bottomlands
Well-known member
I'd appreciate a reply to post 294, if you're willing.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter motiheal
- Start date
- Status
Unambiguous rich media or a fresh specimen or part specimen. Both with no evidence of fraud.
bottomlands
Well-known member
I'd prefer you let others answer for themselves. Thank you.
Last edited:
There are multiple papers by statistical ecologists which have asked this question using the IBWO sighting record e.g.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.13408?casa_token=UpTqA0P8_yoAAAAA:glN6HaUdWR8zlL0HiU_kL9-sHUTLpGOhixMLvgMHjMXSbwPUSekYoQn-laCetukvNpSRmUGJqE1cYA
A general methodology is presented and then applied to the sighting record of the ivory‐billed woodpecker (IBW) Campephilus principalis. It was found that the IBW most likely went extinct between 1940 and 1945, a little after the date of the last certain sighting.
And
Collectively, these results suggest there is virtually no chance the Ivory‐billed Woodpecker is currently extant within its historical range in the southeastern United States. The results also suggest conservation resources devoted to its rediscovery and recovery could be better allocated to other species.
Stuart Goodwin
Well-known member
Hello
Video (of acceptable quality), fresh feathers, droppings, dead bird, matched eggshells or written descriptions from observers that are accepted by the relevant US bodies come to mind.
Regards
bottomlands
Well-known member
I did not ask for your cv. But will take your word on it as true. Did you consider the experience of each ornithologist and birder who reported sightings since 2000 before you declared IB extinct? I would guess not. So why should anyone consider your non-IB experience as significant? If anything, your past suggests you are predisposed toward coming down in opposition to any claim of IB persistence, and are unreasonably biased in favor of declaring the species extinct.
With all that almost-relevant non-IBWO experience, I should think you'd be able to write with better details about why you believe IB are gone. As it stands right now, your claim that it is impossible for a pair of birds to go unphotographed in the Pearl River watershed is laughable. What you've offered is no better than what 1TS argues in opposition, and in some ways much worse. Can you do better, or is it just not worth the effort?
bottomlands
Well-known member
Again, it is not your place to answer for John. I'm not going to read what you posted. I'd like to hear from John. Please refrain from answering for other people.
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
For me personaly, a convincing highly detailed field description of a sighting by an experienced birder (whether or not they are scientists is completely irrelevant) would go some way towards piquing my interest. I have yet to even see a link to a convincing field description. Unfortunately, given the circumstances it wouldn't quite be enough to convince me completely, unless I had personnal experience of how reliable the observer was, but at least it would be a start.
FYI my CV doesn't have my Americas woodpecker list.
I have misidentified birds before, I'm sure everyone reading this thread has. Sometimes birds are misidentified and only correctly identified after lots of people have seen them. The scope to mistake PIWO and IBWO when you are desperate to see the latter is high. Which is why we need evidence.
Last edited:
bottomlands
Well-known member
If a birder in Kent sees a rare bird and reports it, do you require those things as confirmation? Or is another birder visiting the location and confirming the ID sufficient evidence?
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
That would depend on the bird, the birders, the circumstances of the sighting, and numerous other factors. If the bird they had claimed to see was thought to be extinct, there would be incontrovertible proof required.
Bismarck Honeyeater
Barely known member
If we are using the analogy of evidence in a legal system, then I would say that makes the Birdforums ‘audience’ the jury.
From what I read, the jury does not accept that the evidence is compelling enough to state that IBWO is still extant. (It may be, though personally I don’t think it is at all likely).
I also find it interesting that almost all contributors here are from the U.K. I started looking at this thread because I thought there was some new evidence, or even some evidence that was of interest. The fact that virtually no US members are commenting on this thread speaks volumes to me.
Documentation is the gold standard as people make mistakes. Rare birds are routinely misidentified in Kent for example, as they are all over the place. Both false positives and false negatives.
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
Myself and others verbally interviewed him and it was so good we then set up the cameras and interviewed him "news" style. His property did not front the bayou but was within 200 feet.
He was a calm and pretty compelling individual. I have the unedited interview tapes taken for multiple reasons but never worked on to produce a formal presentation. As I recall I took notes as he did and he produced sketches upon my request and signed them, noting colors etc. Her and I were unbiased and not leading in my Qs or techniques.
One of the reasons we were there was to determine if we should immediately head into the S. Pearl based on our feel of his testimony.
He had a strong professional background that demanded observation skills and other pertinent attributes that made a good witness. We developed a good repoire, and I was able to push the limits of the questions; he did not falter or become upset like some people do when you probe what they saw, why they did or didn't do this, their skills and tactfully challenges to small nuances of their alleged observation.
His biological observations had little jargon; they were solid with good basic detail. He knew his Pileateds. I went over everything as I recall including why didn't he get a picture in the 2 or 3 times he saw the bird. We reenacted the sightings and I confirmed a bad angle for one event that could have presented a good chance at a bad picture about 50 feet up in at ~ 80 degrees. But the bird flew.
