Mike Johnston
Well-known member
But Tim and others have been told quite clearly that their questions and comments are not welcome there either! Seems like no-one actually wants toKCFoggin said:
have to deal with questions of evidence.
-
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
have to deal with questions of evidence.
Edward woodwood
Member
ok
why not make it like Ruffled Feathers where you have to subscribe?
Then the 'searchers' can talk to each other about whatever they like and anyone not interested will not subscribe to the thread (that would include me).
I only post on this one as it is public and certain things need to be countered. If it isn't for public consumption i wouldn't care at all what was said on a 'private' thread.
Sounds like a good compromise to me?
Tim
why not make it like Ruffled Feathers where you have to subscribe?
Then the 'searchers' can talk to each other about whatever they like and anyone not interested will not subscribe to the thread (that would include me).
I only post on this one as it is public and certain things need to be countered. If it isn't for public consumption i wouldn't care at all what was said on a 'private' thread.
Sounds like a good compromise to me?
Tim
KCFoggin said:
This thread, more so than any other, is exactly the place for controversy ...just look at the title 'Ivorybill Searcher's Forum' - a bird extinct or virtually so and yet there are pages and pages of comments how they are being seen by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Controversy!
PS 1 what's the 'insights' bit? Don't see much insight on this thread
PS 2 comments like "lazy Brits waiting for (US) 'birders' to find it so we can come and tick it" ...yeah right, if it was so easy to come and tick it, how come there still exists not one decent photo. Could it be cos it is not there or are you searchers just incompetent?
fangsheath
Well-known member
Let me make a few things very clear. If there were not an existing ivory-bill thread that was open to free debate I would lobby the moderators to make this a debate thread. I do not support the suppression of debate. Neither I nor the moderators have told anyone in the other thread that their "questions of evidence" are not welcome. If you have a problem with the premise behind this thread, as clearly expressed in the initiation post, by all means PM the moderators. Meanwhile, obey the rules and respect the thread structure of BirdForum. If you wish to debate evidence presented here, do it in the other thread. In my experience no one who has presented evidence or speculation has been unwilling to respond to criticism in the other thread.
I believe that my patience and that of the moderators has been exemplary. Mine frankly is wearing thin.
I believe that my patience and that of the moderators has been exemplary. Mine frankly is wearing thin.
fangsheath
Well-known member
Jesse, to answer your question - I don't know that there is a clear general answer as to the numbers of wood-boring beetles today as compared to the 1930's across the historic ivory-bill range. There was much more bottomland forest at that time but much of this was immature, having been recently logged. Despite Tanner's assertions it is not at all clear that cerambycid numbers are generally much lower in immature forests than in old-growth, although there may be particular species that favor old-growth. What few studies I have seen seem to indicate a surprising ability of cerambycids to endure and recover from considerable canopy loss.
What I can say is that dead wood volumes in the Big Woods vary greatly but are generally lower than those reported from the Singer Tract in the 1930's. Pileated woodpecker densities, which are quite definitely correlated with dead wood volumes, apparently reach or exceed those reported by Tanner in numerous mature bottomland forests in the South today. I have seen plenty of beetle sign, including cerambycid sign, in bottomland hardwoods in Arkansas and Louisiana, less in cypress/tupelo. It is hard to imagine that food is really a limitation in some areas.
It is hard for me to believe that ivory-bills were generally increasing prior to 1990. In most areas forest acreage continued to decline right up to the 1990's. Although the existing forests were slowly becoming more mature, I think the continued deforestation would have more than
countered this. Not only did it eliminate critical habitat but it increased the fragmentation of key areas. Now the acreage is slowly increasing, but I think the situation is very tenuous right now. Still I have great hope and I think the bird is far more adaptable in its feeding than Tanner believed.
What I can say is that dead wood volumes in the Big Woods vary greatly but are generally lower than those reported from the Singer Tract in the 1930's. Pileated woodpecker densities, which are quite definitely correlated with dead wood volumes, apparently reach or exceed those reported by Tanner in numerous mature bottomland forests in the South today. I have seen plenty of beetle sign, including cerambycid sign, in bottomland hardwoods in Arkansas and Louisiana, less in cypress/tupelo. It is hard to imagine that food is really a limitation in some areas.
It is hard for me to believe that ivory-bills were generally increasing prior to 1990. In most areas forest acreage continued to decline right up to the 1990's. Although the existing forests were slowly becoming more mature, I think the continued deforestation would have more than
countered this. Not only did it eliminate critical habitat but it increased the fragmentation of key areas. Now the acreage is slowly increasing, but I think the situation is very tenuous right now. Still I have great hope and I think the bird is far more adaptable in its feeding than Tanner believed.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
fangsheath said:
I guess what I am saying is that looking only for dead wood may be a mistake. We need to look for DYING and standing trees. Many of the trees being scaled are no where near old growth status, but merely appear to be susceptible to insect damage. Dying and susceptible are two very different things. These trees are still standing. Once they hit the ground they appear to be left alone. That is what I am seeing.
