Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (9 Viewers)

[salar53]

Attention

Thanks for your posts, Emupilot. Much appreciated. They certainly caught my attention.
I find them ,dare I say it, interesting.

Here is a direct link to Guthrie's blog. Here's a snippet:



He says he'll put his field notes on the blog as soon as he figures out how to do so.

 

[John Mariani]

Same old story though:

"I had the bird in sight only for a very brief few seconds"

And not in sight through binoculars.

He says that "it took only a few wing beats to clear the area I was in." Then he describes its flight as "unhurried."

Goodness, don't they EVER perch?

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I don't see how an IBWO that flaps its wings faster than a PIWO would appear unhurried, but then I've never seen one.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

My doctor has advised me that , although my obsession with this thread is clearly not doing me any good, bottling up the fact that I have finally worked out the only plausible way in which the bizarre series of events concerning the rediscovery of IBWO could have unfolded, could only do me more harm than good.

After the initial couple of sightings, US birders flocked to the area keenly searching for, what was after all, THE bird that this obsessive and highly skilled lot now wanted to see more than anything else they had ever wanted to see in their lives.

Although the terrain was tough going and the area large, it wasn't that long before a few individuals were located and recordings of there vocalisations, as well as video footage and clearly identifiable pictures were taken. The bird is, after all, a woodpecker. It's not exactly rocket surgery to eventually find one, and indeed attract others to recordings of it's vocalisations. So great was the lure of this species that 1000's of birders made the pilgrimage to the stake out area, even birdwatchers who have never twitched before. It took some birders a few trips before they finally saw one, because woodpeckers can be pretty hard to find. But not impossible with a few keen and determined experienced birders on the case. The IBWO had no chance.

What followed next was perhaps, though perfectly understandable, the greatest feat of suppression ever encountered in the history of modern birding. And for no noble reason.

The Us birding community just couldn't handle the embarrassment of the fact that such a honkingly conspicuous great tart of a bird, that even their half-blind granny could spot and identify, had been hammering happily away undetected under their noses, in at least three states of one of the best equipped and birder-populated countries of the world, since before many of them were born even, while they had been getting to grips with (and photographing) inveterate skulkers such as Le Conte's Sparrows and Connecticut Warblers.

They were left with no option but to close ranks and cover up the whole thing. Luckily for them the US is a world leader in cyber technology, so any honest birders who attempted to get the embarassing news out to other countries, complete with decent descriptions, from guys who knew more than very well their gonydeal angles from their emarginated p6es, had their emails, videos and photos "interfered with" to the point of making the evidence appear dodgy. Some of these poor victims were made to look like they couldn't be trusted to provide a decent irrefutible description of an orange.

So. COME ON GUYS SPILL THE BEANS. It really isn't that embarrassing, and even if it is, you can let the world know where they are so we can see them. In fact you better tell the Brits or we'll fence off the Scottish Crossbills. That'll teach you...you suppressing ne'er-do-wells.

Phew. I feel better now.

 

[Bgreen]

If they are there I hope there are conclusive photos soon. Knowing the general area I don't find it impossible by any stretch of the imagination that they could be there. However something needs to go one way or another soon as this has rapidly become the butt of many jokes in my state and animosity towards the research and restrictions regarding the use of the area are growing at a rapid pace. Many feel it was a fraud and only conclusive evidence will overcome that. I hope some is found and soon.

 

[Winterdune]

And not in sight through binoculars.

He says that "it took only a few wing beats to clear the area I was in." Then he describes its flight as "unhurried."

Goodness, don't they EVER perch?

Give the bloke a chance! There is the faintest remote possibility that IBWO still exists.

After a lot of (amateurish) consideration I have concluded that the hard evidence (video and audio recordings) is totally inadequate. Nevertheless I would not want to discount out of hand a clear observation from a credible observer. If this guy is a decent birder then I don't think we should dismiss him unless he stands to make a mint out of his claim or he has a stringy reputation (or has suffered a recent blow to the head). If his reputation is strong then it makes me hopeful that there is maybe one (or maybe two) individuals out there in very large expanses of habitat.

On the evidence as it stands I don't believe the bird exists - but I want it to, and in my book observations by good birders are much better than unidentified audio recordings and unidentifiable video. His account reads as the most believeable I've heard yet. And I would have done the same as him with a camera...

Having said all that: two points: firstly, why he didn't get his bins on it? It takes "a millisecond" for a decent birder to get onto a bird in flight. But maybe he was trying to get through vegetation or something...Secondly, why has his announcement not been made in tandem with Cornell?

Sean

 

[MMinNY]

He is by all appearances a well-respected and very experienced birder. He's a Regional Membership Coordinator for the American Birding Association, among other things.

It's also worth noting this comment:

"I spent most of April down in the Bayous of Arkansas with the Cornell team, looking for the elusive IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER. I went down as a skeptic. I came back a believer."

http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/NYSB.html#1178625712

I too am puzzled about why Cornell permitted him to go public at this point.

