Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

[MMinNY]

This statement from the American Bird Conservancy posted on surfbirds' Arkansas Forum is relevant to the above discussion and reflects my views exactly, particularly with respect to the Jackson and Sibley papers:

http://www.surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=83&i=13173&t=13173#reply_13173

It is essential reading for anyone who's serious about conservation.

 

[drongo]

on flight searches....
one pair was supposedly seen from the air in the atch. basin... I have heard this floating not only around birding circles but also the industry that that particular aircraft works in.

i just had my first chance to view the footage.... unedited.....

while I am just a duck hunter... ... that sure looks like an IBWO.....

I'm surprised no-one has grilled choupique more on this. So I will.

When you say "that sure looks like an IBWO", do you mean "I think that's probably an IBWO" or "no one could possibly mistake that for anything other than an IBWO"?

If the video was taken from the air, it us presumably looking down on the bird, so the white trailing edge would be distinctive - no problem with confusing dorsal and ventral surfaces.

I suppose it may not be incontrovertable since people may argue that it is a leucisistic PIWO with white on the wings. However you say the sighting was of a pair, and what is the likelihood of two such birds? Of course if the resolution is good enough to make out the colour of the crests on each, then case closed...

You say the sighting was of two birds - but does the video show both?

 

[Edward woodwood]

I'd like to know where the footage was seen

regarding ABC post, I find this stretching it a bit...

The principle investigators from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and their
colleagues have been thoroughly professional in the scientific rigor with
which they have been conducting surveys, analyzing data, and presenting
results. The video evidence was presented in Science, one of the most
reputable of peer-reviewed journals. Additional analysis of historical
information and audio evidence has been thorough. The investigators'
actions have been transparent and all of this information is available to
the public. Jackson's criticisms of the work are not supported by the
available scientific evidence and editors of The Auk apparently did not
follow standard scientific review procedures.

are they serious?

Tim

 

[Goatnose]

Searching the White River Refuge

I am reading posts of you guys searching in the WRNWR and if I may. The people associated with the volunteers have begun marking the ATV trails. You can probably get information of where the newly marked areas are and they are very well marked with bright yellow paint. Heck they have even painted bright yellow arrows on the ground -> ->... I know some you searchers are rolling your eyes reading this but it is an aid and should prevent you from wondering onto private ground by mistake. Remember pink, purple, red marks on trees are private land on WRNWR although that may be different on Dagmar. Good luck!

 

[cts]

the very cool stuff... whatever it may be that occurred recently... was on a private holding.. and it was not found by a volunteer...

Sorry to wait so long to write this, but I remember one of your past posts where you asked what do all these guys (making the IBWO sightings) have in common. At the time I thought the common denominator was that they were all hunters. I did not remember an answer but could have missed it, is that the answer though? And this new person "not a volunteer", do they fit in that group? I'm not implying anything against firearms here as I own a few myself. Heres to more "cool stuff". Though it probably will never change the rusted shut minds of some.

 

[fangsheath]

I assume that many here will find this of interest, it is a recent post on the Louisiana birding listserve:

Dan/LABIRD: before you put too much stock in
Jackson's article, note that that authors of the
original Science paper (including me) have a
separate paper in press in the next Auk that
dissects virtually every point made by Jackson.
The number of factual errors in Jackson's piece
is astonishing, and we wonder why the Auk did not
do at least some basic fact-checking before
publication. Further, its "conspiracy theory"
innuendos are offensive to all who took part in
the Arkansas search.
--
Van Remsen

 

[Goatnose]

Full monty

I assume that many here will find this of interest, it is a recent post on the Louisiana birding listserve:

Dan/LABIRD: before you put too much stock in
Jackson's article, note that that authors of the
original Science paper (including me) have a
separate paper in press in the next Auk that
dissects virtually every point made by Jackson.
The number of factual errors in Jackson's piece
is astonishing, and we wonder why the Auk did not
do at least some basic fact-checking before
publication. Further, its "conspiracy theory"
innuendos are offensive to all who took part in
the Arkansas search.
--
Van Remsen

fang give us the full information that quote was in response to
"Jackson’s Auk article is a sober assessment of the situation.
>
>Dan Purrington
"
Yes I do defend Dr. Jackson consistently...said.
How let us assess. This forum gives me the courtesy of posting my name in the same paragraph as the above mentioned professionals (thanks to the forum). I am an amateur.
My privileges as an amateur allow me to post on an open forum, that is it. If I were to get a confirmed sighting of an IBWO, which is my quest, then am I allowed?
The answer to this question is only one response. Perhaps my name would be mentioned within the text of a scientific paper (not within the authors) and perhaps I may be given the opportunity to name the bird (maybe George, John, Paul or Ringo) however this opportunity is merely a courtesy that may or may not be offered by the professionals.
Where I am going with this is that no one that is a non-professional can discount what someone that has studied and is degreed in the profession or can take from them, the right to a professional opinion. As an amatuer here, I respect the authority of professionals, like Dr. Jackson, and do have my own opinion which is why I post.

