• 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 (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

humminbird

Well-known member
Curtis Croulet said:
So, we have a sliding standard for what consitutes "confirmed," dependent on the immediate motives of those compiling the list."


Hmmm. Looks like it to me Curtis.

From what I can find online, the last photos taken of the Ivory-billed in Cuba were taken in 1948 by John Dennis. Apparently no photos exist from Cuba in 1987. What evidence do we have to support (maybe I should say prove) the claims the bird was seen there in 1987. I mean besides the word of the person who says they saw it?
 

gws

Guest
Tim Allwood said:
Vladimir Dinets posted this on ID Frontiers listserv
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0603d&L=birdwg01&T=0&P=3722
For anyone who hasn't heard of him - this is a man who knows how to find and watch animals and birds. His exploits are already legendary and rather extreme. He knows his stuff though.
http://dinets.travel.ru/ is his website. be amazed.

A few points on the woodpecker issue:
Whatever the genetics involved, it is a known fact that birds from certain
populations can become extremely difficult to find if they are heavily
persecuted. In Central Russia, where Northern goshawk has been shot on site
as vermin for decades, it is virtually impossible to see one, even where
this species is common. But in unpopulated parts of Siberia it can be tame
and noisy, especially around nests.
But I've never heard of such a thing happening to a woodpecker. Black
woodpecker used to be routinely shot by Russian hunters, either for its
habit of noisily following them along the trail, for being black and weird,
or simply because they are trigger-happy and stupid. But it is still very
tame and still often follows people, even though it is now rare in many
areas because of habitat loss and "sanitary logging" (it used to be a common
practice to remove snags in managed forests in Russia due to believe that
they are a sorce of fungal infections of living trees).
Why don't black woodpeckers become more shy, while goshawks do? I don't
know. Might have something to do with the amount of learning a chick gets
from its parents.
I bought the original rediscovery story, even though I was amazed that such
a huge bird could remain undetected for decades in a country with millions
of birders. Last summer I visited the area in question, and immediately
became VERY sceptical. It is small, not particularly inaccessible, and the
oldgrowth area is mostly a very narrow belt. Unless some hard evidence is
produced within the next few weeks, I think we should accept the sad fact.
But I'll still be checking every pileated woodpecker I see, just in case...
Vladimir Dinets
U. of Miami

Well, I guess that is it. If Vladimir says they are gone, then that is good enough enough for me. I mean, who are we to disagree with Vladimir? Everybody needs to pack up and forget about it. No more birds. Vladimir said so.

:flyaway: :'D :smoke:
 

timeshadowed

Time is a Shadow
MMinNY said:
As far as I know, the IBWO has been listed as endangered for years and has never been removed from the list or officially declared extinct. I have not re-checked this, but I'm pretty confident that's the case.


I remember reading the same thing, MMinNY.

As I remember, it is all rummor that the IBWO was declared extinct. That is why all of these demmands for a clear photo as 'proof' is so unnecessary. Reliable persons claiming to have sighted them should be all the 'proof' that is needed.

TimeShadowed
 
humminbird said:
Hmmm. Looks like it to me Curtis.

From what I can find online, the last photos taken of the Ivory-billed in Cuba were taken in 1948 by John Dennis. Apparently no photos exist from Cuba in 1987. What evidence do we have to support (maybe I should say prove) the claims the bird was seen there in 1987. I mean besides the word of the person who says they saw it?

maybe the birder who saw it submitted a competent set of field notes?

maybe it was a misidentification and the species had already become extinct on Cuba

rare birds require competent documentation. It's the way the birding world works.

Tim
 

Russ Jones

Well-known member
timeshadowed said:
I remember reading the same thing, MMinNY.

As I remember, it is all rummor that the IBWO was declared extinct. That is why all of these demmands for a clear photo as 'proof' is so unnecessary. Reliable persons claiming to have sighted them should be all the 'proof' that is needed.

TimeShadowed

There is nothing in Cuba that can be mistaken for an Ivory-bill, maybe that was taken into consideration when the sightings were being assessed by whoever recieved them.

Cheers,

Russ
 
timeshadowed said:
I
As I remember, it is all rummor that the IBWO was declared extinct. That is why all of these demmands for a clear photo as 'proof' is so unnecessary. Reliable persons claiming to have sighted them should be all the 'proof' that is needed.

TimeShadowed

The above has been posted on both threads.

There is no rumour when it comes to Red Data Book classifications.

It was categorised as Extinct. Might be again before long too...

