• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
By the way I'm amused that photographic impediments are given to the Cuban event yet one of the contemporary us videos events was directly affected by humidity and condensation of the camera.

Us conditions and temperature variations especially in early AMs can often fog up equipment. In certain parameters Cuba is easier to film than in swamp conditions in winter. You people are birders you know this.......I think.

My goodness the other day I get on a good bird with no one around me and no mask. Soon a few gather and I need to put my mask on and my bins fog up from breath deflected by the mask. Fogging and condensation of expensive and inexpensive birdie equipment. Is common in winter in the southeast.
 
Last edited:

ZanderII

Well-known member
By the way I'm amused that photographic impediments are given to the Cuban event yet one of the contemporary us videos events was directly affected by humidity and condensation of the camera.

A potential impediment to Cuban researchers who may not have had cameras in the mid 1980s. Anyway, pending anyone convincing me otherwise I'm happy to be skeptical about that whole series of records from Cuba based on the apparent brevity of sightings.
 

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
I noticed the author years ago and noticed his obvious conversion since he is an Arkansas author.

Just another example of a Paleo temperate birder being wrong one day right another day and then wrong again another day and all about the same species.

In his defense they are almost certainly different species. But even there you would think an expert who knew about the Cancun Cuba peninsula and a mid-pleistocene origin would suspect genetic distance . Also quite a different niche breath due to a totally smaller community of pick a day competitors. Pick a day pick a day equals woodpecker family in smartphone jargon.

Maybe someday some of the skeptics will understand that the surveys done by the alleged best here were designed incorrectly and impeded further by some who should have had the morals to recuse themselves from the recovery team.
 
Last edited:

ZanderII

Well-known member
Quite misleading. The only birds that allen and Tanner could "find" they didn't. The only nests that Allen and Tanner could find they didn't. There was a local caretaker who was tasked and employed at watching over the area. He built up many years of ib knowledge and noticed some general to specific sight and nest fidelity.
The point remains, the species was easy to keep tabs on, observe and document. In Cuba and in the Singer Tract. You have convinced yourself of this tale that somehow evolution has crafted the species into a wraith that can't be seen by normal people. The fact that neither the Cuban nor Singer Tract birds were difficult to find and photograph, despite hunting pressure on both populations, delegitimizes this specious argument for which there is no evidence nor precedent.
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
impeded further by some who should have had the morals to recuse themselves from the recovery team.

Do you wake up in cold sweats thinking about how JJ has ruined everything btw?
Just another example of a Paleo temperate birder being wrong one day right another day and then wrong again another day and all about the same species.

People can be wrong and be experts. We are only human and entirely fallible which is why we need evidence. Lest it not be clear the authorship team of the Science paper includes some of the people who have most contributed to ornithology in the western hemisphere in the 20th century and they have my highest respect. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong though, so many people have fallen down in similar quagmires.
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
Maybe someday some of the skeptics will understand that the surveys done by the alleged best here were designed incorrectly
You keep harping on about this but you can't have it both ways, we need strong science to support searches, the co-collection of data on the companion fauna has given us the ability to assess survey completeness - which concludes the birds weren't there in the first place.

Meanwhile you praise the Hill et al. paper for its robustness in gathering data on tracks and signs etc. The work does employ a robust sampling methodology, the problem is the interpretation of those tracks and signs as evidence for the persistence of an extinct woodpecker.
 

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
You keep harping on about this but you can't have it both ways, we need strong science to support searches, the co-collection of data on the companion fauna has given us the ability to assess survey completeness - which concludes the birds weren't there in the first place.

Meanwhile you praise the Hill et al. paper for its robustness in gathering data on tracks and signs etc. The work does employ a robust sampling methodology, the problem is the interpretation of those tracks and signs as evidence for the persistence of an extinct woodpecker.
Yes yes I hear you take it easy. I am with you on good survey techniques as far as biodiversity in the area. Up thread it was mentioned as a compromise you can do these subsets if an ivory build is found in the area. There was no reason to do surveys for Ivory bills that include typical us fish and wildlife Canadian point survey data in the primary sweep.

