• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (33 Viewers)

Tuna Slushie said:
I think there are people here and in the community at large who really represent the enemies of conservation while posing as 'birders' and such who intend to foment doubt as to the bird's existence. It should be obvious by now who they are.
Click to expand...

So, if you don't believe in the IBWO ...?
If you would like to obtain reasonable evidence for the existence of a species before spending large amounts of money on conserving it ...?
If you get tired of the perpetual false-dawns concerning IBWO sightings ...?
If you don't get excited every time someone sees something "intriguing" ...?
If you would rather see money spent on conserving endangered birds that are demonstrably extant ...?

... then you are an enemy of conservation. Is that what you are saying?
 
Maybe the OBC can learn from this saga by setting aside large areas of Sumatra for the conservation of the Orang pendek. It's reported far more often than the ground cuckoo... so why not believe it exists! There's a good photo due soon...
 
Bonsaibirder said:
So, if you don't believe in the IBWO ...?
If you would like to obtain reasonable evidence for the existence of a species before spending large amounts of money on conserving it ...?
If you get tired of the perpetual false-dawns concerning IBWO sightings ...?
If you don't get excited every time someone sees something "intriguing" ...?
If you would rather see money spent on conserving endangered birds that are demonstrably extant ...?

... then you are an enemy of conservation. Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Thats how it reads to me.
Strange line of thought.
 
I infer that Tom Nelson has an anti-conservation agenda. That's been my view for a long time. He's got some rather interesting ideas on other subjects that fuel my suspicions, to say the least. And his rhetoric and selective reporting reek of being driven by ideology. He's the one who's been advancing the idea that it's a boondoggle and throwing words like "fraud" around, so if any harm is done, Mr. Nelson will bear a significant amount of responsibility for it.


John Mariani said:
The title of the post is "$9.4 million for an out-of-focus Pileated?"

What do you infer from this as to his agenda? Tom Nelson doesn't believe there are IBWO in Arkansas. has said that he believes the Luneau video is of a normal Pileated. If he is correct, then it would seem to follow that an erroneous identification has resulted in attention and money being lavished on the area of the sighting. Habitat restoration is a good thing of course, but if conservation dollars are being spent on the basis that it will help a species that isn't really present there...well it may be a means to an end, but if the public begins to sense that endangered species spending is a boondogle it could hurt wildlife and the cause of habitat protection in the long run...
Click to expand...
 
fangsheath said:
The LMVJV has already posted a habitat suitability model for the ivory-bill as well as many other birds. This model is built on historical information about the bird combined with a few very basic assumptions. The relationship between ivory-bill density and snag density, for example, is assumed to be linear. This may be incorrect (it seems to be for pileateds) but it is a starting point. This is one example of the kind of analysis that is being done. A clearer understanding of potential prey items of ivory-bills is being developed. It appears that Tanner's observations of ivory-bill foraging do not entirely comport with what is now known about wood borers. A potential occupancy model has apparently been developed, although I haven't seen it, and search protocols are being standardized with this in mind. Details of this will presumably be in the Draft Recovery Plan.

http://www.lmvjv.org/landbird_HSI_models.htm
Click to expand...


Hi Fang. I was thinking about that model of yours. Still very unconvinced as to its use. Hope I've got the maths wrong on this (and I probably haven't got it perfect since it's a quick, back of envelope calculation), but......

As I understand it there are c. 18 sources of uncertainty in the model (one for each variable's assumed mathematic relationship with relative density and about two for each variable due to parameter estimates, although this obviously depends on mathematical relationship assumed). Thus to have a c. 50% error margin on your relative density estimates (which is roughly what you'd expect by assigning all areas of habitat the same relative density value - although this does depend on mathematical distribution of relative density values), and assuming statistical propagation of errors, the margin of error for each source of uncertainty must be less than 4% ([1-0.0377]^18=0.5). Any more than this and your model performs less well than assigning relative densities uniformly.

As I say, I do hope I've got the maths wrong. Otherwise those IBWOs could be in for some pretty dire management decisions!
 
Last edited:
Farnboro John said:
Measured how?

Number of claims? Number of analysed sightings that stand up? (Haven't seen too many of those mentioned here BTW.)

Same month everywhere people are looking regardless of lat/long, exact habitat, disturbance factors?

Until that indisputable evidence turns up there is no "best month" for IBWO sighting.

John
Click to expand...

at this time the woods have their fewest leaves on the trees allowing for greater visibility and sound travel - kent calls are very light.

contacts by searchers and reliable sightings are highest in Feb.

