Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (41 Viewers)

timeshadowed said:

Thanks, drongo, for supplying that url!

I found the following quotes very interesting in light of several postings to BirdForum that have stated that the IBWO search in AR has 'stolen' funds that were ear-marked for other KNOWN species reseach:

"Jackson (p. 7) is incorrect in stating that funds allocated by federal agencies toward the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
recovery effort represented 'a re-allocation of funds from
other budgeted projects, including ongoing efforts on behalf of other endangered species (Dalton 2005), resulting in cutbacks to those projects.' " . . .

"We consulted the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Southeast Region (S. Hamilton pers. comm.); the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team Leader and Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge system, Southeast Region (J. Andrew pers. comm.); and the senior science advisor to then Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton (J. Tate pers. comm.), among other sources. All agree that no funds previously allocated for other endangered species projects by the USFWS were ever reallocated to the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker project, and no endangered species
project suffered "cutbacks." The above-named sources
explained that unallocated funds available for preventing
extinctions, species recovery, law enforcement, and migratory bird management within the USFWS FY 2005 budget-and not earmarked for other species -were allocated to initiate Ivory-billed Woodpecker recovery efforts."

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

Click to expand...

While I support the work being done in AR, I would suggest asking the managers of some of the other NWRs that deal with listed species to comment in a location where they can be candid before I reached any conclusions.

timeshadowed said:

Here is another quote from the AUK article by Cornell that I find interesting in light of several past posts here on BirdForum:


"Jackson (p. 6) equates legitimate attention to a remarkable
news story by not-for-profit institutions and by the news
media with compromising the scientific process. He cites five "anonymous" authors in arguing that science was
compromised, but these were opinion pieces written by
journalists and bloggers. None purported to be presenting a
scientific case, and none was presented by anyone directly
involved in scientific research. We agree with Jackson's
statement that "sound bites must not pass as science." This is why we were flabbergasted by Jackson's own use of the
phrase "faith- based ornithology" in referring to our work.
Who, exactly, is compromising science with sound bites here?"

Clarifications about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)in Arkansas. John W Fitzpatrick, Martjan Lammertink, M David Luneau Jr, Tim W Gallagher, et al. The Auk. Washington: Apr 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 2; pg. 587, 7 pgs

Click to expand...

I guess I'm an IBW sceptic, primarily because I don't believe an enormous black and white bird could hide anywhere in the USA for very long. But I've never been to the Big Woods of Arkansas, or similar places, so i can't really express an opinion. But in my spare time when I need to earn money, I am a professional scientist. I have a lot of experience of sending data off to scientific journals for possible publication. If I thought that in my lab we'd found something really interesting, and wanted it published in Science, I KNOW that I would have to make damn sure that my presentation of the data was absolutely textbook - lovely photographs, statistics, a movie, computer simulation etc. If I thought I'd found something really interesting, but we didn't have the record of it, (if, for example, our photos were crap, or the movie was blurry, or the statistics didn't add up) and I sent it to a top journal, I can already predict the response
'Collinson's data are highly suggestive but do not prove that such-and-such is the case... etc'

I have really tried, but I can't see how the evidence published in Science for the persistence of the IBW is anywhere near that normally required by top journals. If the paper had been published in Biological Conservation or some similar, international but lower profile journal, as 'Evidence for the persistence of IBW', I would not have a problem with that. But I'm absolutely astounded that it got past the editors and peer-review and inot Science - the quality of the evidence is not in that top league.

I think it's naive to assume that journal editors are blind to the newsworthiness of the papers they publish. In fact, I know that when I referee papers for some journals, I have to tick a box for 'is it newsworthy?' We saw papers on prions getting into top journals when Mad Cow disease was in the headlines that I would 'normally' have expected to end up in lower profile journals. Similarly, anthrax papers when anthrax was in the news. SO while not doubting the integrity of peer review in this case, blah de blah, I am prepared to suggest that the part of the review process took into account that this was a legendary North American bird, and that an identical paper on a different obscure, non-USA presumed extinct bird, would never have got a sniff at getting into Science, and might not have made an international journal at all without further evidence.

