Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics (2 Viewers)

[ZanderII]

It may have been discussed at length in previous threads, but its is also worth mentioning that several author teams have addressed the chances of IBWO persistence based on the sighting record and search intensity data.

Solow et al. 2011 concluded:

The results of our analysis are consistent with the conclusion that the Ivory‐billed Woodpecker is extinct. However, these results offer no clear estimate of the time of extinction. The posterior predictive assessment of the fitted model under the assumption of extinction showed no evidence that the model is inadequate.

whilst Gotelli et al. 2012 concluded

Our results suggest that the probability of persistence in 2011 of the Ivory‐billed Woodpecker was <10-5 and that the species’ probable extinction date was between 1960 (if the population size in 1929–1932 was 20) and 1980 (if the 1929–1932 population was 1000; Table 1 & Supporting Information). These estimates, which assume a constant search effort, are on the optimistic side because the collective search effort for the Ivory‐billed Woodpecker has increased tremendously since 1932.

 

[Diane D]

H hennung wrote a response to your above post but it must be at the end of some of your other posts on some other ivory build thread. Can you easily see it somewhere and move it back here. Tia

expand...

Unfortunately Colin Pennycuick passed away about a year ago and he could have gotten all the variables for Ivory bill and imperial and pileated and maybe some more Campephilus plugged into his likely still available available flight performance program.

He lived in the United kingdom, not sure if he updated his program. You plug in the variables of a species and it would give you give you wing beat frequency.

Somewhere I have a bibliography of all the best papers for examining this situation. Maybe there's some new papers; gave the bibliography to others and they liked it.

For Ivory bill there are at least 3 pertinent flight sequences. The Rhein films have three sequences of flight for imperial. Now all you need to add to the above is see if there's any video of another large Campephilus. Weights will be easy weights will be easy but to get wing surface will require some work and specimens will have folded wings. I guess you could use pictures and a planimeter.

And there you're on your way to getting averages for hz and a standard deviation and a plot line for Campephilus weights.

If you're working on something serious I could help. Take care

By the way I am going to look at your comments from the past I see what you're getting at or we're getting at.

 

[Diane D]

Out of interest, apologies for being out of the loop here, but IBWO has not been on my radar for 6 or 7 years now - So, I am interested to know, has there been some recent developments (of any nature) that brings you to activate a ‘proof of existence’ argument (actually re-activate it) with members of BF now? Are you of the hope of convincing the few that are still listening that the ‘evidence’ collected is irrefutable? Surely, long ago that was proven to be a lost cause on BF?

What I have seen so far, are the same arguments on both sides, some intelligent and some playing to the gallery for kicks. But I’ve not seen anything new under the Sun here sadly, despite badly wanting to.

Check this sighting from Florida. This river had birds. It's one of the best contiguous linear habitats left in the United States.

The location of the multiple putative birds was very telling in regards to modern behavior, occupancy and more.

It was a robust sighting with multiple field marks seen. It also had calls and knocks heard by multiple people. This may be the best sighting in the 21st century. Kulivan's very long sighting of a pair was in 1999.

I don't think too many people realize that there are multiple videos from the Fl river. Also great data sets on Kent's double knocks roost holes and empiricalized analysis with control plots on bark scaling.

IBWRecoveryPlan2010.pdf (fws.gov)

A specific, reported encounter occurred on December 24, 2006, Tyler Hicks, an experienced birdwatcher, reported observing a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched on the trunk of a tree at a distance of 15 meters. Hicks stated he clearly saw a black crest, white dorsal stripes, an ivory-colored bill, and a large area of white across the lower portion of the folded wings of the bird. Hicks was drawn to the bird by kent calls, and two other observers heard kent calls and double knocks in the same area just prior to this sighting.

 

[ZanderII]

I don't think too many people realize that there are multiple videos from the Fl river. Also great data sets on Kent's double knocks roost holes and empiricalized analysis with control plots on bark scaling.

