Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (8 Viewers)

[humminbird]

Sparling's report differs in details between the paper in Science (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005) and the paper summarizing the sightings published in North American Birds (Rosenberg et al. 2005). I think these things have been hashed over before, so I don't want to bring them up again unless we have new information in the way of original documents to evaluate.

It is amazing how much it differs from these and other accounts, including the oft repeated line on this thread that he "didn't know what he was looking at." Or am I the only one who notices his statement "birders will know what is implied."?

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Post #509 by Fishing4Clues

"That is when I was told that it was a Ivorybilled.
This sighting occured in aug.1999 I told the wildlife officers in decof 1999 and met Gene Sparling the first time in Jan 2000. Then when the press is called in 2005 they released that Gene found the bird within 1/2 mile from where I saw it you be the judge. Oh and by the way....Marjon limmertink (probably spelled his name wrong too.) Stated that he had no doubt it was me that started Gene in looking for the bird. He actually said thank you for the help in finding the bird. He seemed to know of me and he has the hand written version of the sighting I gave it to him to give to Ron because he wanted it in writing."

 

[pcoin]

That's entertainment!

I haven't seen mention of two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents available since early March (go to http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/ and find links at the right side of the page to pdf's for Ivory-billed Woodpecker Accomplishments Report 2007 and 2006-2007 Budget and Background Information). The accomplishments include searches and reports from Tennessee, which some have been wondering about, and that searches are starting in Illinois (oh man!!). Truly, it seems as though this will never end.

Oh, and there are some HIGH-LARIOUS statements in that Accomplishment report:
Tennessee: Possible visual and auditory encounters in January 2006 on federal and private land led to research into the presence of IBWO in Tennessee....About 100 hours was spent in the field conducting transects, kayaking, and sitting, watching, and listening in areas of interest. One possible single rap was heard by 2 observers.
(I guess a single rap heard by two observers counts as a double rap?)

About 102 hours of additional effort were spent searching and cavity monitoring on the Hatchie River, the Lower Hatchie NWR, and Chickasaw NWR. ... Possible encounters include single and double raps heard on January 8th and 9th, 2007.
(Obviously Tennessee Ivory-bills have evolved to single-rap. This is part of their evolution to a stealth configuration, which Don Hendershot has so brilliantly concluded indicates we are dealing with a new species, Campephilus willowispis. But intrepid searchers are still able to detect that certain something that indicates a single rap is a possible Ivory-bill, instead of a Pileated, gunshot, hammer/nail, gastrointestinal disturbance, etc.)

Cooperators at the University of Georgia provided a survey design and field protocol for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker search effort that will: (1) allow estimation of occupancy, use, and detection probability for habitats at two spatial scales... Results from the 2006-07 search season indicated weak relationships between occupancy and habitat and a very low detection probability.
(Bravo on the jargon about "spatial scales"--tres scientific. "Very low detection probability" gets my nomination for "understatement of the year"!)
...
One significant obstacle to the recovery of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is the lack of information about this species' biology and ecology.
(A perhaps more significant obstacle is the inability to find actual birds to recover.)

CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS
...
IBW Recovery Initiative ($100,000) Project Status: Ongoing. The Mississippi River Trust is working with a number of partners to restore, through reforestation 900 acres and strive to combine it with a carbon sequestration program, and to enhance 1,100 acres of habitat by injecting Arsenal in primarily sweet gum and sugarberry to increase food supply for the Ivory-billed woodpecker. Project completion expected in 2009.
(Killing trees in one area, which releases carbon, and reforestation in another area, which is sequestering carbon and creating IBWO habitat in about 100 years. Your tax dollars at work!)

This is indeed the bird that is everywhere but nowhere:

Why do you think Cornell called it Elvis? See the lyrics to Elvis is Everywhere by Mojo Nixon. Very apropos for the Ivory-bill search!

It just keeps getting better! With entertainment like this from the USFWS, who needs anything else? Surely a reality television show is in the offing.

 

[humminbird]

Post #509 by Fishing4Clues

"That is when I was told that it was a Ivorybilled.
This sighting occured in aug.1999 I told the wildlife officers in decof 1999 and met Gene Sparling the first time in Jan 2000. Then when the press is called in 2005 they released that Gene found the bird within 1/2 mile from where I saw it you be the judge. Oh and by the way....Marjon limmertink (probably spelled his name wrong too.) Stated that he had no doubt it was me that started Gene in looking for the bird. He actually said thank you for the help in finding the bird. He seemed to know of me and he has the hand written version of the sighting I gave it to him to give to Ron because he wanted it in writing."

