Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (3 Viewers)

[bottomlands]

Bottomlands, accusing people of being ‘liars’ is not helpful as you well know.

It absolutely is helpful to point out when people are clearly lying. That's the way society keeps people in line. If we let people lie all the time without being called on it, there is no reason for them to stop. In this particular case it was called for, and I do not retract. He is lying. He knows damn well that one photo will not prove anything to him or to other skeptics.

I am still waiting for you to explain why your ‘sighting of an IBWO’ is different from you claiming it is extant?

I really don't owe you any explanation. I've said multiple times that my sightings are proof for me, but that I understand they are not evidence for anyone else. I'm sorry if you don't understand it. I can't help you.

"Is this perhaps something you are struggling with - you have had a sighting but don’t know what to do about it? Report on Ebay? Tell other Searchers? Go on a Birdforum and ‘test the water’ with it? Get involved in a debate and try and stay on the fence until the ground softens? I can see how having a genuine sighting of a bird that is largely thought to be extinct could be problematic for any one."

I don't need a therapy session, Deb. And I've explained how I came here and why I started posting. Go back and read what I said. Or don't.

I can honestly say that you seem like a nice person who is open to new facts in an effort to truly understand things. The rest of these people are not. They are completely dismissive of any idea that IB may still exist, and really don't want to hear anything that disturbs their comfortable group atheism. And when one of them posts something sophomoric in an attempt to be funny, they put thumbs up in appreciation and open their hands for a circle jerk. What sad examples of the European birding community you have in them.

If you doubt me about how rigid they are in their skepticism, read Zanderll's signature. Not sure what it means? Google search that sentence and see if you can find it on the internet. It appears once. Read the explanatory text you find, and understand why Zander is using that for his signature on BF. His atheism in religion wouldn't be an issue to me, except that it appears such a huge part of his personal belief system that he lets it flow into his birding. He says he has written ten papers claiming certain birds are extinct. I believe him. I guarantee that motivation springs from his personal atheism. God and lost birds are all in the same categorty to him. They don't exist. He's going to say it, and not care what people think. And he will dismiss any evidence or logic to the contrary. That is why he dismisses, evades or just ignores almost any question asked of him.

"What I’m finding slightly confusing however, is that on the one hand contributors to this thread are being ridiculed, even called dishonest, for suggesting an extant IB could be found in the Pearl River WMA with decent coverage. "

There has not been good search coverage of the Pearl River WMA in Louisiana. There never really was, and there is not now. And there has been almost no searching in other protected areas that are off-limits to the public, including some National Wildlife Refuges and uncounted private hunting club properties. There is no funding for any searches now, and the larger organized search was focused primarily on the White River region in Arkansas, which appears to have had one dispersing bird.

So is it that only a very small number of select, especially qualified IB searchers that are especially equipped (both physically and mentally) get to have these genuine sightings of IB? What is it that, for example, a crack team of global rarity hunters/ornithologists would be lacking (apart from belief) that would prevent them also having sightings of IB that you have had, if they were to search the same areas in which your sightings and those of other searchers occured?

There are relatively few people who spend as much time as they can out in suspected ivorybill territories. I estimate people have one sighting for every 200 - 300 days in the field if they move from possible home range to home range. Maybe less. Maybe more. It is just that hard and that time consuming because the birds travel huge territories. A searcher may be in a home range, but the birds might spend the whole day five miles away, upstream, downstream or along feeder bottoms. Or they may be upland in pines instead of the bottoms that day. No one has a good handle on their daily routines because there were no studies other than Tanner's before the birds disappeared. Tanner lost track of them when they took their first long flight of the day, and really had no clue where the birds went or how far. His estimate of home range size is not dependable today, because habitat conditions and shapes vary. So searchers today don't have that much detail to go on. It just takes enormous time and commitment for most people to get a sighting. Yes, some people get lucky and see IB when they are out birding, but as I've described they are not going to report it.

Any more questions before I get banned?