 

[fangsheath]

For the sake of completeness I have copied Dan Purrington's post below. I posted Remsen's mainly for the purpose of alerting people to the fact that there will be a response to Jackson in an upcoming Auk.

Friends--

I have avoided weighing in on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker question up to this
point, primarily because two ornithologists I greatly respect (and count as
friends), Van Remsen and Ken Rosenberg, have been directly involved. Moreover,
it has not seemed advisable to offer arguments which might hinder efforts to
protect possible IBWO habitat. So please excuse these remarks.

I happen to have some unusual credentials, having talked with Tanner about the
bird in the late 60s, and having as my uncle, Brooke Meanley, whose book is
prominently referenced by Jackson in his Auk letter. I have talked to him
about the bird. Furthermore, George Lowery showed me the Instamatic photos of
the Atchafalaya bird in his office in the 70s, and we examined them under a
dissecting microscope. I have never repeated the following story, except to
friends, but Bob Newman told me that Ted O’Neill of LWF knew where the specimen
had come from that was used to stage the photo. I have no idea whether the
story had any truth to it, but that is how it came to me. In any case, as a
result of the Atchafalaya record, I persuaded the LOS, when I was president, to
choose the IBWO as its official/logo bird, and it remains so today. None of
this makes me any kind of expert on the bird, of course.

Jackson’s Auk article is a sober assessment of the situation. I think it is
better than either the Sibley article or its reply, though I must say I find
the latter somewhat more convincing. More, but not fully. It is clear that
the evidence as it exists today is simply inadequate to support a definitive
claim that that the bird survives. What is also clear, however, is that it may
well have done so, in pitifully small numbers, numbers that are likely not
sustainable. It is really appalling that so little was done from the 50s on,
as the conservation movement grew in size almost explosively, to save the IBWO,
or at least to find out if it still existed. Not a whole lot was done until
the 80s. In any case, an all-out, continuing effort has to be made to preserve
likely habitat and especially, of course, in the “Big Woods” area of SE
Arkansas. We should not be deterred by the legitimate doubts that have been
expressed; it is simply the nature of scientific statements that they have to
be able to withstand critical scrutiny. But the interest and energy generated
by the Arkansas sightings must be maintained, because, in fact, the bird may
survive there, or elsewhere.

Dan Purrington

[end of post]

I disagree with you that credentials afford you the privilege of access to scientific journals per se. If you are doing good science and your paper conforms to certain standards I see no reason why your work cannot be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and quite possibly accepted. Not necessarily to Science Magazine, of course, but many academic scientists have never published there.

As for Jackson, I defend him too. I consider him a friend of the ivory-billed woodpecker. He has expressed continued support for searches and conservation efforts, as has Sibley. But I also agree with Laura Erickson and others, who have pointed out that it was a bit hypocritical of him to attack the CLO for engaging in sound byte science while throwing out a sound byte that he must have known would be seized upon by the media. Which of course it was.

 

[MMinNY]

I was bothered by Purrington's Lowrey story, which is hearsay. While he names the parties, this is the classic "friend of a friend" model that characterizes urban legend. Though I won't deny the possibility that the story is true, I wonder if any of the parties are alive to provide further insight; I'm not sure why Purrington felt compelled to recount it now, in that particular context.

I take a dimmer of view of Jackson (in his current incarnation) than you, and I'm looking forward to reading the rebuttal.

For the sake of completeness I have copied Dan Purrington's post below. I posted Remsen's mainly for the purpose of alerting people to the fact that there will be a response to Jackson in an upcoming Auk.

Friends--

I have avoided weighing in on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker question up to this
point, primarily because two ornithologists I greatly respect (and count as
friends), Van Remsen and Ken Rosenberg, have been directly involved. Moreover,
it has not seemed advisable to offer arguments which might hinder efforts to
protect possible IBWO habitat. So please excuse these remarks.

