Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (4 Viewers)

[MMinNY]

Bollocks. You lot wanted field notes and sketches. You got 'em. Now, they're not good enough.

There's really no point in having this discussion. Some of you aren't skeptics. You're deeply invested in a point of view. I'm not saying I think you want the IBWO to be extinct, but I am saying I think you want to be right more than you want to be objective or open-minded. . .perhaps with the hope that by being right, you will prove your superiority.

Sorry to get all psychoanalytic, but this is rubbish.

If Tom cares to post the critique on his site, rather than force me to download it, I'll give it a read.

When you take away the field sketches, the sightings do seem somewhat unconvincing don't they...gliding woodpeckers, hovering woodpeckers, darters, fat ducks, no binoculars, out of focus binoculars....

 

[Edward woodwood]

Nelson will be 'wrong' the day someone posts a decent photo of an Ivory-billed or there is some redundancy (a la Sibley)

yes, there are some minor irritations with the way things are sometimes done on the blog but by and large the posters and intelligent, logical, rational and quite often humourous. This thread is a laugh in comparison, if not a sad joke.

Until that redundancy or those pics...

Tim

 

[Edward woodwood]

Anyone read this yet?

http://www.mediamax.com/tan123/Hosted/FloridaSightings.doc

hovering woodies, silhouettes, fat ducks and out of focus bins? Priceless

Tim

 

[Mike Johnston]

Anyone read this yet?

http://www.mediamax.com/tan123/Hosted/FloridaSightings.doc

hovering woodies, silhouettes, fat ducks and out of focus bins? Priceless

Tim

Thanks Tim. I should have done that in the first place rather than direct everyone to Nelson's site.

 

[CornishExile]

Bollocks. You lot wanted field notes and sketches. You got 'em. Now, they're not good enough.

There's really no point in having this discussion. Some of you aren't skeptics. You're deeply invested in a point of view. I'm not saying I think you want the IBWO to be extinct, but I am saying I think you want to be right more than you want to be objective or open-minded. . .perhaps with the hope that by being right, you will prove your superiority.

Sorry to get all psychoanalytic, but this is rubbish.

If Tom cares to post the critique on his site, rather than force me to download it, I'll give it a read.

Hi there Pot, remember me? Your old, stupid friend Kettle.

Really, for one who makes a point of setting themselves out as being all calm and rational, this takes the biscuit:

"I think you want to be right more than you want to be objective or open-minded."

So is your blind, unswerving belief that this species is extant not just what you accuse the non-believers of being? Wanting to be right... more than objective or open-minded?

love,

ce

 

[gud]

As several have said, here we go again...how boring...

the agnostics repeat the same things with the same bias - what galls me is that the believers keep taking the bait and debating it...just quit falling for it and go on with efforts to find IBWO and preserve habitat, etc.

As previous said by many: no fieldnotes, so no good...now with fieldnotes, no good either...and when the picture or video comes, it will not be good either. Yes, it is ok to debate the info and not just accept it at face value; but your bias, tone, and ego keep showing through.

But to those believers that want to play this game, be forewarned that you must provide fieldnotes, etc. (not that it will be enough). So quit debating this stuff...just post your info and go on with something more productive than debating the same things over and over...just know that many of us appreciate the search efforts of individuals, Auburn, and Cornell and want them to continue..and do not want you to waste your time and become discouraged by such unproductive "debate"! Obviously some of the debate is good; but pick your spots.

 

[gws]

As several have said, here we go again...how boring...

the agnostics repeat the same things with the same bias - what galls me is that the believers keep taking the bait and debating it...just quit falling for it and go on with efforts to find IBWO and preserve habitat, etc.

As previous said by many: no fieldnotes, so no good...now with fieldnotes, no good either...and when the picture or video comes, it will not be good either. Yes, it is ok to debate the info and not just accept it at face value; but your bias, tone, and ego keep showing through.

But to those believers that want to play this game, be forewarned that you must provide fieldnotes, etc. (not that it will be enough). So quit debating this stuff...just post your info and go on with something more productive than debating the same things over and over...just know that many of us appreciate the search efforts of individuals, Auburn, and Cornell and want them to continue..and do not want you to waste your time and become discouraged by such unproductive "debate"! Obviously some of the debate is good; but pick your spots.

This gentleman is exactly right, and I hope all of us (including myself) will take heed of this.

 

[Mike Johnston]

As several have said, here we go again...how boring...

the agnostics repeat the same things with the same bias - what galls me is that the believers keep taking the bait and debating it...just quit falling for it and go on with efforts to find IBWO and preserve habitat, etc.

As previous said by many: no fieldnotes, so no good...now with fieldnotes, no good either...and when the picture or video comes, it will not be good either. Yes, it is ok to debate the info and not just accept it at face value; but your bias, tone, and ego keep showing through.

But to those believers that want to play this game, be forewarned that you must provide fieldnotes, etc. (not that it will be enough). So quit debating this stuff...just post your info and go on with something more productive than debating the same things over and over...just know that many of us appreciate the search efforts of individuals, Auburn, and Cornell and want them to continue..and do not want you to waste your time and become discouraged by such unproductive "debate"! Obviously some of the debate is good; but pick your spots.

