• 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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
1930s IBs at nest

Ivory-billed Woodpecker - YouTube

Evidence from Florida 2005- 2008

(PDF) Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida (researchgate.net)

Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (<i>Campephilus principalis</i>) Exist in Florida (semanticscholar.org)

There may be some videos as links above but they are only suggestive. Many varied, good data sets above and sound files in following link .

The Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (uwindsor.ca)

See at 40 secs a bird identified in the field as IB, but this itself is not strong evidence due to poor quality. Birds continued into at least 2015 but had moved within the 60 square miles. Its is not easy to explore the corridor.

Ivory-Billed woodpeckers not extinct in Northern Florida? | This American Land - YouTube

Aerial view of just 1 or 2 square mile of this very impressive 60 square miles :

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat in the Choctawhatchee River Swamp - YouTube

Hill comments on wariness of birds: http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1450&postcount=27

Choctawhatchee River: In the Vicinity of Bruce Creek (part 1) - YouTube

Story saying how even the Choctawhatchee Bird Count Coordinator had never been on the river in 20 years. Its a nice quiet area in the fall and winter,


Donald Ware, bird count coordinator for the Choctawhatchee Audubon Society has been tracking the IBWO for several years along the Choctawhathcee River. Donald has written an account of his experiences:

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers of Choctawhatchee River
by Donald Ware

After at least one male Ivory-billed Woodpecker was discovered in Arkansas, Dr. Geoffrey Hill, head ornithologist at Auburn University, assigned his graduate students to search historical IBWO habitat in the Florida panhandle. He came down with them to the Choctawhatchee River, and he reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on his first day in the river. Since I was a board member of the Alabama Ornithological Society, I knew that Dr. Hill knew the differences between the Ivorybill and the still thriving, nearly as large, Pileated Woodpecker. I trusted his identification.

I felt guilty that I had not been in that river during the 20 years that I had been Bird Count Coordinator for the Choctawhatchee Audubon Society. On 26 Oct 06 I received a call from Dr. Bob Larson reporting an IBWO a few feet from McCaskill Road. It was on a small dying pine with the top blown off. While investigating that with a friend, I met Jerry Williams, 1801 McCaskill Road, who reported that he had seen one from the deck of his home on a tree in early spring of 2006. His home is on 12-foot pilings in the flood plain. He said that he saw or heard Pileated Woodpeckers quite frequently, and this bird had the black and white wing pattern of a Red-headed Woodpecker, though “five times larger”.

That day I also met Paul Ward launching his fishing boat at Morrison Springs. I asked if he had seen a bird like the one on my Ivory-billed Woodpecker T-shirt. He reported seeing one in his yard 15 Oct 06, south of Byrd Intersection on CR 181. Paul was then a 75-year-old card-carrying Creek Indian who said he knows all of the creatures in that flood plain, and he sees Pileated Woodpeckers every day he goes out. He started to work for a logging company there in 1950 and had his first Ivorybill sighting in 1955. The October 2006 sighting was probably his 12th. When he and his wife watched the TV announcement of the Ivorybill being “rediscovered” in Arkansas, he told his wife “they have been here all along.” Later he saw the bird on a dead Live Oak 70-feet north of his home, and he got his wife out. They both watched it sit on the tree and then fly away, showing the white trailing edge of the wing, top and bottom.

Between November 6th and 29th, 2006 I spent four days exploring the river and minor creeks from US 90 to Bozman Fish Camp south of FL 20. That was about 50 miles of exploration. On 29 Nov 06, the 4th day in the river, at 12:45 PM I saw an IBWO fly east to west above the treetops into Walton County north of Morrison Springs, 30 deg. 39′ 10″ N. I said to George Russell, in the back of his canoe, “I think we just saw one.” It appeared long and slim with a shallow wing beat and a red crest. I saw no white on the wing in that a profile view, but as it the moved away it exposed increasing amounts of white on the trailing edge of the wing. At 1:30 PM we heard the double-knock distinctive to that genus of woodpecker come from the Reedy Creek area where we last saw it heading. Note to IBWO searchers: the Pileated Woodpecker has a deep wing beat like a crow, exposing some white in the middle of the wing from all perspectives.

