As of 1/23/06, if you asked me "What's your confidence level that there was a living Ivory-bill in Arkansas in 2004?", I'd say "less than 1%".
I thought I'd summarize some of this blog's main points in one page, in a question (black font) and answer (red font) format. As always, please click on the links to drill down for more information.
--------------
What do you think, in a nutshell?
I think it's likely that the observers were fooled by fleeting glimpses of abnormal (or normal) Pileateds (both were seen in the area); I think the video almost certainly shows a normal Pileated (and the distant perched "Ivory-bill" is likely a branch stub); as for the audio, I think the double-knocks were quite likely produced by other woodpeckers, and I think the kents are very likely to be Blue Jays.
How do you know that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct?
I don't know that. I think it is likely to be extinct, but I think it is possible that it still lives.
Who has publicly expressed skepticism of Cornell's evidence?
The list of public skeptics includes bird book authors David Sibley and Kenn Kaufman, Jerome Jackson ("world's foremost expert on the ivory-billed woodpecker"), ornithologists Richard Prum, Mark Robbins, Michael Patten, A. Nemesio, and M. Rodrigues; and Gary Graves, the Smithsonian Institution's curator of birds.
The American Birding Association Checklist committee has not changed the Ivory-bill's status from "extinct"; they are still waiting for "unequivocal proof that the species still exists".
Why are you skeptical of the current video, sighting, and audio evidence?
I think the flying bird in the video is probably a normal Pileated Woodpecker. My detailed video analysis is here. I think the distant, perched "Ivory-bill" is probably just some out-of-focus vegetation, most likely a branch stub.
I think that the seven "robust sightings" were almost certainly mis-IDs--a Pileated with some extra white on one wing could cause confusion. It's troublesome that of five key fieldmarks separating Ivory-bill from Pileated, only one (trailing white wing edges) was reported. These four key fieldmarks weren't reported --the Ivory-bill's white dorsal stripes, the white neck stripe ending before the bill, the longitudinal black stripe on the white wing underside, or the pale bill itself.
I think it's very unlikely that Ivory-bills produced any of the recorded sounds. The double-knocks could easily have been Pileateds, other woodpeckers, or American Crows, and the "kents" were probably produced by Blue Jays.
What other points make you a skeptic?
--the sightings occurred in an area where several abnormal Pileateds were seen. Brief glimpses of such a bird could easily result in mistaken identifications.
--It's very troubling to me that the "Ivory-bill" was glimpsed maybe 8-18 times in a small area, yet never clearly photographed. When last studied 60+ years ago, the bird was conspicuous, at least in certain seasons, and not particularly wary. If it was really there, it should have been seen clearly and well photographed long before now.
--no "kent" vocalizations were reported during encounters.
--no one noted the loud wing noise of an IBWO
--the bird was present in marginal IBWO habitat (it's good Pileated habitat)
--no hard evidence (a feather or an eggshell, for example) has been found
In your view, what is the biggest logical error made by "the believers"?
In my opinion, their most common error is the assumption that lots of weak evidence can be combined to form strong evidence. I've written more on that here.
Is there any form of proof that would satisfy you?
Yes. My standard is David Sibley's: "Redundancy. Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen." This type of proof was routinely gathered back in the '30s and '40s. You can read more here.
Who are you? Do you have an "axe to grind"?
I'm an avid Minnesota birder with many years of experience. I've birded in Arkansas, and I've successfully searched for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker there.
For over two months after the April rediscovery announcement, I was a "believer" myself. I hadn't looked at the evidence, and I just assumed that Cornell had rock-solid proof. When I read that David Sibley had expressed some skepticism, I was inspired to examine the evidence for myself.
I'm not an ornithologist--like David Luneau, I have an MS degree in electrical engineering. There's no axe--I'm just trying to understand the truth about this situation.
I want to believe that the Ivory-bill lives, but I don't want to believe that if it's not true. If the definitive photographic proof ever comes, I would then be in favor of launching into massive fundraising and Ivory-bill-specific habitat programs. If we ever get definitive proof, I pledge to personally donate a significant-to-me sum of money to the Ivory-bill conservation effort.