Errmm...so what's it to be? Debate or no debate? And if it's debate, which bits can we debate? Or is that debatable?

 

[emupilot]

Anyone read this yet?

http://www.mediamax.com/tan123/Hosted/FloridaSightings.doc

hovering woodies, silhouettes, fat ducks and out of focus bins? Priceless

Tim

It is much more selective than it is objective. It immediately dismisses audio evidence, as if "inconclusive" means "worthless". There is no discussion of alternate explanations of the audio, in spite of a detailed treatment by Auburn discussing why other possible sources were unlikely. The audio has extra value in cases where it accompanies sightings.

Several of the sightings are weak IMO, but that certainly doesn't mean they all are. Not getting binoculars on the bird does not mean the view was poor, since IBWO is a very large bird. The Hicks sightings and the Rolek sightings of 2/1/06 and 5/19/06 are very strong.

The criticism of the 5/19/06 is just plain unwarranted. Given the distance, binoculars would definitely not be necessary, and the drawing of the bird swooping up into the canopy is hard to misinterpret.

The author deliberately changes the meaning of the 2/1/06 sighting's use of the word "hovering" as if the observer said it was hovering like a hummingbird. The observer clearly was referring to the initial flaps as the bird jumped off a tree and turning but was not really going anywhere yet.

Calling the Hicks sightings and the 2/1/06 Rolek sighting "very questionable" says more about the author's predetermined viewpoint than the sightings themselves. This is especially evident when the author says, "Not a single sighting stands up to even superficial scrutiny." Excuse me? The good sightings showed distinctive underwing and upperwing patterns, and one sighting also included the black head and white neck stripes. Unless one is calling the observers frauds, the field notes are very hard to dismiss as "superficially" as the author does. The observers do not claim to be proving they saw IBWO, but the write-up of their sightings include accurate and diagnostic descriptions of IBWO.

In short, although I agree with the author that some of the sightings are weak (and indeed are admitted as such by the observers in a couple cases), he refuses to address the compelling field marks the observers reported seeing, he refuses to address the audio evidence, and yet he says the observers didn't see what they reported seeing. The report belongs on Tom Nelson's blog, where the extinction cult can nod their approval, but it is hardly a thoughtful critique.

 

[Edward woodwood]

In light of the above...

Read the fieldnotes. And then the critique

Scary

Tim

 

[emupilot]

In light of the above...

Read the fieldnotes. And then the critique

Scary

Tim

I did read both, Tim. Please explain why you need binoculars to identify an IBWO from 60-80 feet away. Please explain why audio evidence should be dismissed out of hand. Please explain why multiple observers would draw illustrated field notes showing diagnostic features of IBWO if they did not see those features.

 

[MMinNY]

Ummm. Something must have stung, dear kettle, as I wasn't addressing you. I didn't even know you were one.

My belief is not blind and unswerving; it's based on an evaluation of the evidence. It's fine to disagree about the evidence. It is not fine to keep changing the standards or to distort what has been presented (I'd say Mr. Lewis did both of these things). Nor is it fine to insinuate something about the character of the witnesses based on the title of an article published five years ago, as Mr. Lewis did yesterday. Those are the issues I was addressing in my post.

I've never claimed to be all calm and rational. I am passionate about this subject, and that should be quite evident. The passion, however, does not interfere with my capacity to be rational.

Hi there Pot, remember me? Your old, stupid friend Kettle.

Really, for one who makes a point of setting themselves out as being all calm and rational, this takes the biscuit:

"I think you want to be right more than you want to be objective or open-minded."

So is your blind, unswerving belief that this species is extant not just what you accuse the non-believers of being? Wanting to be right... more than objective or open-minded?

love,

ce

 

[Andigena]

2] There's no need for anyone to make outrageous claims based on poor views, videos, scalings, strange calls or knocks - the birds are protected anyway in Florida (because the habitati is safe). Can anything more be done to protect them? Only perhaps if we get some real biological data from real birds. So, when the opportunity arises to study real birds, real nests, real feeding habits etc perhaps there can be some fine-tuning to the protection.

The big question now is when will Cornell and Cinclodes' sites be protected in the same way?

Perhaps it is not clear to everyone, especially those overseas, that the Cornell sightings and searches were (are) almost entirely on federally-owned lands, two refuges--Cache River and White River--within the national wildlife refuge system, as well as some state of Arkansas land. Together these two Federal Refuges contain over 220,000 acres of protected land, most of which is bottomland forest. The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and other organizations have been working in that area as well for decades trying to buy additional land (some of it cropland) from willing sellers to augment the refuge lands.

Cinclodes is searching in an area which also has alot of protected land---Pearl River Wildlife Management area (35,000 acres) belongs to the State of Louisiana, and the adjacent Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge in LA/Mississippi includes over 40,000 acres. In addition to this there are adjacent lands in various ownership---private, Federal government (like Stennis), etc., making this a very large, mostly protected swamp as well. This is why Cinclodes said recently that other people should come and search in Bogue Chitto, there is alot of terrain to cover--he certainly cannot cover 75,000 acres of swamp forest in his spare time.

