-
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.
Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fangsheath
- Start date
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
cinclodes said:
Maybe the IBWO was 'stealing a free lunch' from the robin much like the bald eagle steels fish from an Osprey ??
fangsheath
Well-known member
Water tupelo - a connection to ivory-bills?
Water tupelo, or tupelo gum, is a common associate of cypress in the swamps of the South. Although its wood can be used for crates and furniture, it was often passed up by industrial lumbering in their mad rush for cypress, and many swamps have very large, old water tupelos. Water tupelo is common in the area where the Luneau bird was videotaped and large water tupelos are a common feature in some other areas where ivory-bills have been reported. According to Tanner, Alexander Sprunt saw ivory-bills feeding on water tupelo fruits in South Carolina.
So I am forced to wonder, is there a specific connection to this tree? Water tupelos are often the largest hardwoods, at least in terms of DBH, in today's bottomlands. Many of them are more than 100 years old, some more than 200. If ivory-bills came to favor them as foraging trees following the loss of other large hardwoods, they probably would have spent more time near the ground/water, as much of the wood volume in water tupelo is in the lowest 10 feet of the tree. This increased frequency of near-surface activity with consequent vulnerability to many ground predators may have enhanced the wariness of this already-wary species.
If anyone else has intimate familiarity with this species of tree I would appreciate any insights.
Water tupelo, or tupelo gum, is a common associate of cypress in the swamps of the South. Although its wood can be used for crates and furniture, it was often passed up by industrial lumbering in their mad rush for cypress, and many swamps have very large, old water tupelos. Water tupelo is common in the area where the Luneau bird was videotaped and large water tupelos are a common feature in some other areas where ivory-bills have been reported. According to Tanner, Alexander Sprunt saw ivory-bills feeding on water tupelo fruits in South Carolina.
So I am forced to wonder, is there a specific connection to this tree? Water tupelos are often the largest hardwoods, at least in terms of DBH, in today's bottomlands. Many of them are more than 100 years old, some more than 200. If ivory-bills came to favor them as foraging trees following the loss of other large hardwoods, they probably would have spent more time near the ground/water, as much of the wood volume in water tupelo is in the lowest 10 feet of the tree. This increased frequency of near-surface activity with consequent vulnerability to many ground predators may have enhanced the wariness of this already-wary species.
If anyone else has intimate familiarity with this species of tree I would appreciate any insights.
Snowy1
Well-known member
An update of sorts for you...although this has already been widely reported...CNN has an article on their homepage. Talk to you guys in a week - I'm heading to Arkansas.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/17/woodpecker.debate.ap/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/17/woodpecker.debate.ap/index.html
I have decided to give up on the former updates forum. The vitriol and personal attacks have gotten far out of hand. I regret it, because there is still some interesting discussion there, but I don't think there's any real point in continuing. I will be making a couple of posts here today, and I hope that they will inspire some interesting and useful responses related to searching and the general question: what does it take to search?
Answer number one is: a very thick skin. I will return to the more practical aspects of searching in my next post.
Last night, I was talking with my wife about Mike's sightings, the recent Science articles and the heated argument that's been happening on the former updates forum, and our conversation started me wondering. . .
Why does the ivory-bill generate so much intensity on all sides? Granted this is an incredible bird of stunning beauty and mystery, but it is by no means the only such animal in the world; it captured my imagination at age 10 -- around the time of the Big Thicket reports -- in a way that no other creature has before or since, and I seem to be far from alone in this. It seems quite extraordinary to me that so many people who have reported sightings over the years have been subjected to so much vilification, ridicule and personal attack -- Dennis, Agey and Heinzmann, Fielding Lewis, Mary Scott (to some extent), Mike (who is now being slammed in a number of places on the net), even the CLO, which is better equipped than any of the others to fight back. I'm not interested in a discussion of the merits of these sightings, only in understanding the mentality behind the vehemence of the attacks. Obviously, the feelings of many of us who are convinced the ivory-bill survives are equally strong, so this controversy must be an expression of something deep in the human psyche. I'm just not sure what it is.
I don't think there's a single explanation. Ego, the desire of academics to protect their turf, political agendas of all varieties, the romance of the unknown, and the metaphorical power of survival against all odds and expectations undoubtedly all come into play, but none of these seem adequate to explain the intensity. I'm really interested in knowing what others think and what they might have to say about their personal reasons for searching and for caring so deeply.
More later. . .
Answer number one is: a very thick skin. I will return to the more practical aspects of searching in my next post.
Last night, I was talking with my wife about Mike's sightings, the recent Science articles and the heated argument that's been happening on the former updates forum, and our conversation started me wondering. . .
