Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

[Hdroadcurlew]

IBwo in Swamp

Well if they have dismissed the recreation then that is because they are proved wrong by it.

The RECRE Pileated shows a clear trailing black edge. The original video of Davids DOES NOT show this. I painted a 2x4 with alternating black and white stripes. This was designed to demonstrate resolution at the known distance. Started with 4" of black then 1/4 inch of white, 3" of black, 1/2 inch of white, 2" of black, 3/4 inch of white, 1 inch of balck 1 inch of white, and reversed the rest of the way. Then, I white balanced my HD camera... oops sorry at that point I was shooting Cornell's HD camera.... at least twice so we have total knowledge of the color temperature for the recreation. Then David set up- manually focused his camera on the front of the canoe and we set up the deocys and Martjan and Nick began doing our flapping and even ran them through the swamp. WE did lots of takes. I recorded all of this on HD tape and then two days later I had my final encounter of spring 2005.

BY the way the 'six pixel bird' I have always felt was a real stretch. I agree that something black and white is on the tree and that it was gone later but..... This is an example of where we must show better discipline. By including this I feel we opened our self to other criticism when so many other points were VERY strong.
(BY the by... I often use CAPS to make an emphasis -not Yell)

But in my opinion from what I have seen of the recreation looks very solid.

I think the skeptics weakest point is the arguement about the bird on the tree. I am in fact flabbergasted at the contortions they are suggesting is what a Pileated would have to go through to create this remarkable pattern that to my and MANY others eye is so very very Ivory-bill. In fact, I am absolutely clear that the pattern exhibited is impossible to contort or otherwise produce unless it comes from the white of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Again I am willing to publically debate this entire thing. Perhaps next year we can arrange something like this.!!! Sell tickets for habitat purchase!

But even better would be if Mike or someone gets that video shot next fall.

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.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Curtis

birds do twist (or better, flex) their wings in flight. Flapping with a calculated twist of the wing is actually how they fly. There's an up/down component to flight, a backwards/forwards component and a torsion/twisting component too which is (i think) more pronounced on the upstroke as the wing tip is drawn closer to the body. An understanding of this enables you to analyse the Luneau video. Using stiff winged models to simulate flight was beyond farcical...

any news on that Illiniois 'definite' sighting yet Jesse? I also think your comparison of skeptics to academics in Nazi Germany is er.... unwise.

 

[Goatnose]

OUR JOB: Go out, find the bird
Jesse

Jesse, just wanted to let you know that I did search this morning so some of us feel as you, get out there and find the bird.
Searched Green river on WRNWR two hours by Pirogue and two just floating in the jon boat. For some reason I have not had success it floating a bayou, I feel that immediately in the woods presents a better opportunity. However this is the last day to search the Green River by boat before fall or winter, the water is dropping fast so I felt like this was my last chance into this area for awhile. The Green River Bayou is a great bayou float, beautiful. It connects the upper North unit (East and Forked Lakes) to the lower North unit Maddox Bay etc.

 

[timeshadowed]

Jesse and Goatnose,

Keep up the good work by being out there searching for the bird. Without searching the bird will not be found.

So . . .

As long as you two are searching that is all that matters.

 

[de jong]

Academics and the Ivorybill

Because very often Academics lack the ability to think. They receive tenure, and then spend their lives kissing butts, and playing politics.
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.


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.

Jesse

Not only is your combination of physics and history bad, there are a lot of other unsubstantiated opinions about academics, tenure, and Nazis. American university science, which is conducted by tenured academics, is dynamic, productive, and is one of the best systems in the world. Witness all the graduate students from all over the world who come to study here. Also, consider for a few moments all the ways you have been benefitted by us folks who "can't think" and do nothing but "kiss butts." Your contribution sounds like sour grapes to me and I am sorry your experience was so negative. Academia is not perfect but it is a lot better than you think it is. Please stick to birding.

 

[Docmartin]

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.

