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

[Mike Johnston]

I'm not posting this to be controversial, or to start an argument; merely to show how mistaken IDs can happen with non-birders and thus how many IBWO reports have to be treated very carefully, especially from current 'hotspots' like Florida. Here is an initial blog post from yesterday, followed by another from today. If this person had not realised their mistake it could well have become another possible IBWO sighting.

 

[Vectis Birder]

Can I just say I would like to apologise for any daft remarks I made on this thread.

VB

 

[Andigena]

Numerous posts were deleted this morning, for the reason that they had absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or even a vaguely relevant tangent... it was spurious rubbish.

Posts are not removed for the sheer hell of it.

Talk about IBW in this thread or go somewhere else.

Andy
Admin

I do not know the "rules" of posting, but one frequent poster (Tim A.) here said some time ago that they were harassing people because they wanted them to leave the thread---the implication was that the people on this thread who were not hard-core birders did not deserve to be here. I believe this could be avoided in the future if hostile and antagonistic people were banned from posting after several warnings. Most people on the thread just wanted to share information, for which it has occasionally been very useful and interesting. More active management of the thread perhaps could have avoided its degeneration.

 

[gud]

As I suggested twice before to Chou, he should just ignore and not debate the more ridiculous negative comments - but he won't (or can't) so he has created this too! He should just post his observations and "evidence" as he can't win against a small gang of bullies trying to impress each other. Chou just doesn't get it.

As for the 'nasty agnostics', also as I suggested before, you are not debating observations in many cases, you are just being egotistical. There are more benefits to encouraging Cou, Jesse, and others than making such continuous nasty comments (with boring redundancy); but I guess you also can't get over your own ego - even to "possibly" help conservation and the IBWO.

The vast majority of people on here are just ignoring all this garbage (do not feel compelled to comment each time evidence is overstated on one side or the nasty agnostics go on a feeding frenzy for the other side) and are mainly interested in helping the cause...

 

[Mike Johnston]

I do not know the "rules" of posting, but one frequent poster (Tim A.) here said some time ago that they were harassing people because they wanted them to leave the thread---the implication was that the people on this thread who were not hard-core birders did not deserve to be here. I believe this could be avoided in the future if hostile and antagonistic people were banned from posting after several warnings. Most people on the thread just wanted to share information, for which it has occasionally been very useful and interesting. More active management of the thread perhaps could have avoided its degeneration.

I do not want an argument but I really must pick you up on this. As far as I am aware, Tim has never stated that sceptics (who I presume you mean by 'they') were 'harrassing' people to leave the thread. If you can identify such a post, then please do so.

 

[Andigena]

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.

Fang; Thanks for a refreshing adult posting. In Montana the conservation community has melded to become nearly "one" with the hunting community. Groups like Rocky Mountain Elk foundation (mostly hunters), private ranchers, hunters, Audubon society, Trout Unlimited, state government, USFWS and a host of others from diverse backgrounds work together on habitat projects to benefit both game and nongame species. Many hard-core birders and Audubon society members and staff in Montana are also hunters, even bird (grouse, pheasant, partridge, duck, goose) hunters. As a friend said, the conservation community gave up on screaming at ranchers for overgrazing awhile ago, and now we get alot more done for habitat conservation on private lands.

One of the scisms underlying the tension on this IBWO thread has been, in my view, hard-core birders vs. other people interested in the woodpecker. Some people think this is a "birding" issue, others think of it as a broader conservation issue. More tolerance for non-birder views would be welcome...

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

That is correct, but their numbers are way up now due to conservation efforts. That is the point that I wanted to make. It can be done with the IBWO, too!

OK, do you have some information on current population demographics of IBWO?

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

No, Bonsaibirder, my comment about winning was not about the existance or non-existance of the IBWO. Tim and a few others want this thread closed - for whose knows what is behind their desires. The mods deleted some of Tim's posts last night but left others that should have been deleted also. It is not fair to conclude what really went down last night with the few remaining posts.

