Curtis Croulet
Well-known member
Even I, old gullible Curtis, am very skeptical about the White River NWR sighting reported by Russell.
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fangsheath
- Start date
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
MMinNY said:
I agree with you MMinNY, the two ARE different.
choupique1 said "not found by a volunteer"
Bob Russell said "Volunteer searchers"
Here are the two statements together:
choupique1 said:
Bob Russell said:
Russ Jones
Well-known member
"The "comeback" of the Ivorybill continues! An extremely reliable observer (and government employee) has seen an ivorybill in yet another state on the Mississippi flyway! Neither the site nor the state is mentioned in Bob Russell's Top Ten ~ so get your maps out and start figuring. . . it was on a river associated with a NWR. . .. Additionally, new searches are being funded in both of the Carolinas, and perhaps Texas."
That was posted on http://www.birdingamerica.com/Ivorybill/ivorybilledwoodpecker.htm
Not sure if this was a recent update or what but I thought it was interesting. Not sure what all the secrecy is about though...not sure that is helping much.
Cheers,
Russ
That was posted on http://www.birdingamerica.com/Ivorybill/ivorybilledwoodpecker.htm
Not sure if this was a recent update or what but I thought it was interesting. Not sure what all the secrecy is about though...not sure that is helping much.
Cheers,
Russ
Edward woodwood
Member
seems more to be a rumour of a rumour
wonder who the extremely reliable observer is
and why no one knows who it is
aaaahhh.... the secrecy. Isn't it wonderful?
Tim
wonder who the extremely reliable observer is
and why no one knows who it is
aaaahhh.... the secrecy. Isn't it wonderful?
Tim
jurek
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
There is a link on one of several ivorybill threads on the forum... Some goverment worker and birder had an employeee who reported ivorybills, went there and saw it within one morning.
It is second record when I would go straight to - within short distance of good road, reliable person, accessible by foot. (!!!)
I am surprised. Why there is no thread for birders making a trip there already? With such approach, no wonder ivorybill was lost so long.
Another strange thing is that there is no hotline and no one good list of all sightings. Lots of birders are excited and prone to bashing records, but nobody actually collects records, with place, reliability and what was seen/unseen...
Last edited:
fangsheath
Well-known member
Actually there is a repository of sightings information, although no hotline that I am aware of. The CLO has an online form for reporting a sighting. This information is not made public, and I see no prospect that it ever will be. In fact this is not really that unusual for rare species. Records of rare plants and animals are maintained by the USFWS and state heritage programs and are not generally released to the public.
Although secrecy is distasteful to many of us, it is quite necessary in order to collect a lot of sightings information. Many observers are not going to give their information without an assurance of confidentiality. And the number one priority has to be the well-being of the birds. Just as I would not broadcast my knowledge of localities for rare amphibians and reptiles, I would not reveal confidential locations of ivory-bill sightings on this forum. In my experience, those who are serious about finding, documenting, and protecting species will demonstrate their seriousness and their discretion and, if they are patient, be provided with the information they need to pursue their studies. Others will have to wait for the press releases and publications.
Although secrecy is distasteful to many of us, it is quite necessary in order to collect a lot of sightings information. Many observers are not going to give their information without an assurance of confidentiality. And the number one priority has to be the well-being of the birds. Just as I would not broadcast my knowledge of localities for rare amphibians and reptiles, I would not reveal confidential locations of ivory-bill sightings on this forum. In my experience, those who are serious about finding, documenting, and protecting species will demonstrate their seriousness and their discretion and, if they are patient, be provided with the information they need to pursue their studies. Others will have to wait for the press releases and publications.
jurek
Well-known member
fangsheath said:
OK, in Europe there is also repository of some ornithological body BUT birders info also. And I would also make nest confidential.
But with hundreds of birders interested, rumours circulating, several book written, and impossibility of CLO workers to cover all sites - why no list?
If collected in one place, even suspicious sightings would be useful to see. Maybe there is pattern emerging? And it would prevent making urban myths.