Why does the ivory-bill generate so much intensity on all sides? Granted this is an incredible bird of stunning beauty and mystery, but it is by no means the only such animal in the world; it captured my imagination at age 10 -- around the time of the Big Thicket reports -- in a way that no other creature has before or since, and I seem to be far from alone in this. It seems quite extraordinary to me that so many people who have reported sightings over the years have been subjected to so much vilification, ridicule and personal attack -- Dennis, Agey and Heinzmann, Fielding Lewis, Mary Scott (to some extent), Mike (who is now being slammed in a number of places on the net), even the CLO, which is better equipped than any of the others to fight back. I'm not interested in a discussion of the merits of these sightings, only in understanding the mentality behind the vehemence of the attacks. Obviously, the feelings of many of us who are convinced the ivory-bill survives are equally strong, so this controversy must be an expression of something deep in the human psyche. I'm just not sure what it is.
I don't think there's a single explanation. Ego, the desire of academics to protect their turf, political agendas of all varieties, the romance of the unknown, and the metaphorical power of survival against all odds and expectations undoubtedly all come into play, but none of these seem adequate to explain the intensity. I'm really interested in knowing what others think and what they might have to say about their personal reasons for searching and for caring so deeply.
More later. . .
Last edited:
MMinNY said:
I've followed the Ivory-billed story via the internet from Britain for a few years now and personally I can't say why I have been so 'hooked' but I can say that I have the greatest respect for those guys out there looking for proof that the bird still exists. Not only do they have to slog thanklessly through the swaps, they have to face the riducule from the scientific community and recently it seems to have become a bit of a mud flinging exercise. However the searchers out there seem to carry on regardless and focus on what is important and that is finding conclusive proof.
Personally I do beleive that it still exists. I think there have been too many supposed sighting to ignore.
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471
But then I'm no expert just a lover of wildlife.
Final thing: Agian hats off to everyone out there looking I do have the deepest respect for you and thank you for keeping us all posted.
fangsheath
Well-known member
I think this bird is unique in a number of ways, and I think some of these elements have conspired to produce an unfortunate situation. Other species, like the whooping crane and the California condor, are spectacular and elicit awe and passion. But they are also pretty easy to find. I do see merit in the point of view that says that Dennis and others, right up to the CLO today, should have been able to get a clear photo, even though I disagree with it, and I think many birders are sincerely puzzled by what seems to be quite exceptional elusiveness from this bird. When people come forward with fuzzy videos I think it raises some alarm bells. Very quickly people become entrenched in their positions and the result is sadly predictable.
I have alluded to the possibility that this may not be a birder's bird. It may well be an example of the old adage, "Everything you know is wrong." People who have experience with other rare birds wonder how an animal like this could persist at such low densities and low fecundities for so long. It seems like random population fluctuations would wipe them out. In case anyone thinks I have not taken all of these things into account, think again. I am aware of the problems.
I have asked people for patience. Some people seem to have none. That's not my problem. I and others continue to move forward. The pretty pictures are coming. But I think we will find that we have to throw the book away on a lot of issues with this bird. I welcome ideas in this thread on how to facilitate our searches.
I have alluded to the possibility that this may not be a birder's bird. It may well be an example of the old adage, "Everything you know is wrong." People who have experience with other rare birds wonder how an animal like this could persist at such low densities and low fecundities for so long. It seems like random population fluctuations would wipe them out. In case anyone thinks I have not taken all of these things into account, think again. I am aware of the problems.
I have asked people for patience. Some people seem to have none. That's not my problem. I and others continue to move forward. The pretty pictures are coming. But I think we will find that we have to throw the book away on a lot of issues with this bird. I welcome ideas in this thread on how to facilitate our searches.
Curtis Croulet
Well-known member
MMinNY: Posting your question here means the flame war will spread to this thread. I have an opinion about this, but I'm not going to put it in this thread.
Fang, that leads to my next questions on what it takes to search. I hope I don't end up competing with myself and that both posts engender helpful and thoughtful discussion.
I'm planning to spend a week or so searching next year, and I realize that my experience in and knowledge of bottomland swamps is next to nil, outside of visits to tourist-friendly wildlife refuges. So I want to get myself ready - both physically and materially -- before I venture out. There's already been some discussion of searching methods, and it might be valuable for the experienced searchers to do some reiterating and elaborating on this topic.
I think it would also be valuable to discuss appropriate equipment and clothing in detail. It might be valuable to develop a checklist. Searching for the IBWO may not be the equivalent of a Himalayan expedition, but it seems far closer to trekking the Annapurna circuit (which I have done, in part) than to birding in Central Park, or on the boardwalk in Big Cypress for that matter.