Tim should grow-up and stop posting flame-baits in this thread!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[CornishExile]

One of the scisms underlying the tension on this IBWO thread has been, in my view, hard-core birders vs. other people interested in the woodpecker. Some people think this is a "birding" issue, others think of it as a broader conservation issue. More tolerance for non-birder views would be welcome...

You're partly right - but tolerance and understanding need to cut both ways. I'd like to see the believers accept that before credence can be given to their claims, or significant resources focused on the necessary conservation effort, they need to provide evidence of a sufficiently compelling nature to warrant that backing. Shoddy evidence; a man's word; dismissal of accepted scientific methodology; or vague promises of proof all conspire to devalue their claims and credibility.

The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (if that's what's happened) is a serious conservation issue. And as such deserves to be accorded the gravitas it deserves. Anyone making such a claim needs to do so convincingly and rigorously. Nothing less.

ce

 

[timeshadowed]

"Originally Posted by timeshadowed
That is correct, but their {ie bald eagles} numbers are way up now due to conservation efforts. That is the point that I wanted to make. It can be done with the IBWO, too!"

OK, do you have some information on current population demographics of IBWO?

No, I do not. The above statement clarified for you.

But {ie bald eagles} numbers are way up now due to conservation efforts.

 

[timeshadowed]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Were you reading the posts last night? And even if you were, you may have missed a few because some of them were deleted on the spot.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Were you reading the posts last night? And even if you were, you may have missed a few because some of them were deleted on the spot.

I read them all as they were posted (unlike some who now sit in judgement) and lets just say, you seem to have a very selective memory. I could quote you a few bits, but I won't. 'Provocation' as an excuse is starting to wear thin.

 

[MMinNY]

You write that tolerance should go both ways, but you don't express any. Your post is more of the same. Characterizing the evidence as "shoddy" is just an expression of your opinion and nothing more. It's a condescending and disrespectful statement. Two peer-reviewed journals have seen fit to publish papers on the (at least) probable survival of the IBWO. That doesn't prove anything, and I'm not making an appeal to authority, just pointing out that reasonable people may differ. Nothing in your post suggests you see it that way. You seem to think your opinion and evaluation of the evidence are right.

Mind you, this is an internet forum, not a scientific journal, so demanding that people posting here (who are often shooting from the hip) meet some abstract standard of quality borders on ludicrous. Scientific rigor went out the window a long time ago on this forum, on both sides.

Let's take Mike Collins's video, for example. I see Pileateds regularly. Nothing in the key parts of his footage (which I've seen on DVD) says Pileated to me. That, in combination with my reading of his website and my conversations with him, convinces me that he has seen and filmed at least one IBWO. You may not agree, but to imply that my evaluation of the total picture (which is actually more informed than yours) lacks rigor is an insult.

As to resources, they're being focused, pursuant to American law and policy, your evidentiary requirements notwithstanding.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am demanding tolerance and understanding, which, frankly, are totally absent from your post. You're just asking "believers" to agree with you as a precondition for granting us your understanding.

You're partly right - but tolerance and understanding need to cut both ways. I'd like to see the believers accept that before credence can be given to their claims, or significant resources focused on the necessary conservation effort, they need to provide evidence of a sufficiently compelling nature to warrant that backing. Shoddy evidence; a man's word; dismissal of accepted scientific methodology; or vague promises of proof all conspire to devalue their claims and credibility.

The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (if that's what's happened) is a serious conservation issue. And as such deserves to be accorded the gravitas it deserves. Anyone making such a claim needs to do so convincingly and rigorously. Nothing less.

ce

 

[Ilya Maclean]

You write that tolerance should go both ways, but you don't express any. Your post is more of the same. Characterizing the evidence as "shoddy" is just an expression of your opinion and nothing more. It's a condescending and disrespectful statement. Two peer-reviewed journals have seen fit to publish papers on the (at least) probable survival of the IBWO. That doesn't prove anything, and I'm not making an appeal to authority, just pointing out that reasonable people may differ. Nothing in your post suggests you see it that way. You seem to think your opinion and evaluation of the evidence are right.