Feb. has the fewest "other" people in the woods - nearly all hunting seasons are closed - mainly the big ones - deer and waterfowl - which this opens up access to a lot more area and leaves more areas undisturbed.

it is colder... the bugs are not as bad as the rest of the year.. and the reptiles are in peak hibernation.

water levels are usually much more stable than in other months allowing for more consistent planning.

and... the birds appear to be more active.


and...... in feb.. there ARE decidedly more searchers in IBWO country - especially the ones who also happen to be hunters - who by the way.. make up overall a small percentage of IBWO searchers.. yet manage most of the reliable sightings(as reported to fish and game authorities and proper university officials).... and most of them do not wish for their names or info to be publicized.. for reasons i will not begin to get into a g a i n.
 
Last edited:
Ilya - Forgive me, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that a better alternative is to simply start by assigning "low-density residential" the same relative density as "woody wetlands" and "grass-forb" the same relative density as "sawtimber," merely because the uncertainty in the model is potentially great. The purpose, as I understand it, is to have a reasonable starting point, using predictors that to a great extent have already been used with other bird speces. Once clear imagery is published and we have consensus, my belief is that indirect measures will be the primary tool by which ivory-bill densities will be estimated. These values will be used to inform whatever model is used. If none of this happens I think we will indeed be left with some very wild guesses. But I hardly think assigning uniform densities across the landscape is the way to go.
 
fangsheath said:
Ilya - Forgive me, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that a better alternative is to simply start by assigning "low-density residential" the same relative density as "woody wetlands" and "grass-forb" the same relative density as "sawtimber," merely because the uncertainty in the model is potentially great. The purpose, as I understand it, is to have a reasonable starting point, using predictors that to a great extent have already been used with other bird speces. Once clear imagery is published and we have consensus, my belief is that indirect measures will be the primary tool by which ivory-bill densities will be estimated. These values will be used to inform whatever model is used. If none of this happens I think we will indeed be left with some very wild guesses. But I hardly think assigning uniform densities across the landscape is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you that assigning relative densities uniformly would indeed give you more accurate measures of relative density on average (particularly if you assign a value of zero to all habitat patches 8-P ). I.e. what the model will probably do is give you spurious very high values in a few patches. It also won’t cope very well with telling you the relative merits of a large stand of marginal woodland versus a small, isolated stand of optimal habitat. Look at the maths yourself. Where have I gone wrong?

The model might still have some use as a means of telling you which certain types of habitat are better or worse than others at a very basic level, but you claim to know that anyway as it is fed into the model in the first place.

If you don’t believe me, do some sensitivity analysis (alter the parameters / functions by an amount reflective of the uncertainty involved and re-run your model). I think you’ll find you get quite different results……..
 
Last edited:
I couldn't reach DocMartin's either.
The last days most pages looked terrible (many pics missing), hope it's an upgrade...

But this one still works: http://ibwo.blogspot.com/
So it must be a believer's hacking attempt... Mr Guppy?

With Birding is not a crime still readable (but not the comments), the latter statement is obviously flawed...

Just server problems, how prozaic.
 
Last edited:
MMinNY said:
I infer that Tom Nelson has an anti-conservation agenda. That's been my view for a long time. He's got some rather interesting ideas on other subjects that fuel my suspicions, to say the least. And his rhetoric and selective reporting reek of being driven by ideology. He's the one who's been advancing the idea that it's a boondoggle and throwing words like "fraud" around, so if any harm is done, Mr. Nelson will bear a significant amount of responsibility for it.
Click to expand...
Isn't Tom Nelson irrelevant?

If there were good documentation and convincing images (not "imagery" - there's plenty of that!), no one would worry every time Joe Blog posts his latest musings.

Adam
 
MMinNY said:
I infer that Tom Nelson has an anti-conservation agenda. That's been my view for a long time. He's got some rather interesting ideas on other subjects that fuel my suspicions, to say the least. And his rhetoric and selective reporting reek of being driven by ideology. He's the one who's been advancing the idea that it's a boondoggle and throwing words like "fraud" around, so if any harm is done, Mr. Nelson will bear a significant amount of responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

You can't even consider the possibility that Tom Nelson could be right about the original woodpecker sightings, so rather than disagree with him on that one major point you malign his motives with your "suspicions."

What will make people suspicious is when they see money flowing to people and projects based on the existence of a woodpecker that can't be found. The real harm is done when mistakes are made and perpetuated, policy decisions are made and and dollars are allocated based on errors stubornly insisted upon. If you are worried that the Rush Limbaugh's of the world are going to get a hold of this and use it against conservation efforts in the future you are probably right...but that's not Tom Nelson's fault. When fund raising for IBWO habitat begins before conclusive proof has been established and the IBWO stops irrigation projects despite no birds being findable - that's gonna open up the parties involved to ridicule and satire. The next time an endangered species needs protection the public will be more jaded and sceptical of environmentalists... Or do you think the end justifies the means, habitat protection in Arkansas and if there are no IBWOs there, so what?
 