I have no problem with the CLO's secrecy in conducting their research and the decision to withhold information during the search season. As I said earlier, it seems like a very prudent approach. And contrary to the accusations that are floating around on the net, I see nothing to suggest a lack of transparency in Cornell's conduct. They have consistently released their data in a timely fashion, after they've analyzed it. That seems a perfectly normal way of conducting research and analysis of data, and to suggest there's something nefarious about it strikes me as ludicrous.
On the other hand, while I enjoy reading her site, I am somewhat irritated by Mary Scott's tendency to post rumors and vague accounts of sightings without elaboration or analysis. I mean, she's had that bit about "a very reliable searcher" in Florida up for months; I've never been able to figure out if it was a reference to Bill Smith (since she posted it at about the same time he put up his site) or sombody else, and she has not provided any updates. It's not the same as posting rumors here; though she has certainly made important contributions, this stuff on her website just stays out there for everyone to read, and I don't think that's helpful.
On the other hand, while I enjoy reading her site, I am somewhat irritated by Mary Scott's tendency to post rumors and vague accounts of sightings without elaboration or analysis. I mean, she's had that bit about "a very reliable searcher" in Florida up for months; I've never been able to figure out if it was a reference to Bill Smith (since she posted it at about the same time he put up his site) or sombody else, and she has not provided any updates. It's not the same as posting rumors here; though she has certainly made important contributions, this stuff on her website just stays out there for everyone to read, and I don't think that's helpful.
fangsheath said:
Last edited:
fangsheath
Well-known member
An organized list of sightings/encounters isn't a bad idea. Some people are not entirely happy with the CLO's history of releasing info, even to those who quite legitimately need it. Don't be surprised if you see such a database appear somewhere on the internet. However, the issues surrounding such a list are more complex than they might seem. Here is just one example. Suppose I were to list the encounters and ARU hits from the official CLO search in Arkansas. How specific should I be, locality-wise? I know many localities pretty precisely. Most people do not, yet most of the information isn't exactly "secret." You just have to dig for it. I notice even some people who consider themselves up on the search haven't found some of it. How much should I reveal? Not much I think, perhaps only the counties. These kinds of judgments would have to be made with many encounters. But I do see the value of an organized database.
jurek
Well-known member
Often all records of rarities are neatly summed up. I was surprised that it was not done for ivorybills.
I would expect - list of all encounters since 1920's with as detailed place as possible, person, his skills/references, details, habitat. I would see uncertain records included and explained. Maybe except detailed locality of seven last records.
Obviously, CLO or other professionals cannot search all possible places. It is worth that more birders search, and in most probable place.
I would expect - list of all encounters since 1920's with as detailed place as possible, person, his skills/references, details, habitat. I would see uncertain records included and explained. Maybe except detailed locality of seven last records.
Obviously, CLO or other professionals cannot search all possible places. It is worth that more birders search, and in most probable place.
I would love to see such a compilation too, but realistically, I don't think it's possible, as it would require archival research in 10 or more states, probably including small town newspapers, etc. That sort of effort would have to involve a team of researchers and interviewers. It would also be difficult to assess the quality of many, if not most, such sightings, especially if you took it back to the '20s. Tanner did do a pretty extensive analysis of sightings in the late '30s, but a quick glance suggests he did not go back before '37 or so.
There is this list of 21 sightings since 1944; these are the best known and perhaps among the best in quality:
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471
There have undoubtedly been many others. How many were not cases of mistaken identity is anybody's guess.
There is this list of 21 sightings since 1944; these are the best known and perhaps among the best in quality:
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471
There have undoubtedly been many others. How many were not cases of mistaken identity is anybody's guess.
jurek said:
Last edited:
jurek
Well-known member
This is about that.
I know that some records could be obscure, others circulate around, eg. this governments employee. They could be included.
It would be also nice to see more details of locality, habitat etc. It would be nice to see eg. if birds were in remote places or feeding on dead trees.
I know that some records could be obscure, others circulate around, eg. this governments employee. They could be included.