The other sighting was in good light and angle of 50 deg about 130 feet away to the N in another persons yard. He went for the camera and the bird was gone or flying off to the N. Each tree had some signs of general woodpecker work or better (need notes).
One thing that bothered me was the general 'habitat' conditions, a small residential area. There were a few loopy roads and 30 modest houses with half acre lots and 70 foot trees on a small patch on the W side of the Pearl watershed. Eventually days later, I reconned the area and looked at maps and seemed to figure out a possible explanation. To the S, outside the development, in open but low DBH early regrowth, 20 or 30 foot tall forest small were many small groups of taller dead, and stressed trees, likely due to salt water intrusion, hurricane, rising sea levels or other inputs. To the immediate N or houses was a westward meandering, cypress lined creek and very soon the Pearl proper. To the east was the heavily wooded Pearl. The bird can pass through the developed patch in a minute or less if desired. If this was an IB they can evidently cut through some houses as a short cut I suppose to the next patch of wooded swamp.
At that point it was good enough to force a closer look and we headed in for ~ 2.5 days to camp with my friend xxxxxx'x canoe and were immediately hit with drizzle and impossible habitat that could not be canoed or hiked even if you didn't care how much noise you would make or if you would sink. The silt and mud forced her and myself back dozens of time as we tried to pursue preferred transect lines but it was impossible. Swamp buggy equipment, even if available would not have worked, regardless the noise would render it unconstructive. A soggy power line cut was moved through on day 1 and part of day 2. Camping was miserable, the fire failed, food worse than usual.
We used the canoe and moved S and N along a waterway and found some patches where we did survey points and observed. The few soggy upland areas had high concentrations of cottonmouths, and many southern black windows that hampered movement. Canoe hopping point to point was the only available option.
I found most of the forest S of I 10 was of only medium DBH trees and rather average quality but at that point I had been "spoiled" by surveying under permit or by choice mainly some of the best patches with at least some to substantial older growth and even virgin patches. Hurricanes can and may have changed conditions for the better .
I found other more northerly areas of the Pearl much better and more accessible in some respects. The S Pearl was a bear and provided some very minor low utilization use for one bird at best at that time. Even if the bird is/was there infrequently the chances to get a picture seem miniscule, perhaps one in 100 if you sat outside in his yard for a full year, full time or maybe a 1000 to one if you spent a year living in the lower Pearl which is impossible.
Note that a few years ago was another very similar sighting from a house just N of the events described above.
If you know the Pearl it may all represent one of the pair there or a single remaining bird wandering around. Perhaps a lone survivor of the Collins pair. He had some sighting of a pair, but most detections may have been single birds. There are likely few birds left anywhere and Collins and others assertion that there are/were recently a hundred birds is likely wrong.
Last edited:
Please don't this as an insult and I know it is 'different' as IBWO was a legitimate species but there are thousands of sightings of bigfoot - images, video, recordings and even DNA evidence see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot
I'm sure none of us think these are credible but people have written academic papers about it and there is a mountain of 'evidence'. Hence why proof is needed.
Stuart Goodwin
Well-known member
Hello
It would depend on what bird they were reporting. Ultimately it would be up-to my local Ornithological Society, then national bodies to confirm based on the evidence submitted.
Regards
dantheman
Bah humbug
Another person who isn't another person, but ...
Tufted Puffin - first for Britain, photographed and 7 observers. Of course, if it had been a Great Auk claimed and photographed that would have been interesting! ;-)
Have you read any of my posts here or on the other thread?
Start here https://www.birdforum.net/threads/i...nking-the-critics.396701/page-10#post-4105122
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
Another thing.... It has been mentioned (I think) that some of the sightings have been by respected birders. Respected by who? Certainly not respected by people who spend their lives obsessed with identifying and finding birds. I'm pretty sure that if a birder who was widely respected to be a reliable observer was 100% sure they had seen an IBWO in the USA, they and a very large number of other birders would have been looking for it, and if it was there, it WOULD have been found. The very fact that not that many people are still looking tells me that no known reliable birders are sure that they've seen one.
Last edited:
Bismarck Honeyeater
Barely known member
I don’t see the need for anyone on here to prove the extinction of a species that has not CONVINCINGLY been seen for (?)50+ years. I do see the need for those that purport to believe in the continued existence of IBWO to provide CONVINCING evidence of such.
The sound recordings, fuzzy videos, anecdotal accounts and ‘there’s masses of habitat, they surely still exist’ claims, are not cutting it for me. If one has to dissect and examine minute pieces of ‘evidence’ in order to then piece them altogether and suggest they are enough, I’m afraid one is mistaken.
All anyone wants is one unequivocally obvious IBWO photograph (complete with EXIF etc.) and we will all HAPPILY accept the premise of continued existence.
I wait with extremely un-baited breath.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
