James Eaton
Trent Valley Crew
Excellent and accurate translation pcoin, couldn't have put it better myself...I'm sure Tim will put in his thoughts on the summary....
-
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.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Russ Jones
Well-known member
Yeah thanks for your translation, it was necessary because I, like the rest of us forum users, am unable to read for myself.
Can't wait, lets just hope its as though-provoking and inspirational as his usual blather.
Can't wait, lets just hope its as though-provoking and inspirational as his usual blather.
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
I thought this thread was dead and buried, along with the Ivory-bill (RIP). It should really be evident to all capable of a modicum of critical thought, that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct. But still a deluded few cling to their faith…
Edward woodwood
Member
yeah but what would we laugh about at the weekend when the birding went quiet...
to paraphrase Churchill 'never has so much bollocks been talked by so many people, about so few (i.e. zero) birds' :t:
pcoin
Well-known member
no offense intended, but USFWS may need translation
Yes, and that "deluded few" includes officials of the USFWS, who are preparing to shovel millions of dollars into a recovery plan for a species which cannot be found, despite millions of dollars already spent. (I received an e-mail from a USFWS official a while ago, stating he was confident that the IBWO would eventually be documented in "up to six river systems". How could any rational person believe so at this point?) This, I feel, is the issue now.
Hey Russ, I know you can read for yourself, like most members of this forum. I don't think most people were aware, however, that these are basically the same results as those of the 2005-06 season. I think, too, that the continued claims that very little of the habitat has been searched are specious. This has surely been the most intensive, careful, high-tech, stealthy search for a bird in North America, and likely anywhere. What they have found, at the cost of several million dollars, over three years, is zip. Their press releases and reports are classic political spin, and have nothing to do with science. I don't think that is necessarily obvious, until one starts looking at individual statements in the reports--all the damning stuff is buried under the cheery hopeful statements.
Yes, and that "deluded few" includes officials of the USFWS, who are preparing to shovel millions of dollars into a recovery plan for a species which cannot be found, despite millions of dollars already spent. (I received an e-mail from a USFWS official a while ago, stating he was confident that the IBWO would eventually be documented in "up to six river systems". How could any rational person believe so at this point?) This, I feel, is the issue now.
djleahy
Well-known member
Cornell Q&A
I thought that Cornell's Q&A page was a refreshingly honest and accurate assessment of the status of their search, particularly compared to two years ago. While remaining hopeful, Cornell seems to be admitting that the based on the facts, there was no new evidence for the IBWO.
This seems different from their stance in 2005, where they claimed certainty of the bird's presence, based on equally sketchy data (although arguable there was more abundant sketchy data in 2004-2005).
I'm a little disappointed that they don't yet seem interested in stepping back from the 2005 claim of the IBWO rediscovery. Data that they called certain then (including the video and the audio) has been called into question, and the bird itself has suffered a persistence failure.
Will Cornell's final take be "it was really there in 2005, we're certain of it, but now it appears to be gone, dangnabbit?"
I thought that Cornell's Q&A page was a refreshingly honest and accurate assessment of the status of their search, particularly compared to two years ago. While remaining hopeful, Cornell seems to be admitting that the based on the facts, there was no new evidence for the IBWO.
This seems different from their stance in 2005, where they claimed certainty of the bird's presence, based on equally sketchy data (although arguable there was more abundant sketchy data in 2004-2005).
I'm a little disappointed that they don't yet seem interested in stepping back from the 2005 claim of the IBWO rediscovery. Data that they called certain then (including the video and the audio) has been called into question, and the bird itself has suffered a persistence failure.
Will Cornell's final take be "it was really there in 2005, we're certain of it, but now it appears to be gone, dangnabbit?"
Russ Jones
Well-known member
Like clockwork you make an appearance, less than an hour after my post claiming you thought the thread was dead and buried. You love it here Ilya, you can't ignore it and it will never be dead as long as you and Tim are around 3
Do you know where my "faith" lies or are you assuming?
And low and behold, less than 2 hours after Ilyas post Timmy shows up talking yet more bollocks "about so few (i.e. zero) birds" Awsome...