Do you want to read that back to yourself when you've sobered up? I've always found that academics are successful intheir field for exactly the opposite reasons you describe, that they develop the ability to try things and fail, and to cope with failure day after day after day of their miserable lives. Failure happens all the time viz. failure to prove that IBW exists. If you develop a hypothesis 'IBW exists, but there aren't very many of them, and they spread out', that's fine. If you document one the hypothesis is proven. hurrah! This is the clever bit though... if you don't document one, it also supports your hypothesis that there aren't very many of them, and they're spread out. A proper academic would probably form a hypothesis based less on supposition and more on evidence 'IBW exists, and like every other species in the USA, it should be possible to document it exhaustively'. But within the church that is the IBW faith, that's not a popular hypothesis because then NOT documenting IBWs is evidence against it. And it might give support to the other hypothesis, which is that 'IBW is extinct'. I don't know whether IBW lives or not; there is evidence, but not proof, and I think it's worth looking for. But launching intemperate attacks on academics who might question the science behind what you are doing does not bring the IBW back.

 

[gws]

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

Despite the replies already posted, I agree with the substance of what you post.

I know of one academic who never bothered to meet with Fielding Lewis because he was scared of what his peers would think and what it would do to his career. Same person never bothered to check out Pearl River sightings reported many years before Kulivan.

Gutless and lazy, in my opinion.

In truth, some (not all) academics I've met through the years couldn't run a donut shop.

 

[MMinNY]

This really is a "both and" situation. My brother and his wife are both full professors at a major state school in the US, and I've done my time at three top universities, not in the hard sciences but in law, the humanities and social sciences. I can't comment on the UK, but in my experience here, plenty of profs are cowards; many of them primarily want their egos stroked, and a few are truly good, truly caring, and truly committed to educating. This minority is the exception, not the rule, unfortunately. There are far too many of the ilk that Jesse describes. When you go to grad school in your mid-thirties (with a law degree), the demands for self-abasement are very hard to tolerate.

I heard someone say that academic battles are so intense because there's so little at stake, and I think there's a lot of truth in that.

The ornithological world seems to be particularly clubby, elitist and timid. Members of the club protect their own for decades (see last week's New Yorker for an illuminating story on that subject) but are all too willing to attack outsiders and members of the club who commit heresy (a la Dennis), as the last 60 years of controversy about the IBWO illustrate quite plainly.

I think that, right now, the vast majority of academic ornithologists are not going to commit themselves. It's too risky. The ones who have already done so have also done their best to leave themselves ways to retreat from their statements, if necessary (this goes for both sides). . .the rest are frogs. . .sitting on logs. . .not knowing which way to jump.

I don't fault Cornell much for how the they've gone about the search. I have expressed reservations about the CLO's methods, but it's a difficult situation; Cornell is a big institution, and it may not be that well-suited to this kind of undertaking. I would bet that final, conclusive photo will not come from the CLO and quite possibly not from Arkansas. Things will get very, very interesting if that turns out to be the case.

Despite the replies already posted, I agree with the substance of what you post.

I know of one academic who never bothered to meet with Fielding Lewis because he was scared of what his peers would think and what it would do to his career. Same person never bothered to check out Pearl River sightings reported many years before Kulivan.

Gutless and lazy, in my opinion.

In truth, some (not all) academics I've met through the years couldn't run a donut shop.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Jesse has obviously had a bad time with "academics".

Not sure what your definition of an academic is and I'm not sure if you are referring to:

1] people who don't accept the currently available evidence for the continued existence of the IBWO
2] ornithologists
3] all scientists
or
4] anyone who works in a higher education establishment

I suspect it is number 1]. Either way you are plainly wrong in your blanket characterisation of whichever of these groups you are referring to.

I have been a scientist for my whole career so far - I have met academics who are fantastic researchers, brilliant maverick's, captivating educators, mediocre but reliable, inspired, paranoid, insecure, lazy dead wood, subserviant butt-kissers who get ahead, and just about everything in between. In fact academics represent a normal cross-section of people just like many other professions. Good and bad, nice and nasty etc.

Whichever "academics" are involved in this story is pretty irrelevant. I am just waiting until someone produces some convincing evidence that IBWO survives.

Note - I' not saying anyone should stop looking, I'm not saying that the Luneau bird and Mike Collin's bird are not IBWOs (just that there are other interpretations) and I'm not saying that I don't think there are any IBWOs left (just that there is not any good quality evidence yet).

Bonsaibirder

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Tim,

It is great that you are able to participate in this forum. I have met you (will send PM to clarify) and I know from personal experience and from talking to mutual friends of ours that you are an exceptional field birder. Some people on this forum have scoffed about the abilities of 'birders', however in my opinion, someone with exceptional in the field birding skills is the most likely sources of a properly documented report of this species.