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Sadly, I cannot see much point in this thread continuing, as I don’t see anything that would bring either “side” to change it’s position. One side “knows”, possibly from personal experience, that the Ivorybill’s extinction is much later than generally accepted, and indeed it may still be extant. However, for various reasons, the “killer” evidence cannot be obtained. The other “side” feels that this absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, and will only change if presented with “proof”. Side one sees little if any point in presenting their evidence, as it is not enough to convince side two, so side two can justifiably claim (in their own minds) that the available evidence is less than it is in reality. As a result, the two sides stay far apart.
The whole thing is compounded by the impossibility of proving a negative. Side one could, theoretically, “win” by producing proof, whether a twitchable, accessible nest witnessed by sceptics and filmed by the world’s media, or whatever convinces members of side two. On the other hand, side two have no such “win” available, just the steady build - up of missing “proof”.
And so to the reasons why “proof” cannot be obtained. Our solid knowledge of Ivorybills is based almost entirely on study of just a few individuals from an apparently remnant population; we have no way of knowing how typical they were of the wider population. We may dispute whether behaviour could have changed, but this is just speculation, until survival is proven! They are reported from a difficult to survey habitat, certainly, which will not be thoroughly surveyed by casual birders. Many of those people entering the habitat will not care whether the black and white woodpecker they see is a Pileated or an Ivorybill, or the significance of their sighting; indeed some who might know might choose to suppress the information to prevent interference.
For these reasons, the two sides are stuck in entrenched positions, with no reason to either present all the evidence they have, or on the other hand, to consider whether the Ivorybill is the exceptional species that breaks the “rules” of extinction, for the more species we imperil, the more varied will be the extinction narratives.
Just for the record, my own position. I first heard of the Ivorybill way back in the 60’s as a species either extinct or on the cusp of extinction. At that time, I was more interested in Mammals or Reptiles than Birds. I eventually did a Zoology degree, followed by Malacological research in the same department as Colin Pennycuick’s research group. I eventually went into teaching, and got into birding as a way of getting a natural history fix. No real specialisation, but I have birded with and discussed woodpeckers with Gerard Gorman. These Ivorybill threads have piqued my interest about the biology of the species; I suppose I am guilty of thinking Woodpeckers are Woodpeckers, apart from some minor variations with some ground-feeders. However, some of Collins’ work has led me to notice real differences in wing shape between Pileated and Campephilus woodpeckers; compare the videos of unambiguous Pileated in level flight, with the flight of Imperial. There is a biological story here, but the extinction or extreme rarity of the Northern Campephilus species means that we will probably never untangle it now. Ivorybills are, or were, not just oversized Pileateds; they were, or are, their own beasts adapted to their own niche. I hope, beyond hope, they may persist and increase in population, but I would not bet a single cent on this outcome.
I look forward to reading any hopeful news, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[cajanuma]

It absolutely is helpful to point out when people are clearly lying. That's the way society keeps people in line. If we let people lie all the time without being called on it, there is no reason for them to stop. In this particular case it was called for, and I do not retract. He is lying. He knows damn well that one photo will not prove anything to him or to other skeptics.

For someone who was so quick to puff his chest out and play the "are you calling me a liar?" card, this is pretty weak. You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting Zander's statement about "all it takes is for one IBWO to be photographed once" as referring to a single photo being obtained, but it can just as easily - and more logically - be understood as 'on one occasion". Given modern camera equipment, which shoots high-speed bursts, it's actually pretty difficult to photograph a bird and only obtain a single image.

Of course a single image would be subject to closer scrutiny to rule out fraud, but if it passed this scrutiny then I have no reason to believe it would be widely accepted as conclusive, and so would most people on this thread.

 

[1TruthSeeker]

The topic here is evidence of the subject rare and spectacular species; it was started by others with good intent. That a few can come here and take weeks to present the evidence is a rough correlate that there is something to look at carefully.