The paper is here http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art2/main.html

It describes a huge volume of potential evidence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The fact that the team found so much evidence, but were unable to provide proof of life confirms that metrics of nest holes are unreliable and putative vocalisations do not pertain to IBWOs. If you find a mountain of evidence suggesting the creature you are hunting is common but can't find the creature then you need to reappraise your evidence threshold. See previous posting about big cats in the UK.

The more you argue that an extinct species is widespread, the more ridiculous your position looks.

 

[UOM]

The paper is here http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art2/main.html

The more you argue that an extinct species is widespread, the more ridiculous your position looks.

You are on kilter and purposely trying to mislead others. Often declining species are in pockets or in disjunct populations. Sometimes there are even single birds of a species here and there, over wide areas.

Read about various attempts to move the last few bird of a species in Hawaii and elsewhere from " widespread" localities.

THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT the pattern of reports collectively coming from the field; stop with the look at me.

good day

 

[UOM]

Pointing out someone was hearing impaired for a position that auditory ability is important is treating someone like an a******? Do you think the people that paid his salary think that was fair or maybe he was not qualified and did not disclose it?

And even if I am completely degrading him which I am certainly not how in the world should my opinion cause you to wish an independent species eternal Extinction. It's the most convoluted thing I've heard today but it's early.

There is no moral equivalency and it's completely nonsensical for anything I say or you say to have another person wish a species Extinction. It's beyond emotional. I think thee protest to much.

It's demonstrably obtuse for you to Passover unethical behavior (if that is what happened) by taking money for a position that the public is trusting will be performed in an efficient way.

You seem to be completely unaware that people in the United States with conflicts of interest tried to deprive the ivory bill of various conservation funds. You completely missed the point of what Jackson may have done.

He may have someone in the family that is deaf, etc. Still I agree a bit over the top.

 

[UOM]

It certainly wouldn't have impaired future sales if he was part of the discovery. Of course we wouldn't have to suffer through that awful skeptical article filled with psychobabble if he had been let in.

And please review the moving goal lines between evidence needed from Cuba and evidence needed from the United States. Jackson of course was on the sugarcane bandwagon even though there's no hard evidence that any of them actually saw an ivy bill.

Spoke to Jackson directly on that. He said that there are no confusing species when he saw a Cuban IB there in '88 but mentioned Cuban Crow, but said he saw no white.

I asked about sun glare on a Crow, was it possible? He just said unlikely.

The whole playing field was moved.

Will look at this whole thread eventually.

 

[Jacana]

So now we have a 3rd sock-puppet account popping up?

 

[UOM]

The videos are always blurred and equivocal because fundamentally it is impossible to get a sharp identifiable photo of an extinct species. It is possible however to take lots of poor quality video of a confusion species which will eventually yield 'candidate' IBWOs if Mikes/Truth-seekers/Dianes take enough footage.

There are however lots of lost species with high rediscovery prospects that would benefit from the boundless enthusiasm, time and money that you have dedicated to the IBWO cause. Happy to make recomendations that represent better value for money and tangible chances of success.

There are many plausible explanations for low quality pictures that do not involve extinction. But I see its Zander again. These types always seem to isolate one data point; an RBC must look at all the evidence, not just a bit small amount or what they see as weak. Zander bad work. By the way RBCs adhere to certain rules that reflect some scientific principles but RBCs do not usually perform experiments or come to strict scientific conclusions.

However the USFWS had a very low empirical value for IBWO chances of recovery. But there was and is many unknowns with this tenacious and surprising species. good day

 

[dwatsonbirder]

So now we have a 3rd sock-puppet account popping up?

The use of the same abbreviations and repeated wishing of a good day smell awfully familiar.

 

[UOM]

Hi,




I notice you're evading the question. While that's close to admitting you're Mike: Seriously, what's keeping you from actually admitting it, or simply using your real name for the discussion?

Regarding the Luneau video, I'll concentrate on the flawed assumption that the wing beat frequency is a criterion to rule out other Woodpeckers.