You said that you don't mind answering some questions so I have some for you:

As I understand your previous posts, you are sure that IBWO still exists - is that the case?

What is the extent of your own encounters of IBWO? From your posts here I think you have heard one double-knock clearly but you have not seen any birds - is this correct?

You obviously have experience of other Campephilus species - do other Campephilus sp. fly with fast wingbeats like IBWO is supposed to or is that unique to IBWO?

Why can I see a dark border to the underwing of the bird in the Luneau video in some frames when other people can not?

How closely do you think a stiff-winged model can resemble the flight-action of a real bird?

When you see an IBWO, if you are not filming it or photographing it at the time, will you write a proper field description and put this matter to rest once and for all?

All the best,

Bonsaibirder

Well if they have dismissed the recreation then that is because they are proved wrong by it.

 

[humminbird]

Curtis

birds do twist (or better, flex) their wings in flight. Flapping with a calculated twist of the wing is actually how they fly. There's an up/down component to flight, a backwards/forwards component and a torsion/twisting component too which is (i think) more pronounced on the upstroke as the wing tip is drawn closer to the body. An understanding of this enables you to analyse the Luneau video. Using stiff winged models to simulate flight was beyond farcical...

any news on that Illiniois 'definite' sighting yet Jesse? I also think your comparison of skeptics to academics in Nazi Germany is er.... unwise.

Tim:
Anyone who watches a birds wing in flight, or who looks carefully at a frozen frame of a birds wing in flight, can not help but accept that there is a rowing type action in the flight of a bird. There is certainly a "twist at the wrist" as my orn prof used to say. My question is, this given, why is it that none of us can recall ever seeing a situation in which the white is seen at the trailing edge of a "Pileated" wing as is shown clearly, despite what Bonsaibirder contends, in the Luneau video?

Mark

 

[Hdroadcurlew]

Guys and Gals(?),

This is goign to take a long post again. Today I have a major business meeting and mush pullin a bunch of gear prior to leaving for the Arctic for 2 months next week. Promise to answer all that I can soon.

Tim

 

[70ivorybill78]

Guys and Gals(?),

This is goign to take a long post again. Today I have a major business meeting and mush pullin a bunch of gear prior to leaving for the Arctic for 2 months next week. Promise to answer all that I can soon.

Tim
__________________
All my Best,

Tim Barksdale
Birdman Productions, L.L.C.
& MundoAveLoco! L.P.
Choteau, MT

--------

Tim

Great to hear from you and your take on things. I originally was not impressed with Cornells handling of things, but have re-evaluated that opinion. In having recently searched for Ivory-bills, I have some renewed respect for what Cornell has done/is trying to accomplish.

For those who have not searched, you cannot imagine how easy it is to miss a large black/white bird in a cavity or miss a bird that chooses to keep a tree trunk between itself and you, despite your best efforts to see and identify it. This happened to me, it may have been a Pileated but was certainly producing some phenominal pounding/rapping. My best efforts failed to see this bird that I knew was there. It could not be approached closer due to swampy conditions.

I think Jesse's point was that prior to 2004, many "experts" chose to immediately write off all and any IBWO sightings on the basis the bird could not possibly exist. For anyone who wants to dispute this point with me, I can tell you of first hand experience with this.

And for the record, my opinion of the Luneau video is that it is an Ivorybill. I can go into a long discussion as to why I believe that, if necessary.

once again, great to hear from you Tim

sincerely;
Steve Sheridan

 

[Goatnose]

Food for IBWO

Search this past weekend revealed several large trees down or partially down and dying. However there was no scaling or woodpecker damage that I could find on these dying and/or dead trees, WRNWR off Green River Bayou. These trees in question , I am going o guess, are the result from a major storm that came through here March 2006. All I could do was stand there with my hands on my hips and scratch my head about why, with this apparently available food source was there not large woodpecker interest.
Rule out 1. No beetle infestation as of yet. How to determine?
A. If beetle infestation why not attractive?
B. If no beetle infestation as of yet. Why
1. TLTC Too Late to count or too early to count.
2. Wrong species of tree.
Understanding the food source will help me in my search efforts. Please comment.
Trying to think outside the box here, has anyone considered propagating Cerambycid beetles at home? Just to better understand?