As the evidence slowly comes in, 30 entrenched snipers have tried to stop the discussion as they get worried, in my biased estimation. They have tried with every standard, pseudoskeptic method to stop the discussion. Pseudoskepticism has no place in birding or conservation. They are failed bullys and any independent reviewer would easily admit that their goal is to win and not much else. The refusal to behave like an adult is clearly dominated by one side with various whiners crying in every direction when someone actually in the field has had enough of the blatant tactics.

You disrespect your own admins with your pretentious self centered exaggerations of misogynies, feeling lonely because someone missed one out of ten of your often off topic non-points. Crying its WW 3 breaking out is also a common tactic when you are getting whipped or have run out of juvenile tricks.

I am not here to win or convert people to my side but rather to test various XXXXXXX and XXXXX. Also related 1) XXXXXXXXX 2) XXXXXXXX 3) XXXXXXX 4)XXXXXXXX.

Some people at BF flatter themselves greatly with their perceived importance of their opinions on this issue and its associated influence on anything that will result. This is of course why despite their repeated brain probes they get no where in determining actual motives for some peoples presence here. They think it is about them so the reason I must be here is them. They presume that Descartes had them in mind ....................but guess what "I think therefore I am" is not the same as " i am posting funny drivel so I must be important" .

Related some piker comes in after every 30 posts and opines that its all a war and no one will win, lets stop. You have no concept of what is happening here other than a complete beat down and exposure of an infestation of pseudoskeptics. Go away please and surf somewhere else no one is forcing you and your errant opinions to be here. You are not an admin, you did not start the thread, you have made a few interesting comments but are not pivotal to anything anymore than me. I am almost done and would have been done except for the ridiculous behavior here. We are all well aware of the beating you are taking but it will continue until morale improves.

The silent majority shouldn't be curtailed of a final collation of the evidence and a summary and then the usual chance of a rebuttal which i am sure will be wasted fittingly . It's all expected. I am putting almost everyone on ignore so stop demanding milk, I am not your mother......as Lincoln said there are not enough teats for the sucklings.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Deb,

Bottomlands, accusing people of being ‘liars’ is not helpful as you well know.

I am still waiting for you to explain why your ‘sighting of an IBWO’ is different from you claiming it is extant?

Conceivably, that might be the realization that he was misidentifying the bird. It's quite a good idea to be skeptical against one's own sightings ... Arthur C. Clarke once remarked, "I don't believe in UFOs because I've seen too many of them". Only because circumstances allowed him to follow up on these, he found various trivial explanations for the sightings he had, none of them involving aliens.

And then there is "Sagan's Standard": "Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary proof" ...

Regards,

Henning

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

The topic here is evidence of the subject rare and spectacular species

Then why don't you bring some?

I tirelessly ask you to provide support for your unsupported implication that bird wingbeat frequencies are subject only to a Gaussian distribution and independent of systematic factors, because that is required to validate your argument about the fuzzy videos actually show Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers that can be identified by their wingbeat frequency.

Did you man up and bring evidence like a good scientist would? Not at all ... this was the best you could do:

Normally distributed measurement data sets of almost all body movements of animals fit completely under the normal distribution curve (3 standard deviations from mean). Why would a bird flying in a dangerous world, fly much slower than its maximum all the time, and why would most if it not all species fly too slowly, as governed by flight dynamics and physiology, and fall out of the sky?

Come on ... that's arm waving, not science.

Why would Zebras, living in a dangerous world, move much slower than at a gallop all the time? I don't know, but they certainly do.

The idea that birds fall out of the sky at less than top speed is, as I hope you're well aware of, entirely ridiculous of course, so why are you serving me this kind of nonsense when I ask for actual scientific evidence?

You might not want admit it, but to me it's pretty clear: You don't have any, and you don't know what you're talking about. You're struggling even to understand what the problem with your "evidence" is, and that a load of random numbers with no information on how they were derived is not evidence at all.

I told you right in the beginning that I'd consider your answer the litmus test for scientific honesty, and I'm sorry to see (but not surprised) that you completely failed (and mostly tried to dodge the issue, anyway).