While I already pointed out the problem with that claim in 2019, Mike failed to take address this in his latest article. Maybe you could try to fix that oversight now:

new paper on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Not nearly as many as you are missing, though... such as even a shred of credible evidence. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Signs that my data have credibility include the published assessments of independent experts, comments made privately by other ornithologists and scientists who...

www.birdforum.net

new paper on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

. . .Nobody has put the slightest dent in any of the analysis. Nothing of any value has come out of the discussions in this thread. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with it. Before you go, I’d be interested to hear your response to Hauksen’s statistical point (post #71).

www.birdforum.net

Regards,

Henning

This will take some LOOKING AT. . But do enjoy a more in-depth examination.

Others work, quite involved, make it clear that distributions of speeds in birds closely adheres to average distribution of movements. Looking at the exact formulas and, knowing the limits and interactions of the equation variables helps. Combine this with evolutionary pressures and physiological limitations and you see its a mundane natural system and the SD should see a boring graph . The shape of a wing allows a maximum speed that speed being lessened at some point as flaps increase incrementally.

Balanced, complex muscle systems do not have a great ability to just increase speed of the body at will above what adrenalin can do in certain situations. The maximums are already established before the video of a bird is obtained; there is no reason or ability to flap quicker, they have no rockets stages other than adrenalin. Certain putative IBs or PIWOs involved in this controversy had no adrenalin pulsing events. Other than the ones used by skeptics to film PIWOs released from human hands ( kid you not on what some of these people did, and still failed).

Increasing flap rate incrementally at some point in flight lessens lift and can detract from the speed. Upstokes provide little lift but can drag can and does increase with increasing speed. If it was as simple as just flap quicker then almost all predated birds would have even more massive pectoral muscles than they have. But as breast weight goes up all else being equal a bird is no longer streamlined and the hypothetical bird gets slower due to increased drag and weight ; this is all counter-evolutionary. Birds almost certainly just cant flap their way faster and faster. This is what the data shows.

What makes you think there is so much variably in range of wing cycles when its not reflected in the equations/ formulas and field flight data for many species?

good day

 

[GMK]

I thought I was just talking about video evidence and not being interviewed for People's magazine. Is this a thread about Ivory Bill woodpeckers or about people.

Very pertinent question. Back in summer 2006, I was at the Smithsonian talking to Gary Graves about the Arkansas "claims". I'll always remember what he said: "It ain't ornithology, it's psychology". The same seems true to this day.

For the record, Graves had been surveying the Big Woods each spring for about 2 decades at that point for Swainson's Warblers. Guess what: he'd never had a psychological moment.

 

[UOM]

Unfortunately that evidence proved to be unreliable. Ambiguous sound-recordings are not proof.

The Arkansas Bird Committee, who actually know their birds, disagreed with you. There has been no formal retraction. Have you ever heard any of these clapping duck wings in forest?

Have you even stood in any paleotemperate forest or anywhere and called out or even whispered um a double knock, how strange. No

The evidence you ineffectively quibble about was a fraction of the submittal.

good day

 

[Farnboro John]

This will take some LOOKING AT. . But do enjoy a more in-depth examination.

Others work, quite involved, make it clear that distributions of speeds in birds closely adheres to average distribution of movements. Looking at the exact formulas and, knowing the limits and interactions of the equation variables helps. Combine this with evolutionary pressures and physiological limitations and you see its a mundane natural system and the SD should see a boring graph . The shape of a wing allows a maximum speed that speed being lessened at some point as flaps increase incrementally.

Balanced, complex muscle systems do not have a great ability to just increase speed of the body at will above what adrenalin can do in certain situations. The maximums are already established before the video of a bird is obtained; there is no reason or ability to flap quicker, they have no rockets stages other than adrenalin. Certain putative IBs or PIWOs involved in this controversy had no adrenalin pulsing events. Other than the ones used by skeptics to film PIWOs released from human hands ( kid you not what some of these people did, and still failed).

Increasing flap rate incrementally at some point in flight lessens lift and detracts from the speed. Upstokes provide little lift. If it was all that simple then almost all predated birds would have even more massive pectoral muscles than they have. But as breast weight goes up all else being equal a bird is no longer streamlined and the hypothetical bird gets slower due to increased drag and weight ; this is all counter-evolutionary. Birds almost certainly just cant flap their way faster and faster. This is what the data shows.