Perhaps he'll provide more details when he's interviewed today. You can listen online between 2 and 3 pm EDT. The program will probably be archived.

http://www.wamc.org

Give the bloke a chance! There is the faintest remote possibility that IBWO still exists.

After a lot of (amateurish) consideration I have concluded that the hard evidence (video and audio recordings) is totally inadequate. Nevertheless I would not want to discount out of hand a clear observation from a credible observer. If this guy is a decent birder then I don't think we should dismiss him unless he stands to make a mint out of his claim or he has a stringy reputation (or has suffered a recent blow to the head). If his reputation is strong then it makes me hopeful that there is maybe one (or maybe two) individuals out there in very large expanses of habitat.

On the evidence as it stands I don't believe the bird exists - but I want it to, and in my book observations by good birders are much better than unidentified audio recordings and unidentifiable video. His account reads as the most believeable I've heard yet. And I would have done the same as him with a camera...

Having said all that: two points: firstly, why he didn't get his bins on it? It takes "a millisecond" for a decent birder to get onto a bird in flight. But maybe he was trying to get through vegetation or something...Secondly, why has his announcement not been made in tandem with Cornell?

Sean

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Let's please remember in all this excitement that he only saw one field mark. "very conspicuous blocks of white on the TRAILING EDGE of the wings." No matter this birder's experience. He only has one field mark. And have you noticed that when this bird is sighted, if only one field mark is seen it is always the wing. It is never the bill, never the dorsal stripes. I find that interesting.

I am not casting aspersions on this birder's sighting. I am simply reminding everyone that ONE field mark does not a definitive ID make.

 

[rdmadison]

Goodness, don't they EVER perch?

My God, John, you've solved it!

This bird is in a low altitude orbit around the earth. It's probably heliotropic, whereas PIWOs fly away from the sun, offering non-glare identifications. The really good news is that the orbit of the bird may well take it over the Indian subcontinent, making it a rare Asian bird as well.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

My God, John, you've solved it!

This bird is in a low altitude orbit around the earth. It's probably heliotropic, whereas PIWOs fly away from the sun, offering non-glare identifications. The really good news is that the orbit of the bird may well take it over the Indian subcontinent, making it a rare Asian bird as well.

This can't be the case. If it's orbit took it over Asia, birders would have clinched it by now.

 

[pcoin]

Hill interview--quotes and comments

There is an interesting interview with Geoff Hill here (an Oxford University Press blog).

Some choice quotes:

• We haven’t proven that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist in Florida.
• If we go a couple more years without proof that at least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker still lives in North America, I think that claims of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers will lose all veracity....Arguments for preserving forested wetlands for ivorybill habitat will no longer be taken seriously. I wouldn’t call this backlash. I would call it a reasonable response to the failure of the academic and bird watching communities to prove the existence of a vertebrate species.
• I can’t provide any technical comments on the Luneau video. It basically comes down to whether you see a white trailing edge on a black wing. Some see it. Some don’t. I see it some days. Some days I don’t.
• In my opinion the Cornell group made one honest mistake—they convinced themselves that the Luneau video constituted definitive evidence for a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker and they published it as such....The assertion by the authors of the Science paper that the bird in the video is an Ivory-billed Woodpecker has not been proven wrong. What has been proven wrong is that the video constitutes indisputable evidence.
• The thing that I feel is most damning to the Arkansas evidence, and now to our claim of ivorybills in Florida, is the failure of large organized searches to obtain a clear photo or video of the bird. I think skeptics can reasonably point to that failure as evidence that ivorybills no longer exist.
• (But later he says) My best day was January 21, 2006, the day I got a clear look at an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Gosh, he got a clear look at an Ivory-bill, but he's not sure they exist, or has not proven they exist, or admits they may be extinct. I cannot quite follow the logic.

Likewise, I cannot follow his logic that the assertion that the Luneau video shows an Ivory-bill has not been proven wrong, but that the assertion that it "constitutes indisputable evidence" has been proven wrong. I guess it depends on what your definitions of proven and wrong are. (Where have I heard that before?) So I take a blurry photo of a black-and-white duck on the Atlantic coast and claim it is a Labrador Duck. Others disagree, pointing out it could be, for instance, an Oldsquaw. I'm not wrong--my assertion that the evidence is indisputable is wrong. Yeah right.

He actually sounds rather skeptical. (I'm no psychologist, but this reminds me of somebody with a major case of Cognitive dissonance.)

I guess his skepticism is good, on the balance--every scientist should be skeptical of their own data, at least at some point. At what point, however, is it irresponsible to publish data of which you, yourself, are skeptical, and which you know will have important policy implications? I guess it is not irresponsible if you really need a grant. (He says: Without funding we couldn’t continue to search, so our choice was either to bury our evidence or come forward. ) OK, with that inspirational thought, I'm off to write some grant proposals!