As confirmatory agreement to your point it was already up threat before you brought up the nuances of survey procedures. A teared approach though was recommended tiered.
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
Yes yes I hear you take it easy. I am with you on good survey techniques as far as biodiversity in the area. Up thread it was mentioned as a compromise you can do these subsets if an ivory build is found in the area. There was no reason to do surveys for Ivory bills that include typical us fish and wildlife Canadian point survey data in the primary sweep.
That isn't how science works Diane, you need to collect the same data everywhere. Then at the very least you have something of value from spending huge amounts of money looking for an extinct species. If the species had been found you would be able to look for community associations which would give you predictive power to understand what IBWOs need.

Searchers obviously can do what they like with their drones, kayak-cams and the like to get poor images of Pileated Woodpeckers.
 

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
That isn't how science works Diane, you need to collect the same data everywhere. Then at the very least you have something of value from spending huge amounts of money looking for an extinct species. If the species had been found you would be able to look for community associations which would give you predictive power to understand what IBWOs need.

Searchers obviously can do what they like with their drones, kayak-cams and the like to get poor images of Pileated Woodpeckers.
No Zander that's your version of how science works. You're just being argumentative.

Scientific pursuit is adaptable to field conditions. The ivory build dominated field conditions or news in the first decade of the millennia over here. The target specie's presence absence
should have been the dominant, and as practical the only data set along with GPS coordinates, wind , weather.

When you study shore birds you don't set up the Cannon net to get great-tailed grackles , although you might, you set it up to get scholapad days. Grackles might be mentioned only as incidental and unimportant take. They won't be mentioned in the abstract. The design of studies for one species almost always focuses on that species. It's fiction to think the survey couldn't have been designed with a narrow scope, it's common to use public money for even narrow scope studies.

Chapman a great ivory build Hunter eventually saw the error in his ways and eventually the US Christmas bird count evolved as a substitute for shooting. The protocol is very different than typical point survey techniques used in formal breeding bird surveys. These surveys often powered by volunteers by volunteers been done for a hundred years we are not depaupered of data on every species encountered in large areas of the usa.

The collecting of basic survey data has become an excuse for conservation in some respect. Many areas around the Earth are reaching build out levels or are within reach of build out levels within a few decades. The presence of birds to the species is well known on the edge of present development. That's where the conservation effort is needed rather than continued counting over and over.

Ivory build woodpecker areas were in general far from the edge of suburban or Urban development. Some areas are already preserved. We are not on the edge of destruction yet in most of those areas. Point being there was plenty of time to look for passerines and community structure whatever else you're getting at.

Up thread there were assertions that powerful skeptics used the same value for our money argument to hurt the surveys.

Is it just coincidence that most of them with that attitude were skeptics?
 
Last edited:

jurek

Well-known member
It is now easy to check on ebird how many birdwatchers operate in given places.

Are the insides of swamp forests really well watched? Or are swamp forests in Arkansas and Florida really a birders desert, like some authors suggest? How often new sightings are submitted from the precise locations of the past ivorybill sightings? And from nearby large swamp forests? (because it is possible that sightings were of dispersing birds which simply left the area after few days).
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
No Xander that's your version of how science works. You're just being argumentative.

No, I just presented you with a paper resulting from that co-collection that helps with assessing inventory completeness and hence likelihood of IBWO being extant. We have people to conduct ad hoc surveys - they are birders and there are millions of them.

Is it just coincidence that most of them with that attitude were skeptics?

The people who designed the protocol were scientists. I have no idea if you are a scientist in the same way as I have no idea if you are Mike Collins or not. No-one is sabotaging anything, everyone wants/wanted IBWO to be extant. It would be an incredible bird to see and the skeptics like Bret Whitney would be leading tours there. The fact remains that there is no robust evidence to claim that it didn't go extinct in the 1940s.
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
It is now easy to check on ebird how many birdwatchers operate in given places.