With regard to the "silent majority", I'm sure they've made up their minds by now! :-D

Regards,

Henning

 

[Deb Burhinus]

Hi Deb,



Conceivably, that might be the realization that he was misidentifying the bird. It's quite a good idea to be skeptical against one's own sightings ... Arthur C. Clarke once remarked, "I don't believe in UFOs because I've seen too many of them". Only because circumstances allowed him to follow up on these, he found various trivial explanations for the sightings he had, none of them involving aliens.

And then there is "Sagan's Standard": "Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary proof" ...

Regards,

Henning

I was hoping my recent posts would give him an opportunity to express that doubt in an ‘accepting‘ environment. 😉

Every single one of us makes errors of judgment and not just in birding - that’s the easy part. The hard part is extricating yourself from the consequences of that error of judgment without loosing too much face and whilst maintaining reputation and credibility as a birder in the eyes of your peers, known and unknown. Further, those who have ‘sightings‘ must be given room in the debate to frame their claims from the start in terms of doubt and ambiguity without their possible sightings being appropriated by others to strengthen unrelated evidence.

The arguments of the searchers that the IB is extant should never have become so intrenched and unretractable that even when common sense happens along, there is no room for any of them to coutenance the slightest doubt. Conversely, any new evidence that could prove the searchers hypothesis, must be considered with an open mind and a platform should always remain open to present new science.

The searchers have been given that opportunity here imo but unfortunately there is apparently no new evidence that has been presented (at least that is new to those biologists/zooologists/ecologists on BF who have already looked at the same evidence previously) - time is running out for their hypotheses being a rational one and at some point, sadly, the law of diminishing returns will point to the futility of continuing any efforts to try and prove it.

 

[ZanderII]

The other “side” feels that this absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, and will only change if presented with “proof”.

As this thread draws to a close (and the next ones opens!) I'd like to point out that scientists don't 'feel' evidence, the non-scientist in me would love to embrace the romantic notion of large extinct woodpeckers hiding from searchers behind trees, always 100 m ahead of them, and I'm sure that spending my time rambling around Louisiana would give me a much better quality of life than being a stressed-out academic. But science works on objective evidence, and multiple independent groups have analysed the data and their results agree with high confidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct. That is not absolute certainty, that is scientific certainty with p-values and confidence limits. I cannot say with absolute certainty that sasquatch is not a legitimate component of North American biodiversity, and yet despite all the sightings, the un-testable tracks and signs etc, it is still biologically implausible - and with no proof in the form of specimens or high quality rich media obtained, then existence of sasquatch can be dismissed. In the same manner as I am dismissing persistence of IBWO in the 21st century, with scientific - but not absolute - certainty - which is impossible.

I think it is just a stupid comparison. I haven't heard of any degreed and experienced biologists claiming to have seen sasquatch. We have had quite a list of respected ornithologists and birders who believe they have seen IB. And regardless, it is a RED HERRING. It is an irrelevant diversion away from your unsupported claim that IB are extinct.

I have tried using various data sources to make a number of central points - you both got upset about the sasquatch but at least one of you was unaware that there are 'respectable' academics out there that have written books and papers about sasquatch and claimed to have seen them. I have given you two examples of tenured faculty. Just because a biologist claims to have seen something doesn't mean it is so, that isn't science. And mountains of poor quality evidence is not proof. In fact I have reminded you on several occasions it weakens the case massively.

This is a flat-out lie. One photo would be dismissed as fake, and you know it. You and others would demand more photos and videos looking for a way out, until you had no other choice but claim that IBWO are extant. But then you'd say it is probably the last of its species.

And finally we are full circle to ad hominem and conspiracy theories. I'll spare you the victim melodrama, but you can't call someone a liar based on how you perceive they might react to future evidence.