 

[gws]

Search this past weekend revealed several large trees down or partially down and dying. However there was no scaling or woodpecker damage that I could find on these dying and/or dead trees, WRNWR off Green River Bayou. These trees in question , I am going o guess, are the result from a major storm that came through here March 2006. All I could do was stand there with my hands on my hips and scratch my head about why, with this apparently available food source was there not large woodpecker interest.
Rule out 1. No beetle infestation as of yet. How to determine?
A. If beetle infestation why not attractive?
B. If no beetle infestation as of yet. Why
1. TLTC Too Late to count or too early to count.
2. Wrong species of tree.
Understanding the food source will help me in my search efforts. Please comment.
Trying to think outside the box here, has anyone considered propagating Cerambycid beetles at home? Just to better understand?

Well, if the trees blew down just this past March, then I would say it is too early for the timber beetles to get really active. Also, even though a tree is down or partially down part of its root system could still be functioning and the tree is thus still green and trying to carry on.

Somewhere, maybe in the Tanner book, I think I recall seeing where IBWO's were really attracted to trees dead 1-2 years. So as I mentioned, it is probably too early on your March blowdowns.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Goat: I have seen trees that are down that the birds ignore, and many that are standing and are prime food candidates. I think it has more to do with infestation prior to falling. IE a standing, and still alive, tree may become infested and hence is scaled when there are a large number of insects such as horntails or cerabymacid members. I have seen more standing trees, partially dying, that are scaled then those on the ground. I have seen trees brought down by the birds.


THose on the ground or broken usually seem to await termite infestation before becoming a source, but by then the trees don't need to be scaled as the bark is usually falling off. Further, when the tree is down not only does the bark peel, the wood is softer, easier to access, and large chips etc. may not be present.

Jesse

 

[naples]

Please comment.
Trying to think outside the box here, has anyone considered propagating Cerambycid beetles at home? Just to better understand?

I think your on to something here Goat,

Saving IBWO is going to be all about Entomology isn't it?

The Forest service won't like the idea of intentionaly infesting trees but...............eat well, live well.

Haven't heard anything about Cornell and girdled trees?

I have mentioned food plotting before.........

Here is a link that may help explain feeding near the ground.

Good luck Goat

http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg177.html

 

[fangsheath]

I have been somewhat surprised at how little woodpecker sign I have seen on trees downed by recent hurricanes. Even in the case of trees downed 3-4 years prior by Hurricane Lili I have seen little evidence of sign. For some reason there seems to be more sign on standing trees. I am still puzzling over this. Many of the downed trees, whether broken off or tipped up, are still mostly clear of the ground even 3 or 4 years later. The ones that snap off entirely and end up flat on the ground probably decompose much more quickly. They are torn apart, not only by woodpeckers, but by bears and other predators. So clear woodpecker sign may not be apparent even though the woodpeckers are finding plenty to eat. I did see a fair number of torn up logs in coastal forests 3-4 years post-Lili.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Something to think about is the nature of the beetles themselves. Do they lay eggs on trees on the ground? For some reason I believe that they want trees that are alive, but not in the greatest shape. Need a bug expert on this one, maybe.

As for grow your own beetles, I have thought about it, but never could figure out where to get seed stock. There is one guy in the fed that seems to be a cerabymacid expert. I'll have to try and remember his name. He takes photos and writes articles on them.

Jesse

 

[Piltdownwoman]

You're making several assumptions about the videos that I'm not prepared to make. To the best of my knowledge Cornell does know about at least one of them, and Harrison has shown that one, and possibly others, publicly. I don't know why they haven't been more widely disseminated. Perhaps someone else can address that.

Sorry, been away, I'm sure you missed me.

Re: Dissemination of the videos. He has shown thees videos to multiple bird ID experts - I know you guys hate that term. They say that the videos are not IBWO - repeatedly. That is why he is not letting them out, and why CLO is not hawking them.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. This critter has been gone for 60 years, no one has been able to get any hard evidence that the bird is extant, including $1M spent this year to do just that. Y'all can look all you want, and should. But for the Lord God's Sake can someone get some standards and stick to them! Don't set up standards, reject evidence, than trot it out as "strongly suggestive of" of a strong "likelihood of" .


This stringy situation gets worse every day, and defiles the name of that noble beast.