It would be also nice to see more details of locality, habitat etc. It would be nice to see eg. if birds were in remote places or feeding on dead trees.
sparrowbirder
Well-known member
Hi folks. ive read through this thread with interest,as I have other threads on the same subject,very interesting read, problem I can see, is that a lot of people are getting a bit frustrated with the lack of progress, 2 years since the rediscovery first came to light and really not a lot of new information,just a distant grainy video(which to my eyes looks like an IBWP but im no expert), and people are making negative comments partly out of frustration, with too many snippets of information coming out with features both for and against in most cases.. seems as if Cornell have a got a chip on their shoulder at the moment as well,with all the secrecy that is going on, who can blame them,with a lot of so called "experts" trying to undo all their research and hard work, lets hope they do have some great new info which is being kept underwraps until later in the year,which will hopefully put the matter to rest, id just love to be one of the people searching, to be all alone miles from anywhere,sounds like heaven to me,good luck to everybody who is anyway!!
I'm going to play Mary Scott's guessing game. Perhaps, the sighting by the government official was along the Hatchie River in Tennessee. It's a location on BillBill's list, and it matches her description. Not that I think we're likely to find out.
Is anyone searching there?
Is anyone searching there?
Curtis Croulet
Well-known member
sparrowbirder: I think your post is spot-on.
WRT CLO's secrecy: I'm not privy to CLO's specific motives, but I can think of at least a couple of reasons why they would do this, quite aside from any issues of protecting their turf. For one thing -- as has been pointed out (by MMinNY, I think) -- this is a scientific study, and it's standard in science not to release results until they've been fully analyzed and are ready for publication. The public often interprets such secrecy as "they're hiding something." Like it or not, it's SOP. Also, if any published result is going to have Cornell's name on it, they are going to insist that it rise to an acceptable standard of credibility and thoroughness. It's hard to do this while the study is still in progress, while most of what they've collected has not been collated and analyzed. Those of you in the UK and Europe probably know that Cornell is one of America's most prestigious universities. They are probably paranoid about anything that would impeach their reputation. Also, I would think CLO would not want to be required to un-explain premature, uncontrolled statements from team participants, most of whom inevitably don't have the whole picture. Nothing would damage credibility more, even with those of us who are comfortable with the current evidence, than a series of news releases retracting or amending earlier statements by "a spokesperson for the Cornell team," who may be nothing more than a temporary volunteer searcher. There's a "loose lips sink ships" philosophy that they probably adhere to (or they should!).
WRT CLO's secrecy: I'm not privy to CLO's specific motives, but I can think of at least a couple of reasons why they would do this, quite aside from any issues of protecting their turf. For one thing -- as has been pointed out (by MMinNY, I think) -- this is a scientific study, and it's standard in science not to release results until they've been fully analyzed and are ready for publication. The public often interprets such secrecy as "they're hiding something." Like it or not, it's SOP. Also, if any published result is going to have Cornell's name on it, they are going to insist that it rise to an acceptable standard of credibility and thoroughness. It's hard to do this while the study is still in progress, while most of what they've collected has not been collated and analyzed. Those of you in the UK and Europe probably know that Cornell is one of America's most prestigious universities. They are probably paranoid about anything that would impeach their reputation. Also, I would think CLO would not want to be required to un-explain premature, uncontrolled statements from team participants, most of whom inevitably don't have the whole picture. Nothing would damage credibility more, even with those of us who are comfortable with the current evidence, than a series of news releases retracting or amending earlier statements by "a spokesperson for the Cornell team," who may be nothing more than a temporary volunteer searcher. There's a "loose lips sink ships" philosophy that they probably adhere to (or they should!).
Last edited:
Camp Ephilus
Active member
Hi folks,
I've been reading this forum for a bit now and would like to finally chime in. Forgive me if this is not the right thread to do so.
I'm currently looking in SE NC and NE SC, in the Cape Fear River Basin, Waccamaw River, Green Swamp, and Lumber River Basin. I'm just one person, and have a full time job outside of this, so I can't devote as much time to looking as I would like to. As such, I'm in the process of deploying remote cameras and listening devices to "help me out a bit", as it were. I like this idea of this thread in aiding out those who are looking for the bird. I have a few insights myself on IBWO's.