The posting mentioned above was made well before any of this and he states "birders will know what is implied." Having met and talked with Gene personally, I am confident he was not unaware of the stir the report would create.

 

[salar53]

Cornell/Auburn piece of the pie in 2007 at least $325,000.

Well all I can say is: what a pathetically minuscule amount of money. It wouldn't buy you a decent house in this part of Ireland - the thatched cottages are all gone. And 325,000 dollars wouldn't buy you a good thatch anyway! (Though it might keep an army in Iraq for sixty or seventy seconds).

No wonder they can't get a photograph. As a race we haven't got our priorities right.

 

[Runaround]

As a race we haven't got our priorities right.

You're right. A local project to monitor the breeding of threatened grassland birds including Bobolinks had to be shut down due to lack of funding. $325K would have kept the project going for 8 more years.

 

[salar53]

You're right

You're right. A local project to monitor the breeding of threatened grassland birds including Bobolinks had to be shut down due to lack of funding. $325K would have kept the project going for 8 more years.

And you're right too, Runaround. We could save Bobolinks, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, forests, threatened environments everywhere if governments weren't so willing to spend 325,000 dollars every sixty seconds waging war in foreign countries.

 

[Runaround]

Let's be honest. We could stop spending the money on a foolish act of imperialism today and the odds of any of it going to conservation are virtually zero. There would be some other boondoggle waiting in the wings. What we need to do is focus the limited amount of money available for conservation on preserving extant species that are in serious trouble, not throwing it a species that is most likely already extinct.

 

[one]

single knock

Oh, and there are some HIGH-LARIOUS statements in that Accomplishment report:
Tennessee: Possible visual and auditory encounters in January 2006 on federal and private land led to research into the presence of IBWO in Tennessee....About 100 hours was spent in the field conducting transects, kayaking, and sitting, watching, and listening in areas of interest. One possible single rap was heard by 2 observers.
(I guess a single rap heard by two observers counts as a double rap?)

About 102 hours of additional effort were spent searching and cavity monitoring on the Hatchie River, the Lower Hatchie NWR, and Chickasaw NWR. ... Possible encounters include single and double raps heard on January 8th and 9th, 2007.
(Obviously Tennessee Ivory-bills have evolved to single-rap. This is part of their evolution to a stealth configuration, which Don Hendershot has so brilliantly concluded indicates we are dealing with a new species, Campephilus willowispis. But intrepid searchers are still able to detect that certain something that indicates a single rap is a possible Ivory-bill, instead of a Pileated, gunshot, hammer/nail, gastrointestinal disturbance, etc.)

Cooperators at the University of Georgia provided a survey design and field protocol for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker search effort that will: (1) allow estimation of occupancy, use, and detection probability for habitats at two spatial scales... Results from the 2006-07 search season indicated weak relationships between occupancy and habitat and a very low detection probability.
(Bravo on the jargon about "spatial scales"--tres scientific. "Very low detection probability" gets my nomination for "understatement of the year"!)
...
One significant obstacle to the recovery of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is the lack of information about this species' biology and ecology.
(A perhaps more significant obstacle is the inability to find actual birds to recover.)

CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS
...
IBW Recovery Initiative ($100,000) Project Status: Ongoing. The Mississippi River Trust is working with a number of partners to restore, through reforestation 900 acres and strive to combine it with a carbon sequestration program, and to enhance 1,100 acres of habitat by injecting Arsenal in primarily sweet gum and sugarberry to increase food supply for the Ivory-billed woodpecker. Project completion expected in 2009.
(Killing trees in one area, which releases carbon, and reforestation in another area, which is sequestering carbon and creating IBWO habitat in about 100 years. Your tax dollars at work!)


Why do you think Cornell called it Elvis? See the lyrics to Elvis is Everywhere by Mojo Nixon. Very apropos for the Ivory-bill search!

It just keeps getting better! With entertainment like this from the USFWS, who needs anything else? Surely a reality television show is in the offing.

Tanner states that when disturbed the Ivory-billed woodpecker sometimes makes a single knock or two knocks that are so close together that they sound like a single knock.

 

[pcoin]

good point--distinctive?

Tanner states that when disturbed the Ivory-billed woodpecker sometimes makes a single knock or two knocks that are so close together that they sound like a single knock.

Good point. However does anyone have any way of recognizing a single knock as being distinctive, or even suggestive, for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker? As far as I know, not even the double-knock was recorded when the bird was known to be extant. All sorts of things could make a single knocking sound out in the woods. Pileated (and other) Woodpeckers certainly make some loud spaced knocks while foraging.