I happen to have some unusual credentials, having talked with Tanner about the
bird in the late 60s, and having as my uncle, Brooke Meanley, whose book is
prominently referenced by Jackson in his Auk letter. I have talked to him
about the bird. Furthermore, George Lowery showed me the Instamatic photos of
the Atchafalaya bird in his office in the 70s, and we examined them under a
dissecting microscope. I have never repeated the following story, except to
friends, but Bob Newman told me that Ted O’Neill of LWF knew where the specimen
had come from that was used to stage the photo. I have no idea whether the
story had any truth to it, but that is how it came to me. In any case, as a
result of the Atchafalaya record, I persuaded the LOS, when I was president, to
choose the IBWO as its official/logo bird, and it remains so today. None of
this makes me any kind of expert on the bird, of course.

Jackson’s Auk article is a sober assessment of the situation. I think it is
better than either the Sibley article or its reply, though I must say I find
the latter somewhat more convincing. More, but not fully. It is clear that
the evidence as it exists today is simply inadequate to support a definitive
claim that that the bird survives. What is also clear, however, is that it may
well have done so, in pitifully small numbers, numbers that are likely not
sustainable. It is really appalling that so little was done from the 50s on,
as the conservation movement grew in size almost explosively, to save the IBWO,
or at least to find out if it still existed. Not a whole lot was done until
the 80s. In any case, an all-out, continuing effort has to be made to preserve
likely habitat and especially, of course, in the “Big Woods” area of SE
Arkansas. We should not be deterred by the legitimate doubts that have been
expressed; it is simply the nature of scientific statements that they have to
be able to withstand critical scrutiny. But the interest and energy generated
by the Arkansas sightings must be maintained, because, in fact, the bird may
survive there, or elsewhere.

Dan Purrington

[end of post]

I disagree with you that credentials afford you the privilege of access to scientific journals per se. If you are doing good science and your paper conforms to certain standards I see no reason why your work cannot be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and quite possibly accepted. Not necessarily to Science Magazine, of course, but many academic scientists have never published there.

As for Jackson, I defend him too. I consider him a friend of the ivory-billed woodpecker. He has expressed continued support for searches and conservation efforts, as has Sibley. But I also agree with Laura Erickson and others, who have pointed out that it was a bit hypocritical of him to attack the CLO for engaging in sound byte science while throwing out a sound byte that he must have known would be seized upon by the media. Which of course it was.

 

[timeshadowed]

This IBWO debate is not good for the bird - concludes the following article:


http://outdoors.mainetoday.com/news/060402fleming.shtml

Sunday, April 2, 2006
OUTDOORS: Deirdre Fleming

It's the ivory-billed woodpecker show:
Some fear debate saps science

Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

The ivory-billed woodpecker debate raging in academic and birding circles has morphed into an unfamiliar gathering, like a block party gone bad. The fact that two Maine birders closely connected to the Colby College community are involved in this international debate on the world-famous woodpecker, previously thought to be extinct, is beside the point to birders in Maine. . .But birders here are hopeful that the scientific discussion stays focused on the subject: the bird. "It's politics now. That clouds science. Real good science needs to occur. You see it too often in American media and politics," said Derek Lovitch, a career field biologist who co-owns the Wild Bird Center in Yarmouth.
...
Questioning science for the sake of science is always needed, Bevier said in a phone interview last week. "We didn't want to get involved with this to bash anybody. That's not the intent," Bevier said. But the debate, some birders feel, overshadows the important scientific work being done. Lovitch said the scientific discussion about the bird's existence has been lost in the sound bites of the debate, in the finger-pointing over whose method of analyzing video is accurate. . .
Walker, like Lovitch, said questioning science for the sake of science is right - and ought to be encouraged to lead to a better, more informed decision. Yet for Walker, a naturalist and careful birder, the ivory-billed woodpecker debate cuts to her emotions. . . However, Lovitch said the worst result of the much-publicized debate is the skepticism it might create among the public with any new sightings of rare species.