There's still no photos or videos, of course we all know nothing has changed!
According to Tim and others this has been bungled from day one and everyone involved is an idiot, a dude, high, crazy and many other things. Flip through his posts, you'll see. So what is it, "the most intensive, careful, high-tech, stealthy search for a bird in North America" or what Tim says??
It must be so that they can sell some books like someone else suggested...:t:
Cool, fingers crossed they come up with something solid!
Russ
davebenj
To old, Too tall, Too fat, Too bald.
Aracari
This will end when all the trees are felled and only naked soil to be seen.
But what if, a lonely IBWP is seen sat on a tree stump in the middle of nowhere.
What would anger you most.
The trees felled
The lonely IBWP sat on a stump in the middle of nowhere
The group of twitcher s taking pictures of it.
Elvis taking photos of it...
;-)
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
This is an extraordinary claim Tim and as we know extraordinary claims require ...
As you have probably witnessed many times birders can produce substantial amounts of bollocks in short periods of time on just about any bird-related topic. I hope you can substantiate your assertion!
pcoin
Well-known member
clarification on 2005-06, 06-07 results
What is lacking is honest follow-up from the authors of that 2005 paper--they need to publish a retraction or correction detailing an alternative explanation (non-IBWO) for their initial observations. The institutional spin to the results on Cornell's web site I find rather offensive, especially presented to the public whose tax dollars have funded much of their research.
It is too bad, the possible survival of the IBWO was a beautiful dream, and one that made me smile every day for six months after Cornell's announcement in 2005. But the dream has turned into a nightmare that is damaging other pressing issues in biodiversity conservation.
I'd like to add, too, that I was really not trying to be condescending or denigrating in any way to the "believer camp" on this forum. I was heaping just a little bit of scorn on the spin-doctor job Cornell now appears to be pulling.
I should have been more clear--I was referring to the alternative explanation (duck wings) for the double-knocks. This was buried in the 2005-06 Cornell report, but figures prominently in their 2006-07 summary. It sounds like back-pedaling to me, and that, I feel, is notable.
I can't speak for Tim, of course. I do not believe I have used any of those derogatory terms in posts here. (If I have, I apologize for it.) I think some of the initial sightings were dubious, including all of the sightings detailed in the original paper in Science (PDF). I believe the follow-up in 05-06 and 06-07 was excellent, systematic, and thorough, at least in Arkansas. When Cornell sent observers into the swamp as teams of two, the sightings were not repeated. Automated cameras found Pileateds at the trees with stripped bark, and all manner of creatures at the suspicious cavities, but not one IBWO. Plausible non-IBWO alternative explanations were found for the recorded kent calls and double-knocks. The scientific process seems to have worked, and the initial conclusion that the IBWO persists in continental North America has not been confirmed.
What is lacking is honest follow-up from the authors of that 2005 paper--they need to publish a retraction or correction detailing an alternative explanation (non-IBWO) for their initial observations. The institutional spin to the results on Cornell's web site I find rather offensive, especially presented to the public whose tax dollars have funded much of their research.
Well, of course I wish something solid would come up too, but at a certain point one has to say it is good money after bad . (There have been three years to come up with anything solid--I feel that is long enough.) I think that point has long passed and that no more USFWS funds should be spent. The USFWS should base its actions on scientific data, and the scientific data indicates that there are no IBWO in Arkansas. Absent other firm evidence, I'd say the scientific data indicates the bird most likely became extinct in 1944.
It is too bad, the possible survival of the IBWO was a beautiful dream, and one that made me smile every day for six months after Cornell's announcement in 2005. But the dream has turned into a nightmare that is damaging other pressing issues in biodiversity conservation.
I'd like to add, too, that I was really not trying to be condescending or denigrating in any way to the "believer camp" on this forum. I was heaping just a little bit of scorn on the spin-doctor job Cornell now appears to be pulling.
pcoin
Well-known member
Anhinga as an IBWO confusion species
I just came across this photo of a male Anhinga. You don't often see photos of Anhingas in flight, and I would like to point out that a male Anhinga shows a large white patch trailing behind a lot of dark on the wing, though it is not on the rear edge. There is even extensive white on the dorsum, a characteristic of the IBWO not usually recorded, but I believe it has been mentioned in the Florida sightings (here, and PDF).