Mind you, this is an internet forum, not a scientific journal, so demanding that people posting here (who are often shooting from the hip) meet some abstract standard of quality borders on ludicrous. Scientific rigor went out the window a long time ago on this forum, on both sides.

Let's take Mike Collins's video, for example. I see Pileateds regularly. Nothing in the key parts of his footage (which I've seen on DVD) says Pileated to me. That, in combination with my reading of his website and my conversations with him, convinces me that he has seen and filmed at least one IBWO. You may not agree, but to imply that my evaluation of the total picture (which is actually more informed than yours) lacks rigor is an insult.

As to resources, they're being focused, pursuant to American law and policy, your evidentiary requirements notwithstanding.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am demanding tolerance and understanding, which, frankly, are totally absent from your post. You're just asking "believers" to agree with you as a precondition for granting us your understanding.

I think CE was making a suggestion rather than a demand. Indeed I think any demands made on this forum are rather counter productive as the very use of that word is likely to instigate a retaliation rather than a reasonable debate. Just a comment (weaker than even a suggestion and certainly weaker than a demand): it would be nice if some of the other putative IBW observers followed Mike Collins’s rigour. It would be even nicer if they weren’t all sooooooo adamant about the identification of their birds.

 

[CornishExile]

You write that tolerance should go both ways, but you don't express any. Your post is more of the same. Characterizing the evidence as "shoddy" is just an expression of your opinion and nothing more. It's a condescending and disrespectful statement. Two peer-reviewed journals have seen fit to publish papers on the (at least) probable survival of the IBWO. That doesn't prove anything, and I'm not making an appeal to authority, just pointing out that reasonable people may differ. Nothing in your post suggests you see it that way. You seem to think your opinion and evaluation of the evidence are right.

Mind you, this is an internet forum, not a scientific journal, so demanding that people posting here (who are often shooting from the hip) meet some abstract standard of quality borders on ludicrous. Scientific rigor went out the window a long time ago on this forum, on both sides.

Let's take Mike Collins's video, for example. I see Pileateds regularly. Nothing in the key parts of his footage (which I've seen on DVD) says Pileated to me. That, in combination with my reading of his website and my conversations with him, convinces me that he has seen and filmed at least one IBWO. You may not agree, but to imply that my evaluation of the total picture (which is actually more informed than yours) lacks rigor is an insult.

As to resources, they're being focused, pursuant to American law and policy, your evidentiary requirements notwithstanding.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am demanding tolerance and understanding, which, frankly, are totally absent from your post. You're just asking "believers" to agree with you as a precondition for granting us your understanding.

You say you're not trying to pick a fight, but I've yet to post anything on this thread which you haven't taken issue with, despite my using language which is deliberately moderate.

Take care to read my last post again; you'll find that I expressly did not lump all the evidence presented by claimants of IBWO sightings as shoddy. The expression "shoddy evidence" formed part of a list of characteristics of claims, which I qualified by saying did nothing for the integrity of those claims.

Ilya was absolutely right - I was not so presumptuous as to demand anything. Making demands would come across as rude and aggressive. I was merely appealing for some balance from both sides of the debate, such as it is.

still cordially yours,

ce

 

[MMinNY]

Fair enough, and I apologize. I woke up this morning thinking I'd been a bit overheated in my post, and evidently, I misread yours. I agree that balance would be salutary. I hope that when new evidence is presented we can all look at it with open minds.

You say you're not trying to pick a fight, but I've yet to post anything on this thread which you haven't taken issue with, despite my using language which is deliberately moderate.