I certainly can consider the possibility that he's right. I happen to think he is not. I object to his inflammatory, defamatory rhetoric and his intellectual dishonesty, which have a great deal in common with Rush Limbaugh's methods. And yeah, I do question his motives for those very reasons.

Again, he's the one talking about fraud (which is almost certainly libel), and you're the one talking about boondoggles. If Cornell et al. are mistaken, and habitat is protected, that's a good thing. It's only a matter of "ends justifying means" if you accept Nelson's conspiratorial premise that fraud is involved. In any case, most conservation-minded people will see habitat preservation as a good thing; the rest of the world isn't going to care, unless people of Nelson's ilk succeed in stirring them up.

John Mariani said:
You can't even consider the possibility that Tom Nelson could be right about the original woodpecker sightings, so rather than disagree with him on that one major point you malign his motives with your "suspicions."

What will make people suspicious is when they see money flowing to people and projects based on the existence of a woodpecker that can't be found. The real harm is done when mistakes are made and perpetuated, policy decisions are made and and dollars are allocated based on errors stubornly insisted upon. If you are worried that the Rush Limbaugh's of the world are going to get a hold of this and use it against conservation efforts in the future you are probably right...but that's not Tom Nelson's fault. When fund raising for IBWO habitat begins before conclusive proof has been established and the IBWO stops irrigation projects despite no birds being findable - that's gonna open up the parties involved to ridicule and satire. The next time an endangered species needs protection the public will be more jaded and sceptical of environmentalists... Or do you think the end justifies the means, habitat protection in Arkansas and if there are no IBWOs there, so what?
Click to expand...
 
Some of it is. . .the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example.

I didn't want to get into partisanship, nor did I see a need to, but the mention of Limbaugh set me off.

choupique1 said:
now hold on.... the complaining about spending on habitat for the IBWO is not coming from conservatives.....
Click to expand...
 
MMinNY said:
If Cornell et al. are mistaken, and habitat is protected, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


BUT (and that's a big BUT) if they are mistaken, then the next species/habitat they try to conserve is in trouble. Anti-conservationists will have a field day, if they haven't already.

That's my worry.

Cheers,
 
Bonsaibirder said:
So, if you don't believe in the IBWO ...?
If you would like to obtain reasonable evidence for the existence of a species before spending large amounts of money on conserving it ...?
If you get tired of the perpetual false-dawns concerning IBWO sightings ...?
If you don't get excited every time someone sees something "intriguing" ...?
If you would rather see money spent on conserving endangered birds that are demonstrably extant ...?

... then you are an enemy of conservation. Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have a PR background and it's a common tactic for unscrupulous practioners to infiltrate both sides of an issue to undermine the side they oppose. You don't accept the evidence so far? Whatever. Just don't put words in my mouth.
 
MMinNY,

If the Stokes' have indeed found ANY tree in the southeastern US where the bark was observed being stripped by PIWO and such bark was VERY tight to the tree, then that proves that PIWO can strip tight bark. Then any bark stripping CAN NOT be attributed to IBWO simply on the basis of tightness. Don't you agree?
 
John Mariani said:
You can't even consider the possibility that Tom Nelson could be right about the original woodpecker sightings, so rather than disagree with him on that one major point you malign his motives with your "suspicions."
Click to expand...

Can you explain how that is any different at all from what people on the other side of the issue (especially here) have been doing? Hmmm?
;)
 
I sympathize with your worry, but the outcome is not a given. The IBWO is sui generis, and there have been huge benefits in terms of habitat protection already. Nelson's overheated rhetoric, the allegations of fraud, the attempts to tar the Nature Conservancy as some evil organziation all increase the likelihood of a negative impact. I'm not saying there shouldn't be reasonable scientific debate about this, but that's not what's going on chez Nelson.

Agnostic. . .I don't agree. They didn't measure the tightness of the bark. Saying it's very tight is a totally subjective statement and is therefore meaningless. Efforts are ongoing to measure the tightness of stripped bark in areas known to be occupied by Pileateds and not Ivory-Bills. Until that data is obtained, the jury's out.



Bonsaibirder said:
BUT (and that's a big BUT) if they are mistaken, then the next species/habitat they try to conserve is in trouble. Anti-conservationists will have a field day, if they haven't already.

That's my worry.

Cheers,
Click to expand...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Mono
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives on...
Replies
1
Views
1K
Lisa W
Lisa W
F
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
21K
jurek
jurek
F
  • Locked
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
28K
ZanderII
Z
F
YouTube videos on habitats, Peru, IBWO, 4K, etc.
Replies
2
Views
2K
400+birder
4
M
  • Locked
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued
32 33 34
Replies
662
Views
73K
Steve
Steve

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 34 (members: 0, guests: 34)
Back
Top