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

[DEREK CHARLES]

Well said Andy.

Derek

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I don't want this thread to be closed down - I want to see some substantial evidence for the existence of a magnificant bird - after 8403 posts, I am still waiting.

 

[MMinNY]

Nor do I, but in the wake of all the vituperation, including the apparent recent fireworks, it seems less likely that anyone will be posting that evidence here. That's too bad.

I don't want this thread to be closed down - I want to see some substantial evidence for the existence of a magnificant bird - after 8403 posts, I am still waiting.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

You may be right MMinNY but it would be hard to have less evidence than we have been given so far.

Nor do I, but in the wake of all the vituperation, including the apparent recent fireworks, it seems less likely that anyone will be posting that evidence here. That's too bad.

 

[choupique1]

Tim and myself are probably most responsible for Choupique leaving. The mods deleted most of Tim's and Choups and my posts so I guess you could be forgiven for not appreciating the level of idiocy that resulted in our mostly entirely accurate, albeit inflammatory remarks. I guess they will delete this one too for making reference to Choupique posts, but you’ll probably have time to read it as I notice you are online. In every one of those posts both Tim and I were responding to comments that him, I and most forwarded thinking people find downright insulting and degrading. It wasn't directed at us specifically, we're thicked skined enough to cope with that, but I would hope the majority of people reading these threads would nevertheless find them insulting. I can assure you that my antagonistic behaviour is in no way driven by jealousy. Purely by the idiotic views of others.

correct without reading all the threads one has no clear picture including my comments - which were entirely a responce to as you say idiocy.

healthy intelligent debate is one thing - insulting and condescending remarks..... are a completely different matter -

and clearly you guys are most comfortable with the condescending and insulting part - henceforth - my evacuation.

 

[MMinNY]

Well, Mike Collins is apparently gone, and (say what you will) he put his evidence right out front. And he got attacked quite mercilessly for it. Leaving aside the question of whether dredging up an old fight was relevant, resorting to playground taunts is not a way to encourage posting and/or debating of evidence.

Choupique and I are poles apart politically, but I have every reason to believe he knows what he's talking about. He was implying that he would have something early next year, and that seems to be another one gone.

Steve Sheridan hasn't posted in a long time either, and he's been out there working.

The references to bigfoot and UFOS, etc. are a kind of code for denying the reasonableness of the "believers'" position and, thus, are a form of bullying. I'm willing to allow that reasonable people can differ about the evidence. I'd like the same respect from the "skeptics." Without that acknowledgement, it's not an argument or a debate; it's just a shouting match, an exchange of insults. I've fallen into that trap a time or two myself, but I'd like to think there's a way to continue the discussion in a more respectful tone.

You may be right MMinNY but it would be hard to have less evidence than we have been given so far.

 

[timeshadowed]

healthy intelligent debate is one thing - insulting and condescending remarks..... are a completely different matter -

I see this quite often with those who have a hard time admitting that they have made a mistake, they tend to attack the messenger rather than just the message.

The best way to 'get back' is to post that picture that no one can say is anything but an IBWO! Leaving this thread is not the answer.

 

[Mike Johnston]

I see this quite often with those who have a hard time admitting that they have made a mistake, they tend to attack the messenger rather than just the message.

A mistake regarding what exactly?

 

[timeshadowed]

A mistake regarding what exactly?

Just an observation about basic personality traits mostly.

edited to add:

This observation is not limited to interaction on the internet. I see this trait all too often in 'real life' situations, too.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Just an observation about basic personality traits mostly.

edited to add:

This observation is not limited to interaction on the internet. I see this trait all too often in 'real life' situations, too.

And you introduced it here because...?

 

[Winterdune]

Well, Mike Collins is apparently gone, and (say what you will) he put his evidence right out front. And he got attacked quite mercilessly for it. Leaving aside the question of whether dredging up an old fight was relevant, resorting to playground taunts is not a way to encourage posting and/or debating of evidence.

Choupique and I are poles apart politically, but I have every reason to believe he knows what he's talking about. He was implying that he would have something early next year, and that seems to be another one gone.

Steve Sheridan hasn't posted in a long time either, and he's been out there working.

The references to bigfoot and UFOS, etc. are a kind of code for denying the reasonableness of the "believers'" position and, thus, are a form of bullying. I'm willing to allow that reasonable people can differ about the evidence. I'd like the same respect from the "skeptics." Without that acknowledgement, it's not an argument or a debate; it's just a shouting match, an exchange of insults. I've fallen into that trap a time or two myself, but I'd like to think there's a way to continue the discussion in a more respectful tone.

Well said. I cannot believe how tawdry and juvenile the name calling jibes have been, and Tim's "trusty sword of environmental truth" rejoinder when he gets attacked for it has been, frankly, laughable too.