 

[streatham]

I can now say that I have met someone who has 'seen' an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker - well enough for me to tick it? probably not In fact I even have a business card for the guy. Anyone want to buy the number off of me Not sure I am totally convinced yet but this guy is certainly not some duffer and deserves more respect than some of the bizarro sighting claims that are out there - this sighting certainly has more weight for me personally than some of the other sightings out there - not that my opinions count for anything

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Likewise, I cannot follow his logic that the assertion that the Luneau video shows an Ivory-bill has not been proven wrong, but that the assertion that it "constitutes indisputable evidence" has been proven wrong.

Actually, to give him his dues, I do get this one. Basically, what he's saying is that the Luneau video is maybe of an IBWO or maybe not. They didn't prove it is one, but nobody has proved it's not one either because essentially it's too rubbish to determine what the species is.

I.e. although you can prove it isn't good enough to be proof, you can't prove it's wrong.

 

[emupilot]

Gosh, he got a clear look at an Ivory-bill, but he's not sure they exist, or has not proven they exist, or admits they may be extinct. I cannot quite follow the logic.

He knows they exist. He is saying that if they can't eventually prove its existence, it would support the skeptical thesis.

Likewise, I cannot follow his logic that the assertion that the Luneau video shows an Ivory-bill has not been proven wrong, but that the assertion that it "constitutes indisputable evidence" has been proven wrong. I guess it depends on what your definitions of proven and wrong are. (Where have I heard that before?) So I take a blurry photo of a black-and-white duck on the Atlantic coast and claim it is a Labrador Duck. Others disagree, pointing out it could be, for instance, an Oldsquaw. I'm not wrong--my assertion that the evidence is indisputable is wrong. Yeah right.

The video is either a) demonstrably IBWO, b) demonstrably PIWO, or c) not demonstrably one or the other. Just because a) does not apply, it doesn't logically follow that b) necessarily applies. The Luneau video falls in the c) category, which means it could be an IBWO.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Click the Listen LIve button here:
http://www.wamc.org/voxpop.html

for Rich Guthrie on the radio.
(the latest sighting)
It's on right now 2:20pm EST Wed. 5/9/07
or call in: 1-800-348-2551

he just answered the question about Cornell. He WASN'T part of the official search. He went down on his own.

 

[emupilot]

I'm listening to Guthrie's radio show now. He said:

- The bird was quite close when he first saw it, and it was unmistakeable.
- He's seen lots of Pileateds in Arkansas, New York, and elsewhere

I'm on hold to talk on the radio show - I'll ask for details on the sighting if I make it on the air.

 

[pcoin]

more on Hill interview

He knows they exist. He is saying that if they can't eventually prove its existence, it would support the skeptical thesis.

Well, I think he is hedging his bets, saying: "I think skeptics can reasonably point to that failure (to obtain photos) as evidence that ivorybills no longer exist." He also says "We don't have proof they exist." Hill is a scientist--his beliefs are supposed to be based on proof (reproducible observations), at some point--that is the whole point of science. If he says he knows the IBWO exists, but can't prove it, that is not scientific knowledge, but an opinion. That's my point--he is mixing the two willy-nilly. And if that's the case, wow do I have some amazing grant proposals to write!

The video is either a) demonstrably IBWO, b) demonstrably PIWO, or c) not demonstrably one or the other. Just because a) does not apply, it doesn't logically follow that b) necessarily applies. The Luneau video falls in the c) category, which means it could be an IBWO.

Yes, I understand that. I was trying to make a larger point. The Luneau video is so poor it could be any number of things (c). It was published in the context of a paper that claimed "The Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists in continental North America," and the authors assert at length it supports choice (a) above. The deconstruction of the statement takes the video out of its scientific context, which was supporting the conclusions of that paper. If the video is ambiguous, it does not support the thesis of the paper and it is therefore worthless as a piece of scientific data. As a former researcher (in toxicology), I'd call the paper, based in a huge part on the video evidence, "plain old-fashioned wrong". Or, I could parse my statement, and say that the Luneau et al. Science paper from 2005 is not incorrect, merely its assertions are incorrect. To me, that is a distinction without a difference.

 

[MMinNY]

I think you misunderstood. He paid his own way but went as a Cornell volunteer.

His picture is here, in Group 7:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/current0607/arkvolunteers/document_view

Click the Listen LIve button here:
http://www.wamc.org/voxpop.html

for Rich Guthrie on the radio.
(the latest sighting)
It's on right now 2:20pm EST Wed. 5/9/07
or call in: 1-800-348-2551

he just answered the question about Cornell. He WASN'T part of the official search. He went down on his own.

 

[emupilot]

I got through to talk to Guthrie. Basically, the field marks he saw were very large size, white block on the (on edit: trailing edge of) wings, and a glint of red on the head. Because he was looking from behind it, he did not get a view of the head and bill nor the underwing. He saw it from just after take off. He was in woods, not swamp, and mentioned how it could not have been an Anhinga or duck.

In terms of field marks, this isn't one of the best sightings. It's clear, though, that Guthrie really knows his birds.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

I think you misunderstood. He paid his own way but went as a Cornell volunteer.

His picture is here, in Group 7:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/current0607/arkvolunteers/document_view

I did misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying it. Now I can see what he looks like. At least he isn't carrying compact binoculars ;-)