• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

Anyway, I believe the issue to be this. Most people realise that IBWOs are extinct, including most of the staff at FWS.

Sorry. As has been discussed and debated long ago, this bird has NEVER been listed as extinct where it matters in the US. The FWS is obligated by law to protect an endangered bird that may be out there. And YES, that obligation extends to research designed to try to improve their odds. See nothing in the plan that is out of order with any other recovery plan.
 
Sorry. As has been discussed and debated long ago, this bird has NEVER been listed as extinct where it matters in the US. The FWS is obligated by law to protect an endangered bird that may be out there. And YES, that obligation extends to research designed to try to improve their odds. See nothing in the plan that is out of order with any other recovery plan.

As it happens, Imperial Woodpecker isn't listed as extinct either. We all know it is. Same with the IBWO. Problems with proving a negative and all that.

Irrespective of whether its extinct or not though, one has to draw one of two conclusion:

(a) they're incredibly stupid - refusing to recognise the inevitable impossibility of implementing recovery measures for a bird they can’t find.

(b) like I said before – they realise they're wrong and being stupid, but won't publically admit it.

I was being kind by implying that it’s probably the latter.
 
As it happens, Imperial Woodpecker isn't listed as extinct either. We all know it is. Same with the IBWO. Problems with proving a negative and all that.

Irrespective of whether its extinct or not though, one has to draw one of two conclusion:

(a) they're incredibly stupid - refusing to recognise the inevitable impossibility of implementing recovery measures for a bird they can’t find.

(b) like I said before – they realise they're wrong and being stupid, but won't publically admit it.

I was being kind by implying that it’s probably the latter.

Or a third conclusion. They want to complete what they set out to do - a thorough search of what remaining habitat there might be for this bird. I know, they are completing it with a different team than they started, but maybe they want the job done this time.
 
Or a third conclusion. They want to complete what they set out to do - a thorough search of what remaining habitat there might be for this bird. I know, they are completing it with a different team than they started, but maybe they want the job done this time.

yeah, but if they find nothing, it still won't end will it?

you'll still be justifying whatever is done

it never ends

The ABA mag posted that stupid mystery bird photo - have you seen it? and read the 'debate'? 3 IBWOs... cool.
And Hill has shown his video - have you seen it?
And he's posted it to IBWO.net (yes, that wackos' site)
Stringclodes has dissed the Luneau analysis but says it's still an IBWO. And he's annoyed the 'experts' are ignoring him.
And now there's a huge recovery plan for something no-one except a few 'special' people can 'detect' and several writers of said plan appear to consider the bird extinct.
People are taking casts of bill markings and finding them 'interesting'
Kennedy is putting the boot in, Cornell are saying they 'had to act as though' the video and other collected guff was going to be enough on its own
Fitzpatrick threatening Kennedy with responsibility for the species' extinction. Then trying to coerce him with authorship of a paper - Jackson, to his credit, told him to stick it.
Norton and Tate leaning on Jackson etc etc etc

two memorable quotes (my bold):
Even if the team quits emptyhanded, Lammertink says, it will be difficult to prove the bird is not there. "It may always remain a question mark."

I move with the actions that I deem appropriate for the possibility that the birds are there," he says. "And I don't look back.

Yes, you did read it correctly...

I just love it. I thought the fun was over. You really couldn't script it.

Keep it comin you guys...

Tim
 
Incidentally if anyone is interested, I don't think any of the three videos from the Choc are good evidence for IBWOs being there. It's not really suprising because if they were, they would have been released much quicker and to be fair there is no claim that they are diagnostic.

Two of the three clips clearly show black and white birds with dark underbodies and white wings, apparently taking off from trees. There is no clear indication as to whether the white is on either the upper or lower surface of the wings.

With a very approximate calculation it seems that one of these birds flaps at approximately 4 wing-beats per second.

They look a lot like the bird in the Luneau video to me ...

Cheers,
 
USFWS recovery plans

Sorry. As has been discussed and debated long ago, this bird has NEVER been listed as extinct where it matters in the US. The FWS is obligated by law to protect an endangered bird that may be out there. And YES, that obligation extends to research designed to try to improve their odds. See nothing in the plan that is out of order with any other recovery plan.

Yes, they have never declared the IBWO extinct, but other birds with similar status (no confirmed sightings for years) have no recovery plans. For instance, Bachman's Warbler and Eskimo Curlew have no recovery plans. Both Bachman's Warbler and Eskimo Curlew had confirmed sightings, with recognizable photos, in the 1950's or 1960's. There has not been a recovery plan, even a draft one, for the IBWO until now because no population could be found, I presume.
See the USFWS list of recovery plans here.