The IUCN (compile Red Data Books) website still has it as EXTINCT but i think this is from the second Red Data Book and so hasn't got the recent reclassification http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html...species/data/species_sheets/ivorywoo.htm~main

perhaps we can close this 'rumour' discussion here:
This species has not been recorded with certainty since 1987, despite many searches, and it is likely to have declined severely as a result of habitat degradation and destruction. However, it may well remain extant, and further surveys are needed in south-east Cuba. Any remaining population is likely to be tiny, and for these reasons it is treated as Critically Endangered.
History
1988 - Threatened (Collar and Andrew 1988)
1994 - Extinct (Collar, Crosby and Stattersfield 1994)
2000 - Critically Endangered (BirdLife International 2000)

No comment about the 'reliable persons' bit. :eek!:

Tim
 
Last edited:

humminbird

Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
maybe the birder who saw it submitted a competent set of field notes?

maybe it was a misidentification and the species had already become extinct on Cuba

rare birds require competent documentation. It's the way the birding world works.

Tim

And Gallagher and Harrison are making their notes available as appropriate.
 

Stgcm

New member
Actually Tim that's incorrect. You said the IUCN list the IBWO as extinct as use this link which isn't a link to the IUCN whatsoever:

"The IUCN (compile Red Data Books) website still has it as EXTINCT but i think this is from the second Red Data Book and so hasn't got the recent reclassification http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html...orywoo.htm~main"

Here is the proper link to the actual IUCN RedList, published in 2004. http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=3712 And the following quote, is listed:

“This species has not been recorded with certainty since 1987, despite many searches, and it is likely to have declined severely as a result of habitat degradation and destruction. However, it may well remain extant, and further surveys are needed in south-east Cuba. Any remaining population is likely to be tiny, and for these reasons it is treated as Critically Endangered. “

What is interesting about the IUC Redlist is that if you go to this link http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/info_sources_quality you find that IUCN Redlist doesn’t do any of their own work with regards to birds. Note:

“All the bird assessments are provided by BirdLife International and its partners, and these assessments reflect the contents of Threatened Birds of the World 2004 (a BirdLife International publication). “

So I looked into BirdLife International. I hadn’t realized BirdLife International was a UK-based organization. http://www.birdlife.org/contact.html

Although it took a little work, I discovered their partner in the U.S. is the Audubon Society. http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/national/usa/index.html The Audubon Society then has a link to IBWO here: http://www.audubon.org/bird/ivory/ivory.php

It seems that the IBWO assessment of Audubon (BirdLife’s American partner) generally (although not exactly) matches with Birdlife’s printed assessment. Both organizations list the IBWO as extant. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=719&m=0

The Audubon link here explicitly uses the word “confirmed” http://www.audubon.org/bird/ivory/challenges.php

But here’s where it gets confusing. Why the contradiction between the IUCN Redlist description of the IBWO and BirdLife International’s own description of the IBWO, when it is BI that does the IUCN Redlist’s bird assessments? Perhaps the IUCN Redlist description is dated since it has NO MENTION of the Arkansas sightings. It was also published in 2004, which implies it may have relied on pre-2004 data before it went to print. Regardless, a contradiction exists. Also the link offered by Mr. Allwood purporting to be from the IUCN Redlist was completely incorrect.

Further, the compilers and evaluators for Birdlife’s IBWO factsheet don’t appear to be associated with the Audubon Society but rather UK-based BirdLife. That seems a bit strange considering that the IBWO is a U.S. and Cuban based species and Audubon has been intimately involved with the rediscovery process. As an aside, one would think that BirdLife would defer to the expertise and assessment of their U.S. based partner (Audubon) and also employ Audubon experts as their evaluators/compliers, but apparently not. Perhaps a vestige of old-style British colonialism, lol!

Despite all of this, it it clear that Birdlife International, the Audubon Society and the IUCN Redlist all currently list the IBWO as extant.


Dave
 
The second line of the link i posted http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html...species/data/species_sheets/ivorywoo.htm~main (WCMC) says

IUCN STATUS CATEGORY Extinct

I suggest people visit the link themselves

I have also posted all the relevant Red Data Info posted by Dave above very recently

I get crucified for 'reposting' things so be careful

I should apologise though for getting my acronyms wrong. It was the WCMC website that lists the IUCN Extinct category, complied by BirdLife (ICBP as was) as the IUCN Red Data Books, and not an IUCN website, details from which i posted earlier.
 
Last edited:

timeshadowed

Time is a Shadow
Edited to add that I just read Tim's Correction posts.