Are the insides of swamp forests really well watched? Or are swamp forests in Arkansas and Florida really a birders desert, like some authors suggest? How often new sightings are submitted from the precise locations of the past ivorybill sightings? And from nearby large swamp forests? (because it is possible that sightings were of dispersing birds which simply left the area after few days).
Good point, here are some maps of PIWO records from some of the sites where IBWO has been claimed, note many folks will just use generic hotspots.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    178.5 KB · Views: 9
  • Capture2.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    174.6 KB · Views: 9
  • Capture3.JPG
    Capture3.JPG
    185.4 KB · Views: 9

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
Well, lets discuss whether the critical thinkers think that Figure 4. represents a sharp photo of an extinct species or whether it represents junk science.
That figure is associated with a video. Again you are parsing out the evidence. The entire video shows things that do not match pileated woodpecker...... In addition at exact tree was measured and I have never heard of a pileated being 20 in tall.!!!! Never seen a Crest like that on a pileated.

If you would like to zoom all of us and have the video played over and over we might come to a consensus. But it's doubtful since some want the bird dead, I don't know why. I say they want it dead not to be melodramatic but because they do not present the evidence or review the evidence with the time it takes to make a fair opinion.


Substantial us people have said that looks like an ivory bill, your figure. I have never seen anyone come out with an analysis of that birds size that supports
Pileated woodpecker and I've never seen any successful frame by frame contradiction of the video as an I rebuild woodpecker.

I don't like certain things but these have to do more with presentation attitude and philosophy rather than the lassitude of the evidence.











woodpecker
 
Last edited:

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
No, I just presented you with a paper resulting from that co-collection that helps with assessing inventory completeness and hence likelihood of IBWO being extant. We have people to conduct ad hoc surveys - they are birders and there are millions of them.



The people who designed the protocol were scientists. I have no idea if you are a scientist in the same way as I have no idea if you are Mike Collins or not. No-one is sabotaging anything, everyone wants/wanted IBWO to be extant. It would be an incredible bird to see and the skeptics like Bret Whitney would be leading tours there. The fact remains that there is no robust evidence to claim that it didn't go extinct in the 1940s.
These are all red herrings the questions remain unanswered ,the evidence not fairly treated. There have been debate challenges to raise funding for nonprofits over the decades and all the prominent skeptics have passed.

There is a reason for that. All of course strengthened by the imperial woodpecker film that seems to be a taboo point with some.
 

Diane D

Well-known member
United States
These are all red herrings the questions remain unanswered ,the evidence not fairly treated. There have been debate challenges to raise funding for nonprofits over the decades and all the prominent skeptics have passed.

There is a reason for that. All of course strengthened by the imperial woodpecker film that seems to be a taboo point with some.

Your mental gymnastics amaze me, the video of the Imperial Woodpecker is incontrovertible https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/468600#_ga=2.123387467.1535767769.1606414858-1042733052.1560372621 and great evidence that the last individuals of this species complex were easily documented.
You're being purposely obtuse. Points were already made up thread and are quite repetitious at this point. The analysis remains intact flap rate is used commonly to ID birds from great distances there is no reason that videos of flying birds cannot be used as part of the evidence part.

If you are serious propose exact formulas with values for all the pertinent taxa and we will review it all. As of this point I see no effective rebuttal to the accepted us fish and wildlife service Arkansas rare Bird committee and the 17 authors that one I rebuild woodpecker existed in Arkansas 16 years ago.

LA evidence also remains without formal rebuttal. All this noise about statistical models that predict Extinction are extremely flawed and with a huge or uncalculable error range. They are useless.

There are lies damn lies and statistics Mark Twain sometimes attributed to an Englishman.
 
Last edited:

ZanderII

Well-known member
That figure is associated with a video. Again you are parsing out the evidence. The entire video shows things that do not match pileated woodpecker...... In addition at exact tree was measured and I have never heard of a pileated being 20 in tall.!!!! Never seen a Crest like that on a pileated.
Point me in the direction of evidence in your paper, there are some magic eye videos included in error it seems (Supplementary Movie S1. Supplementary Movie S2.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top