I don't know about the USFWS "obligation" to do "research to try to improve the odds". I feel they have an obligation to spend the very limited budget for endangered species wisely, focusing on species that can be found, for starters. Here is language from the ESA itself:

section 3--Definitions:
The terms "conserve," "conserving," and "conservation" mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary ...
Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation...
...
(f)(1) RECOVERY PLANS.-...
The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable-
(A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans, ...

So yes, the ESA authorizes research, but it also authorizes that priority for recovery plans be given to those species "most likely to benefit". There's my problem with an expensive (for the USFWS) recovery plan for a species which, despite four years of high-tech effort and thousands of person-hours, cannot be found at the sites of recent claimed sightings.

The USFWS Endangered species list is also very telling in what it does not list--there should be a lot more on it, but political pressure is keeping species off. The Cerulean Warbler is in decline, for instance, but was recently not listed. There is an ongoing ecological crisis in the Southeast, a native shrub, Red Bay (Persea borbonia) is being destroyed by an introduced fungus and beetle (here). Red Bay is the sole hostplant for a beautiful, and currently common butterfly, the Palamedes Swallowtail. Red Bay is also an important food plant for birds. The introduced fungus has the potential to wipe out Red Bay and the Swallowtail. Those species should probably get some USFWS funds in an all-out effort to save them before it is too late. They should probably be listed now, but I'm sure they won't be. I could go on and on listing things that should be helped by the ESA, but are not, because of political pressure and limited funds.

I'd be all for an all-out recovery effort if the IBWO could be found, but it is just not there, except in the fervid imaginations of some deluded "searchers" and cynical, grant-hungry academics.
 
Choctawhatchee beach mouse

Ah, so many Recovery Plans. Why are they necessary?
What in under God, as we say here in Ireland, what in under God have you been doing to your environment?
I do hope the Choctawhatchee beach mouse is saved from extinction. And I hope (a dirty word among the sceptics, I know) that the Carolina northern flying squirrel, the Florida panther, and your beloved Red Bay plant are all saved.
Are any Atlantic Salmon left in the Gulf of Maine area?
I ask, because I live very close the the little River Faughan here in Derry. It is only 29 miles in length. And yet it is teeming bountifully with THOUSANDS of Atlantic Salmon.

Perhaps we are still willing to pay our three cents!



Yes, they have never declared the IBWO extinct, but other birds with similar status (no confirmed sightings for years) have no recovery plans. For instance, Bachman's Warbler and Eskimo Curlew have no recovery plans. Both Bachman's Warbler and Eskimo Curlew had confirmed sightings, with recognizable photos, in the 1950's or 1960's. There has not been a recovery plan, even a draft one, for the IBWO until now because no population could be found, I presume.
See the USFWS list of recovery plans here.

I don't know about the USFWS "obligation" to do "research to try to improve the odds". I feel they have an obligation to spend the very limited budget for endangered species wisely, focusing on species that can be found, for starters. Here is language from the ESA itself:

section 3--Definitions:
The terms "conserve," "conserving," and "conservation" mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary ...
Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation...
...
(f)(1) RECOVERY PLANS.-...
The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable-
(A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans, ...

So yes, the ESA authorizes research, but it also authorizes that priority for recovery plans be given to those species "most likely to benefit". There's my problem with an expensive (for the USFWS) recovery plan for a species which, despite four years of high-tech effort and thousands of person-hours, cannot be found at the sites of recent claimed sightings.

The USFWS Endangered species list is also very telling in what it does not list--there should be a lot more on it, but political pressure is keeping species off. The Cerulean Warbler is in decline, for instance, but was recently not listed. There is an ongoing ecological crisis in the Southeast, a native shrub, Red Bay (Persea borbonia) is being destroyed by an introduced fungus and beetle (here). Red Bay is the sole hostplant for a beautiful, and currently common butterfly, the Palamedes Swallowtail. Red Bay is also an important food plant for birds. The introduced fungus has the potential to wipe out Red Bay and the Swallowtail. Those species should probably get some USFWS funds in an all-out effort to save them before it is too late. They should probably be listed now, but I'm sure they won't be. I could go on and on listing things that should be helped by the ESA, but are not, because of political pressure and limited funds.

I'd be all for an all-out recovery effort if the IBWO could be found, but it is just not there, except in the fervid imaginations of some deluded "searchers" and cynical, grant-hungry academics.
 
I don't know Geoff Hill or Tyler Hicks but their eye witness accounts of ivorybill sightings are what gives me reason to believe the bird still is extant. I have to admit this last search season was disappointing,with no definitive proof obtained but to conclude the species must be extinct seems premature.
 
I don't know Geoff Hill or Tyler Hicks but their eye witness accounts of ivorybill sightings are what gives me reason to believe the bird still is extant. I have to admit this last search season was disappointing,with no definitive proof obtained but to conclude the species must be extinct seems premature.