I think calling a single knock "suggestive" is stretching this business beyond the pale. If one is going to go that far, almost anything is suggestive of IBWO--any sort of cavity in a tree, any sort of sound, any sort of grooves or loose bark on a tree trunk. Many in the "searcher" community seem to be at that point already--I am just surprised, and a bit disgusted, to see the USFWS going there as well.

 

[salar53]

Quiet

Hmmmmmmmmm. Things are quiet enough here, though I notice that many are lurking.
And why do they look in?
Is it to see if Bill Smith has published his book, "How I found the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida"?
Or are they checking to see if anyone is discussing "Stalking The Ghost Bird: The Elusive Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana"? It is written by Michael K. Steinberg, known as "bama" at IBWO.net and is available at Amazon.com. An interesting book.
Or are the lurkers wondering what to make of Mike Collins' latest sighting where he saw a bird with white dorsal stripes and he has a video of it which appears to show white trailing edges on the wings?

Yes, things are quiet.

Maybe it's the calm before the storm!

 

[Louis Bevier]

Let's be honest. We could stop spending the money on a foolish act of imperialism today and the odds of any of it going to conservation are virtually zero. There would be some other boondoggle waiting in the wings. What we need to do is focus the limited amount of money available for conservation on preserving extant species that are in serious trouble, not throwing it a species that is most likely already extinct.

Well said, Runaround. Some have argued that funding for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is insignificant by comparison with houses or wars. Some have even argued that if eliminated, redistribution of the Ivory-bill funds wouldn't really matter. I think these people are motivated by an egotistical defense of their own mistaken support for the claim that Ivory-bills have been found (even the possibility any have been encountered is not credible at this point).

Worse, this argument diverts attention from the critical issue that needs repair. At a time when increasingly hard choices have to be made in conservation, there is an urgent need for objective, evidence-based decisions of the highest scientific integrity. Accurate scientific evidence should drive our decisions, not some vague, hopeful notions. We should instead be asking: what species urgently deserve protection but have been overlooked, what important conservation research has gone unfunded, or what conservation efforts have been curtailed due to lack of funds? It is simply wrong to say the amount of money involved won't make a difference to these other projects or species. Let's be realistic. As Runaround says, it is pointless to compare this situation to truly gross wastes of money around the world because even if those were stopped, the chance of conservation funding increasing is nil.

Here is the reality: "Recovery efforts and funding are inadequate for nearly all listed animals and plants. For example, the median expenditure for a listed species in 2002 by all federal and state agencies was only $14,100." (quoted from "Scientific Societies' Statement on the Endangered Species Act," February 27, 2006) This paltry sum is apportioned to the 1,200 or so plants and animals designated as threatened or endangered. Another 228 species warrant protection, however, and have not yet been reviewed because of a lack of funding for the listing process (see, for example, the plight of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Yellow-legged Frog). Add the share these species deserve because we know they exist—but may not unless we search for and protect them—and the mere tailings of last year's Ivory-bill funds, $6,700, seem huge.

No matter what the charlatans say, reevaluation of the current funds (not necessarily elimination) committed to the ongoing, Bigfoot-style data presented so far is warranted and would, without question, make a difference. Compare the FWS's own demand for scientific integrity with what we have so far (see attached memo from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall). Where does the claim that Ivory-bills have been rediscovered fit in vis a vis "strength of information" and "knowledge" as described in this document? Are we at level #1, "we don't know." (That is the correct answer.) Or would you argue #2, "we think we know but aren't sure." We might be at this level if any single shred of evidence was verified, but none has been. Those claiming we are at #3, "we are very confident that a level of certain knowledge has been achieved" are simply deluding themselves.

We should be demanding more oversight, not less, especially given the shenanigans at the Department of the Interior. To help, see the good folks at the Center for Biological Diversity or commit to help one of the 188 other critically endangered bird species facing imminent extinction listed by Birdlife International (here is the list).

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Mike Collins most recent video and pictures are of his usual standard - nuff said.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Things are quiet enough here, though I notice that many are lurking.
And why do they look in?
Is it to see if Bill Smith has published his book, "How I found the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida"?
Or are they checking to see if anyone is discussing "Stalking The Ghost Bird: The Elusive Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana"? It is written by Michael K. Steinberg, known as "bama" at IBWO.net and is available at Amazon.com. An interesting book.
Or are the lurkers wondering what to make of Mike Collins' latest sighting where he saw a bird with white dorsal stripes and he has a video of it which appears to show white trailing edges on the wings?

Yes, things are quiet.

Maybe it's the calm before the storm!