I am a conservation biologist, my day job is providing the empirical data to save species from extinction, it is also measuring the extinction crisis to get politicians to wake the **** up to the extinction crisis. If we mismeasure the crisis by failing to recognise extinction then we fail as scientists. By your logic we should declare nothing extinct if absolute certainty is required? Hey presto, there is no extinction crisis! On the other hand, if we rediscover species and save them from extinction then we win as scientists and conservation practitioners. Of course I would 'accept' - not that my opinion hinges on anything - unambiguous proof, I would be as thrilled as I was when in 2005 when I first heard about the 'rediscovery'. I would of course anticipate that if it were a single image there would be some not insubstantial forensic investigation (cf Night Parrot) - and as WP says it is very unlikely that it will be a single image - it will be lots and if a bird is tracked down then it will be seen again, and again.

I have scientific certainty that this is extremely unlikely, but I wish it were not so.

 

[edenwatcher]

I think the view of the silent majority is abundantly clear - you only have to look at where the "likes" go.

Rob

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Apologies to ZanderII for misuse of “feel”; I was simply trying to phrase my statement in a non-judgemental way. 😉 Of course a Scientific approach deals only with hypotheses and evidence; if you want to take this to the extreme, at this precise moment, looking out of my window, I cannot prove the continued existence of any of the world’s 10,000 + avian species! What is more important to me is current evidence, and, with the greatest of respect to contributors to this thread, none has been presented. I am almost certain that, among all the post 1940s claims there are real sightings, but which, where and when are all but impossible to disentangle. Maybe it still hangs on, and maybe, if it does, our lack of knowledge of it’s whereabouts is to its advantage. However, I see no scientific evidence that convinces ME that that is the case.

 

[Steve]

The topic here is evidence of the subject rare and spectacular species; it was started by others with good intent. That a few can come here and take weeks to present the evidence is a rough correlate that there is something to look at carefully.

As the evidence slowly comes in, 30 entrenched snipers have tried to stop the discussion as they get worried, in my biased estimation. They have tried with every standard, pseudoskeptic method to stop the discussion. Pseudoskepticism has no place in birding or conservation. They are failed bullys and any independent reviewer would easily admit that their goal is to win and not much else. The refusal to behave like an adult is clearly dominated by one side with various whiners crying in every direction when someone actually in the field has had enough of the blatant tactics.

You disrespect your own admins with your pretentious self centered exaggerations of misogynies, feeling lonely because someone missed one out of ten of your often off topic non-points. Crying its WW 3 breaking out is also a common tactic when you are getting whipped or have run out of juvenile tricks.

I am not here to win or convert people to my side but rather to test various XXXXXXX and XXXXX. Also related 1) XXXXXXXXX 2) XXXXXXXX 3) XXXXXXX 4)XXXXXXXX.

Some people at BF flatter themselves greatly with their perceived importance of their opinions on this issue and its associated influence on anything that will result. This is of course why despite their repeated brain probes they get no where in determining actual motives for some peoples presence here. They think it is about them so the reason I must be here is them. They presume that Descartes had them in mind ....................but guess what "I think therefore I am" is not the same as " i am posting funny drivel so I must be important" .

Related some piker comes in after every 30 posts and opines that its all a war and no one will win, lets stop. You have no concept of what is happening here other than a complete beat down and exposure of an infestation of pseudoskeptics. Go away please and surf somewhere else no one is forcing you and your errant opinions to be here. You are not an admin, you did not start the thread, you have made a few interesting comments but are not pivotal to anything anymore than me. I am almost done and would have been done except for the ridiculous behavior here. We are all well aware of the beating you are taking but it will continue until morale improves.

The silent majority shouldn't be curtailed of a final collation of the evidence and a summary and then the usual chance of a rebuttal which i am sure will be wasted fittingly . It's all expected. I am putting almost everyone on ignore so stop demanding milk, I am not your mother......as Lincoln said there are not enough teats for the sucklings.

So we gave Truthseeker a platform to promote his theories and findings on the IBW, in fact BF is probably the only place on the internet where he and his supporters have a place to reach 000s of people both members and guests around 19k views so far, unfortunately he has not taken advantage of this and has continued to argue his point like a petulant child, putting most people who didn't agree with him on his ignore list, and continuing to be abusive and insulting.