11608 previous posts here alone for you to read before you come to that conclusion. Plenty to make you laugh and cry along the way. It's been... emotional. Educational too, for some.

ce
 
11608 previous posts here alone for you to read before you come to that conclusion. Plenty to make you laugh and cry along the way. It's been... emotional. Educational too, for some.

ce

That's great advice Cornish 8-P Although I don't think reading this thread will change anyones mind...:t: Its a shame you can't eliminate the 9 or 10 thousand useless, immature and repetative posts from this thread. It would be far more rewarding and "educational".

Thanks,

Russ
 
Causes of the IBWO decline: monograph

Noel Snyder's monograph Causes of the Decline of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is at the printers and will shortly be available for purchase from the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. It's not listed yet among the monographs here http://www.wfvz.org/html/pub_prog.html but they say it will be soon.

300 copies will be printed and after review copies and freebies, something like 268 will be available for sale and they're likely to go fast. If they sell out the monograph will probably be reprinted. I think the price will be $20 which includes shipping. Paypal accepted. UK and other overseas orders are possible but I think you'll need to email them for information on pricing and shipping options.

This is an informational post, not a commercial one, as we get no royalties or other gain, and in fact will be contributing to publication costs. Paper is about 60 manuscript pages and has a number of illustrations of the old-timers.

Helen Snyder
 
rip ivory-bill thread

I was hoping to join this thread to discuss the current state of the ibwo but apparently did not realize the bird has already been declared extinct. Oh well, plenty of other threads look interesting enough and it will be worthwhile discussing birds one can still take a look at now and then.
 
the world's extant Campephilus woodpeckers:

Red-necked Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M7Xc0CX5T8

Powerful Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RifNgwpogpY

Crimson-crested Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yciDdpCyovI

Magellanic Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CDw8BMeJYY

Pale-billed Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsnuLldPOwQ

Cream-backed Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqACG3kJrDk

[Robust Woodpecker: http://www.mangoverde.com/birdsound/images/00000010395.jpg]

[Guayaquil Woodpecker, http://www.tropicalbirding.com/tripReports/TR_NPeru_July2005_files/gwoody.jpg

and unfortunately the best you are likely to find on You-tube:

Ivory-billed Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzCQ9ejEpCQ

It has never been that hard to find Campephilus woodpeckers, only when they are extinct are they difficult to connect with. You just send a motivated kid-lister to the tropics with a cheap $120 digital camera and he/she will track down these pseudo-elusive birds because even under closed-canopy forest their double/triple knocks carry for km.... Sure the bottomland forests are a big place but they aren't that big, if they were we would be discovering new taxa....
 
Has Tim hit 50000 posts yet?

After a much-needed year-long break from this senseless arguing, I decided to check out what was new here. Turns out the same few "dominants" continue to pound their il-informed opinions down the throats of a few good people. It's incredible how much "armchair" bickering is going on.

Regardless of whether a video or photo was obtained, the truth about this bird's current status cannot be known for sure at this point, and possibly not for another decade to come. And that's if current searching (albeit inadequate in numbers and experience) continues during that period of time. There is just too much ground to cover and the conditions for searching are often too difficult. Myself, during volunteer work in AR with all the equipment I could ask for, was stopped by nature's fury on many occassions.

Why spend hours every day on this forum? Will it accomplish anything? If the purpose is simply debate, I think the debate could have been wrapped up about 659713 pages ago.





yeah, but if they find nothing, it still won't end will it?

you'll still be justifying whatever is done

it never ends

The ABA mag posted that stupid mystery bird photo - have you seen it? and read the 'debate'? 3 IBWOs... cool.
And Hill has shown his video - have you seen it?
And he's posted it to IBWO.net (yes, that wackos' site)
Stringclodes has dissed the Luneau analysis but says it's still an IBWO. And he's annoyed the 'experts' are ignoring him.
And now there's a huge recovery plan for something no-one except a few 'special' people can 'detect' and several writers of said plan appear to consider the bird extinct.
People are taking casts of bill markings and finding them 'interesting'
Kennedy is putting the boot in, Cornell are saying they 'had to act as though' the video and other collected guff was going to be enough on its own
Fitzpatrick threatening Kennedy with responsibility for the species' extinction. Then trying to coerce him with authorship of a paper - Jackson, to his credit, told him to stick it.
Norton and Tate leaning on Jackson etc etc etc

two memorable quotes (my bold):
Even if the team quits emptyhanded, Lammertink says, it will be difficult to prove the bird is not there. "It may always remain a question mark."

I move with the actions that I deem appropriate for the possibility that the birds are there," he says. "And I don't look back.

Yes, you did read it correctly...

I just love it. I thought the fun was over. You really couldn't script it.

Keep it comin you guys...

Tim
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top