Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

[Jane Turner]

I would have thought it was worth $100 to one of the search teams!

 

[choupique1]

Did the searchers have compact binoculars?

dunno didn't ask - they were noisy though.. have also heard references to elephants on them....


but... I will say this much....

a turkey hunter started all this mess - and it looks like a turkey hunter is going to kick it up a notch or two... or finally put it to bed...

 

[humminbird]

You elitist birders. So you have to have a thousand dollar pair of binoculars to see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker? The snobbery on this list is just disgusting. blah blah blah...

(I just thought I'd get there first and save ______________ <insert intrepid IBWO searcher here> the trouble).

have to agree IBWO Agnostic. I don't think Tanner or Allen spent big dollars on their optics!

 

[Edward woodwood]

I think Mr Agnostic was being sarcastic.

Compacts?

oh dear

Tim

 

[humminbird]

I think Mr Agnostic was being sarcastic.

Compacts?

oh dear

Tim

This has got to be the most snobbish statement I have seen yet on this board. Not everyone has the best and the most current equipment, and for us to simply blow off the observation on the basis of equipment is uncalled for. Frankly, I have seen people give a better description of a bird seen with the naked eye than someone with good equipment who did not have a clue how to use it.

 

[lewis20126]

...have you ever seen a good turkey hunter in the woods?
-

Yup plenty - In Ocala Forest, Florida they wear yellow High Visibility vests so they don't shoot each other! Perhaps not so much Hi-Viz in the swamps though?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

This has got to be the most snobbish statement I have seen yet on this board. Not everyone has the best and the most current equipment, and for us to simply blow off the observation on the basis of equipment is uncalled for. Frankly, I have seen people give a better description of a bird seen with the naked eye than someone with good equipment who did not have a clue how to use it.

I think Tim can use his equipment . Or so I've been told... More than I can say for some of the IBWO searchers judgindg by recent unfortunate incidences. As for high quality descriptions the less said the better. Hmm guess it was me that was showing off what bins I have. Kind of funny the way it was interpretated given how long I birded with a set of crap bins before I got them and how I used to get annoyed by all the Robin strokers in Norfolk with their Swarovskis and Leicas. Didn't really mean it that way. Just meant most birders would go for a slightly lower quality set of non compacts than compacts particularly when birding in forests.

 

[humminbird]

I think Tim can use his equipment . Or so I've been told... More than I can say for some of the IBWO searchers judgindg by recent unfortunate incidences. As for high quality descriptions the less said the better. Hmm guess it was me that was showing off what bins I have. Kind of funny the way it was interpretated given how long I birded with a set of crap bins before I got them and how I used to get annoyed by all the Robin strokers in Norfolk with their Swarovskis and Leicas. Didn't really mean it that way. Just meant most birders would go for a slightly lower quality set of non compacts than compacts particularly when birding in forests.

I was not inferring that Tim could not use his binoculars - what I was saying is that not everyone who goes into the field has big dollar bins - and we can not discount an observation just because the bins were not what we consider the standard!

 

[Jane Turner]

Maybe - but serious birders are likely to compromise on food, clothes, personal hygiene, their partner's well-being(if they can keep one) before they compromise on their optics.

 

[Winterdune]

The problem with this speculation about what binoculars were used is that one shouldn't have to speculate. Explaining what optics you were using is a standard element in a proper description. I just hope these proper descriptions do exist somewhere, and what we have see are just second and third hand comments, and remarks to journalists.
Sean

 

[Bonsaibirder]

compacts!

I got some compacts off the back of a weetabix packet (for fun). The best way to spot an IBWO with those would have been to throw them at it and take it down!

My real bins are magnificent and resulted from most of the things that Jane mentioned - not sure about the personal hygene, you would have to ask my wife about that

 

[Jane Turner]

Well at least you managed to hold onto a partner.

 

[humminbird]

Maybe - but serious birders are likely to compromise on food, clothes, personal hygiene, their partner's well-being(if they can keep one) before they compromise on their optics.

Of course, anyone PLANNING to go LOOKING for an Ivory-billed would be sadly lacking if they did not carry a reasonable pair of bins, and YES, good field notes should have a note on optics used. Many of the reports we are getting though are NOT from people who went looking for woodpeckers, but from people who were hunting, kayaking, etc. I am not about to say the only reason their observation could not have been an Ivory-billed is because they had junk for optics.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

I knew this would degenerate into accusations of snobbery and what not. Let's go to the replay:

Another note, if you are birding with a better birder, you are even less likely to call out an ID if you are unsure, and you are less likely to disagree with the calls made by the better birder. We know that Gallagher is a more experienced birder than Harrison (note the compact binoculars around Harrison's neck in the early photos of his searching....experienced birders know that compacts are crap for birding). I'm sure Harrison would admit that he is less knowledgeable than Gallagher.