I spent six days supporting the Auburn Research Team documenting GPS coordinates of the large woodpecker cavity trees and feeding trees. On 5 Dec 06 at 10:30 AM I heard two kent calls near Sandy creek about two miles south of the previously heard double-knocks. My hearing and my bird call experience is very good, and I think this was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Later I interviewed Mr. Byrd who has lived on the land between Reedy Creek and he Choctawhatchee River all his life. He reported seeing an IBWO fly across his property a few years ago, and seeing them twice while fishing in the Choctawhatchee. I left him my card, and after that he reported having just seen an Ivorybill fly across Bunker Island while fishing well down the river, apparently his forth sighting. Jerry Williams reported his second sighting while on a deer stand in January 2007. Also, Dr. Larson took a canoe to where I saw the bird, and he and his wife reported that one was flushed by a motorboat, along with a Pileated Woodpecker, on 17 Aug 08, his second sighting. They had the bird in their binoculars and reported the white trailing edge.

In 2007 Geoffrey Hill published Ivorybill Hunters documenting the Auburn study of the 2005/06 season where several sightings were made, but no good photos obtained. It is $24.95 new and about $15 used or on Kindle at www.amazon.com. His Auburn web site has links to audio recordings of 350 apparent knocks or calls from the 05/06 and 06/07 search seasons. James R. Hill had a six-month contract for operating camera traps there in the 06/07 season, but was not successful in obtaining photo evidence of the presence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, though he has friends who have had brief looks.

I think there is overwhelming evidence that this beautiful bird, once thought to be extinct, still lives after we harvested most their big feeding and nesting trees. A few apparently were cautious enough to avoid the hunters when they became rare and museums unwisely offered money for their skins. We are wiser now, and I pray that the only shooting we do now is with a camera so future generations can experience what some called the “Lord God” bird.

Additional links:

To learn more about the ivory-billed woodpecker go to: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBWFundingfactsheet.pdf
 
Last edited:

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Raymie,

Sibley has written his opinion on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker here: https://www.sibleyguides.com/bird-info/ivory-billed-woodpecker/

Thanks a lot for the link!

His article on "Certainty in sight records" is also quite relevant ...


Confirmation bias is a thing!

Regards,

Henning
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
I watched a 5 minute video of Sibley admitting he was sceptical of the IVB existing and why he had come to that conclusion despite obviously wishing the species was still about.

It just leaves me wondering when do we (as birders, not scientists) accept that the species is lost forever. Who eventually decides when something is extinct such as this enigmatic bird.
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
1930s IBs at nest

Ivory-billed Woodpecker - YouTube

Evidence from Florida 2005- 2008

(PDF) Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida (researchgate.net)

Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (<i>Campephilus principalis</i>) Exist in Florida (semanticscholar.org)

There may be some videos as links above but they are only suggestive. Many varied, good data sets above and sound files in following link .

The Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (uwindsor.ca)

See at 40 secs a bird identified in the field as IB, but this itself is not strong evidence due to poor quality. Birds continued into at least 2015 but had moved within the 60 square miles. Its is not easy to explore the corridor.

Ivory-Billed woodpeckers not extinct in Northern Florida? | This American Land - YouTube

Aerial view of just 1 or 2 square mile of this very impressive 60 square miles :

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat in the Choctawhatchee River Swamp - YouTube

Hill comments on wariness of birds: http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1450&postcount=27

Choctawhatchee River: In the Vicinity of Bruce Creek (part 1) - YouTube

The elegance of the Florida study, is fitting to have happened on this beautiful, spectacular and exciting river. It is something for all of us to experience if possible. As you move down its long, unbridged, middle section of 30 miles, you will gently sway through curve and meandering loop, as if on one giant, natural amusement ride that makes you unknowingly smile for hours and then days.

Soon any mundane concerns are gone only to be tweaked as red-shouldered hawks keeERR kkeeeRR as if they are sure you must be watched. The numerous pileateds also seem less trusting than most but the flickers seem to just laugh it off.

On the inner banks of turns, balmy sands accumulate and young willows dominate the water logged earth . On a sunny fall or winter day the skeeters will be in there, amazingly active, fighting off your attempts to lay back, rest ones arms and crack some suds, the buzzers not caring that you worked hard to find that small patch of open, dry terrain. Kinglets with white-throated sparrows heavily chipping with an occasional O' Canada are capped with skulky winter wrens, tic ticking, and a less frequent blue-headed vireo. Yellow-rumped warbler chips are numerous with the occasional common yellowthroat and redstart notes for variety.