 

[rob stoff]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Things are quiet enough here, though I notice that many are lurking.
And why do they look in?

For a laugh

Or are the lurkers wondering what to make of Mike Collins' latest sighting where he saw a bird with white dorsal stripes and he has a video of it which appears to show white trailing edges on the wings?

not even convinced his images show a bird

Yes, things are quiet.

Maybe it's the calm before the storm?

or vice versa

Rob

 

[David Callahan]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Things are quiet enough here, though I notice that many are lurking.
And why do they look in?
Is it to see if Bill Smith has published his book, "How I found the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida"?
Or are they checking to see if anyone is discussing "Stalking The Ghost Bird: The Elusive Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana"? It is written by Michael K. Steinberg, known as "bama" at IBWO.net and is available at Amazon.com. An interesting book.
Or are the lurkers wondering what to make of Mike Collins' latest sighting where he saw a bird with white dorsal stripes and he has a video of it which appears to show white trailing edges on the wings?

Yes, things are quiet.

Maybe it's the calm before the storm!

It's a car crash and we're rubbernecking, can't you tell?

 

[one]

good point

Well said, Runaround. Some have argued that funding for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is insignificant by comparison with houses or wars. Some have even argued that if eliminated, redistribution of the Ivory-bill funds wouldn't really matter. I think these people are motivated by an egotistical defense of their own mistaken support for the claim that Ivory-bills have been found (even the possibility any have been encountered is not credible at this point).

Worse, this argument diverts attention from the critical issue that needs repair. At a time when increasingly hard choices have to be made in conservation, there is an urgent need for objective, evidence-based decisions of the highest scientific integrity. Accurate scientific evidence should drive our decisions, not some vague, hopeful notions. We should instead be asking: what species urgently deserve protection but have been overlooked, what important conservation research has gone unfunded, or what conservation efforts have been curtailed due to lack of funds? It is simply wrong to say the amount of money involved won't make a difference to these other projects or species. Let's be realistic. As Runaround says, it is pointless to compare this situation to truly gross wastes of money around the world because even if those were stopped, the chance of conservation funding increasing is nil.

Here is the reality: "Recovery efforts and funding are inadequate for nearly all listed animals and plants. For example, the median expenditure for a listed species in 2002 by all federal and state agencies was only $14,100." (quoted from "Scientific Societies' Statement on the Endangered Species Act," February 27, 2006) This paltry sum is apportioned to the 1,200 or so plants and animals designated as threatened or endangered. Another 228 species warrant protection, however, and have not yet been reviewed because of a lack of funding for the listing process (see, for example, the plight of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Yellow-legged Frog). Add the share these species deserve because we know they exist—but may not unless we search for and protect them—and the mere tailings of last year's Ivory-bill funds, $6,700, seem huge.

No matter what the charlatans say, reevaluation of the current funds (not necessarily elimination) committed to the ongoing, Bigfoot-style data presented so far is warranted and would, without question, make a difference. Compare the FWS's own demand for scientific integrity with what we have so far (see attached memo from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall). Where does the claim that Ivory-bills have been rediscovered fit in vis a vis "strength of information" and "knowledge" as described in this document? Are we at level #1, "we don't know." (That is the correct answer.) Or would you argue #2, "we think we know but aren't sure." We might be at this level if any single shred of evidence was verified, but none has been. Those claiming we are at #3, "we are very confident that a level of certain knowledge has been achieved" are simply deluding themselves.

We should be demanding more oversight, not less, especially given the shenanigans at the Department of the Interior. To help, see the good folks at the Center for Biological Diversity or commit to help one of the 188 other critically endangered bird species facing imminent extinction listed by Birdlife International (here is the list).

I support your argument for funding threatened and endangered species known to exist. In addition, I do not dispute that funds should be allocated for potential list species. For example, studies of struggling species like the Rusty blackbird, need funding and support. However, to argue your position, someone could take your first statement and apply it to you in a different way.

Some have argued that funding for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is significant by comparison with houses or wars. Some have even argued that if eliminated, redistribution of the Ivory-bill funds would really matter. I think these people are motivated by an egotistical defense of their own mistaken support for the claim that Ivory-bills have not been found.

You have defended your position and others are defending theirs. I think using your name on Birdforum to promote support for funding threatened and endangered species and general conservation issues is great. However, to attack government officials, researchers, and others that have taken the position that the Ivory-billed woodpecker may exist in small numbers or at least feel a search throughout the southeast is worthy without outlining a substantive argument challenging both public and private ivory-bill related information presented to date or informing us of your own searches or other individuals you know well who have searched the bottomlands is not appropriate. If you have outlined a substantive argument, I would enjoy reading it. I might be able to get a better understanding of this debate from an expert's point of view.