The wings are long and dark, the wingbeats deep and unlike typical woodpecker wingbeats, and the bill is even light yellow. Some of the Florida reports mentioned how long and loon-like the bird was (especially the 27 May 2005 sighting by Hicks, which also mentioned a light bill), and, to me, that fits Anhinga to a tee.
I think that is something that, perhaps, has not been pounded to death--many of the alleged IBWO sightings appear to rule out PIWO, but they do not, IMHO, rule out some other non-woodpecker species, such as Anhinga.
At any rate, I'm sure it has been discussed before, but the nice photo in flight spurred me to make what I hope people will find is a constructive post to this moribund thread. I am not trying to denigrate anyone's sincerity or birding skills, just point out some alternatives, which, as I said, I believe have actually not been discussed to death.
I just came across this photo of a male Anhinga. You don't often see photos of Anhingas in flight, and I would like to point out that a male Anhinga shows a large white patch trailing behind a lot of dark on the wing, though it is not on the rear edge. There is even extensive white on the dorsum, a characteristic of the IBWO not usually recorded, but I believe it has been mentioned in the Florida sightings (here, and PDF).
The wings are long and dark, the wingbeats deep and unlike typical woodpecker wingbeats, and the bill is even light yellow. Some of the Florida reports mentioned how long and loon-like the bird was (especially the 27 May 2005 sighting by Hicks, which also mentioned a light bill), and, to me, that fits Anhinga to a tee.
I think that is something that, perhaps, has not been pounded to death--many of the alleged IBWO sightings appear to rule out PIWO, but they do not, IMHO, rule out some other non-woodpecker species, such as Anhinga.
At any rate, I'm sure it has been discussed before, but the nice photo in flight spurred me to make what I hope people will find is a constructive post to this moribund thread. I am not trying to denigrate anyone's sincerity or birding skills, just point out some alternatives, which, as I said, I believe have actually not been discussed to death.
choupique1
Well-known member
Winterdune
Well-known member
Well put.
Meanwhile, Mike Collins is going back out with his latest gadget, (http://www.fishcrow.com/bino-cam.jpg), and I still can't help but hope that his extraordinary mix of mad schoolboy enthusiasm and outrageous arrogance shames all of us sceptics...
Sean
lewis20126
Well-known member
How is an IBWO searcher going to manage focussing TWO optical devices at the same time when focussing a single device has proved so problematic?
I would rather he went the whole hog and taped it to the end of a paddle.
Ageing Boxer
Ah, Choupique. I thought you had got lost in the throngs in the football and baseball stadiums. You have retired more often, and made more comebacks, than an ageing champion boxer.
But welcome back again.
Interestingly Mike Collins states, "The military is planning to open a live firing range within a kilometer of the hot zone where I had several sightings."
I mean, that couldn't be good for any kind of habitat, be it prime, hot zone, or marginal.
And a couple of questions I had always meant to ask publicly: Did you really get close enough to a live IBWO to see its yellow eyes? ( If your answer is yes, I wonder what P Coin makes of that).
And did you grow up in the forests of Louisiana speaking French?
Ah, Choupique. I thought you had got lost in the throngs in the football and baseball stadiums. You have retired more often, and made more comebacks, than an ageing champion boxer.
But welcome back again.
Interestingly Mike Collins states, "The military is planning to open a live firing range within a kilometer of the hot zone where I had several sightings."
I mean, that couldn't be good for any kind of habitat, be it prime, hot zone, or marginal.
And a couple of questions I had always meant to ask publicly: Did you really get close enough to a live IBWO to see its yellow eyes? ( If your answer is yes, I wonder what P Coin makes of that).
And did you grow up in the forests of Louisiana speaking French?
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Ah, Choupique. I thought you had got lost in the throngs in the football and baseball stadiums. You have retired more often, and made more comebacks, than an ageing champion boxer.