You slap some repellant on; check for snakes. Finally when you nod off a beaver slaps its tail amazingly loud but you're not annoyed and chuckle knowing its you that are interrupting him. You crouch down carefully avoiding slipping into the cool, opaque water and splash some on your face, then take a deep breath before one of the many 5 mile paddle sessions and hikes that go on punctuated by many primitive camp fires.

Soon the cross current from another heavily wooded, side branch slightly angles your canoe as if to help you see the two otters even better. You notice the forest is superior here; it has shaded out some of the understory. Scattered 8 foot diameter cypresses have some suggestive roosts.

It's where you should be, or very close. A few moons later in a great patch the smallest doubt that comes with not hearing a call yourself is wisped away by some rather timid, but heavy and unique kents. Your head shakes as with a bit of amazement, with a whisper of "they were right".

And soon you find yourself trying again and then again and with the next experience your surprise is lessened. 1321 copy.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bird_Bill

Well-known member
Who eventually decides when something is extinct

The IUCN would have considerable input to governmental agencies throughout the world.

Campephilus principalis

When I was too young to fully understand the implications, the dusky seaside sparrow
(Ammospiza maritima nigrescens) was declared extinct in 1990.
Three years after the last captive specimen died (1987)

"Can you be sure that an endagered species has gone extinct"

The above article makes a relevant point....that science is reluctant to declare an animal extinct for fear that critical funding might be lost.

I have been approached by people here in the US, wanting donations to save the ivory-bill woodpecker
Always been polite and left, with nothing else given or left.
 

KenM

Well-known member
I suspect that like a lot of people who’ve “trailed” this thread over the years, I too would also like to believe.
The verbal “sighting” accounts given previously, from various individuals from whom I would have no reason to disbelieve, certainly give some credence to the possibility that IBS is still worth looking for?

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!....
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
The IUCN would have considerable input to governmental agencies throughout the world.

Campephilus principalis

When I was too young to fully understand the implications, the dusky seaside sparrow
(Ammospiza maritima nigrescens) was declared extinct in 1990.
Three years after the last captive specimen died (1987)

"Can you be sure that an endagered species has gone extinct"

The above article makes a relevant point....that science is reluctant to declare an animal extinct for fear that critical funding might be lost.

I have been approached by people here in the US, wanting donations to save the ivory-bill woodpecker
Always been polite and left, with nothing else given or left.
Hello Bird Bill, understand you mentioning of IUCN in context of general listing status. But do not understand not at least mentioning USFWS. They maintain THE PROMINENT list in the USA including status for the IB with much more power and scope than anything the IUCN does. Neither the USFWS or IUCN call the species extinct.

This is not a species with any international trade implications or found in more than one country. It is NOT found in Cuba; that is surely a different species just lacking in any pressing reason to have a new species name proposed, approved and assigned and for IUCN to establish another species account.

The USFWS is much more pertinent than the basically powerless IUCN in the case of IB. USFWS is closer to the action, more involved with individual reports worth follow-up, more able to influence conservation, has substantially more field personnel to draw status conclusions from, has much more fieldwork funds, etc.

The IUCN does however seem to produce updates in a more workman like, and on schedule manner. The USFWS listing process has more latency than the IUCN at times. The IUCN only responsibility is to collate papers, reports, recovery plans, USFWS literature and reports, to establish their listing status. The USFWS is responsible for much more.

Because of all the above the IUCN listing conclusion is in a way just a derivative of what the USFWS is also collecting, reviewing, saying and collating on the species.

Both groups be definition have directly rejected the flawed opinions of Sibley and Jackson their points then chanted by skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

Here is an edited list of what the IUCN used to decide the species exists, the USFWS also is aware of most of these papers but of course the ridiculous papers on subjective dates of extinction based on flawed statistics have been rejected by both. (Note well above I have tried to post the links to some of these actual pertinent papers/data despite the pseudoskeptics, immature actions to slow sunlighting).:

Charif, R. A.; Cortopassi, K. A.; Fristrup, K.M.; Figueroa, H. K.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Fitzpatrick, J.W. 2005. Status of recent acoustic research for Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Collins, M. D. 2011. Putative audio recordings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(3): 1626-1630.

Collins, M. D. 2017. Video evidence and other information relevant to the conservation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Heliyon 3(1): e00230.

Collins, M. D. 2019. Statistics, Probability, and a Failed Conservation Policy. Statistics and Public Policy 6(1): 67-79.

Dalton, R. 2010. Still looking for that woodpecker. Nature 463(7282): 718-719.