In my opinion, it would be more constructive, at least on Birdforum where many posters are not veterans like yourself, to push these individuals to review the presented information themselves (which you have), direct them toward ivory-billed woodpecker related books, articles, etc. and even encourage them to decide for themselves (I am open to anything, including expert advice, that might help me gain a better understanding of the series of Ivory-billed woodpecker related events over the past several years). If I had a lot of experience in this field, I would offer my expertise in the least biased way possible and include methods/ways to review the "evidence" as objectively as possible. This seems like a perfectly civilized way of encouraging Birdforum members instead of attacks, subtle or blatant, on those who differ from your stance on the status of ivory-billed woodpeckers in North America. Words like charlatan, delusional, etc. are not beneficial. These words divert attention from the issues and revert attention toward examination of the character of the individual or individuals who have taken a certain position (I admit this is important in evaluating sighting reports). I don't know your official stance on this issue but I can only infer from your posts that you do not think, based on your evaluation of information presented to date, that the Ivory-billed woodpecker persists in North America.

My ranting is a dire attempt to make this debate more positive. I lurk most of the time and do not post often. However, I feel the impetus to respond. This is not a challenge toward any one person, but negative attacks on both sides of the issue do not further the debate (Even though we want to think it does and it makes us feel better about our position). Negativity does not help gain support for ending the Ivory-billed woodpecker search and allocating funds to other projects nor does it help gain support for continued funding for Ivory-billed woodpecker searches in the southeastern United States.

 

[Louis Bevier]

to one

Dear one, if you click on my name, there is a link to my web site where I have put much of the information you request. I think most are aware of this. I believe the wording is quite fair. I'm sure the readers of this thread don't want a repeat of the material here. It is important for you to understand that the claim being debated is whether any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have been confirmed as of 2004. The evidence, though debated, is clearly not sufficient to support that claim and clearly does not meet the higher categories of "knowledge" described in the USFWS memo I attached to my previous post. My position is that no evidence confirms their existence. As you will read on my web site, that does not mean they are extinct but that no proof otherwise has been forthcoming. (This too, proof of a negative etc., has been debated ad nauseum.) The stern wording in my previous post is the result of frustration at the lack of response by those involved to at least admit a mistake might have been made and at the disingenuous (truly that's what they appear to me) brushing aside of concerns about funding. While you are at my web site, please read the letter signed by over 70 people restating the position above. Noted there is the apparent disregard by USFWS and others of multiple, independent (and, I think, substantive) published rejections of the claimed identifications. Among the individuals signing the letter are two past presidents of the AOU, botanists from two of the world's leading botanical gardens (plants always get short shrift in funding!), authors of the major field guides to birds of North America, and many members of records committees, and museum curators and researchers, the latter groups of people being experts in bird identification whose voice should carry the most weight in this debate. We all requested in that letter that USFWS conduct an independent and transparent review of the evidence. To date, we have heard no response. Signed, --At Wits End (which looks like a good place to scope for razorbills at least).

 

[choupique1]

about to be game over......

believers win..........

wild turkeys are very wary.... tame turkeys are not....

 

[Piltdownwoman]

One: In the last four years of intense searches, all that's been found are a few dust-specks of possible evidence, which people carefully arrange in nice little piles and rows, and then magnify to make them look like something solid. There is really no chance that the IBWO survives.

The diversion of resources to IBWO is outrageous and is doing grave harm. If the USFWS Endangered species program was a household, this would be like cutting back on food and clothing for the kids, ignoring the leaky roof, etc, so that you could try to build a cold fusion generator for power. Cold fusion proponents can congratulate each other about how valuable the effort is, but with a low chance of success, and so many other immediate needs, spending any money on it is delusional. Deferred maintenance will cost a LOT MORE down the line, and neglecting your children is criminal. And you could say that the Endangered Species program has over 1500 "children" in its household.

And this is OK because it's a drop in the bucket compared to Iraq? Pullleeeeze. That doesn't make it OK to mismanage your household budget and put your children at risk!

I'm sorry, but the way Cornell and USFWS have handled the IBWO fantasy-quest is a fiasco, and it will take years to clean up the mess.

 

[salar53]

Expert

It's a car crash and we're rubbernecking, can't you tell?

It's a crash alright, and people are rubbernecking. However, they are looking at the cynics who have crashed onto the hard ground of stunned belief!

Seriously. Have you read Steinberg's book? He is SURE that the birds are there. And so are others as least as "expert" as Louis!