But welcome back again.
Interestingly Mike Collins states, "The military is planning to open a live firing range within a kilometer of the hot zone where I had several sightings."
I mean, that couldn't be good for any kind of habitat, be it prime, hot zone, or marginal.
And a couple of questions I had always meant to ask publicly: Did you really get close enough to a live IBWO to see its yellow eyes? ( If your answer is yes, I wonder what P Coin makes of that).
And did you grow up in the forests of Louisiana speaking French?
Actually our experience in the UK is that military firing ranges are great for conservation, keeping the public away, providing mosaic habitats and so on. Military use is rarely intensive enough to bother wildlife.
John
pcoin
Well-known member
thrilled
I would be thrilled to the marrow to hear of such an encounter. If one is close enough to see the yellow eye, and has had numerous close encounters over the years, surely it should be possible to get a photograph, even a series of photographs. The IBWO, if it still exists, needs some unambiguous evidence of its existence. I have been hearing Ivory-billed tales all of my life as a birder (40 of my 48 years), and it is always said to be "further back in the swamp where nobody ever goes". At a certain point, one grows a little more than skeptical.
I would be thrilled to the marrow to hear of such an encounter. If one is close enough to see the yellow eye, and has had numerous close encounters over the years, surely it should be possible to get a photograph, even a series of photographs. The IBWO, if it still exists, needs some unambiguous evidence of its existence. I have been hearing Ivory-billed tales all of my life as a birder (40 of my 48 years), and it is always said to be "further back in the swamp where nobody ever goes". At a certain point, one grows a little more than skeptical.
Edward woodwood
Member
It's bullshit - he's been spinning this guff for two years now. Told me he'd seen Hill's birds when he thought there was gonna be a momentous announcement from Hill. He's still trying it on, hoping people have forgotten.
say what you see
pcoin
Well-known member
military nature reserves in SE US
Another extensive nature reserve in the Southeast is the Savannah River Site, a Dept. of Energy reserve. It has, unfortunately, lots of radioactive contamination, but this has had the upside of keeping out visitors and development--it is supposed to be a great place for reptiles and amphibians due to the lack of persecution by people, see the SREL Herpetology page. (I understand the SREL funding is in trouble, however.)
That said, there have been many conflicts between wildlife and military usage on these sites, especially at Fort Bragg, but, on the whole, the lack of development and wildlife persecution on military sites is a big plus. (And by "persecution", I am not talking about legitimate hunting and fishing, which I support, though I'm not a hunter.)
Yes, I would have to agree, largely. Fort Bragg, North Carolina, near where I live, has some outstanding wildlife. The military has, for years, done periodic burning, and that has kept the Longleaf Pine stands open and suitable for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. There is also a rare butterfly, the Saint Francis Satyr (USFWS description). North Carolina populations are largely confined to that military base, though others have recently been found in other states (Wikipedia). The military restrictions have certainly kept collectors away, who may have exterminated a population of the related Mitchell Satyr in New Jersey.
Another extensive nature reserve in the Southeast is the Savannah River Site, a Dept. of Energy reserve. It has, unfortunately, lots of radioactive contamination, but this has had the upside of keeping out visitors and development--it is supposed to be a great place for reptiles and amphibians due to the lack of persecution by people, see the SREL Herpetology page. (I understand the SREL funding is in trouble, however.)
That said, there have been many conflicts between wildlife and military usage on these sites, especially at Fort Bragg, but, on the whole, the lack of development and wildlife persecution on military sites is a big plus. (And by "persecution", I am not talking about legitimate hunting and fishing, which I support, though I'm not a hunter.)
ColinD
Well-known member
I can't believe this thread is still running. It's not long since a thread on the Hippo warbler in Manchester was "knocked on the head" and closed because it had "run it's course" (just when I thought it was getting interesting). That thread had a mere 500 messages. This thread is 11,000 messages further on, yet still clings to life (unlike the subject matter) . Has this not run it's course? Are we going anywhere here? Perhaps it should be moved to Ruffled Feathers.
Similar threads