Fitzpatrick, J.W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M.D.; Gallagher, T.W.; Harrison, B. R.; Sparling, G.M.; Rosenberg, K.V.;

Rohrbaugh, R.W.; Swarthout, E.C.H.; Wrege, P.H.; Swarthout, S. B.; Dantzker, M.S.;…authors continued in notes. 2005.

Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America. Science 308: 1460-1462.

Fitzpatrick, J.W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M.D.; Gallagher, T.W.; Rosenberg, K.V. 2006. Response to comment on "Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America". Science 311(5767): 1555.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M. D.; Rosenberg, K. V.; Gallagher, T. W.; Rohrbaugh, R. W. 2007. Response to "Ivory-billed or Pileated Woodpecker?". Science 315(5818): 1497.

Gold, L. 2009. No Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but plenty of data. Available at: http://www.physorg.com/news166894194.html.

An alternative hypothesis for the cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's decline, by Noel F. Snyder. Condor 110(4): 808-810.

Hill, G. E.; Mennill, D. J.; Rolek, B. W.; Hicks, T. L.; Swiston, K. A. 2006. Evidence suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3): art 2.
IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 December 2020).

Scott, J. M.; Ramsey, F. L.; Lammertink, M.; Rosenberg, K. V.; Rohrbaugh, R.; Wiens, J. A.; Reed, J. M. 2008. When is an "extinct" species really extinct? Gauging the search efforts for Hawaiian forest birds and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Ecology 3(2): art3.

Snyder, N. F. R. 2007. An alternative hypothesis for the cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's decline. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 2: 1-58.

Solow, A.; Smith, W.; Burgman, M.; Rout, T.; Wintle, B.; Roberts, D. 2012. Uncertain Sightings and the Extinction of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Conservation Biology 26(1): 180–184.

USFWS. 2010. Recovery plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
 
Last edited:

ZanderII

Well-known member
The elegance of the Florida study, is fitting to have happened on this beautiful, spectacular and exciting river. It is something for all of us to experience if possible. As you move down its long, unbridged, middle section of 30 miles, you will gently sway through curve and meandering loop, as if on one giant, natural amusement ride that makes you unknowingly smile for hours and then days.

Soon any mundane concerns are gone only to be tweaked as red-shouldered hawks keeERR kkeeeRR as if they are sure you must be watched. The numerous pileateds also seem less trusting than most but the flickers seem to just laugh it off.

On the inner banks of turns, balmy sands accumulate and young willows dominate the water logged earth . On a sunny fall or winter day the skeeters will be in there, amazingly active, fighting off your attempts to lay back, rest ones arms and crack some suds, the buzzers not caring that you worked hard to find that small patch of open, dry terrain. Kinglets with white-throated sparrows heavily chipping with an occasional O' Canada are capped with skulky winter wrens, tic ticking, and a less frequent blue-headed vireo. Yellow-rumped warbler chips are numerous with the occasional common yellowthroat and redstart notes for variety.

You slap some repellant on; check for snakes. Finally when you nod off a beaver slaps its tail amazingly loud but you're not annoyed and chuckle knowing its you that are interrupting him. You crouch down carefully avoiding slipping into the cool, opaque water and splash some on your face, then take a deep breath before one of the many 5 mile paddle sessions and hikes that go on punctuated by many primitive camp fires.

Soon the cross current from another heavily wooded, side branch slightly angles your canoe as if to help you see the two otters even better. You notice the forest is superior here; it has shaded out some of the understory. Scattered 8 foot diameter cypresses have some suggestive roosts.

It's where you should be, or very close. A few moons later in a great patch the smallest doubt that comes with not hearing a call yourself is wisped away by some rather timid, but heavy and unique kents. Your head shakes as with a bit of amazement, with a whisper of "they were right".

And soon you find yourself trying again and then again and with the next experience your surprise is lessened. View attachment 1365377

Hello Bird Bill, understand you mentioning of IUCN in context of general listing status. But do not understand not at least mentioning USFWS. They maintain THE PROMINENT list in the USA including status for the IB with much more power and scope than anything the IUCN does. Neither the USFWS or IUCN call the species extinct.

This is not a species with any international trade implications or found in more than one country. It is NOT found in Cuba; that is surely a different species just lacking in any pressing reason to have a new species name proposed, approved and assigned and for IUCN to establish another species account.