To this end he is now on everyones ignore list for a while.

 

[motiheal]

Yes, note the last name on this list of staff:

National Biodiversity Parks, Inc.

This is surprising, can you explain more?

 

[motiheal]

Thanks, strikes me as unlikely though, especially as the drug cartels formed in the 1980s and the species went extinct around 1956. I'm pasting the relevant section from BOTW as it is useful in the context of IBWO too, below. Note that the species remained easy to detect despite enduring hunting pressure that was likely heavier than that directed towards IBWO. [edit saw jenks86 post after writing this - also useful background on decline drivers].

Conservation Status​

Probably extinct. No confirmed reports since 1956, when it was filmed in the state of Durango (34). There are a number of claimed but undocumented sightings, including several post-1965 reports, primarily from the northern portion of the range in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Durango (see discussion in 36, 5). All original threats, including widespread subsistence hunting, logging, and forest clearance for agriculture are still present throughout the range. Behavioral characteristics, including being highly vocal, habitually returning to the same foraging and nesting sites, and traveling in pairs and groups made it an easy target, and make the chances of undetected surviving individuals remote (5). Various targeted search efforts since mid-1990s have failed to find any individuals. Centuries of hunting, for food and sport, and because parts of this bird were thought to have useful medicinal properties, followed by the degradation and destruction of the habitat, have ensured that the species’ dwindling numbers continued to fall to unsustainable levels. No reserve ever had been established with the aim of protecting this unique woodpecker, and it is now too late.

Effects of Human Activity​

Tanner (29) stated that "while at first I believed that logging of the pine forest was the primary cause of the disappearance of the Imperial Woodpecker, my observations in Durango have convinced me that shooting by man is the chief cause of its elimination". Tanner also listed a number of other causes for persecution, including that the young were a delicacy sought after by native inhabitants; that the plumage was thought to have health benefits; that the feathers were particularly valuable; that the feathers, when burned, produced fumes that had medicinal properties; and also that the bill had medicinal properties. After detailing a number of historical accounts of shooting, he related a more recent report that "in southern Durango, around a new lumbering operation, the inhabitants claimed in 1953 to have shot 12 of the big woodpeckers within about a year".

All accounts describe Imperials as not only being large and conspicuous, but noisy, and habitually found during the fall and winter in groups of from 2 to up to 10. Early naturalists such as E. W. Nelson observed that these birds were "surprisingly easy to stalk, even after being hunted and shot at for several days". Nor did pitoreáles tend to fly away when one was fired upon, as "they showed considerable attachment to one another and when one was shot the other members of the flock remained scattered about on the trees for a short time calling each other at intervals…"

Lumholtz (27: 212) offered an explanation for the birds increasing scarcity "The giant woodpecker is seen in the more remote parts, but it is on the point of being exterminated, because the Tarahumares consider his one or two young such a delicacy that they do not hesitate to cut down even large trees to get at their nests. The Mexicans shoot them because their plumage is thought to be beneficial to health. It is held close to the ears and the head in order to impart its supposed magnetism and keep out the maleficent effects of the wind. In the pairing season these birds keep up a chattering noise, which to my ears was far from disagreeable, but very irritating to a Mexican whom I employed. He used to shoot the birds because they annoyed him".

Lammertink et al. (36) interviewed local inhabitants within the range of the Imperial Woodpecker, and found that the most frequent reason stated for shooting the birds was that they were large targets that people would shoot for fun or to get a closer look. Secondly they were hunted for medicinal purposes, as the feathers of the head and the bill were said to have value in curing various ailments. The third most frequent stated reason was hunting for food. Plimpton (39) relates a story of a local inhabitant in Chihuahua who claimed that an Imperial Woodpecker was "a great piece of meat". He also relates that locals killed the woodpeckers to put their feathers in their hats.