I'm planning to spend a week or so searching next year, and I realize that my experience in and knowledge of bottomland swamps is next to nil, outside of visits to tourist-friendly wildlife refuges. So I want to get myself ready - both physically and materially -- before I venture out. There's already been some discussion of searching methods, and it might be valuable for the experienced searchers to do some reiterating and elaborating on this topic.
I think it would also be valuable to discuss appropriate equipment and clothing in detail. It might be valuable to develop a checklist. Searching for the IBWO may not be the equivalent of a Himalayan expedition, but it seems far closer to trekking the Annapurna circuit (which I have done, in part) than to birding in Central Park, or on the boardwalk in Big Cypress for that matter.
fangsheath said:
fangsheath
Well-known member
I don't think I could add much to choupique's post in the other thread when it comes to clothing and personal gear. The man is clearly a highly experienced outdoorsman. I would only say that I think the best approach is to either have a two-person crew, one to paddle and one to videotape, or use a trolling motor, as David Luneau has done. You need to cover a lot of ground/water as quietly as possible.
jurek said:
I believe this has been brought up before on the "other" thread.
It's my opinion that there are way too many sources of variation to make this a productive line of inquiry, at least if you plan on presenting it as evidence of existence. If your intention is to use it to focus a search, it might have some use, but I think the time spent looking for these marks would be better spent with your head up looking for the bird itself. Just my opinion though.
Regarding the list of things you need to go searching, I'd say pretty much the only thing you really need is common sense. And maybe a rain coat, rain pants, and GPS, particularly if you're directionally challenged.
If you're out there alone, or even if you have a partner, don't take any risks, like underestimating water depth or current or not looking where you put you're feet.
fangsheath
Well-known member
I would take the maybe off the GPS receiver. No way would I dream of attempting a serious ivory-bill search without one. You will end up wasting a lot of precious time. And speaking of the GPS receiver, find a way to keep it on your person, if you have to staple it to your hand. They are very losable.
jurek
Well-known member
SBauer said:
I thought that it may be photographed and measured if presumed ivory-billed woodpecker was seen taking off from some perch.
I also don't know how variable it is, but foot size in theory can be used to distinguish species.
If ivorybill was seen taking off, it is worth to closely investigate this site (especially if it is on ground level). AFAIK for some reason it was not done. This may show pecking marks in the wood, broken pieces of nuts etc., with valuable information. Maybe even dropped feather with DNA!
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
I beleive I have the reason why the birds are low to the ground. In addition to fallen mast, etc.
1. There is no evidence of other than insects or mast/ fruits being eaten. Fishing was that -- fishing. No evidence.
2. BUT. I did notice today when out slurping through the mud that many trees had been barked at the base by friendly beavers. Then I noticed woodpecker scalings for cerabymacids beginning directly above the where the beavers had left off. Simply put, by working the trees where the beavers had already done the damage the woodpeckers are able to gain easier access to the trees without having to make much noise and with considerably less work in removing the bark. It's already been breached. I have a nice picture of what I am talking about that I will post when I can.
The rains up here the last week or so have flooded the river system where I search. Deterred only slightly I spent a great deal of time in the swamp this morning and noted very heavy woodpecker activitiy. Red heads were heard, many pileateds in the same area, several red bellies, and one black and white that I have yet to fully identify. I was more focused on taking its picture than Identifying it in the field. It was clearly not an ivory bill. Its a hairy or downy. It is clear that breeding season is clearly underway up here given the large amount of activity.
Only one good scaling photo taken, some was observed but was too far away to get a close look at in the flooded conditions.
Some calls were heard but not definitive.
1. There is no evidence of other than insects or mast/ fruits being eaten. Fishing was that -- fishing. No evidence.
2. BUT. I did notice today when out slurping through the mud that many trees had been barked at the base by friendly beavers. Then I noticed woodpecker scalings for cerabymacids beginning directly above the where the beavers had left off. Simply put, by working the trees where the beavers had already done the damage the woodpeckers are able to gain easier access to the trees without having to make much noise and with considerably less work in removing the bark. It's already been breached. I have a nice picture of what I am talking about that I will post when I can.
The rains up here the last week or so have flooded the river system where I search. Deterred only slightly I spent a great deal of time in the swamp this morning and noted very heavy woodpecker activitiy. Red heads were heard, many pileateds in the same area, several red bellies, and one black and white that I have yet to fully identify. I was more focused on taking its picture than Identifying it in the field. It was clearly not an ivory bill. Its a hairy or downy. It is clear that breeding season is clearly underway up here given the large amount of activity.
Only one good scaling photo taken, some was observed but was too far away to get a close look at in the flooded conditions.
Some calls were heard but not definitive.
Similar threads