The USFWS is much more pertinent than the basically powerless IUCN in the case of IB. USFWS is closer to the action, more involved with individual reports worth follow-up, more able to influence conservation, has substantially more field personnel to draw status conclusions from, has much more fieldwork funds, etc.

The IUCN does however seem to produce updates in a more workman like, and on schedule manner. The USFWS listing process has more latency than the IUCN at times. The IUCN only responsibility is to collate papers, reports, recovery plans, USFWS literature and reports, to establish their listing status. The USFWS is responsible for much more.

Because of all the above the IUCN listing conclusion is in a way just a derivative of what the USFWS is also collecting, reviewing, saying and collating on the species.

Here is an edited list of what the IUCN used to decide the species exists, the USFWS also is aware of most of these papers but of course the ridiculous papers on subjective dates of extinction based on flawed statistics have been rejected by both. (Note well above I have tried to post the links to some of these actual pertinent papers/data despite the pseudoskeptics, immature actions to slow sunlighting).:

Charif, R. A.; Cortopassi, K. A.; Fristrup, K.M.; Figueroa, H. K.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Fitzpatrick, J.W. 2005. Status of recent acoustic research for Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Collins, M. D. 2011. Putative audio recordings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(3): 1626-1630.

Collins, M. D. 2017. Video evidence and other information relevant to the conservation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Heliyon 3(1): e00230.

Collins, M. D. 2019. Statistics, Probability, and a Failed Conservation Policy. Statistics and Public Policy 6(1): 67-79.

Dalton, R. 2010. Still looking for that woodpecker. Nature 463(7282): 718-719.

Fitzpatrick, J.W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M.D.; Gallagher, T.W.; Harrison, B. R.; Sparling, G.M.; Rosenberg, K.V.;

Rohrbaugh, R.W.; Swarthout, E.C.H.; Wrege, P.H.; Swarthout, S. B.; Dantzker, M.S.;…authors continued in notes. 2005.

Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America. Science 308: 1460-1462.

Fitzpatrick, J.W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M.D.; Gallagher, T.W.; Rosenberg, K.V. 2006. Response to comment on "Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America". Science 311(5767): 1555.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.; Lammertink, M.; Luneau, M. D.; Rosenberg, K. V.; Gallagher, T. W.; Rohrbaugh, R. W. 2007. Response to "Ivory-billed or Pileated Woodpecker?". Science 315(5818): 1497.

Gold, L. 2009. No Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but plenty of data. Available at: http://www.physorg.com/news166894194.html.

An alternative hypothesis for the cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's decline, by Noel F. Snyder. Condor 110(4): 808-810.

Hill, G. E.; Mennill, D. J.; Rolek, B. W.; Hicks, T. L.; Swiston, K. A. 2006. Evidence suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3): art 2.
IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 December 2020).

Scott, J. M.; Ramsey, F. L.; Lammertink, M.; Rosenberg, K. V.; Rohrbaugh, R.; Wiens, J. A.; Reed, J. M. 2008. When is an "extinct" species really extinct? Gauging the search efforts for Hawaiian forest birds and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Ecology 3(2): art3.

Snyder, N. F. R. 2007. An alternative hypothesis for the cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's decline. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 2: 1-58.

Solow, A.; Smith, W.; Burgman, M.; Rout, T.; Wintle, B.; Roberts, D. 2012. Uncertain Sightings and the Extinction of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Conservation Biology 26(1): 180–184.

USFWS. 2010. Recovery plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.

The serious ornithologists gave up on the species after 2010 - as it was untenable that search efforts would not have been rewarded with confirmation by that point. Basically it has just be Mike Collins since then.

This sums it up well:

Gold, L. 2009. No Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but plenty of data.

Your edited list, edited out the papers that pointed out the flaws.

Jackson, J.A., 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope, and the interfaces of science, conservation, and politics. The Auk, 123(1), pp.1-15.

Gotelli, N.J., Chao, A., Colwell, R.K., HWANG, W.H. and Graves, G.R., 2012. Specimen‐based modeling, stopping rules, and the extinction of the ivory‐billed woodpecker. Conservation Biology, 26(1), pp.47-56.

Collinson, J.M., 2007. Video analysis of the escape flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus: does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis persist in continental North America?. BMC biology, 5(1), pp.1-9.

Jackson, J.A., 2006. The public perception of science and reported confirmation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. The Auk, 123(4), pp.1185-1189.

Roberts, D.L., Elphick, C.S. and Reed, J.M., 2010. Identifying anomalous reports of putatively extinct species and why it matters. Conservation Biology, 24(1), pp.189-196.