Hi Gang,

This is a hot topic. I'm not going into personalities or going to get drawn in too deeply as I am preparing for 2 months in the arctic followed by 3 months in S. America.... but... There is an IBWO in ARkansas and very likley 3. Bobby Harrison's video 'evidence' is pitful at best. David Luneau's is far better but will never rise above a little better than "Sasquatch status", and I bet money (by putting my money where my mouth is daily) that there are ivorybills in several parts of the US.
I posted on the other thread about my experiences in both Cuba and a little about being one of the first brought into Arkansas in April 2004.
I dont have tons of time but will answer questions,

Thanks for dropping in, Tim, I believe you had alluded last year to the possibility of ivory-bills ranging over huge areas and that Elvis might have been born as far away as Florida. I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be now, with the benefit of another season's results.

IBWO in Swamp

fangsheath said:

Thanks for dropping in, Tim, I believe you had alluded last year to the possibility of ivory-bills ranging over huge areas and that Elvis might have been born as far away as Florida. I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be now, with the benefit of another season's results.

Click to expand...

Hi Fang,

Well this year I was only able to work in White River, cooperation was less than thrilling. Ahmmm...

I took a group of friends into the White and we did hear ONE clear set of double knocks. Again hmm.. but in light of the numerous recorded double knocks on ARU's by C.L.O. near this location, I am 100% certain there are IBWO's in lower White River. so this is a second location.

Mike Collins work in the Pearl is intriguing. I am encouraged by his persistance. I have little faith that Bobby Harrison will achieve anything in Bayou de View but that is another story.

I had several relavant experiences in Guatemala with Campephilus guatemalensis. I filmed an unmated bird double-knock drumming and recored the sound with Senneheiser mikes. I actually went down tere twice and te first time I heard the double-knock I about s*** in the proverbial pants. I had been so tuned into IBWO for so long I kinda forgot where I was. But the point to my internal set of references was that the drumming is INDISTINGUISHABLE to the human ear.... and it is close VERY close to exactly what I heard on 4 occasions -one of those occasions - was recorded by a nearby ARU and is owned by C.L.O. Because it was witnessed this may be the single best piece of evidence that Cornell has.

Still they (very strangely) act very wierd about sound recordings. Double knocks have long been thought ( and held up by experts) to be diagnostic of the genus Campephilus.

So... CLO is a great but also strange beast. I'd use different adjectives, but this is too public for real talk.
USFWS has abcked away probably pressured by logging interests inthe south....SO
IF WE ARE GOING TO DOCUMENT IBWO in southern US better be soon 'cause the next step is LOGS in the South just like OIL every where...

SC, Florida, E. TExas, and Pearl look best to me-- outside of the White River that is....Bayou de View bird is spooked for now.

Hdroadcurlew said:

one of those occasions - was recorded by a nearby ARU and is owned by C.L.O. Because it was witnessed this may be the single best piece of evidence that Cornell has.

Click to expand...

What do you mean "witnessed?" Someone saw the bird doing it? I know somewhere CLO mentions hearing a double-knock then seeing an IBWO a short time afterwards. Is this what you're talking about?

Ibwo in Swamp

Curtis Croulet said:

What do you mean "witnessed?" Someone saw the bird doing it? I know somewhere CLO mentions hearing a double-knock then seeing an IBWO a short time afterwards. Is this what you're talking about?

No- I was in the field on March 17th. My assistant and I were preparing to film Wood Ducks for the piece that our group had envisioned at that time. Nick wend south another 400 yards to watch a Wood Duck nest cavity. And I was on a little lake in my blind with a 80x Canon lens and HiDefintion Sony HDW-730 camera. Due east of my position, about 150 meters, was an ARU. About 14:30 I began to hear what was obviously a large woodpecker foraging. Off and on for the next 2 hours I heard this bird hammering about 200 meters away from me very close to where I thought that ARU was.

Wood Ducks kept coming in and out and other things like Brown Creepers doing sprial chasing/courtship things kept distracting me from the foraging bird. But the bird ekpt doign things to bring my attention back to the pattern of hammering. Remember - by March I had been chasing Elvis since the previous April- (the only person to have done so) and I thought something sounded different than Pileated. But the bird finally went rather silent for a longer while.

THEN-At 16:32 on the ARU time (earlier on my time) about 165 meters and SE of my position, and directly behind two rather large trees that effectively blocked my direct view in that direction came a loud and totally distinctlive double -knock - the 3rd one I had witnessed during my time in the swamp.

This one was different as since I was basically as equidistant from the bird as it was to the ARU -- I knew we had the first recorded Ivory-billed Woodpecker double-knock. Now why Cornell has not published or publicized this better I have no idea. But I was sent copies of the recording so I have my proof. Additionally, I published this in the Missouri Bluebird in March.

This relates directly to my other experiences with double-knocks foraging pattern of IBWO and will eventually lead to my being able to film this bird double knocking.