What makes you think there is so much variably in range of wing cycles when its not reflected in the equations/ formulas and data?

good day

Watching birds using different areas of their flight envelope.

Even a fixed gliding wing performs differently at different angles of incidence. A variable-geometry, variable airfoil section flapping wing has an enormous range of performance which allows everything from vertical take-off from the ground to high-speed level flight, gliding landing approaches just above the stall and even aerobatics.

There is consequently no reason why two observations of a single wild individual bird should show the same thing, and overlap between visual appearance of individuals of different species, depending what they are doing within their respective flight envelopes, is absolutely inevitable. Consequently, basing "evidence" on minor aspects of poor-quality video is a waste of everybody's time.

Still waiting for that incontrovertible evidence disproving the generally recognised extinction of Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

John

 

[UOM]

Very pertinent question. Back in summer 2006, I was at the Smithsonian talking to Gary Graves about the Arkansas "claims". I'll always remember what he said: "It ain't ornithology, it's psychology". The same seems true to this day.

For the record, Graves had been surveying the Big Woods each spring for about 2 decades at that point for Swainson's Warblers. Guess what: he'd never had a psychological moment.

More like hey where will my grant money go if Cornell and these other species I am not studying get it.

Graves was scolded by the Smithsonian for making unknowable pronouncements; your story just confirming it all. SI never declared the species extinct.

Do you have any field data? Or exact issues with the field data? This biography redux and name dropping is boring and is not science.

 

[UOM]

Watching birds using different areas of their flight envelope.

Even a fixed gliding wing performs differently at different angles of incidence. A variable-geometry, variable airfoil section flapping wing has an enormous range of performance which allows everything from vertical take-off from the ground to high-speed level flight, gliding landing approaches just above the stall and even aerobatics.

There is consequently no reason why two observations of a single wild individual bird should show the same thing, and overlap between visual appearance of individuals of different species, depending what they are doing within their respective flight envelopes, is absolutely inevitable. Consequently, basing "evidence" on minor aspects of poor-quality video is a waste of everybody's time.

Still waiting for that incontrovertible evidence disproving the generally recognised extinction of Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

John

The data by experts on level flight do not support any of your red herrings. You do know that level flight is the variable we are looking at in the videos ? It is not what people see. Although its very interesting that birds can maneuver in little envelopes....are these hummingbirds.

Videos show wing beat frequency.

And a lie agreed upon is the truth in some peoples minds.

 

[Andy Adcock]

This is like the 'nerd' fight on big bang, there is no acceptable evidence that would satisfy any committee in the World so move on or go and get a better video. This is tedious.

 

[UOM]

Very pertinent question. Back in summer 2006, I was at the Smithsonian talking to Gary Graves about the Arkansas "claims". I'll always remember what he said: "It ain't ornithology, it's psychology". The same seems true to this day.

For the record, Graves had been surveying the Big Woods each spring for about 2 decades at that point for Swainson's Warblers. Guess what: he'd never had a psychological moment.

Thanks. More data points on how hard they are to find and another plausible reason for a certin individuals jealousy ; sometimes you get help from unlikely and unwitting Oswalds.

I would be pissed too if I was struggling on $ 5K year in little Brinkley, and a kayaker gives the gen to Cornell. 3 million dollars later...….. " Shit I was studying the wrong creature!!! And damn, those knocks I though were duck wings...………...how stupid can I get, I believed Zander.

Please send more!!!

 

[UOM]

This is like the 'nerd' fight on big bang, there is no acceptable evidence that would satisfy any committee in the World so move on or go and get a better video. This is tedious.

Too bad it was accepted. You are literally making me laugh.

You are a wrestler, a stupid sport. Men with no pants, fighting for a belt.

 

[opisska]

This would be a great application for the Markov chain comment bots that are now commonly used to autonomously sneak ad links into various forums (they pretend to be a human talking on topic by processing previous human comments and then they put a link here and there after gaining "trust"). Make a few bots based on the skeptical comments, so that the IBWO folk feel like they are still being talked to and hide the thread from everyone else