Now I am definitely a skeptic, but have the sense to see that those at Cornell involved in the response to the claimed Bayou de View sighting were proper, serious ornithologists and birders. They were clearly aware of the probable ridicule they would be in for (the same ridicule that all claims of this species have attracted since the demise of the Singer Tract) and the impact this might have on their professional lives. They chose to go ahead not because of their EVIDENCE but because of the sightings made by their team in the year subsequent to Sparling's claim. The ridicule they were likely to face has, on maybe two occasions in the past, PROBABLY prevented confirmation of the bird's existence, and therfore action to protect the species.

So I'm not fond of ridicule. I'm not convince the bird is extant, but I certainly feel extremely uncomfortable when those, who in other areas of their lives are undeniably fighting for conservation, start to shout play-ground insults at those who are looking for it.

I find Choupique's style annoying. I found Cinclodes contributions (after much bullying and baiting) dogmatic and arrogant. But I don't want to not know what they are doing, because I don't know whether the bird is definitely gone yet. Nobody does.

Birders, conservationists and even some hunters, share much common ground, even if their politics might be miles apart, and when someone is looking hard for a species which, according to a small number of decent ornithologists, might still survive, they do NOT deseve to be attacked for it, especially in such a childish manner.

So to the more gobby skeptics: whether or not you accept it, when you attack like this you cannot be sure that you are not contributing towards a repetition of a conservation mistake probably made already with this species. Get over it! Be mature! Encourage people like Cinclodes to keep looking, encourage protection of the bottomland swamps, and keep the playground jibes away. Anyone involved in conservation at any level should always encourage others to be the same. Don't you agree?

Sean

PS. Of course, come May of next year, if there's no photo, then I'll be down in the gutter slinging the mud with you!

 

[timeshadowed]

And you introduced it here because...?

Huh? Read the comments up-thread.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Huh? Read the comments up-thread.

You posted implying that the 'sceptics' here cannot admit they have made a mistake. I am simply asking you to explain what mistake they have supposedly made.

 

[gws]

Good post in #8412, Sean.

I hope some will read it and take it to heart.


p.s. Except for your postscript part, but I think there will be something by May.

 

[Xenospiza]

Good post in #8412, Sean.

I hope some will read it and take it to heart.

Almost totally agree: I hope *all* will.

 

[timeshadowed]

You posted implying that the 'sceptics' here cannot admit they have made a mistake. I am simply asking you to explain what mistake they have supposedly made.

No, I did not.

 

[Mike Johnston]

No, I did not.

Forgive me. Then who and what was this referring to:

I see this quite often with those who have a hard time admitting that they have made a mistake, they tend to attack the messenger rather than just the message.

The best way to 'get back' is to post that picture that no one can say is anything but an IBWO! Leaving this thread is not the answer.

Huh? Read the comments up-thread.

 

[DEREK CHARLES]

Look lads give it a rest, see Andy Brights post earlier.

 

[fangsheath]

Since the topic drift seems to have originated with the discussion of ivory-bills on private land, let me try to clarify. In the 1970's there was a movement to create a national park in the Atchafalaya Basin. This movement was led by very well-meaning, passionate people who largely took a particular view of conservation that was, among other things, anti-hunting. Much of the land in the Basin at that time was hunting clubs. The move failed. Much forest in the Basin was lost to the bulldozer. But - Much of the hunting club land remained forested.

Today there are WMA's and NWR's in the Basin. Where are they primarily located? You guessed it - on what used to be hunting club leases. Those hunting clubs saved large areas of forest and continue to do so, while nearby areas have fallen to the bulldozer. Large areas remain private, but in many cases, the government has managed to negotiate management arrangements with the landowners. The Louisiana black bear program, for example, has long been noted as a shining example of cooperation between government agencies and private landowners. Did you notice an important word in that sentence? COOPERATION. Neither the state nor federal governments did this by bullying landowners. The caricatures of politics do not comport with what is actually happening on the ground. Serious conservationists know when to drop the BS and do what will work as opposed to what their particular ideology dictates.

Every region has its own dynamic and different approaches work in different situations. In La., federal and state governments have quietly acquired land and continue to do so. New NWR's, such as Bayou Teche NWR, have been created. Hunters and fishermen continue to have access to these lands. Cooperation with private landowners keeps much forest out of the hands of developers and in forest. That is what works. The ivory-bill is not going to be saved by uninformed politicking or ideological warfare. Those who care about the bird come from many ideological camps. Actual progress in conservation requires compromise and a focus on hard realities, not caricatures.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

what did I miss? what did I miss? Damn, go away for a few hours (I'm building barn owl boxes today), and posts are deleted, people leave this list....damn. And I missed it. Is there a place we can put the deleted posts? Sort of a hall of shame.

Cooperation works great if the species doesn't need extraordinary measures and the measures it does need are not in conflict with economics. It doesn't ALWAYS work however. In my opinion this administration is spending more effort and money on cooperative efforts and not enough on listing. Gunnison's Sage Grouse...scientifically should have been listed...Bush appointee (non-scientist) rejects it. That's just WRONG.

Bye now. gonna make a Great-crested flycatcher box. I love my days away from the office!