Welcome back again, Choupique! Was that you whom I recognised in "Stalking The Ghost Bird"?
Of course it was. Now I enjoyed that read.
-
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.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Welcome back again, Choupique! Was that you whom I recognised in "Stalking The Ghost Bird"?
Of course it was. Now I enjoyed that read.
Piltdownwoman
Well-known member
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!
I don't care how "sure" anyone is. Lots of people are sure that Bigfoot exists, etc, etc, etc. Without a photograph, Steinberg's book is simply more of the same.
And some of you believers seem to be more excited about the humiliation of the skeptics than about the rediscovery of the bird. Why is that?
rubbernecked
Well Fielding Lewis' photograph is there. And that is only a bird or two ago - in a woodpecker lifespan!
And as for humiliation, my little comment about cynics above was merely a humorous reply to a rubbernecked attack.
Humour and definite proof would form the bond that brings us all together.
Well Fielding Lewis' photograph is there. And that is only a bird or two ago - in a woodpecker lifespan!
And as for humiliation, my little comment about cynics above was merely a humorous reply to a rubbernecked attack.
Humour and definite proof would form the bond that brings us all together.
Louis Bevier
Well-known member
If I may, I'd like to revisit the Gene Sparling observation. My previous request was simply an open, honest inquiry. If anyone had a link to the original post on the canoe club, I'd like to see it. I do not doubt it was there. Some, elsewhere on the web, have suggest conspiracy theories, but none exist with me. I had requested the original from Ken Rosenberg and Martjan Lammertink in summer 2005, but they did not provide it.
I was intrigued by IBWO_Agnostic's clue to Fishing4Clues (aka Wanda Ellis). Did anyone ever resolve this? Did she really report an Ivory-bill in the same summer after David Kulivan's report (his last name was spelled with one "l" in a copy of his signed description reporting the Pearl River birds in 1999). Did Wanda really tell Gene this in 2000? In a bizarre twist for one who has only recently dredged into the past of this thread (me), it seems Wanda was the reason 'billismad'. Bizarre. If anyone learned any more about the Wanda Ellis - Gene Sparling - Mary Scott connection, I'd be interested in reading about that.
Here were my questions. The description provided in the Science paper (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, on which G. Sparling is a coauthor), is as follows:
In the subsequent paper reporting other "sightings" (Rosenberg et al., North American Birds, vol. 59, 2: pg 198), one finds this:
Here are the differences. The Rosenberg et al. text adds "a light-colored bill", which Pileated may show, and changes the description of the wings from "slight yellowish tinge along edges "like parchment paper"" to "odd yellowish". Neither is correct for Ivory-bill, of course, and the yellowish tinge matches a leucistic Pileated that looked like an Ivory-bill described by Noel Snyder. Furthermore, the texts differ in the description of the crest, with the Science article saying "peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge" and the subsequent article saying "crest relaxed but clearly with some red". To me, having held many Ivory-bill specimens and had them held at a distance (testing characters visible in the field), there is no credible way Sparling could have noted the black anterior edge of the crest and not have seen a three inch long bright, white bill…if it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The described jerky motion is something shared with Pileated, of course (I have some great video of a bird repeatedly peeking out from behind a tree trunk here in Maine).
I was intrigued by IBWO_Agnostic's clue to Fishing4Clues (aka Wanda Ellis). Did anyone ever resolve this? Did she really report an Ivory-bill in the same summer after David Kulivan's report (his last name was spelled with one "l" in a copy of his signed description reporting the Pearl River birds in 1999). Did Wanda really tell Gene this in 2000? In a bizarre twist for one who has only recently dredged into the past of this thread (me), it seems Wanda was the reason 'billismad'. Bizarre. If anyone learned any more about the Wanda Ellis - Gene Sparling - Mary Scott connection, I'd be interested in reading about that.
