Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (7 Viewers)

[Bonsaibirder]

I mean everything I say, but I didn't say that second quote you attributed to me. Are you mistaken or did you just make it up?

Profuse apologies for wrongly attributing a quote from emupilot to you and vice versa. I hope you will both forgive me!

Good point - I was mistaken, despite hours of faultless Birdforum activity in the past, my great wealth of forum experience did not stop me making a simple error. Had it not been possible to produce irrefutable proof of emupilot's post, I would have sworn that you said it!

Cheers,

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Credible matters not to anyone who has actually seen the bird, and it certainly matters not to the bird in question. Bill

Use the force, Luke

 

[Tuna Slushie]

Profuse apologies for wrongly attributing a quote from emupilot to you and vice versa. I hope you will both forgive me!

Good point - I was mistaken, despite hours of faultless Birdforum activity in the past, my great wealth of forum experience did not stop me making a simple error. Had it not been possible to produce irrefutable proof of emupilot's post, I would have sworn that you said it!

Cheers,

Thank you. I've decided not to fret over it.

 

[Tuna Slushie]

I knew someone would object to last "confirmed" occurrences for all three. My point was that all 3 species/populations went extinct within a short historical period, disappearing very rapidly once their habitat was altered. I think there is consensus that some survived into the late 1980s in Cuba, but if it was the 1940s it's the same point, or even more so.

So either the Cuba sightings weren't confirmed or there really are a few IBWOs left in the US. You can't fall back on something only when it suits you.

The populations declined precipitously. Whether they went extinct is another matter.....

 

[John Mariani]

So either the Cuba sightings weren't confirmed or there really are a few IBWOs left in the US. You can't fall back on something only when it suits you.

The populations declined precipitously. Whether they went extinct is another matter.....

I think I wrongly used the word extinct, when I meant declined to the point that no poulation could be found...a less loaded distinction, perhaps. Exact date or year of the last confirmed occurrences wasn't what I was originally concerned with...it was the short historical period within which all 3 of these closely related campephilus disappeared, which I think points to them not being very adaptable to changes in their habitat.

 

[John Mariani]

Hunters have alot of field experience, actually, as they need to identify ducks before they shoot them. They also spend lots of time in the field quietly observing the wildlife around them.

Yes, they spend a lot of time paying attention to the wildlife they hunt. I don't mean to knock hunters because I think they greatly benefit conservation and are mostly good folks, but they aren't out there to identify birds and non-game species, they are out there to hunt game. Maybe there are many great duck hunters who always know what they are shooting before they shoot, but having seen what hunters have mistaken for ducks - and also piles of Ruddys and other not-so-tasty ducks shot in error and left piled at parking areas, etc., I can tell you that they don't always identify species correctly, and many "study nature" only as it regards their sport. Plenty of hunters that I've talked to over the years don't know the common names of the duck species they hunt, from which I infer they've never been curious enough to crack a field guide - instead they use hunting jargon (sprig, greenheads, etc.). So when all I know about someone is that he hunts turkey, I don't immediately assume that he is knowledgeable about woodpeckers, warblers, skinks, or anything else in the woods.

I'm getting a serious case of deja vu with this discussion, but it's probably easier to do it over than look it up. Most of them are birders, the Cornell team and Hicks being probably the most experienced. Cornell hasn't shown us field notes, but their 7 sightings page describes observations by LaBranche, Driscoll, and Taylor (at least) with more than one distinctive field mark of Ivory-bill. Hicks has had three sightings with multiple field marks.

Hicks has led birding tours and is by all acounts a very experienced birder. About the other people you mention I know nothing by reputation. There were people involved in the Arkansas search that I do know by reputation, but oddly they didn't log sightings. Again, being a graduate student or professor of ornithology doesn't mean you have much field experience. I've met graduate students in ornithology who specialized in raptors but couldn't identify common passerines without hitting the books.

All it takes is one sighting being real to collapse the extinction theory. Again disregarding your strawman of people who don't know what is and is not a Pileated, what do you think the chances are that a highly experienced birder could follow both double-knocks and "kents", find a bird with all the field marks of an Ivory-bill, and yet be mistaken about its identity?

You hear a series of double knocks or kents and follow them to a bird that has all the field marks of an IBWO, and get a good enough look to see all the field marks with certainty. Who has done that? Only Hicks comes to mind, and his view was described as momentary, compounded with equipment problems.

Like Gallagher and Harrison did after Sparling saw one? Funny how TRE, Mike Collins, Cornell's group, and the Auburn group found birds in the same area as their original sighting...