Sibley DA, Bevier LR, Patten MA, Elphick CS: 2006 Comment on " Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America". Science Online. 2006, 311: 1555a-(doi. 10.1126/science1122778).
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Having trouble understanding how BFs main goal of talking about birds and tangential issues is helped by the vague, poorly defined and minimal way rules are written. Important subjects and issues to birds are adversely impacted within these topics by these behaviors: lying, BF not allowing liars to be called liars, ambiguous posting rules, conservation, carefully looking at evidence of rares, or at least having the courtesy of looking at evidence, basic respect for others, basic scientific principles taught in high school is purposely not fostered by allowing gangups, repeating, one lining trolls, sarcastic ridicule not based on fact, purposeful misquoting of others, purposefully, and persistent gang harassment of posters, cyber-stalking, thread stalking with a goal of shutting down a thread by creating to much work for moderators, attempts by cluttering of hampering an exchange of facts, uneven policing of lies, uneven censoring of vitriol, failure to recognize serial low-level vitriol that is hard to see as accumulative, serial low level synergistic GANG vitriol that is however accumulative, and much, much more.

Sure I am asking for a lot and its hard; doesn't mean you can't do a better job. Doesn't mean I cant do a better job of helping the situation. And I will if I remain.

These are serious subjects, here is 2 apparent examples of the casual way you are looking at even relatively obvious/non-critical things and phenomena to curb abuse (so one has to wonder what you are doing with serious issues that require critical thinking to address issues mentioned above?) :

Looking for your RULES via search nothing comes up, looking under POSTING RULES rules nothing comes up. hitting every draw down menu, nothing comes up, more. You need to finally search under GUIDELINES, argghh, to find what many other entities on earth call rules, posting recommendations, or are in the drawdown, etc. Picky yes but again this is only an example of the ambiguity easily found in your own rules.

When finally found your GUIDELINESs say be aware of differences in customs and languages. You then use a phrase - match slanging . Sorry I have been around but what the hell is match slanging....and please refer to your own rules. Does it mean I should never say your opinion is bullocks full of fornicating pork slag but rather just call you a blatant liar which has no slang?

Moving up to more important issues one of your few rules and your first is "Treat others like you want to be treated ."

Sorry this infers everyone wants to be treated the same, which is ridiculous, we are each unique with a great range of sensitivities and priorities. I can't possibly fathom all the nuances and possibilities in knowing all the ways you want to be treated especially right after you have lied to all of us. Most understand we are all imperfect; we forgive the occasional foible. BF unfortunately has institutionalized these foibles by rewarding them in subtle ways and therefore grotesque lying increases as it can hind behind the allowed interpretation of being nice to even liars.

Some people highly despise censorship for many important free speech reasons, and do not wanted to be treated to third party censorship, they can take it and give it, some are wall flowers that fall apart if you say that bird is looking up not down even when they are wrong. If BF chooses the less difficult in many ways, no censorship rule, then that can be governed with minimal rules like no vulgarity or racial prejudice.

However if BF chooses censorship and rules that are vague, greatly inadequate if we are to censor and interfere, open to subjective admins opinions and biases, unevenly enforced, etc. You also encourage gangs with these silly Like buttons that causes the lower level (yet to be exactly defined) readers to act like manipulated K 9s to be rewarded if they form ever expanding, ignorant gangs, that lick each others butts at an ever increasing rate. Zuckerberg has nothing on BF.Y

And why is this vague, biblical rule of Do unto other as they do unto you, which can not be defined, somehow rate over many posters belief that clever lying shouldn't be allowed. You then crush anyone who calls someone out on their lie as a rule breaker. You are just condoning clever lying, commonly called propaganda and disincentivize and drive off those with some to high morals that simply call a lie, a lie, or those that cant stand liars or lying leave BF. Humans lie, they lie a lot, even more in the structure you have created. .

What exactly are you teaching young birders, naturalists and conservationists when you do not enforce obvious truths when needed? When high school level science rules are not defended ? But then BF does prohibit the calm, open outing of a lie, clever or not. BF blatant, serial liars exist, your denying they exist and coddling them does not help. You can't judge your success by only page views.

So where have your addressed?:

1)why you chose censorship over a simple no profanity rule and a few more clauses?