Conservation in the future could be halted by the little-boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome, he said. "It's just science questioning science. That's what science is supposed to do," Lovitch said. "I think it will lose its mainstream appeal. Unfortunately, (if that happens), that's a bad sign for the woodpecker." The lone point both sides agreed on, Bevier said, is that Cornell's search shows conservation is needed. "If the Endangered Species Act existed 100 years ago, this debate wouldn't occur," Bevier said. "It's important to keep this in mind... What this is showing is that people really care about endangered birds. "Worldwide, there are species at risk. In those cases, only a few thousand dollars put down to buy land can save a species. It is not trivial to spend money on the ivory-billed." Bevier said at least everyone embroiled in the debate agrees there needs to be additional searches and studies done in the Big Woods of Arkansas. "I'm hoping they'll find a bird," Bevier said. "We'll know when we know."

Copyright © 2006, Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.

 

[Andigena]

Mary Scott's website claims another reliable observer has seen an ivory-bill, but in a Mississippi valley state not listed in Bob Russells "top ten IBWO sites". There are also other clues, for example "associated with a national wildlife refuge." Looking at BillBill's habitat review, it seems that Hatchie River NWR is extreme western Tennessee (south of Memphis) is a possibility. Their website says that large pulses of sediment are killing lots of trees in the floodplain there--and they have several dozen square miles of bottomland hardwoods in area NWRs, associated with more on private land. This area is not too far from the Cache River system......but the intervening area is mostly cropland...unless you use the forest remnants along the Mississippi itself...........hmmm Any searchers out there?

 

[Blackstart]

Mary Scott's website claims another reliable observer has seen an ivory-bill, but in a Mississippi valley state not listed in Bob Russells "top ten IBWO sites". There are also other clues, for example "associated with a national wildlife refuge." Looking at BillBill's habitat review, it seems that Hatchie River NWR is extreme western Tennessee (south of Memphis) is a possibility. Their website says that large pulses of sediment are killing lots of trees in the floodplain there--and they have several dozen square miles of bottomland hardwoods in area NWRs, associated with more on private land. This area is not too far from the Cache River system......but the intervening area is mostly cropland...unless you use the forest remnants along the Mississippi itself...........hmmm Any searchers out there?

From Mary Scott's Web site:

"The 'comeback' of the Ivorybill continues! An extremely reliable observer (and government employee) has seen an ivorybill in yet another state on the Mississippi flyway! Neither the site nor the state is mentioned in Bob Russell's Top Ten ~ so get your maps out and start figuring. . . it was on a river associated with a NWR."

Why not just give the name of the person and the location of the sighting? I can predict the stock answers, but I suppose the main motivation is to prevent humiliation.

Interesting that "government employee" is included in the observer's credentials. Does this somehow make the mystery man or woman more credible?

Adam

 

[MMinNY]

The Hatchie would be my guess too.

Mary Scott's website claims another reliable observer has seen an ivory-bill, but in a Mississippi valley state not listed in Bob Russells "top ten IBWO sites". There are also other clues, for example "associated with a national wildlife refuge." Looking at BillBill's habitat review, it seems that Hatchie River NWR is extreme western Tennessee (south of Memphis) is a possibility. Their website says that large pulses of sediment are killing lots of trees in the floodplain there--and they have several dozen square miles of bottomland hardwoods in area NWRs, associated with more on private land. This area is not too far from the Cache River system......but the intervening area is mostly cropland...unless you use the forest remnants along the Mississippi itself...........hmmm Any searchers out there?

 

[MMinNY]

While I'm not a big fan of the way Mary Scott presents these rumors on her website, I have personal knowledge that some people who believe they have seen ivory-bills do not wish to come forward, not "to prevent humiliation" but to avoid being vilified and attacked, a pretty sensible concern, if you ask me.

I suspect that the identification of this person as "a government employee" is a veiled suggestion that he or she works for the Fish and Wildlife Service, either at the state or federal level, something that is at least conceivably relevant. Still, I wish Mary Scott would either be more forthcoming or hold back on posting this type of thing until she can provide more details.

From Mary Scott's Web site:

"The 'comeback' of the Ivorybill continues! An extremely reliable observer (and government employee) has seen an ivorybill in yet another state on the Mississippi flyway! Neither the site nor the state is mentioned in Bob Russell's Top Ten ~ so get your maps out and start figuring. . . it was on a river associated with a NWR."

Why not just give the name of the person and the location of the sighting? I can predict the stock answers, but I suppose the main motivation is to prevent humiliation.

Interesting that "government employee" is included in the observer's credentials. Does this somehow make the mystery man or woman more credible?