I think we have a "level playing field" here. No one involved in the controversy, in their lifetimes, has a single confirmed sighting of the Ivory-bill. We all have access to the same historical books, the same Cornell paper, the same original Luneau DVD of the alleged Ivory-bill, etc etc. In my opinion, not enough people have taken the time to carefully examine this stuff.
Some of my blog entries:
----------------
Jerome Jackson's endorsement
Red flags in the evidence
The smoking gun?
Luneau video analysis
Abnormal Pileated information--why was it suppressed?
Kent calls from Blue Jays
Pileated double-knocks
Why were no Ivory-bill "sound combinations" recorded?
Skepticism from the inside
Was groupthink a problem?
Attacking the questioners
Associated Press refers to "skeptical bloggers"
United Press International mentions this blog
Smoky Mountain News article mentions this blog
Could all those sight records be mis-IDs?
Who has visited this blog?
Just how wary was it?
Was "Elvis" just an abnormally-colored Pileated?
Does Cornell's Aug 24 audio release actually weaken their case?
Jim Tanner said that, in his experience, the IBWO was not very wary
A couple of analogies
The New York Times (8/30/05) backpedals
Nature article asks: But is it really alive?
More details on their noisy flight
Real-world rare bird photos
IBWO tour solicitations panned
Notes from the late Jim Tanner on finding ivory-bills
What does the future hold?
Hundreds of duck hunters in the Cache River area?
Don Eckelberry's Ivory-bill description
Parallels with the 2002 Pearl River search
Bigfoot/Ivory-bill parallels
Ivory-bill hoax in South Carolina, 1971?
Creeping sanity?
Bombshell from the USFWS?
Let's see the Imperial Woodpecker video
Pileateds photographed at bark scaling sites
Huge, clown-like woodpecker videotaped
"We are on a very cold trail right now"
"The awesome PR machine"
Videos of AOU Ivory-bill presentations
The story behind the Luneau video
Some humor
Related links:
Cornell's original paper (and Supporting Online Materials)
The video news release
David Sibley's IBWO page
Answers.com information on IBWO
Google map of Cache River area
Article by the late Eirik Blom on IBWO skepticism
Skeptical article (Jan 2002) by Don Hendershot
Skeptical article (May 2005) by Don Hendershot
Skeptical article (Oct 2005) by Don Hendershot
Web page by Bruce L. "Buck" Nelson, a skeptic
IBWO links from Laura Erickson, a believer
Ivory-bills LiVE!! blog, from Cyberthrush, a believer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
51 comments:
In 1978 I personally witnessed a "black" florida panther take down an 8 point buck. The amazing atheletisism was nothing compared to the abvious gene pool this cat swam in. We shined lights at him and he was instantly hidden ears down invisible.
My point is; if an animal like that can exist here why cant a bird as stealthy as a WP exist there? I think there is too little actual field experience to say for a fact that this bird does no longer exist.
Thanks, peace
I first read your website with scepticism. I was thinking who is this guy to question the scientists at Cornell!!! But I went back and looked at the video of the supposed ivory bill more closely and you are right. It looks like a pileated. At no time does this bird show the black line running through the underside of its wing. I hope that they find the definitive proof that this bird still exists but I think the jury is still out.
I don't think skeptics are taking into consideration the limitations that video itself has. I was trained at NYU Tisch (film school) and work in the film industry I have an intimate knowledge of the abilities of video. Assuming the camera is an NTSC mini-dv camera, we are only talking about 480 verticle lines of resolution. Of course you are not going to see the white bill or the verticle stripes. The pixels are too big to report such information. Further, NTSC is notorious for wrecking any information that is too hot, ie bright colors or white. Something to consider.
I don't think skeptics are taking into consideration the limitations that video itself has. I was trained at NYU Tisch (film school) and work in the film industry I have an intimate knowledge of the abilities of video. Assuming the camera is an NTSC mini-dv camera, we are only talking about 480 verticle lines of resolution. Of course you are not going to see the white bill or the verticle stripes. The pixels are too big to report such information. Further, NTSC is notorious for wrecking any information that is too hot, ie bright colors or white. On top of that, we are seeing compressed video over the web, which further damages the pixels. Anyway, it's something to consider.
