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

[Merlin]

Well said Gomphus!!!!!!
Merlin

This thread is sad, really sad. 30 years of birding and it makes me embarrassed to be a birder. Why such sniping and name calling, can we not get along nicely? Its a bad advert for the hobby otherwise.
Please treat members of the public who are not birders better, some (not all) seemed to tell an excited and enthusiastic guy who seems to have had a very interesting sighting, we are not interested, you are wrong, theres no evidence, so you didn't see it, its extinct! This could be seen as insulting. May not be intended, but it can read that way. People (including birders) are easily put off reporting sightings because of this attitude, it would be sad if "the one sighting" was missed because of this attitude. Sorry if this offends any one but its just my opinion.

I also sadly think that if we are not careful the result of all this may result in someone frustrated and annoyed enough to go out with a shotgun and blow one of these magnificent birds away just to provide the vocal doubters with their evidence, and the world would be a much sadder, much poorer place for it.

I don't know if the IBWO exists, I don't feel that I am in a position to judge here in the UK, if I'd put time in searching day in day out then maybe I would be in a better position to. But I really, really hope it does, and dispite the doubters going on about no evidence etc, my heart tells that there is that golden chance that somewhere there are IBWO going about their business quietly and without fuss!

w

 

[MMinNY]

Bill Pulliam says it all. "Forget the grad students. Hire some professional photographers."

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2007/01/forget-grad-students-hire-some.html

It's really worth reading the entire update from Auburn. There's a lot of evidence, sightings, auditory encounters, many cavities, some freshly excavated.

As to the options -- the presumption's got to be in favor of 2. No evidence for 1 or 3. Circumstantial evidence supports the sighting, and Hicks appears to be entirely reputable, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Touche]

What's needed is someone like Rambo in First Blood (1982).

though with a Canon 500mm f4 image stabiliser lens, not a rifle!

Or maybe Arnie in Predator (1987).

Time magazine would have a cover shot of IBWO within a week!

On a serious note, I'd rather use my old battered Nikon 600mm manual focus lens for the mission - always managed to get something with that unlike my super Canon gear which always has the 'wrong' autofocus sensor selected...

A picture from the Florida panhandle is surely just around the corner?

 

[Mike Johnston]

I see Tyler Hicks had Dr Greg Lewbart helping him that day. I presume this is the same Greg Lewbart, a fish vet, who wrote a novel in the 90s about a hero finding IBWOs in Florida. It included an IBWO tracking down the bad guy and spearing him in the brain through the eye! A sample -

“…the thick sharp bill of the male ivory-bill penetrated Cutter’s exposed right eye before he even had a chance to blink. The bird’s momentum drove its bill easily through the man’s right gelatinous globe before tunneling past the thick optic nerve on its way to the vulnerable gray matter of Cutter’s brain. With its face neatly buried in Cutter’s eye socket, the powerful bird planted both feet on the man’s face, gripped tightly, and used it legs as leverage in order to extract its blood tinged bill from Cutter’s cranium.”


Watch your backs (and eyes!) sceptics!

 

[MMinNY]

Sounds like fun, in a kinda Carl Hiaasenish way. . .

Here's the amazon.com link:

http://www.amazon.com/Ivory-Hunters...ef=sr_1_6/002-1477977-1147268?ie=UTF8&s=books

Must be the same guy.

I see Tyler Hicks had Dr Greg Lewbart helping him that day. I presume this is the same Greg Lewbart, a fish vet, who wrote a novel in the 90s about a hero finding IBWOs in Florida. It included an IBWO tracking down the bad guy and spearing him in the brain through the eye! A sample -

“…the thick sharp bill of the male ivory-bill penetrated Cutter’s exposed right eye before he even had a chance to blink. The bird’s momentum drove its bill easily through the man’s right gelatinous globe before tunneling past the thick optic nerve on its way to the vulnerable gray matter of Cutter’s brain. With its face neatly buried in Cutter’s eye socket, the powerful bird planted both feet on the man’s face, gripped tightly, and used it legs as leverage in order to extract its blood tinged bill from Cutter’s cranium.”


Watch your backs (and eyes!) sceptics!

 

[CornishExile]

Oh boy, IBWO-hunter snuff fiction.