If censorship then has BF:

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

 
Last edited:

Steve

Surfing
Staff member
United Kingdom
From where i'm sitting Mr Truthseeker every time you come here and this is at least your third name change, you come with an attitude,
you are also at times offensive and expect everyone to believe what you say is true. I am no expert in IBW but you seem to think every member here
should take the scant at best evidence you offer as gospel, well in the real world people need proper irrefutable evidence of something to form an opinion
and your's is just not good enough. Seems to me that birdwatchers and conservationists across the board would dearly love to see the IBW still alive and well, but as no one has seen one in decades it is reasonable to assume it is sadly extinct.

So instead of asking the membership to believe you and getting aggressive and offensive when you are asked to produce evidence, start being
more conceding in some points and people may respond better, for example the folks searching for this bird have had years to offer anything up as
proof that it still exists, you have had years to set up scientific equipment including up to date cameras in every part of the swamps and forests which would capture a clear distinctive image, not to mention the hundreds of people looking for it, and the sponsorship and money to actually find it?


A court room prosecution case would ask you to offer reliable evidence and witnesses, you have failed to do either, we have at least let you bring your
story to the Birdforum community and given you a chance to air your views, your arguing it exists is in interests of all, but you need to provide proper science not wishful thinking.

In part answer to your above post, 90% of it is waffle, there are only two outcomes, analysing the Board and its membership is folly.

I would absolutely love you to turn up here with real footage or proper clear images of it, and I would be one of many to acknowledge you were right
and heap on you the congratulations you would deserve, however until you do, you need to see the doubters side as clearly as your own.

Go away find the bird alive come back and show the world, what could be simpler.

good luck

Steve
 

Bismarck Honeyeater

Barely known member
From where i'm sitting Mr Truthseeker every time you come here and this is at least your third name change, you come with an attitude,
you are also at times offensive and expect everyone to believe what you say is true. I am no expert in IBW but you seem to think every member here
should take the scant at best evidence you offer as gospel, well in the real world people need proper irrefutable evidence of something to form an opinion
and your's is just not good enough. Seems to me that birdwatchers and conservationists across the board would dearly love to see the IBW still alive and well, but as no one has seen one in decades it is reasonable to assume it is sadly extinct.

So instead of asking the membership to believe you and getting aggressive and offensive when you are asked to produce evidence, start being
more conceding in some points and people may respond better, for example the folks searching for this bird have had years to offer anything up as
proof that it still exists, you have had years to set up scientific equipment including up to date cameras in every part of the swamps and forests which would capture a clear distinctive image, not to mention the hundreds of people looking for it, and the sponsorship and money to actually find it?


A court room prosecution case would ask you to offer reliable evidence and witnesses, you have failed to do either, we have at least let you bring your
story to the Birdforum community and given you a chance to air your views, your arguing it exists is in interests of all, but you need to provide proper science not wishful thinking.

In part answer to your above post, 90% of it is waffle, there are only two outcomes, analysing the Board and its membership is folly.

I would absolutely love you to turn up here with real footage or proper clear images of it, and I would be one of many to acknowledge you were right
and heap on you the congratulations you would deserve, however until you do, you need to see the doubters side as clearly as your own.

Go away find the bird alive come back and show the world, what could be simpler.

good luck

Steve
Thank you Steve.
I dipped in to this thread a couple of weeks ago, intrigued that someone had anything new to say about IBW, then realised there was nothing new, just an enthusiastic click-baiter chancing his/her/it’s arm. I’m ashamed to admit I stayed for the laughs, however this thread is surely damaging to the more reasoned and reasoning members of BF and perhaps, dare I say, should be closed to protect our sanity.
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
From where i'm sitting Mr Truthseeker every time you come here and this is at least your third name change, you come with an attitude,
you are also at times offensive and expect everyone to believe what you say is true. I am no expert in IBW but you seem to think every member here
should take the scant at best evidence you offer as gospel, well in the real world people need proper irrefutable evidence of something to form an opinion
and your's is just not good enough. Seems to me that birdwatchers and conservationists across the board would dearly love to see the IBW still alive and well, but as no one has seen one in decades it is reasonable to assume it is sadly extinct.

So instead of asking the membership to believe you and getting aggressive and offensive when you are asked to produce evidence, start being
more conceding in some points and people may respond better, for example the folks searching for this bird have had years to offer anything up as
proof that it still exists, you have had years to set up scientific equipment including up to date cameras in every part of the swamps and forests which would capture a clear distinctive image, not to mention the hundreds of people looking for it, and the sponsorship and money to actually find it?