Tim Allwood said:
The second line of the link i posted http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html...species/data/species_sheets/ivorywoo.htm~main (WCMC) says

IUCN STATUS CATEGORY Extinct

I suggest people visit the link themselves

I have also posted all the relevant Red Data Info posted by Dave above very recently

I get crucified for 'reposting' things so be careful


Ah, but didn't Stgcm (Dave) say that:

Stgcm said:
Actually Tim that's incorrect. You said the IUCN list the IBWO as extinct {and} use this link which isn't a link to the IUCN whatsoever

I think that the real issue here is that the link that Tim provided is NOT a link to the OFFICIAL IUCN site/list, but rather a link that just supposedly QUOTES the IUCN - per Stgcm/Dave.


TimeShadowed
 
Last edited:
blimey

I'm doing my best to provide someone (Mr/Mrs Timeshadowed) who thought it was a rumour that IBWO had been declared extinct with some facts

I got ONE weblink incorrect. I have posted all the relevant info on IBWO conservation status and all i get is silly point scoring over one incorrect link.

humble apologies

regarding how BirdLife come their classifications... rest assured they will consult relevant authorities. Thy have an extensive network of contacts. Check one of the IUCN Red Data Books for example

whatever, IUCN/BirdLife/WCMC UNEP are very closely linked
 
Last edited:

Stgcm

New member
Tim Allwood said:
blimey

I'm doing my best to provide someone (Mr/Mrs Timeshadowed) who thought it was a rumour that IBWO had been declared extinct with some facts

I got ONE weblink incorrect

humble apologies

regarding how BirdLife come their classifications... rest assured they will consult relevant authorities. Thy have an extensive network of contacts. Check one of the IUCN Red Data Books for example


No need to apologize Tim; anyone can make an error. Also, FYI, since you were evidently interested in using a United Nations/WWF link, I thought I'd take the liberty of providing this forum a direct link to UNEP-WCMC site regarding the IBWO. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html...=animals&displaylanguage=ENG&Common=4827~main

If you click on "status", you'll note that their most recent printed status was dated for the year 2000. They do however also provide a link to the Redlist most up to date version of the IUCN RedList. If you follow that link, it provides a status that was updated in the year 2004.

However, as I mentioned, the IUCN RedList relies solely on Birdlife International for its bird assessments. And BirdLife International has a status report that has been updated since 2004 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=719&m=0 , so I believe it's safe to assume that the IUCN RedList hasn't been updated recently because it's such a large undertaking, just as Tim admits.

When all is said and done, I'd suggest that all we should all endeavour to ensure that links to external information are ensured to be updated links, and if we find they are in fact stale or dated, we as posters should explicitly point it out so as to avoid inadvertently misleading or confusing fellow forum readers.

Dave
 

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member
Perhaps those of you familiar with videography can explain something for me. When you look at the video and step through the frames, are these the real frames that are on the original tape? In the critical, much-debated frame of the bird on the side of the tree, the white (whatever it is) appears very suddenly. One frame it's not there, the next frame it's visible in its full glory. Of the two hypotheses: (an IBWO suddenly turns so that its still-closed wing is visible, or, alternatively, a PIWO has opened his wing so that we see the underside), I have a problem with the PIWO interpretation simply because the appearance of the wing is so sudden, i.e. I'd think we would see an intermediate step of it spreading out. I'm with Mr. Hayes on this: it'll probably never be resolved. Even if Cornell finds a full breeding colony of Ivory-bills, making the "existence" argument moot, we'll probably never resolve the Luneau video.
 

slobyn

Well-known member
Are you watching a quick time version (from the internet) or the DVD version? I am not sure, but I would imagine that the internet version is compressed and therefore may lack some frames?

Curtis Croulet said:
Perhaps those of you familiar with videography can explain something for me. When you look at the video and step through the frames, are these the real frames that are on the original tape? In the critical, much-debated frame of the bird on the side of the tree, the white (whatever it is) appears very suddenly. One frame it's not there, the next frame it's visible in its full glory. Of the two hypotheses: (an IBWO suddenly turns so that its still-closed wing is visible, or, alternatively, a PIWO has opened his wing so that we see the underside), I have a problem with the PIWO interpretation simply because the appearance of the wing is so sudden, i.e. I'd think we would see an intermediate step of it spreading out. I'm with Mr. Hayes on this: it'll probably never be resolved. Even if Cornell finds a full breeding colony of Ivory-bills, making the "existence" argument moot, we'll probably never resolve the Luneau video.
 

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member
slobyn said:
Are you watching a quick time version (from the internet) or the DVD version? I am not sure, but I would imagine that the internet version is compressed and therefore may lack some frames?

I did the step-thru on the Internet version on the Science Mag website. I have Luneau's DVD, and I'm not sure if I even can step through it, but he takes too long getting to the fly-off. I'll have to see what I can do with it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top