I agree that there was probably no increase in numbers prior to 1990. Further, it takes decades for areas to rebound. One place I know was "reforested" about 1996. It will take 20 years more to see a forest at the rate of growth I see. I would love to see fragmented areas put together. But it will take time. In the short term we have to save what we have from water projects and the like.
Jesse
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Hi Fang,
This thread was clearly set up for people who wish to search for the IBWO, not to discuss the "evidence". I accept that and quietly listen for something interesting. I only post when I see posts criticising so called sceptics on this thread. The moderators don't step in until someone (a sceptic?) responds because then the discussion inevitably diverges from the original intention. So shall we add to the intention of this forum that this is where snide remarks about sceptics can be posted unchallenged or can you searchers stick to the point?
There is another issue that is responsible for unpopular comments on this thread. When searchers make large jumps of faith between what they have observed and what is claimed during searches for IBWOs, should other Birdforum members just let these slide? If its posted on this forum then it should be discussed on this forum.
Mine too.
This thread was clearly set up for people who wish to search for the IBWO, not to discuss the "evidence". I accept that and quietly listen for something interesting. I only post when I see posts criticising so called sceptics on this thread. The moderators don't step in until someone (a sceptic?) responds because then the discussion inevitably diverges from the original intention. So shall we add to the intention of this forum that this is where snide remarks about sceptics can be posted unchallenged or can you searchers stick to the point?
There is another issue that is responsible for unpopular comments on this thread. When searchers make large jumps of faith between what they have observed and what is claimed during searches for IBWOs, should other Birdforum members just let these slide? If its posted on this forum then it should be discussed on this forum.
fangsheath said:
Mine too.
Edward woodwood
Member
fangsheath said:
why has my post been removed stating that on the first three pages of this thread there are numerous posts (none from sceptics) debating evidence? and yet the one above remains?
I help a lot of people out on this forum and am getting pretty hacked off at being continually censored - especially when defending a position with what can be seen by one and all as plain unavoidable facts.
kick me off the forum but don't censor me like this
Tim
fangsheath
Well-known member
Bonsaibirder - As the initiation post says, discussing the evidence, past or present, is acceptable. What is unacceptable is debating the evidence in a way that does not contribute to helping searchers find, document, or protect ivory-bills. There is admittedly a gray area here. I think the moderators have managed this well. If you disagree, PM them.
As for your concern about snide remarks about sceptics - I agree that it should stop in this thread. If I feel that someone has made a snide remark and you wish to respond, I am inclined to let your response slide. But I do not intend to let this thread become filled with unproductive tit for tat.
Your opinion that "If its posted on this forum then it should be discussed on this forum" is noted. I disagree with it in this instance. Bring it up with the moderators.
As for your concern about snide remarks about sceptics - I agree that it should stop in this thread. If I feel that someone has made a snide remark and you wish to respond, I am inclined to let your response slide. But I do not intend to let this thread become filled with unproductive tit for tat.
Your opinion that "If its posted on this forum then it should be discussed on this forum" is noted. I disagree with it in this instance. Bring it up with the moderators.
Edward woodwood
Member
timeshadowed said:
eh?
do not understand this
who is moding this thread?
Tim
Edward woodwood
Member
Steve said:
seems the prams have absolutely no toys left in them
It is impossible to debate or discuss anything with some of these people who are constantly complaining and getting reasonable posts pulled. Most of us contribute in many other forums and don't get posts pulled. So you can see what's going on...
They have already made BirdForum a laughing stock among people who would actually get a lot from it. They don't take it seriously because of this. A great shame as this place is a fantastic resource for many many people
Tim
Edward woodwood
Member
It does give a lot of people a lot of pleasure Steve
howabout making it a subscription thread as i suggested earlier? That way the searchers can help each other out and others of us won't get so wound up about information placed publicly that can't be contested on the same thread?
Anyway best i vacate here before I go too far, as i'm not one to do it all via pm to moderators
Tim
howabout making it a subscription thread as i suggested earlier? That way the searchers can help each other out and others of us won't get so wound up about information placed publicly that can't be contested on the same thread?
Anyway best i vacate here before I go too far, as i'm not one to do it all via pm to moderators
Tim
colonelboris
Right way up again
Hmm. Good point.
Also, if they are proven to exist (as in to most people's satisfaction - I'm saying nothing about current report's quality or what anyone believes) then we don't want to broadcast their location to every Tom, Dick and Harry egg collector, do we?
Also, if they are proven to exist (as in to most people's satisfaction - I'm saying nothing about current report's quality or what anyone believes) then we don't want to broadcast their location to every Tom, Dick and Harry egg collector, do we?
Edward woodwood
Member
Steve said:
yes Steve
but i'm not sure how many would
lots of people probably surf and just look into the thread... and would not be that interested as to subscribe. They just go away with a distorted picture of reality. It's important because it will colour people's views on conservation and the money spent by governments on it etc.
It's purely a thread for 'searchers' to share info (despite them debating evidence now and again..ha ha ha). They can continue to share info and debate can continue in the main public non-subscription thread.
Tim
Similar threads