There's whole genre waiting to be written - the vicious Pink-headed Ducks that can tear the still beating heart from the unwary kayaker; the blood-crazed Rusty-throated Wren-babblers that tear a man's fingernails out as he scrabbles desperately to manually focus his expensive SLR gear...

Can't wait.

ce

 

[Isurus]

Speaking of cameras, is there any possibility they could dump a load of those motion sensitive camera traps up in the trees and leave them there for a few months?If they are finding areas of sign/cavity excavation this strikes me as something that may be workable?

This Hicks chap must (if his account is accurate) be sick to his stomach - that must be a million dollar photo gone begging even if you're able to put aside the scientific value.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Oh boy, IBWO-hunter snuff fiction.
the blood-crazed Rusty-throated Wren-babblers that tear a man's fingernails out as he scrabbles desperately to manually focus his expensive SLR gear...

Can't wait.

ce

hope not Jon... were off that way in April!!!

you really couldn't make this stuff up could you? Who said anything about people desparate to see the birds seing them?

I'm sure that pic will be along soon - if they get the hang of switching the bloody autofocus off! Set phasers to Infinity boys....

Hiaasen? I'm more of a Still Life with Woodpecker Guy...

and btw - there's still a sh*tload of cash being made by a few folks even without that photo!!!

Tim

 

[Jane Turner]

Reading about Tyler's most recent sighting I really think there are only two possible conclusions (because of his detail and notes of more than 1 field mark):

Conclusion 1: Tyler is a liar and interested only in gathering attention to himself.

Conclusion 2: An Ivory-billed Woodpecker exists in Florida.

Are there others?

No that looks about it. Lets hope its the latter.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

No evidence for 1 or 3. Circumstantial evidence supports the sighting, and Hicks appears to be entirely reputable, as far as I'm aware.

I suppose if it is OK to post unsubstantiated reports of someone being reputable, then it is OK to do the opposite. Tyler Hicks has previous ...

Sorry MMinNY, you made me do it!

 

[MMinNY]

Let the smear and innuendo campaign begin.

I didn't make you do anything.

I said Hicks is reputable as far as I know. Comes from googling him when the first Auburn paper was published. He's obviously reputable enough for Hill to trust him and stake his own career and reputation on that trust. That's quite a bit of substantiation.

If you've got some accusation to make, you might want to speak to your solicitor before you do. Or perhaps you already have. I understand that defamation law in the UK is quite favorable to plaintiffs.

I suppose if it is OK to post unsubstantiated reports of someone being reputable, then it is OK to do the opposite. Tyler Hicks has previous ...

Sorry MMinNY, you made me do it!

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Hi MMinNY,

Can you explian the legal difference between commenting positivelyabout someone based on indirect information (ie. what someone else says/writes about them; or supposition) and commenting negatively ?

Incidentally Tyler's description sounds very good - no doubt about that !

Cheers,

Let the smear and innuendo campaign begin.

I didn't make you do anything.

I said Hicks is reputable as far as I know. Comes from googling him when the first Auburn paper was published. He's obviously reputable enough for Hill to trust him and stake his own career and reputation on that trust. That's quite a bit of substantiation.

If you've got some accusation to make, you might want to speak to your solicitor before you do. Or perhaps you already have. I understand that defamation law in the UK is quite favorable to plaintiffs.

 

[MMinNY]

Complex question that, with big differences between US and UK law, since you don't have First Amendment protection over there. In the US truth is a defense; as I understand it, it's not in the UK. The intent in publishing the statement is taken into account, along with some other factors.

There are no legal implications in commenting positively about someone, whether you have personal knowledge or not. Reputation evidence can be introduced in court in some situations, both to impeach and to support witnesses; it's been a long time since I studied evidence, and I never litigated when I was in active practice, so I'm not sure of the intricacies, which may well be different over there.