Adam

 

[humminbird]

While I'm not a big fan of the way Mary Scott presents these rumors on her website, I have personal knowledge that some people who believe they have seen ivory-bills do not wish to come forward, not "to prevent humiliation" but to avoid being vilified and attacked, a pretty sensible concern, if you ask me.

I suspect that the identification of this person as "a government employee" is a veiled suggestion that he or she works for the Fish and Wildlife Service, either at the state or federal level, something that is at least conceivably relevant. Still, I wish Mary Scott would either be more forthcoming or hold back on posting this type of thing until she can provide more details.

Makes good sense to me.

 

[choupique1]

I happen to have some unusual credentials, having talked with Tanner about the
bird in the late 60s, and having as my uncle, Brooke Meanley, whose book is
prominently referenced by Jackson in his Auk letter. I have talked to him
about the bird. Furthermore, George Lowery showed me the Instamatic photos of
the Atchafalaya bird in his office in the 70s, and we examined them under a
dissecting microscope. I have never repeated the following story, except to
friends, but Bob Newman told me that Ted O’Neill of LWF knew where the specimen
had come from that was used to stage the photo. I have no idea whether the
story had any truth to it, but that is how it came to me. In any case, as a
result of the Atchafalaya record, I persuaded the LOS, when I was president, to
choose the IBWO as its official/logo bird, and it remains so today. None of
this makes me any kind of expert on the bird, of course. to quote from dan purrington's post.....

a great deal of effort was spent trying to find the specimens that would have or could have been used to "stage" Mr. Lewis' photos... they were never found.......

 

[Andigena]

I None of

a great deal of effort was spent trying to find the specimens that would have or could have been used to "stage" Mr. Lewis' photos... they were never found.......

Has anyone ever provided either a) a plausible motive; or b) any evidence that Fieldling Lewis' photos were fakes? George Lowery was friends with Lewis, it wasn't a one time encounter....he visited the site, etc.---other credible people have apparently interviewed Lewis and find him very believable. Sounds like the rumors need more substantiation that the photos, which speak for themselves. Fieldling Lewis also wrote a book that includes some of his experiences with ivory-bills........

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Has anyone ever provided either a) a plausible motive; or b) any evidence that Fieldling Lewis' photos were fakes? George Lowery was friends with Lewis, it wasn't a one time encounter....he visited the site, etc.---other credible people have apparently interviewed Lewis and find him very believable. Sounds like the rumors need more substantiation that the photos, which speak for themselves. Fieldling Lewis also wrote a book that includes some of his experiences with ivory-bills........

The motive clearly wasn't fame or money. I suppose he could have done it (speaking hypothetically) for sheer mischief -- to watch stuffy scientists tie themselves into knots over some faked photos. If this was the motive, Lewis has done a very good job of maintaining the deception for 35 years. He has a lot of people fooled. According to Gallagher's interview, Lewis was completely unaware of the controversy caused by the photos, and he gave no evidence that he ever followed the affairs of the AOU.

 

[MMinNY]

Someone else suggested that the photos were staged as a kind of re-enactment of a real sighting. I don't buy that one either. The simplest explanation -- that the photos are genuine -- is probably the correct one; one has to go through an awful lot of contortions to arrive at a plausible hoax scenario.

I had a real problem with Purrington's posting on the story, whatever his motives, especially in the context of the entire post. It's a third hand-account, and the people who get on Mary Scott's case about posting vague rumors (and I count myself among them) ought to be equally skeptical of this one, even though Purrington names his sources. I don't know if either of those sources is alive or not, and a quick google search was fruitless. If they are alive, they should speak for themselves; if not, there's simply no way to verify this third-hand rumor or even assess its credibility.

The motive clearly wasn't fame or money. I suppose he could have done it (speaking hypothetically) for sheer mischief -- to watch stuffy scientists tie themselves into knots over some faked photos. If this was the motive, Lewis has done a very good job of maintaining the deception for 35 years. He has a lot of people fooled. According to Gallagher's interview, Lewis was completely unaware of the controversy caused by the photos, and he gave no evidence that he ever followed the affairs of the AOU.

 

[choupique1]

the person he names as being from the LWF.. i cannot find anyone in my extensive list of contacts that knows or remembers a ted oneill.... this includes 2 former directors of the LDWF...... now if he referring to the LWF... this is NOT even an official arm of the state.... so........ yeah mike.. third hand info at best.......

MR. Lewis Had nothing to gain by the photos and a lot to lose..........faking them would have been insane....