This was simply to show that Harrison is a LESS experienced birder than Gallagher. And I still think it is safe to say that the birder in the picture with the compacts
http://www.weeksbay.org/newsletter/Fall_2005/Bobby Harrison 5X7.jpg
is less experienced, less committed to getting the best view possible, and
more likely to defer to the birder with the Zeiss...that is just the way it works out there.

I was trying to find the photo of the two of them, but it seems to be only in "The Grail Bird'. Opposite p145. This was taken a year after their sighting, and Bobby still has his compact & Tim has the Zeiss. Perhaps IBWO searchers spend more on their camo than their optics....sad, really.

 

[humminbird]

I knew this would degenerate into accusations of snobbery and what not. Let's go to the replay:



This was simply to show that Harrison is a LESS experienced birder than Gallagher. And I still think it is safe to say that the birder in the picture with the compacts
http://www.weeksbay.org/newsletter/Fall_2005/Bobby Harrison 5X7.jpg
is less experienced, less committed to getting the best view possible, and
more likely to defer to the birder with the Zeiss...that is just the way it works out there.

I was trying to find the photo of the two of them, but it seems to be only in "The Grail Bird'. Opposite p145. This was taken a year after their sighting, and Bobby still has his compact & Tim has the Zeiss. Perhaps IBWO searchers spend more on their camo than their optics....sad, really.

Agreed.

 

[rdmadison]

I've never spoken to Kulivan about whether during his observation he regreted not having optics. Whatever he was watching for fifteen minutes (IB or PI), the bird was large enough for him to study.
My sense of Pileateds is that the quality of your optics would have very little to do with those first moments of your sighting while your brain is focusing on wing edges and so forth. I estimated a PIWO flying across the road in front of my car as being in "identification view" about 3/5 of a second, and another bird flying very low over my head across a wood-road as fast enough that he was already by me before I could raise a 35mm camera. I unexpectedly observed one working pileated for ten minutes at about a hundred feet, and there was no question of identification even without optics (unless you think I was ignorantly watching a young C. species in a Maryland park!).
I don't think

 

[rdmadison]

Turkey hunters anf ivory-bills

I was about to say, I don't think the question of what optics is anywhere near as important as the question of sound. My sense is that in deep woods you always see and hear more than when with a companion because it is almost always impossible for two people together to be quiet. Think about it.

A related noise question: I wonder what kind of turkey call Kulivan was using back in 1999? I would love to find out he was using a wooden box call.

 

[curunir]

I knew this would degenerate into accusations of snobbery and what not. Let's go to the replay:



This was simply to show that Harrison is a LESS experienced birder than Gallagher. And I still think it is safe to say that the birder in the picture with the compacts
http://www.weeksbay.org/newsletter/Fall_2005/Bobby Harrison 5X7.jpg
is less experienced, less committed to getting the best view possible, and
more likely to defer to the birder with the Zeiss...that is just the way it works out there.

I was trying to find the photo of the two of them, but it seems to be only in "The Grail Bird'. Opposite p145. This was taken a year after their sighting, and Bobby still has his compact & Tim has the Zeiss. Perhaps IBWO searchers spend more on their camo than their optics....sad, really.

In my experiance, you either have to be very dedicated or very rich. I've seen an older neophyte birder lend out her new Leicas to total strangers who were just at a Nature Conservancy preserve looking around. On the other hand, most folks with really good optics appear to be rather experianced birders, although I'm really not sure. I may try to get some stats by asking everyone I see with the big three (Swaro, Leica, Zeiss) what they do with them.

 

[Russ Jones]

Maybe - but serious birders are likely to compromise on food, clothes, personal hygiene, their partner's well-being(if they can keep one) before they compromise on their optics.

I call that being dirty and selfish, but thats just me B

Russ

 

[Winterdune]

In my experiance, you either have to be very dedicated or very rich. I've seen an older neophyte birder lend out her new Leicas to total strangers who were just at a Nature Conservancy preserve looking around. On the other hand, most folks with really good optics appear to be rather experianced birders, although I'm really not sure. I may try to get some stats by asking everyone I see with the big three (Swaro, Leica, Zeiss) what they do with them.

In the UK these days the cost of optics around someone's neck is absolutely NOT a reliable indicator of the experience/knowledge/expertise of the birder (unlike about 15 years ago). Swarovskis seem to be the worst culprit (which is annoying as I use them myself). Plenty of times I have begun to discuss the perennial "what's about" with a Swarovski-toting chap, only to discover he couldn't tell a Shelduck from a shoebox. No idea why this is, other than the fact that some people these days have clearly got more money than sense....

Mind you, I've NEVER seen a decent birder use anything under x30 objectives out of choice. I love my 8x20 Leicas - during the week they are always with me - but when I set off for proper birding at the weekend I leave them where they belong - in my work briefcase...

Sean