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu too. been over all this before - Gallagher and Harrison's BRIEF fly-by look at one followed Sparling's sighting which he originally expressed uncertainty about? Sparling who is always referred to as a kayaker, not a birdwatcher? Who later became more certain of his sighting as the importance of the find became more evident? I just don't find the records very impressive. All the others you mention claim brief views and proof from bad videos. So poor fleeting views beget more poor fleeting views - not quite what I meant by being able to go in and refind the birds. I meant refind them the way birders have always been able to find a bird when it is present.

Several seconds is hardly a "brief glimpse". You'd have to be a really bad birder to make an "error" about seeing a perched bird at eye level and close range with all the field marks of an Ivory-bill, and there is no indication that Hicks is anything but an excellent birder.

Where did you get "several seconds" from, and how many is several? Is it two or three? Everything I've read about that sighting indicated it was a just a couple of seconds in duration - as soon as he saw the bird it took flight. During that couple of seconds Hicks was also trying to photograph it with a non-focusing digital camera. And it was raining. Two to three seconds in the rain struggling with a camera, so how did he see it? Bare eyes or binoculars? Not exactly what I would call a good chance to study a bird closely or well.

 

[Big Phil]

Credible matters not to anyone who has actually seen the bird, and it certainly matters not to the bird in question. Bill

Have you come up with a credible looking model yet?.

 

[MMinNY]

TRE's first view was by no means "poor" or "fleeting." He was able to call someone on a cell phone and describe the birds as he watched them. The sighting, from a distance of 35 yards, included "several double taps," and lasted for 6 1/2 minutes with one bird. A second flew in and both flew off. He didn't note the bill color but described the bill as "bigger and more pronounced" than a Pileated's. He didn't document it in a manner that would be accepted by a records committee, but then he didn't know to do that, so there's room for someone to claim what he saw was a leucistic PIWO, despite the double taps and larger bill, but the sighting itself was not poor at all. I wouldn't characterize his second sighting, which took place less than half a mile from the first, as "poor" or "fleeting" either. He reports having watched the bird as it flew for "about 200 yards."

Please be more attentive to the facts when posting.

All the others you mention claim brief views and proof from bad videos. So poor fleeting views beget more poor fleeting views - not quite what I meant by being able to go in and refind the birds. I meant refind them the way birders have always been able to find a bird when it is present.

 

[humminbird]

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu too. been over all this before - Gallagher and Harrison's BRIEF fly-by look at one followed Sparling's sighting which he originally expressed uncertainty about? Sparling who is always referred to as a kayaker, not a birdwatcher? Who later became more certain of his sighting as the importance of the find became more evident? I just don't find the records very impressive. All the others you mention claim brief views and proof from bad videos. So poor fleeting views beget more poor fleeting views - not quite what I meant by being able to go in and refind the birds. I meant refind them the way birders have always been able to find a bird when it is present.

Have you had opportunity to visit with Sparling at any of the programs he has done in the Houston area? This is not how he would describe himself at all (another of the many criticisms I have had of Gallagher's book). He describes himself as an experienced birdwatcher. He says he knew what he saw immediately and was hesitant to post it to any birding forums because he knew the criticism he would bring.

And I have often attended at locations where rare birds are reported and spent several hours (in one case even going back multiple days) before having to settle for a brief (2-3 second) look at the bird as it flew in. Does that mean that all those birds (Costa's Hummingbird in Rockport Texas, Green-breasted Mango in the Rio Grande Valley, Crimson-collared Grosbeak in the Rio Grande Valley, White-throated Robin also in the Valley, Buff-breasted Flycatcher in the Davis Mountains) were not there because I could not get a good look at them (neither did anyone else there those days, but we were happy with what we saw). By the way, in the case of the Costa's my photos are Luneau quality. The Grosbeak is even worse. The others I was unable to get my camera on! Amazing. Guess I didn't see them after all!

A BRIEF flyby that they were able to get to shore and follow briefly on foot????

 

[timeshadowed]

He didn't document it in a manner that would be accepted by a records committee, but then he didn't know to do that. . .Please be more attentive to the facts when posting.

Thank you MMinNY, that is exactly what I've been trying to point out. Birding has a 'learning curve' and most new reports of IBWO sightings are coming from those who have not even heard of 'the proper way to take field notes!' That does not mean that their view of the bird was poor! Nor does it mean that they are unable to tell the difference between a PIWO and the IBWO. To discount these sightings just because the 'notes' don't get an 'A' grade mark is not using good judgement in my opinion.