An accusation or specific negative statement that is untrue, or (in the case of public figures, under American law) made with a reckless disregard for truth, is potentially defamatory both here and there. A statement of opinion is not. You might call someone a jerk, for example, and that almost certainly wouldn't be defamatory. At the same time, and depending on the circumstances, saying "I think Joe is a thief", might not get you off the hook, since that's at least arguably a way of disguising the defamatory statement. Saying "I heard he's a thief" is even more likely to be actionable. Similarly, saying "Bill told me that Joe robbed a bank" is not likely to get you off -- unless you're an American journalist, Joe is a public figure and you've made a diligent effort to research the story. Even then, if the story ran in the UK and was untrue or not demonstrably true, you might face a suit. I think that's more or less what happened with a recent book about Saudi Arabia that ran in the US but that UK publishers wouldn't touch. Not sure of the facts on that one, but you can probably look up the story.

Disclaimer, I'm not giving legal advice here. Nor do I claim particular expertise in the law of defamation. Again, it was never my area.

Hi MMinNY,

Can you explian the legal difference between commenting positivelyabout someone based on indirect information (ie. what someone else says/writes about them; or supposition) and commenting negatively ?

Incidentally Tyler's description sounds very good - no doubt about that !

Cheers,

 

[lewis20126]

I said Hicks is reputable as far as I know. Comes from googling him when the first Auburn paper was published. He's obviously reputable enough for Hill to trust him and stake his own career and reputation on that trust. That's quite a bit of substantiation.

Hi

Could you let me know your Google search phrase(s); I've just tried "Tyler Hicks" and this returns over 1,000,000 hits, most of which seem to relate to a journalist / war photographer;

Thanks, Alan

 

[Edward woodwood]

plenty of more informed comment here http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12339127&postID=116828038302809027

as someone states... Why are these idiots still searching alone?

solicitors? yawn.

Tim

 

[MMinNY]

Sorry, I don't recall. It was some time ago.

Hi

Could you let me know your Google search phrase(s); I've just tried "Tyler Hicks" and this returns over 1,000,000 hits, most of which seem to relate to a journalist / war photographer;

Thanks, Alan

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Speaking of cameras, is there any possibility they could dump a load of those motion sensitive camera traps up in the trees and leave them there for a few months?If they are finding areas of sign/cavity excavation this strikes me as something that may be workable?

The cameras are limited by one major factor -- memory size. The memory card can last a great deal of time, but at the outside maybe a week depending on how many photos you take. The motion sensitive cameras appear to not be tripped easily and the birds appear to not put off sufficient heat to trip the camera. So, the recommendation has been to set one on a 2 or 4 second delay such that the camera is taking pics every 2 seconds or 3 or 4 or what have you.

That requires the memory card to be changed out once a day or at most about once a week. Here then is a bigger rub. The larger memory cards can run over a $1,000 bucks just for one card. Multiply that by the number of cards (2 per camera being needed - one to swap out when you download the other) and $$$ become a quick reality. The camera and 2 cards can run $3500 per set up. I could use 5 of them really quickly myself. And I am in a small area. Can you imagine by the time we start talking 100 of these babies? I am sure that betweenTexas, S.C., Tenn, Ark. etc. we could use that many very easily. By the time Fl, Miss, La, are added in....

Technology also has to be able to survive in the swamp. While these cameras are pretty good it can also get pretty nasty out there. Moisture and mold can be pretty rough on electronics.

 

[John Mariani]

Reading about Tyler's most recent sighting I really think there are only two possible conclusions (because of his detail and notes of more than 1 field mark):

Conclusion 1: Tyler is a liar and interested only in gathering attention to himself.

Conclusion 2: An Ivory-billed Woodpecker exists in Florida.

Are there others?

Conclusion 3: It just might still be a mistake. The report I read was second-hand and leaves out some details. Was it observed with binoculars or without? What was the total duration of the sighting (sounds like it may have been perched for 1-2 seconds?). Was he observing during that whole time or struggling with camera? It was reportedly raining...how might that and cloud cover made observation difficult? Just questions.

 

[dacol]

Tyler L. Hicks has a web site (it looks like to be pre-IBWO though):

http://uplandsandpiper1.tripod.com/home.htm

there you will also find a biographical summary.

Dalcio

 

[Xenospiza]

Good luck with the Rusty-throated - I imagine you guys will try to get a photo of this skulking, once presumed extinct species in its dense, remote habitat? What are the chances of managing that, eh?

I'd rather see a picture of the apparently rediscovered Manipur Bush Quail – very scanty evidence. I bet they don't respond that well to playback (oh wait: there are no tapes yet!) either...