Imperial Woodpeckers also were eagerly sought by early collectors, including Wilmot W. Brown (40). In 1905 in the Mormon colonies of western Chihuahua he took 17 specimens in two weeks. He had apparently spoken of the value of the birds to well-heeled American collectors. Paying top dollar for specimens naturally led to excesses as illustrated by (41):

“Recently there came to my knowledge facts relative to a deplorable slaughter of the Imperial Woodpecker (Campephilus imperialis), not so very far south of our border. Two prospectors (one of whom imparted the information given herewith) were working over a region in west central Chihuahua some fifty miles west of Terrazas (pueblo), a mountainous and heavily forested country, much frequented by the bird in subject. One of the men had heard somewhere of the rarity of the species, and that it bore a commercial value, but erroneously, his conception was that the bill was the portion in demand, and not the prepared skin. Working on this idea he shot some seventeen of the magnificent creatures in the course of a few months, and cut off the bills, figuring them at $25.00 each, until on reaching civilization again, he was chagrined to find his material utterly worthless.”

L. A. Carlton (42), who kept a diary of his hunting trip into the sierra, revealed how high the price had risen: "Saw giant woodpecker today. Rare bird and to be found only in these mountains. His coloring is gorgeous—blue-black, white and red. Very large. Perhaps twenty-four inches in length. The Whettens [J. A. Whetten was the party’s Mormon guide] tell us that some museum or ornithologist recently procured a specimen here by paying $1500.00 for its capture".

Thank you for the research. This all has to be balanced, of course, with IMWO's range being huge.

 

[motiheal]

Pseudoscience to one side for a moment. What on earth is to be gained from coming here and convincing a largely European audience who are here in a non-professional capacity that these birds still exist? If there are IBWO out there, they gain absolutely nothing at all from the (extremely) unlikely outcome that you've changed someone's mind on Birdforum.

I began this thread so will answer. In your post, change--
"convincing" to "mentioning"
"largely European" to "partly USA" (or researchers able to travel to USA)
"absolutely nothing" to "possibly something"
and you have the reason.

I've seen the IBWO possibly four times. The first was chance (but while birding in its habitat). This caused me to become a focused student. The last three sightings were in a suspected IBWO spot with numerous probable encounters. I was invited, used a previously untried field technique-- playing juvenile Magellanic Woodpecker begging calls to force an approach, and had in a short amount of field time, three encounters with birds that would be hard to explain as another species. So, yes, it's worth the time to be here and mention this.

 

[Dutchbirder64]

I started reading this thread out of pure interest but during reading I got lost. There seems to be a lot of 'hate' around here. I don't know if IBWO are extinct. Is there a chance some have survived? Sure, why not. Are there birders that have seen them and won't tell? Could be.

Some areas are so remote and inaccessible that 'lost' birds can reappear. There are still birds being rediscovered after many many decades. Read the stories of the Antioquia Brush-finch or Blue-eyed Ground-Dove.

 

[raymie]

I began this thread so will answer. In your post, change--
"convincing" to "mentioning"
"largely European" to "partly USA" (or researchers able to travel to USA)
"absolutely nothing" to "possibly something"
and you have the reason.

I've seen the IBWO possibly four times. The first was chance (but while birding in its habitat). This caused me to become a focused student. The last three sightings were in a suspected IBWO spot with numerous probable encounters. I was invited, used a previously untried field technique-- playing juvenile Magellanic Woodpecker begging calls to force an approach, and had in a short amount of field time, three encounters with birds that would be hard to explain as another species. So, yes, it's worth the time to be here and mention this.

But you couldn't get any photos? I'm certainly open to the idea of IBWO still existing, but the fact that so many people claim to have seen the bird and no one has gotten a photo make the whole thing seem reminiscent of cryptids like Bigfoot and the yeti.

 

[ZanderII]

Some areas are so remote and inaccessible that 'lost' birds can reappear. There are still birds being rediscovered after many many decades. Read the stories of the Antioquia Brush-finch or Blue-eyed Ground-Dove.