 

[tmguy]

Have you had opportunity to visit with Sparling at any of the programs he has done in the Houston area? This is not how he would describe himself at all (another of the many criticisms I have had of Gallagher's book). He describes himself as an experienced birdwatcher. He says he knew what he saw immediately and was hesitant to post it to any birding forums because he knew the criticism he would bring.

And I have often attended at locations where rare birds are reported and spent several hours (in one case even going back multiple days) before having to settle for a brief (2-3 second) look at the bird as it flew in. Does that mean that all those birds (Costa's Hummingbird in Rockport Texas, Green-breasted Mango in the Rio Grande Valley, Crimson-collared Grosbeak in the Rio Grande Valley, White-throated Robin also in the Valley, Buff-breasted Flycatcher in the Davis Mountains) were not there because I could not get a good look at them (neither did anyone else there those days, but we were happy with what we saw). By the way, in the case of the Costa's my photos are Luneau quality. The Grosbeak is even worse. The others I was unable to get my camera on! Amazing. Guess I didn't see them after all!

A BRIEF flyby that they were able to get to shore and follow briefly on foot????

It is common knowledge that he (Sparling) had been looking for this bird prior to the sighting. Bill

 

[Ilya Maclean]

And I have often attended at locations where rare birds are reported and spent several hours (in one case even going back multiple days) before having to settle for a brief (2-3 second) look at the bird as it flew in. Does that mean that all those birds (Costa's Hummingbird in Rockport Texas, Green-breasted Mango in the Rio Grande Valley, Crimson-collared Grosbeak in the Rio Grande Valley, White-throated Robin also in the Valley, Buff-breasted Flycatcher in the Davis Mountains) were not there because I could not get a good look at them (neither did anyone else there those days, but we were happy with what we saw). By the way, in the case of the Costa's my photos are Luneau quality. The Grosbeak is even worse. The others I was unable to get my camera on! Amazing. Guess I didn't see them after all!

A BRIEF flyby that they were able to get to shore and follow briefly on foot????

Personally I'd actually be very reluctant to claim a rare bird on a brief view, even one that was found by others and known to be in the general area. I recall a time a few years ago I almost claimed a red-breasted flycatcher reported by someone else, but eventually got better views of the bird I'd seen and it turned out to be an aberrant pied flycatcher. That isn't really my point though. There are several other flaws in your argument. Firstly, you are not trying to convince other people who don't know you that your sightings are valid. Secondly, your views were (probably) of birds that others had seen well enough to ID with certainty.

All this leads me, albeit in a rather circular route to my main point. It is all about how extraordinary ones claim is. Sceptics have repeatedly drawn parallels with Bigfoot and aliens. The believers have been quick do point out why such analogies are not relevant. I think there are some relevancies and some irrelevancies. The irrelevancy is that the existence of Bigfoot and aliens on earth is far less likely that the persistence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Ironically, this irrelevancy backs up the relevancy. The relevancy is that there are a great number of people who claim or think they see things that they almost certainly haven’t. That’s why I’m sceptical until evidence is produced. Carl Sagan's quote was partially just a glib soundbyte, but there is a lot of truth in it. The strength of evidence should by directly proportional to how extraordinary the claim is. If I told people I'd seen a wood pigeon today or that I'm wearing grey socks, most people would take my word for it. If I told people I'd seen a 138 foot long reptile swimming around a Scottish Loch I'd expect a fair number of people to disbelieve me until I produced sufficient evidence. I’m not asking people to present evidence of sufficient strength to prove an alien or Bigfoot, but so far and however you look at it the public evidence falls short of even a basic description that would be required to satisfy a county rarities committee in this country. TRE’s sketches etc are good, but not good enough. Whether you think so or not, the indisputable rediscovery of the Ivory-billed woodpecker would be perceived by most people as extraordinary. The original claim made it into one of the most prestigious scientific journals around and made headline news around the world.

Edit: just a quick footnote in response to Timeshadowed's post. Just because I as a sceptic, don’t think TRE’s evidence is good enough, doesn’t mean I’m stating he’s definitely wrong. I’m just saying the case is unproven. I’m sure this point has been made umpteen times before, but just because something isn’t black doesn’t mean its white! You can argue all you want about where the onus of proof should lie, but firstly as you can’t prove a negative there’s no point in doing so and secondly, real conservation requires real birds.

 

[tmguy]

Have you come up with a credible looking model yet?.

