realize this is a public whipping? I guess you do since you are screaming moderator, moderator help! My god borrow some self respect, since you are bankrupt!

Rarely have we seen such a density of brain matter and juvie behaviour squeezed into one post (name calling, ad hominin attacks, feigned injury, call for help, etc). Why when scolded for being gormful must some of you become resume pumpers with a little run to mummy chaser? Does this work on the mods?

See................. a list of rares found is not a valid defense for prior dishonest acts. Its displacement behaviour; unwittingly brings a review of all your alleged sightings in your resume,,, the one no one asked for.

You stated that since the US was the third most populous country on Earth it's impossible to miss an Ivory-billed.

Try and discuss that with some self control: its was a purposely dishonest way of framing the issue.

By your reasoning or lack of, Panama, Guyana, Uganda, etc with small populations must be the hardest place to see rares when they are not.

The SE US has riparian corridors so impenetrable in all directions that it would force you to be calling for help from a helicopter, rather than the moderators, at the first snake rattle or animal scream as beddy bye time approached.

A tough twitch for some of you is when you all get jammed up at a stone gate suddenly opened up to the little tree hosting a rare owl. You know the story.

If you are trying to discuss survey detection rates of birds or detection functions then please do so without bringing in unrelated flubbery like total human population number of the subject country. There are few if any human habitants in the river corridors/swamps where IBs are found; these areas can be hundreds of thousands of contiguous acres.

The human per capita per sq mile in the US localities where IBs are is extremely low. Twitchers are rare and there are few endemics in these areas to drive visitation. Its no wonder you can't fathom what has occurred in this situation.
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
If we are discussing the claims from the last 15-20 years, then any sane person would conclude that despite an abundance of claimed smoke, there has been exactly zero conclusive evidence produced. Surely that's the crux of the matter?

I think that is indeed the point that most are making.

Perhaps it would complicate things less to simply focus purely on the claimed evidence from the past 15 years (just for clarity).

This thread seems to have moved on from any intelligent discussion but if someone can summarise what new/recent evidence (ie from sightings within the past 15 years) there is, including new video, new recordings, new feathers, recent excavated nest holes, and best of all photos, however blurry.
That for me would be a very good starting point.
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
. I'm reading Epstein's "Range" right
Hedgehogs and Foxes eh? I remember reading a lecture given by Aldous Huxley on this very topic and deciding the world is a less confusing place for foxes. Of course it was the title of Isaiah Berlin’s essay on Tolstoy and before that, first used in a poem by Archilochus.

If IB searchers (see I’m going to use the acceptable ‘IB’ from now on) are hedgehogs, which they are in their tunnel of speciality, ie the IB, then the problem is convincing the foxes of the veracity of evidence that can only be interpreted positively apparently in the hedgehog‘s paradigm of knowledge of the IB. The Foxes need to see how this ‘knowledge’ fits in to a broader and less specific paradigm that has a more holistic understanding of conservation and ecology. The stumbling block might largely be one of communication as well as disagreement as to what constitutes evidentiary material.

Perhaps there is another path after all to establishing the continued survival of IBs, it’s not a question of evidence but of philosophy!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top