Click to expand...

Hdroadcurlew said:

No- I was in the field on March 17th.

Click to expand...

What year?

Tim, can you estimate the maximum distance your double-knock could have been heard by the unaided ear?

Ibwo in Swamp

Curtis Croulet said:

What year?

Click to expand...

2005 about a month before the untimely release but also as leaves were coming out.

IBWo in Swamp

fangsheath said:

Tim, can you estimate the maximum distance your double-knock could have been heard by the unaided ear?

Click to expand...

Yes, My estimate was that the bird was 150 yards away at the time. The measurements we took later indicate it was 165 meters away. It was very loud to my ears, and thus I would think it could have been heard clearly at twice the distance. And the Results on the ARU also indicate that it carried quite well.
But two factors also must be considered.
One is that from my position, there was a considerable amount of open space, perhaps 50-75 meters above open water.
The other is that you have to be aware of what you are listening for and in at least a semi-focused aware state of mind. I notice that some days I filter out many sounds and then later I note that I heard something -like when I am writing up field notes. But the awareness of some things are 'turned' on some days or at certain times.. and not so focused at others. I am known for my ability to stay in 'focused' conditions over long periods of time.

Tim, I can only speak for myself, but your report is very encouraging. You perhaps haven't spent time on the last several months' worth of posts in this thread, but there's been much talk that the rediscoverers were suffering from mass hallucinations, saw imaginary Ivory-bills because they'd been told to find them, recorded duck wings slapping water, etc. I'm not quite clear what you're saying about CLO being "weird" about the double-knocks. I think that in the current atmosphere of skepticism and even charges of outright dishonesty, they are justified in being cautious about flatly declaring these to be IBWO knocks (assuming you're thinking they're being too cautious).

One thing perhaps you can address: the notion that you can walk into any swamp in the South or even in Wisconsin and hear these same sounds. Nobody has produced any recordings demonstrating this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'm a chaparral and desert guy, not an expert on swamps.

... I am prepared to suggest that the part of the review process took into account that this was a legendary North American bird, and that an identical paper on a different obscure, non-USA presumed extinct bird, would never have got a sniff at getting into Science, and might not have made an international journal at all without further evidence.[/QUOTE]


Remember this one: "Rediscovery of the Yellow-fronted Gardener Bowerbird", by J.M. Diamond ? This was a very obscure (until 1979 known from just 3 specimens, a fourth has long been missing), very non-USA (living in the Foya Mountains of West New Guinea) and presumed extinct bird (not by me though). Published in : SCIENCE, 216, 431-4, 1982.
Although the author visited the home range twice he didn't bring back any photograph whatsoever. Not even a blurry one. There was only a pen and ink drawing of the bird in display on its bower to accompany the article. Which was published without any hesitation by the Science editors. And rightfully
so, as we all know since February. So, with the Ivory-bill, has Science been right again ?

Ibwo in Swamp

Curtis Croulet said:

Tim, I can only speak for myself, but your report is very encouraging. You perhaps haven't spent time on the last several months' worth of posts in this thread, but there's been much talk that the rediscoverers were suffering from mass hallucinations, saw imaginary Ivory-bills because they'd been told to find them, recorded duck wings slapping water, etc. I'm not quite clear what you're saying about CLO being "weird" about the double-knocks. I think that in the current atmosphere of skepticism and even charges of outright dishonesty, they are justified in being cautious about flatly declaring these to be IBWO knocks (assuming you're thinking they're being too cautious).

One thing perhaps you can address: the notion that you can walk into any swamp in the South or even in Wisconsin and hear these same sounds. Nobody has produced any recordings demonstrating this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'm a chaparral and desert guy, not an expert on swamps.

Click to expand...

Well the biggest issue is that I can not hand give or even will my experience to anyone else.... a slightly different take on the old you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I have a big presentation tomorrow so I will leave it at that for tonigt.
Promise to answer better after some rest.

Tim B.

Hi Tim,
Thanks for your interesting and informative posts here and on the other threads. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate a bit more about your perspective on the Luneau video. Does your "Sasquatch" comment below reflect your opinion as to its content, or are you only referring to the way it is perceived in the public mind? I also read your post on the Missouri forum of about 6 weeks ago(?) that suggested you think most of the commentary on the video from both sides has been rather poor. You wrote that you would be discussing this publicly in May. Would you be willing to elaborate on this and on the issue of artifacts and to what extent image enhancement is possible and/or helpful?