Here were my questions. The description provided in the Science paper (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, on which G. Sparling is a coauthor), is as follows:
In the subsequent paper reporting other "sightings" (Rosenberg et al., North American Birds, vol. 59, 2: pg 198), one finds this:
Here are the differences. The Rosenberg et al. text adds "a light-colored bill", which Pileated may show, and changes the description of the wings from "slight yellowish tinge along edges "like parchment paper"" to "odd yellowish". Neither is correct for Ivory-bill, of course, and the yellowish tinge matches a leucistic Pileated that looked like an Ivory-bill described by Noel Snyder. Furthermore, the texts differ in the description of the crest, with the Science article saying "peculiarly pointed red crest with black anterior edge" and the subsequent article saying "crest relaxed but clearly with some red". To me, having held many Ivory-bill specimens and had them held at a distance (testing characters visible in the field), there is no credible way Sparling could have noted the black anterior edge of the crest and not have seen a three inch long bright, white bill…if it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The described jerky motion is something shared with Pileated, of course (I have some great video of a bird repeatedly peeking out from behind a tree trunk here in Maine).
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Louis Bevier; said:
This is more eloquent way of saying something I've pointed out on a large number of occasions, in relation to other, more recent claims.
Take the bait
Right, being the curious type, I'll take the bait, Choupique. Ah, if I was really a leaping salmon in my local River Faughan, I wouldn't survive for long.
What do you mean by, "About to be game over"?
And, "Believers win"?
How long do we have to wait?
Right, being the curious type, I'll take the bait, Choupique. Ah, if I was really a leaping salmon in my local River Faughan, I wouldn't survive for long.
What do you mean by, "About to be game over"?
And, "Believers win"?
How long do we have to wait?
rob stoff
Well-known member
Sidewinder
Well-known member
Some thoughts on humility:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/
http://bbill.blogspot.com/
Louis Bevier
Well-known member
I gratefully accept the rebuke from soggy bottom. I can see how my commentary was felt more than heard. This explains why both the responses by Bill Pulliam and, more cordially, by Nick (the 'one') were reactions to me, a person with flaws and emotions, and to my words rather than to the facts or science. I intended the central issue to be the need for objective, evidence-based science to drive decisions in bird conservation. If that has been the case and I am mistaken, then I apologize for singed ears.
To me, the default position of proponents that "Ivory-bills exist" appears to be: we hear you but simply disagree; we don't need an independent review of that; and we will continue doing what we are doing with no change or admission that we might have erred. Where is the humility in that? My barbed critique was a response to, and admittedly exasperation at, the latest USFWS report simply repeating more of the same—numerous unverified encounters and data tied to no known source. If I am wrong in my analysis, I'm fine with that. But it's not about me. This is about the strength and accuracy of claims, which many besides me see as unsupported. One of the terms most used by the proponents is that credible reports exist. Here again, the label is inaccurate because this word goes beyond believable (or beyond reasonable doubt). It means something supported by known facts. If any one cavity, sound, or sighting could be labeled that, then we wouldn't be having this debate.
I am open to any evidence presented and to exploring the specks of data reported, but the proponents must realize that continuing to label the sounds and encounters as possible or even probable without convincing evidence is unjustified. By convincing, I mean evidence that overcomes reasonable opposition by a majority of individuals who have decades of experience reviewing bird identification and who are independent of those asserting the claim (and with monetary interests at stake). All I have seen so far are plausible claims, which are insufficient to justify the funding.
I should make clear that I have no competing interests. I have no books, DVDs, or speaking fees pouring into my bank account related to this. I have no tax breaks for researching this issue. I have no grants or institutional affiliations affected by the outcome. My motivation, from the beginning, has been to see the accuracy of the historical record maintained and the strength and integrity of observational evidence upheld. In a letter to Birding magazine last year, my colleagues and I asked that: "Whether or not the Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists, birders should demand better funding of the Endangered Species Act and speak out against attempts to weaken it." Please do that, even if you disagree with me.
Lastly, the recent shot of Dick Cheney's sunglasses hints at a sinister end to the Ivory-bill. If you look carefully you'll see the last one plucked in his clenched fist with bill pointing upward. Call off the searches! (Thanks to an anonymous correspondent for this.)