I have many questions, and I'll ask them in due time, but one comes to mind...
When looking for trees with woodpecker activity, should trees with large holes and cavities be noted? Or just ones with stripped bark? So far, I've come across mostly trees with huge feeding holes in them, around 4-5" wide and sometimes over a foot long. I know pileateds do this, but at what point do you start thinking that an IBWO may have done the work?
-christen
I've been reading this forum for a bit now and would like to finally chime in. Forgive me if this is not the right thread to do so.
I'm currently looking in SE NC and NE SC, in the Cape Fear River Basin, Waccamaw River, Green Swamp, and Lumber River Basin. I'm just one person, and have a full time job outside of this, so I can't devote as much time to looking as I would like to. As such, I'm in the process of deploying remote cameras and listening devices to "help me out a bit", as it were. I like this idea of this thread in aiding out those who are looking for the bird. I have a few insights myself on IBWO's.
I have many questions, and I'll ask them in due time, but one comes to mind...
When looking for trees with woodpecker activity, should trees with large holes and cavities be noted? Or just ones with stripped bark? So far, I've come across mostly trees with huge feeding holes in them, around 4-5" wide and sometimes over a foot long. I know pileateds do this, but at what point do you start thinking that an IBWO may have done the work?
-christen
fangsheath
Well-known member
I appreciate the words of encouragement. On the CLO's secrecy, I don't think it is really a response to very recent challenges, it seems to be SOP for them, but I do think it is less likely that they will be open about imagery now, even imagery that many would consider definitive. On the snippets, it is important to understand that many of us who frequent this thread have long considered the issue of the species' existence settled, and we are interested in hearing all these little tidbits. We glean what we can from them and look at all of them critically, but we are not yearning for the "proof" that many seem to be. It is likely that new snippets will appear here, none will be offered or intended as "proof," and if some feel frustrated by this...surely we must count patience as a desirable trait for a birder.
fangsheath
Well-known member
Christen,
Thanks so much for your efforts, it's terrific that you're deploying remote devices. On woodpecker sign, absolutely you should make note of large cavities. You can get very good estimates of horizontal dimensions using a rangefinder and a camera with a decent zoom. Look for evidence of recently fallen wood chips at the bases of cavity trees. On foraging sign, it is best to bring a calipers with you and take measurements of individual gouge marks. See the web site below on the proper way to measure the marks. Gouge marks consistently wider than 3.5 mm are suspect, those wider than 4.0 mm are highly suspect. However, beware of wet, spongy wood textures, these can produce very wide gouges from pileateds. What kind of listening devices are you deploying?
http://www.coastalgeorgiabirding.org/misc/grooves.htm
Thanks so much for your efforts, it's terrific that you're deploying remote devices. On woodpecker sign, absolutely you should make note of large cavities. You can get very good estimates of horizontal dimensions using a rangefinder and a camera with a decent zoom. Look for evidence of recently fallen wood chips at the bases of cavity trees. On foraging sign, it is best to bring a calipers with you and take measurements of individual gouge marks. See the web site below on the proper way to measure the marks. Gouge marks consistently wider than 3.5 mm are suspect, those wider than 4.0 mm are highly suspect. However, beware of wet, spongy wood textures, these can produce very wide gouges from pileateds. What kind of listening devices are you deploying?
http://www.coastalgeorgiabirding.org/misc/grooves.htm
Mary Scott
I think Mary said on her site that the sighting was not in one of the sites on BilBill's list. I could be wrong...
Regarding a sightings list--I had contacted Cornell through their web site on the possibility of having such a list that would include any sightings sent in to their site. They politely said that they had no plans to do that.
todbod
MMinNY said:
I think Mary said on her site that the sighting was not in one of the sites on BilBill's list. I could be wrong...
Regarding a sightings list--I had contacted Cornell through their web site on the possibility of having such a list that would include any sightings sent in to their site. They politely said that they had no plans to do that.
todbod