The immediate problem is not that there is no protected mature bottomland forests, some under excellent protection; but that there are very few people willing to put in the time and effort necessary to search them.

 

[fishcrow]

The criticism of the 5/19/06 is just plain unwarranted. Given the distance, binoculars would definitely not be necessary, and the drawing of the bird swooping up into the canopy is hard to misinterpret.

I have seen the video associated with that sighting. The bird swooped right over the observer's head. The light conditions are ideal, the bird is very close, and you can see the observer looking right at it. That sighting must have been as sweet as the one that I had on Feb. 16.

 

[curunir]

I have seen the video associated with that sighting. The bird swooped right over the observer's head. The light conditions are ideal, the bird is very close, and you can see the observer looking right at it. That sighting must have been as sweet as the one that I had on Feb. 16.

This makes no sense, if there is video of the observer, there should be video of the bird? Was someone holding the camera?

 

[fishcrow]

This makes no sense, if there is video of the observer, there should be video of the bird? Was someone holding the camera?

There were three people in kayaks. The guy bringing up the rear was operating the camera. You can see the other two kayaks and the bird flying over one of them.

 

[MMinNY]

I take it this sequence was one that was deemed to be too low in quality to release. It's unfortunate they didn't release it, since it's pretty clear they're going to get slammed by some in any case.

This makes no sense, if there is video of the observer, there should be video of the bird? Was someone holding the camera?

 

[fishcrow]

Cinclodes is searching in an area which also has alot of protected land---Pearl River Wildlife Management area (35,000 acres) belongs to the State of Louisiana, and the adjacent Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge in LA/Mississippi includes over 40,000 acres. In addition to this there are adjacent lands in various ownership---private, Federal government (like Stennis), etc., making this a very large, mostly protected swamp as well. This is why Cinclodes said recently that other people should come and search in Bogue Chitto, there is alot of terrain to cover--he certainly cannot cover 75,000 acres of swamp forest in his spare time.

As I mentioned a few days ago, it is very likely that there are other pairs further north in the Pearl. This is obvious. There have been ivorybills in the southern Pearl for many years. Why wouldn't they also exist in similar habitat to the north? I now have evidence that there is at least one more pair in the Pearl. I will do my best to document both pairs this season.

 

[theveeb]

The approach you outline is pretty much the way I work. I leave the binoculars at the car. However, I would tell you that you may not have time to get that picture you want. I tried it, and should have spent the time looking at the bird. By the time you try to get the camera up (I was walking) and centered the bird may be gone. I understand what they were saying with a shotgun being easier (certainly not recommended).

By the way, what type of lens do you use? Do you walk terrain or find a location and wait for your shots? I'm shooting a canon 20d with a 70-300 mm. Have any lenses you would recommend? I think bigger may not be better, but I could be wrong. Realize I am walking through some very sloppy areas at times. Weight is always an issue.

I mentioned earlier that a fixed 300mm or 400mm is the way to go for flight. Having a little weight and length actually make it easier to get on and stay on a bird in flight.

Here's a brief discussion on the topic from a professional bird photographer who uses Canon equipment: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html

I didn't bring my binoculars when searching either, no time to waste. The only way I wanted to see an IBWO was through the viewfinder with the shutter going as fast as it could. We've got more than enough sight reports of briefly seen fleeing birds. A handful more isn't going to tip the balance for most people.

I'm waiting for the good quality image (preferably a series) from a credible source with accompanying fieldnotes explaining the circumstances of the encounter. Otherwise it's interesting but no need to get excited. But that's me.

If these birds are "up and down the river," this season should produce one or more quality images as long as they recruit some photographic talent. I'd love to go spend a couple weeks there (not that I consider myself talented compared to the photographers I hang out with), but no time this season.

the veeb

 

[Snowy1]

A great post Gud. That's why I'm no longer responding to this stuff. I have figured out that while many here claim to be honest skeptics, they really are here for debating a subject, any subject at all. If it was talking about how red a Cardinal is or whether the IBWO is alive, it wouldn't matter.

The problem is that threads like this are addictive. You keep coming back for more - there's a craving to see how angry others have become after reading your latest "I got you good post". Unfortunately, many real talented people have left this site.

I can't do this for another year.

As several have said, here we go again...how boring...

the agnostics repeat the same things with the same bias - what galls me is that the believers keep taking the bait and debating it...just quit falling for it and go on with efforts to find IBWO and preserve habitat, etc.

As previous said by many: no fieldnotes, so no good...now with fieldnotes, no good either...and when the picture or video comes, it will not be good either. Yes, it is ok to debate the info and not just accept it at face value; but your bias, tone, and ego keep showing through.

But to those believers that want to play this game, be forewarned that you must provide fieldnotes, etc. (not that it will be enough). So quit debating this stuff...just post your info and go on with something more productive than debating the same things over and over...just know that many of us appreciate the search efforts of individuals, Auburn, and Cornell and want them to continue..and do not want you to waste your time and become discouraged by such unproductive "debate"! Obviously some of the debate is good; but pick your spots.