Attachments
Hoist
Mr Bevier, sir, please have another look at your enclosed photograph. I'm afraid your identification skills are once more being questioned.
Quite simply, you have been hoist by your own petard.
For the image very clearly depicts a defunct Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus morbidus).
Have you learned nothing, sir, from the Luneau video? The seemingly white bill is obviously an artefact caused by (1) the brightness of the day and exacerbated by (2) the darkness of the designer glasses.
And you ask for more hard evidence. I respectfully direct you to Cyberthrush's revamped website here:
http://ivorybills.blogspot.com/
Does the new, bolder, more confident lettering not tell you something?
Mr Bevier, sir, please have another look at your enclosed photograph. I'm afraid your identification skills are once more being questioned.
Quite simply, you have been hoist by your own petard.
For the image very clearly depicts a defunct Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus morbidus).
Have you learned nothing, sir, from the Luneau video? The seemingly white bill is obviously an artefact caused by (1) the brightness of the day and exacerbated by (2) the darkness of the designer glasses.
And you ask for more hard evidence. I respectfully direct you to Cyberthrush's revamped website here:
http://ivorybills.blogspot.com/
Does the new, bolder, more confident lettering not tell you something?
Does the new, bolder, more confident lettering not tell you something?
Yes, that another load of string is about to spew forth from the believers camp! It would be hilariously funny if we weren't pissing away important conservation dollars on this joke.
How many countless millions of dollars, "conservation" or otherwise, are being spent on that little "fence" (made of solid brick and concrete, of course) that is being proposed to stretch along the border from Texas to California?
And how much wildlife will it "protect"?
Now that's what I call a sick joke.
cyberthrush
Well-known member
thanks for the reference Salar, but lest rumors run out-of-control, I've been making changes to my website for the last several mos. and the most recent "revamping" is only a reflection of my boredom this weekend!
Yaaaaawwwwnnnnnnn! You're like a broken record Salar me old Irish chum. You can pick any number of ridiculous follies that our government and their agencies throw away our tax dollars on. I, like many here, just wish that the ones who were involved in conservation funding weren't investing in equally half-baked schemes.
humminbird
Well-known member
I'm sorry, but the fence is not just a waste of dollars. The proposal will give up some of the most critical bird and wildlife habitat along the Rio Grande. I am talking about places like Southmost TNC property which will be behind the fence, Sabal Palms Audubon Sanctuary which will suffer the same fate, etc. This is not a bad joke - it is a travesty.
pcoin
Well-known member
As the Woodpecker Flies... (update from Cornell)
The Cornell University IBWO search team has just (15 April 2008) posted an update about their helicopter search efforts, As the Woodpecker Flies.... A couple of choice quotes:
Searching for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers on foot and by boat in dense, flooded forests takes a lot of time and the odds of being in the right place at the right time to see or hear the bird are slim.
Slim to...? Note the allusion to two classic excuses. According to my taxonomic checklist of Ivory-bill excuses (TM), these would qualify as a type 2 and a type 4 (11 types have been documented so far):
2b(i)-Floods--make tromping through swamp forest difficult, so must use boat, limiting access (walking would be better)
4a-bird occurs at extremely low density, so seldom seen
But the bottom line is this: Using a helicopter specifically to find ivory-bills is not a productive strategy. ... But few of the woodpeckers along the flight path of the helicopter actually flush, making this an ineffective way to search. The facts and figures to back up this conclusion are part of a scientific paper being prepared by Lammertink and five coauthors for the Journal of Wildlife Management.
The "no flush excuse" is a variant of a previously-documented excuse, what I call a type 3 (bird too wary), specifically:
3b(ii)-bird hides in sneaky manner, e.g., bird always hops to other side of tree, bird hops into roost hole during day upon encountering searchers.
I also note a classic scientific researcher game here--the methods paper. One makes a mistake (thinking the Ivory-bill exists and/or that aerial searches will find it), compounds it with further research, and then publishes a paper detailing how the original mistake was, in fact, a mistake. All part of the standard academic research game.