A court room prosecution case would ask you to offer reliable evidence and witnesses, you have failed to do either, we have at least let you bring your
story to the Birdforum community and given you a chance to air your views, your arguing it exists is in interests of all, but you need to provide proper science not wishful thinking.

In part answer to your above post, 90% of it is waffle, there are only two outcomes, analysing the Board and its membership is folly.

I would absolutely love you to turn up here with real footage or proper clear images of it, and I would be one of many to acknowledge you were right
and heap on you the congratulations you would deserve, however until you do, you need to see the doubters side as clearly as your own.

Go away find the bird alive come back and show the world, what could be simpler.

good luck

Steve
S, I don't think the Ivory-billed is mentioned once in my last, long post yet you act as if it was only about the bird accepted by every pertinent assessment agency.

It was about my perceived short comings of BF and suggestions to make the experience better for some. Even if I am in the small minority on these BF issues they were made with a sincere desire to accomplish a small foothold to have others understand how it is from my and others point of you. Certainly I am a flawed, imperfect poster myself, ignorant with reason of some of the rules at BF and a periodic hypocrite. In my defense almost all people are hypocrites; it's not news.

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.

Please don't obfuscate or retreat to displacement behavior like you did to my last theme.

In my only direct interaction with you I was just called or accused of : having an attitude, aggressive, offensive, confused to say there is evidence, a wishful thinker, a waffle producer, (again via your rules, what exactly is 90% waffle. got a great idea, its not that hard just checking before I say it's derogatory towards me, good guess I assume)....and finally I am told to go away, as if a child. You might be right, I like to be treated that way ----Rule 1 BF. Treat others like they you want to be treated.

I am sure you will get lots of Likes. I completely suspected what is happening here and you have made it that much clearer. No hard feelings.

And I will give 99% of the content in your last post one more sentence you gave my last post.

It's 99% waffle (whatever it means I like it) , with attitude, aggression, offense, demonstrates confusement about the word evidence, wishful thinking, demonstrates classic, avoidance behavior and you should just go away. Unless

you are right along with your minions, and that BF is some esteemed status agency and these are all wrong---, USFWS, IUCN, Arkansas RBC, The Nature Conservancy, Cornell U, Auburn U, Windsor U, Collins, Dr. Tobalske, all the fifty peer reviewers are wrong, LA searchers, many independent searchers, Sparling, Kulivan, the Imperial Woodpecker film, on and on for a few lines.

Anyway its all in fun.

good luck
 
Last edited:

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Thank you Steve.
I dipped in to this thread a couple of weeks ago, intrigued that someone had anything new to say about IBW, then realised there was nothing new, just an enthusiastic click-baiter chancing his/her/it’s arm. I’m ashamed to admit I stayed for the laughs, however this thread is surely damaging to the more reasoned and reasoning members of BF and perhaps, dare I say, should be closed to protect our sanity.
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
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
you are right along with your minions, and that BF is some esteemed status agency and these are all wrong---, USFWS, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, Cornell U, Auburn U, Windsor U, Collins, Dr. Tobalske, all the fifty peer reviewers are wrong, LA searchers, many independent searchers, Sparling, Kulivan, the Imperial Woodpecker film, on and on for a few lines.
That all the agencies, universities and professional ornithologists have stopped a) publishing about IBWO being extant b) promoting searches c) talking about recovery d) maintaining active websites and information about searches should tell you what the people involved think about the rediscovery now. They have drawn a line under the whole circus and moved on, lessons learned about faith in sight records and poor quality documentation learned. Humans are fallible.
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Again, with respect, stop waffling and show us the evidence !

How can I have any faith in an individual's ability to assess complex evidence sets and then summate them into a value, when a little 10 word sentence of theirs has internal inconsistencies ????

And I said " 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.

Please don't obfuscate or retreat to displacement behavior like you did to my last theme."


Your name is too mundane :sleep:how about something trumpety and historical ? Steve the Obfuscator :eek::sleep:
 

1TruthSeeker

Well-known member
That all the agencies, universities and professional ornithologists have stopped a) publishing about IBWO being extant b) promoting searches c) talking about recovery d) maintaining active websites and information about searches should tell you what the people involved think about the rediscovery now. They have drawn a line under the whole circus and moved on, lessons learned about faith in sight records and poor quality documentation learned. Humans are fallible.
Any you are the Queen/King of Invalid, Illogical, Metaphors---QIIM or KIIM for short
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top