Take care to read my last post again; you'll find that I expressly did not lump all the evidence presented by claimants of IBWO sightings as shoddy. The expression "shoddy evidence" formed part of a list of characteristics of claims, which I qualified by saying did nothing for the integrity of those claims.

Ilya was absolutely right - I was not so presumptuous as to demand anything. Making demands would come across as rude and aggressive. I was merely appealing for some balance from both sides of the debate, such as it is.

still cordially yours,

ce

 

[Andigena]

- but tolerance and understanding need to cut both ways. or significant resources focused on the necessary conservation effort, they need to provide evidence of a sufficiently compelling nature to warrant that backing. The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (if that's what's happened) is a serious conservation issue. And as such deserves to be accorded the gravitas it deserves. Anyone making such a claim needs to do so convincingly and rigorously. Nothing less.
ce

Your comments are well-taken. But everyone on this thread needs to keep in mind that there are TWO ivory-billed woodpecker search/conservation efforts. One is the official effort, being conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, with an appropriate advisory committee of University experts, state biologists, etc. See: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/ They do not post to this thread, neither their evidence, nor their conclusions, nor their recommendations for habitat conservation and management and use of funds.

In the past one USFWS employee with direct knowledge of the agency's IBWO effort used to post here, giving us some interesting information. Evidently he gave up long ago. Don't blame him, but too bad.

The other IBWO conservation effort is an unofficial amateur effort initiated by motivated individuals like Mike Collins, Jesse, Choupique and others. Their evidence and conclusions have been shared with all of us here through their generosity of spirit. Their work may CONTRIBUTE to the conservation of the ivorybill and/or its habitat....but the validity of their work does not determine the decisions that society will make about conservation of southern bottomland forests. They are amateurs, trying to help the effort, and I commend them....

The mauling that they have taken (and in some cases dished out in response) is totally disproportionate to their role as amateurs. Sorry boys (and girls), but we are the "little league" here. The big time ivorybill game is going on in private USFWS and state fish and game dept. meetings which few of us have any access to......................so, lighten up.....we're doing this for fun. Get it?

 

[CornishExile]

Your comments are well-taken. But everyone on this thread needs to keep in mind that there are TWO ivory-billed woodpecker search/conservation efforts. One is the official effort, being conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, with an appropriate advisory committee of University experts, state biologists, etc. See: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/ They do not post to this thread, neither their evidence, nor their conclusions, nor their recommendations for habitat conservation and management and use of funds.

In the past one USFWS employee with direct knowledge of the agency's IBWO effort used to post here, giving us some interesting information. Evidently he gave up long ago. Don't blame him, but too bad.

The other IBWO conservation effort is an unofficial amateur effort initiated by motivated individuals like Mike Collins, Jesse, Choupique and others. Their evidence and conclusions have been shared with all of us here through their generosity of spirit. Their work may CONTRIBUTE to the conservation of the ivorybill and/or its habitat....but the validity of their work does not determine the decisions that society will make about conservation of southern bottomland forests. They are amateurs, trying to help the effort, and I commend them....

The mauling that they have taken (and in some cases dished out in response) is totally disproportionate to their role as amateurs. Sorry boys (and girls), but we are the "little league" here. The big time ivorybill game is going on in private USFWS and state fish and game dept. meetings which few of us have any access to......................so, lighten up.....we're doing this for fun. Get it?

I'm assuming my initial interpretation of your closing two word question is a cultural thing, and that question isn't meant curtly or with the emphasis I would assume it carried if someone said it to me in the UK?

So... yes, I understand there is a discrepancy between official and amateur searches. However, if I claim on BF to have seen, say, a Varied Thrush here in Shetland, my peers would expect me to provide proof of such a remarkable claim of an extralimital bird. Were my proof not to be forthcoming, or take the form of an unidentifiable orange blob, I could expect to have my claims dismissed out of hand. Now, if I were to continue to defend my claim of a Varied Thrush despite this reaction, I would expect to have my claims dismissed rather more vigorously. This really wouldn't be unreasonable.