As a general rule it is virtually impossible to rediscover a species we know a lot about. Blue-eyed Ground-Dove was known from 8 old specimens in widely-scattered places in Brazil, we had no idea of its habitat requirements and only now know it to be a white sand specialist from its rediscovery on the brink of extinction at a single site. Antioquia Brush-finch is a micro-endemic known originally from three museum specimens collected in 1971, until it was rediscovered in January 2018, it has a tiny range size and population and both species live in vast areas with very little observer coverage. Kaempfer's Woodpecker is another good comparison - originally known only from the type specimen in 1926 and then rediscovered in 2006. It is now known to be a low density resident across a vast swathe of Brazil where it occurs in gallery forest with bamboo and is relatively easy to find and photograph (as I have). Cone-billed Tanager similar story - people had no idea of where to look - and were looking with tanager flocks when the species isn't gregarious and lives in flooded riparian vegetation. Now known to be widespread but rare.

Chances of rediscovery of IBWO are best compared with chances of rediscovery of Bachman's Warbler, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon or other well-known species with large continental distributions in the temperate zone for which will understand their habitat requirements, distribution and ecology and where observer coverage is extensive.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

I began this thread so will answer. In your post, change--
"convincing" to "mentioning"
"largely European" to "partly USA" (or researchers able to travel to USA)
"absolutely nothing" to "possibly something"
and you have the reason.

I've seen the IBWO possibly four times. The first was chance (but while birding in its habitat). This caused me to become a focused student. The last three sightings were in a suspected IBWO spot with numerous probable encounters. I was invited, used a previously untried field technique-- playing juvenile Magellanic Woodpecker begging calls to force an approach, and had in a short amount of field time, three encounters with birds that would be hard to explain as another species. So, yes, it's worth the time to be here and mention this.

Oh hi Motiheal - Shame you weren't here a bit earlier - you'd have seen 1TS before he left.

Possibly four times, numerous probable encounters, hard to explain as another species.... There is an awful lot of ambiguity there. It doesn't really help your cause.

 

[ZanderII]

As a general rule it is virtually impossible to rediscover a species we know a lot about. Blue-eyed Ground-Dove was known from 8 old specimens in widely-scattered places in Brazil, we had no idea of its habitat requirements and only now know it to be a white sand specialist from its rediscovery on the brink of extinction at a single site. Antioquia Brush-finch is a micro-endemic known originally from three museum specimens collected in 1971, until it was rediscovered in January 2018, it has a tiny range size and population and both species live in vast areas with very little observer coverage. Kaempfer's Woodpecker is another good comparison - originally known only from the type specimen in 1926 and then rediscovered in 2006. It is now known to be a low density resident across a vast swathe of Brazil where it occurs in gallery forest with bamboo and is relatively easy to find and photograph (as I have). Cone-billed Tanager similar story - people had no idea of where to look - and were looking with tanager flocks when the species isn't gregarious and lives in flooded riparian vegetation. Now known to be widespread but rare.

Chances of rediscovery of IBWO are best compared with chances of rediscovery of Bachman's Warbler, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon or other well-known species with large continental distributions in the temperate zone for which will understand their habitat requirements, distribution and ecology and where observer coverage is extensive.

Just too add that - and crucial to this story - is an understanding of the threats. When we know a species well we can understand what role the drivers e.g. agricultural expansion or demand for wildlife products have on threats - like over-harvesting and habitat loss. We have a good idea of why Bachman's Warbler, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon, Eskimo Curlew and IBWO went extinct but we had no idea what might threaten Kaempfer's Woodpecker as we didn't know its distribution or habitat requirements. Now we do and the species has gone from Critically Endangered to Vulnerable on the global Red List and may even end up as Locally Common.

We know what drove IBWO to extinction - a loss of its old growth forest habitat below critical landscape thresholds and coupled with direct persecution. The same mechanism that did for its sister taxa. We thus have a well established trajectory for extinction which was illustrated by concurrent loss of habitat and the last sightings at one of last remnants of old growth forest in the species' historical range.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Mark,

Oh hi Motiheal - Shame you weren't here a bit earlier - you'd have seen 1TS before he left.

Groundhog day ... deja vu all over again.

Regards,

Henning