On the practical side, it’s very expensive to put a helicopter in the air. "Six searchers on the ground found about the same number of Pileated Woodpeckers per day as the helicopter crew during a day’s flight"
On the other practical side, it is a good way to spend up all the grant money.
What the Arkansas helicopter surveys did establish is that large woodpeckers can be seen and photographed from the air.
That was a surprise.
If aerial searches for other purposes are already taking place over potential habitat, then crews should put checking for the ivory-bills on their “to-do” list.
Yes, I am sure that wildlife researchers across the country are doing so even as we speak.
I'm a little disappointed that there is nothing about the gastronomic adventures of the helicopter crews and biologists. Perhaps next update.
The Cornell University IBWO search team has just (15 April 2008) posted an update about their helicopter search efforts, As the Woodpecker Flies.... A couple of choice quotes:
Searching for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers on foot and by boat in dense, flooded forests takes a lot of time and the odds of being in the right place at the right time to see or hear the bird are slim.
Slim to...? Note the allusion to two classic excuses. According to my taxonomic checklist of Ivory-bill excuses (TM), these would qualify as a type 2 and a type 4 (11 types have been documented so far):
2b(i)-Floods--make tromping through swamp forest difficult, so must use boat, limiting access (walking would be better)
4a-bird occurs at extremely low density, so seldom seen
But the bottom line is this: Using a helicopter specifically to find ivory-bills is not a productive strategy. ... But few of the woodpeckers along the flight path of the helicopter actually flush, making this an ineffective way to search. The facts and figures to back up this conclusion are part of a scientific paper being prepared by Lammertink and five coauthors for the Journal of Wildlife Management.
The "no flush excuse" is a variant of a previously-documented excuse, what I call a type 3 (bird too wary), specifically:
3b(ii)-bird hides in sneaky manner, e.g., bird always hops to other side of tree, bird hops into roost hole during day upon encountering searchers.
I also note a classic scientific researcher game here--the methods paper. One makes a mistake (thinking the Ivory-bill exists and/or that aerial searches will find it), compounds it with further research, and then publishes a paper detailing how the original mistake was, in fact, a mistake. All part of the standard academic research game.
On the practical side, it’s very expensive to put a helicopter in the air. "Six searchers on the ground found about the same number of Pileated Woodpeckers per day as the helicopter crew during a day’s flight"
On the other practical side, it is a good way to spend up all the grant money.
What the Arkansas helicopter surveys did establish is that large woodpeckers can be seen and photographed from the air.
That was a surprise.
If aerial searches for other purposes are already taking place over potential habitat, then crews should put checking for the ivory-bills on their “to-do” list.
Yes, I am sure that wildlife researchers across the country are doing so even as we speak.
I'm a little disappointed that there is nothing about the gastronomic adventures of the helicopter crews and biologists. Perhaps next update.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
I expect the probability of that is of the same order of magnitude as a population of IBWO being located.
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
“We saw plenty of pileateds from the air, and could even photograph the majority of them as they flushed on either side of the aircraft’s flight path,” Lammertink says. “But what we saw was a small percentage of the birds we know are actually there, based on population-density surveys we’ve done on the ground in previous years. With a bird as rare as the ivory-bill—and if it flushes as infrequently as the Pileated Woodpeckers do—there’s practically no chance of seeing it from the air.”
Now THAT is funny!
I thought that the whole point of the helicopter surveys was to cover more ground than you could on foot. That there was some hidden population of breeding IBWOs deep in the forest inaccessible by foot or canoe. Guess if they don't flush, they are still there waiting to be discovered.
waiting.....waiting.....waiting.....
Now THAT is funny!
I thought that the whole point of the helicopter surveys was to cover more ground than you could on foot. That there was some hidden population of breeding IBWOs deep in the forest inaccessible by foot or canoe. Guess if they don't flush, they are still there waiting to be discovered.
waiting.....waiting.....waiting.....
Similar threads