Hdroadcurlew said:

Hi Gang,

This is a hot topic. I'm not going into personalities or going to get drawn in too deeply as I am preparing for 2 months in the arctic followed by 3 months in S. America.... but... There is an IBWO in ARkansas and very likley 3. Bobby Harrison's video 'evidence' is pitful at best. David Luneau's is far better but will never rise above a little better than "Sasquatch status", and I bet money (by putting my money where my mouth is daily) that there are ivorybills in several parts of the US.
I posted on the other thread about my experiences in both Cuba and a little about being one of the first brought into Arkansas in April 2004.
I dont have tons of time but will answer questions,

Click to expand...

Hidde Bruinsma said:

.
Remember this one: "Rediscovery of the Yellow-fronted Gardener Bowerbird", by J.M. Diamond ? This was a very obscure (until 1979 known from just 3 specimens, a fourth has long been missing), very non-USA (living in the Foya Mountains of West New Guinea) and presumed extinct bird (not by me though). Published in : SCIENCE, 216, 431-4, 1982.
Although the author visited the home range twice he didn't bring back any photograph whatsoever. Not even a blurry one. There was only a pen and ink drawing of the bird in display on its bower to accompany the article. Which was published without any hesitation by the Science editors. And rightfully
so, as we all know since February. So, with the Ivory-bill, has Science been right again ?

Click to expand...

Except that one, I meant...
|;| but it just confirms my suspicions that the required standard of proof is not as high as it is for 'proper' science. And it was a quarter of a century ago, where publishing in any journal was easier. I'm pretty certain I will never get a paper published in Science with a pen and ink drawing 'this is what we saw, honest'. As for whether Science will be proved right... well there is some evidence for IBWs.

One year Search Summation

I have just posted my summation on my web site for one year of search on the White River National Wildlife Refuge for the IBWO May 2005 => May 2006. After reading it I am thinking of firing myself for little accomplishment but I reconsidered and have put myself on a performance improvement plan.
Quick summation 4 possible sightings, one double rap heard, one Kent call heard. that is it. I quit counting hours spent searching when it went over 100 this pass January.
Thanks for viewing.
http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Ivory.htm
go to this site and click on my web journal

Ibwo in Swamp

Goatnose said:

I have just posted my summation on my web site for one year of search on the White River National Wildlife Refuge for the IBWO May 2005 => May 2006. After reading it I am thinking of firing myself for little accomplishment but I reconsidered and have put myself on a performance improvement plan.
Quick summation 4 possible sightings, one double rap heard, one Kent call heard. that is it. I quit counting hours spent searching when it went over 100 this pass January.
Thanks for viewing.
http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Ivory.htm
go to this site and click on my web journal

Click to expand...

Hello all I'll try to summarize the last three Q's and other points in one response.
First - One cannot just walk into a swamp in the southern US and hear a double rap. Pileated do not do them. There is one recording in the Lab of Ornithology of a drumming Pileated Woodpecker (I think from Oregon-- and that is also important) that was drumming normally but somewhere in the repetoire did a double knock- one time.
Now as I have said the sounds I heard in Guatemala were identical (to my ear) to the double knocks i heard in Ark.

I have to also dispell another myth about Bobby Harrison, although Bobby used decoys first (and apparently still is) Martjan was alarmed to hear of the practice. I had one made for my by Gene Sparling's Dad. It was not great in shape (and other ways) but i drew attention! I had it up four times in a great spot. However, I was very interesting to note that Pileated came in VERY VERY Agitated..... I filmed the whole encounter and this is in the Cornell Archives. I am NOT impressed with the footage of Bobby's and feel that bird one is CLEARLY a PILEATED in hs footage and a heron flying through in the second shot. NEVER NEVER will this POOR quality and terribly focused footage be of any value and if he is continuing to suggest otherwise He is being dishonest and of little value to the rest of us who are working dilegently to really acquire something of value.

Proof is a high standard so JUST in case any of you guys go out. PLEASE set you focus to MANUAL !!!!! Leave it focused just a bit shy of infinity. Pick an object say- 200 yards and put it in focus and then --if you choose -- let you camera run. David L. began this tecnique.

I believe I began the comparison of DAvid's video to the one of "Sasquatch". The point is even after extensive analysis and attempts to make something from what he got.... the FOCUS was at 6 feet..... YOU WILL NEVER GET BETTER THAN THAT. However, I also immediately knew he had indeed acquired footage of the bird. So is that clear?