Not yet, but I can go see the birds any time I wish while you play on "the deen" and watch ruggers and get drunk. It seems the closer one is to a third world country the more rude and uncivili"s"ed one gets. You need to do better on your insult next time scotty. Bill

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Not yet, but I can go see the birds any time I wish while you play on "the deen" and watch ruggers and get drunk. It seems the closer one is to a third world country the more rude and uncivili"s"ed one gets. You need to do better on your insult next time scotty. Bill

I never realised America was so close to being a third world country! Although I suppose, interpreting your post literally, one would have to argue as to the relative state of development in Mexico and England

 

[humminbird]

Personally I'd actually be very reluctant to claim a rare bird on a brief view, even one that was found by others and known to be in the general area. I recall a time a few years ago I almost claimed a red-breasted flycatcher reported by someone else, but eventually got better views of the bird I'd seen and it turned out to be an aberrant pied flycatcher. That isn't really my point though. There are several other flaws in your argument. Firstly, you are not trying to convince other people who don't know you that your sightings are valid. Secondly, your views were (probably) of birds that others had seen well enough to ID with certainty.

This is not worth arguing over. The problem is that the sightings are not replicable but when the sightings are replicated the problem is they were too brief but when drawings are presented and examples of more lengthy sightings than many accepted records the problem is .......

As I say, some people will not be satisfied until we have a fresh carcass in our hands again!

 

[Ilya Maclean]

This is not worth arguing over. The problem is that the sightings are not replicable but when the sightings are replicated the problem is they were too brief but when drawings are presented and examples of more lengthy sightings than many accepted records the problem is .......

......the drawings do not rule out aberrant PIWO and concentrate predominantly on obvious field markings listed in field guides and the accounts of "lengthy sightings" are second or third hand and unaccompanied by field notes.

As I say, some people will not be satisfied until we have a fresh carcass in our hands again!

Series of photos, a video (more than a few pixels), feathers or faecal sample for DNA, Sibley's redundancy.....why the bloody carcass?

 

[Big Phil]

Not yet, but I can go see the birds any time I wish while you play on "the deen" and watch ruggers and get drunk. It seems the closer one is to a third world country the more rude and uncivili"s"ed one gets. You need to do better on your insult next time scotty. Bill

Blimey!. A racialist!. |8.|.

You have to admit the last one was bit wooden looking, tho?. I think you need to go easy with the sander next time!.

 

[tmguy]

Blimey!. A racialist!. |8.|.

You have to admit the last one was bit wooden looking, tho?. I think you need to go easy with the sander next time!.

Big word,,but seriously, Brits seem to be so intellectual, I have been a big fan of your society and even spent two years there which I loved. Why is it so easy for you to be so crass and insulting, is it because of a jealousy issue? Perhaps maybe a bit of superiority complexes? I didn't find the British people to be that way at all in person, I found them charming, brilliant in most respects, but it seems so different here on line, perhaps the anonymity makes it easier to be hurtful. Or maybe the times have changed.

 

[John Mariani]

Thank you MMinNY, that is exactly what I've been trying to point out. Birding has a 'learning curve' and most new reports of IBWO sightings are coming from those who have not even heard of 'the proper way to take field notes!' That does not mean that their view of the bird was poor! Nor does it mean that they are unable to tell the difference between a PIWO and the IBWO. To discount these sightings just because the 'notes' don't get an 'A' grade mark is not using good judgement in my opinion.

Yes, birding has a learning curve. It isn't wise to compeletely discount sightings from people at the lower end of that learning curve, but at least admit that there is more room for error there. It does matter whether the person who makes the sighting has comparitive experience with the species involved and experience with identifying and documenting birds. It goes to credibility.

Anyone can walk out of the woods tomorrow and claim they saw an IBWO. They can talk with an expert or look at illustrations and convince themselves that they saw one. Then they can draw a picture of what they saw after talking to an expert or looking at the pictures. But until other people can go where they went, find the bird and document it, it's just another story.

 

[humminbird]

......the drawings do not rule out aberrant PIWO and concentrate predominantly on obvious field markings listed in field guides and the accounts of "lengthy sightings" are second or third hand and unaccompanied by field notes.



Series of photos, a video (more than a few pixels), feathers or faecal sample for DNA, Sibley's redundancy.....why the bloody carcass?

Read the accounts. Very few lasted less than the 2 - 3 seconds most people find sufficient to say "I saw it".

As to the last paragraph - every one has been done in the last 60 years with the exception of DNA to my knowledge - all have been deemed insufficient.