Of course, the above analogy is for a vagrant bird, an occurence which in conservation terms is meaningless. The IBWO situation has more profound resonance and conservation implications, and so claims, even from amateur searchers, should not be expected to receive a reception any less enquiring or searching than my putative Varied Thrush.

ce

 

[MMinNY]

Perhaps a bit more patience and appreciation for the amateur efforts would be in order. It's not quite like your vagrant Varied Thrush, since the people searching are engaged in wilderness expeditions, often in very difficult country. It's evident by now that if the IBWO is extant, the challenges of photographing it are quite significant, at least until such time as a nest is located.

For these reasons, I don't think the claims should be dismissed out of hand. While, I find the totality of Mike Collins's evidence persuasive, that doesn't mean I don't want more and better evidence from him or that I can't understand why others would disagree with my assessment. Jesse is convinced he has seen and heard IBWOs; I have no way of knowing whether his claims are true or not, but I'm willing to wait and see what evidence he obtains. I'm not prepared to reject his claims just because he hasn't gotten a photo.

I would say that an open-minded attitude of waiting for more evidence is more appropriate.

I'm sorry to take issue with you again, but I really have trouble with the premise. I think this fundamental difference in approach is one reason things have gotten so heated.

So... yes, I understand there is a discrepancy between official and amateur searches. However, if I claim on BF to have seen, say, a Varied Thrush here in Shetland, my peers would expect me to provide proof of such a remarkable claim of an extralimital bird. Were my proof not to be forthcoming, or take the form of an unidentifiable orange blob, I could expect to have my claims dismissed out of hand. Now, if I were to continue to defend my claim of a Varied Thrush despite this reaction, I would expect to have my claims dismissed rather more vigorously. This really wouldn't be unreasonable.

Of course, the above analogy is for a vagrant bird, an occurence which in conservation terms is meaningless. The IBWO situation has more profound resonance and conservation implications, and so claims, even from amateur searchers, should not be expected to receive a reception any less enquiring or searching than my putative Varied Thrush.

ce

 

[Winterdune]

Now, if I were to continue to defend my claim of a Varied Thrush despite this reaction, I would expect to have my claims dismissed rather more vigorously. This really wouldn't be unreasonable.

Of course, the above analogy is for a vagrant bird, an occurence which in conservation terms is meaningless. The IBWO situation has more profound resonance and conservation implications, and so claims, even from amateur searchers, should not be expected to receive a reception any less enquiring or searching than my putative Varied Thrush.

ce

I don't quite agree with your reasoning here. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect your claim of Varied Thrush to be dismissed by the BOURC if you didn't supply very good field notes (you wouldn't need a video), but you might still have seen it and still be convinced. But as you say, it basically doesn't matter either way in this scenario.

As you also say, a claimed IBWO does matter much more, and given the chance that it exists, and the track record of vilifications and dismissals of much more convincing sightings from previous decades which, as I suggested in an earlier post, quite possibly meant that conservation efforts for the species were not implemented when they should have been, then I'd argue the opposite position to yours. Treat these sightings with optimism and investigate them. Allocate the funding which might be required SENSIBLY and on the basis of the evidence, but don't simply "reject" the observations because they are potentially mistaken, in the same way a rarities committee would reject your Varied Thrush.

Also, we on BirdForum, or groups of us, are NOT a rarities committee. Where a genuine mistake has been made we should positively and supportively make corrections, but where we just don't know (Cinclodes, Choupique, Jesse), we should encourage the observers to collect more evidence and be supportive of their efforts. No-one deserved the hounding Cinclodes got. He posted his video in good faith. And plenty of people have argued that there's something about it which doesn't feel quite right for PIWO. It's not enough to convince me, but I'd rather he was out there looking than backed in to a corner by any self-appointed "defender of environmental righteousness" on an internet message forum.

Cheers,
Sean