The reason I can say this unequivocally - and damn Sibley, Kaufman and others... they are wrong- the reason is they do NOT have sufficient experience with understanding focus versus artifacts. Compare that to having 15 years of daily experience in television.... What hurts is that-- of these guys, for example... I have known Kenn for over 30 years and NOT once did Kenn even contact me... to talk about anything related to the whole thing. Mark Robbins how ever has spent quite a bit of time discussing the video with me, as well as long talks about double raps and my experiences. We have different opinions on the video - although we have never looked at it while we were talking about it and we respect each other enough to not allow our differences to hurt that.

Primary reason for artifacts or whites being out of place (blurring) in video is a factor of WHITE BALANCE. DAvid's camera was in very good white balance. This can easily be seen due to the trueness of all of the other colors including the flesh tones, greens, and the famous Yellow canoe paddle handle. I have to also be honest I have not checked color temperature of his image. because I feel it is of no use.

But it can be measured and compared to-->

Cornell and Martjan designed a "control" as best as we were able to construct. Bobby loaned us his one excellent decoy and created two more capable of "flying". They were outstanding and created exactly to scale etc etc. This is an area where Harrison is outstanding.

Anyway on March 15th 2005, we "recreated" the Luneau video and the sparring mostly ignores the results. I'd actually be happy to debate any of these folks on stage anytime anywhere . Slides and presentations included. Part of one of the paper includes our results of this. I find it very strong.

Last thing for today in light of the comments about the bowerbird... Why do people think that because we altered a habitat, or even cut the Singer Tract that the birds just lay over and stuck their feet up in the air and died?
IBWO's were VERY capable of moving enormous distances. and species must adapt to changing conditions all the time. Blah blah blah. You know I feel they flew somewhere... at least a few pairs have survived and IBWO in BDV was fledged somewhere in the last 15 years.

Tim

Very interesting Tim. I can't point immediately to a website or post, but the skeptics have pretty much dismissed the re-creation as worthless. Part of the reason the skeptics don't like the re-creation is that the wings of the model don't flex (do they?) as would a live bird's wings. And this gets into the issue of how a bird's wings move in flight. As you well know, Sibley says they flex in a manner that would show the white of the Pileated that he contends is in the Luneau video. I don't think Sibley cites any source for this motion other than his own opinion. Cornell's rebuttal cites three sources (IIRC two papers and a book) for the mechanics of bird flight. I guess I'm surprised that someone as knowledgeable as Sibley would subscribe to the idea that birds twist their wings as one twists an oar, that they are "rowing" through the air.

Hdroadcurlew said:

Last thing for today in light of the comments about the bowerbird... Why do people think that because we altered a habitat, or even cut the Singer Tract that the birds just lay over and stuck their feet up in the air and died?
Tim

Click to expand...

Because very often Academics lack the ability to think. They receive tenure, and then spend their lives kissing butts, and playing politics. There are very few birds left, but there are some, and they are spread out over much of the historic range. Since the birds haven't just shown up they must not exist.

Tenure particularly is bad because people have no reason to produce, and for the academy "produce" now means publish. It does not mean set your mind to a task and solve it. Newton did that -- we have so few Newtons.

To take on a task that might result in demonstrable failure is not something that these people can handle. They are more afraid of losing their job, country club standing, and of not being in the "in" crowd that they have lost track of their supposed purpose.

Why can these people write off without investigation 50 years of IBW sitings? Because it is safe. Heaven forbid you get caught up in a wild goose chase and be made fun of. What used to be called scientific method, and particularly the replication of outcome, in this case seeing the bird, became equated with being gullible enough to think on might survive when we all "know" that they didn't.

Academics are not risk takers. Very often they are cowards to begin with, and in the end it often shows. On top of this they place a gloss of arrogance and "know it all ism" that is almost insufferable.

On a very large scale, and not to imply these ills to anyone, this was shown in Nazi Germany when Jewish books were burned and Jewish intellectual thought was criminalized. The majority of the academics sat back and watched for fear of losing their jobs. Many fields of inquiry were brought to a screeching halt, thank God. I can't imagine what would have happened if Heisenberg and the rest of the German A Bomb project would have been able to use Einstein's theorems. We see the same activities in University today.

OUR JOB: Go out, find the bird, and remember these are the same type of people that a dead bird had to be brought in and shown before they would believe that Mason Spencer was seeing them. A louisianna State Rep and Lawyer you would think that these types of fools would have listened to him, but they didn't. Think!!! Don't stop thinking because others have.

Jesse