In my opinion the woodpecker in the video shows a black trailing edge and I'm certain it doesn't have the black covert line - thus the bird in the video can't be an IBWO. If you look closely at the underwing of the bird in the photo in The Auk article, it doesn't appear similar to the bird in the video. I'm also certain that the perched bird in Figure 1 of the Science paper, which they use to judge the approximate size of the bird, is the wing of a bird already flying (as Tom outlines here). Whether you agree with the above or not, the video, which forms the main part of the paper, does not seem to be sufficient to suggest that this species is no longer extinct, or that the bird is definitely not a Pileated. If you accept this, then the rest of the evidence presented in the paper (brief sightings in flight and calls) is not sufficient either, as outlined here. I find it interesting that the researchers are 100% certain that the 'kent' calls are not the playback of IBWO calls, but can't rule out them coming from jays - wouldn't it be easier to rule out jays if they were from an IBWO (as they would be less similar than the playback)? One of the reasons suggested for why irrefutable proof has not yet come (i.e. a decent photo) is that the IBWO has a large range area: but all the Arkansas sightings were within 3km of each other.
As far as weak evidence goes, I think that the abnormal pileated argument is the most weak. Until you have a clear photo of one these so-called pileateds, one that looks enough like an IBWO, you really have no stance. Without this proof, you are just drawing at straws to prove your side of the argument.
As detailed at this link , Cornell admits that multiple abnormal Pileateds were seen in the search area, and multiple photographs were taken; in a recent radio interview, an official searcher also admitted to seeing a video of an abnormal Pileated. I think the photos/video are likely being suppressed because they would damage any credibility of the already flimsy sight records.
The abnormal Pileateds don't "need" to look much like an Ivory-bill; the glimpses were so fleeting that a Pileated with extra white on the back and/or wing could easily cause confusion.
There can be color difference between birds of the same species, but the bird in the video does not fly like a Pileated. Just today when I saw a Pileated in an instant I recognized it by its flight pattern, before I got a good clear view of it. Many birds have distinct flight patterns. The bird in the video does not fly like a Pileated Woodpecker. I have never seen an Ivory-billed fly, but the bird in the video does not have the distinct woodpecker flight pattern.
I don't think anybody is sure how an Ivory-billed flew, and judgement of flight can be a subjective thing. However, it is possible to make objective comments based on known field marks that neither species share.
Like many birders, I was excited to hear about the re-discovery of the Ivory-billed. For me, because highly competent birders from Cornell observed the bird there is no doubt that at least one Ivory-billed is/was present in Arkansas. But, of course, there can’t be just one Ivory-billed. There would have to be a viable population … unless the observed Ivory-billed was a result of genetic diversity and not species diversity. What I am suggesting is that perhaps, historically, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers hybridized with Pileated Woodpeckers, and that some of these Ivory-billed genes still persist in southern Pileated populations. Maybe, very very rarely, the right genes combine from a Pileated mating to produce an ‘Ivory-billed’ offspring. This would explain why after more than 50 years, there is suddenly a confirmed sighting of one Ivory-billed, but no sign of that viable population despite intensive searches. Of course, I realize that there are significant morphological differences between Ivory-billed and Pileated Woodpeckers (although abnormal Pileateds can show some ivory-billed markings) , but these differences seem minor compared to the differences between other wild bird species that occasionally produce hybrids. A lucky observation of a pair of Pileateds raising an Ivory-billed offspring would validate this hypothesis. Perhaps there are also some insights to the likelihood of this hybridization in the genome of a preserved Ivory-billed? Conservation of the Arkansas swamps is still paramount regardless of whether we are preserving species diversity or genetic diversity.
Here's what Jerome Jackson wrote on the possible hybridization issue:
"While an Ivory-bill/Pileated hybrid might be possible, it is highly unlikely. Intergeneric hybrids are rare and when they occur we often later find out that the generic distinction isn't so sound after all. The genus Campephilus and genus Dryocopus are not at all closely related. Recent studies suggest considerable molecular difference."
I wonder what information was used determine the original taxonomic status of the Ivory-billed and Pileated? And do you have any references for this recent molecular work?
Sorry, beyond the paragraph above by Jerome Jackson, I don't have further details. If I do find out more information, I'll post it.
Well, it sounded too good to be true. As of this moment no conclusive evidence One month of intensive searching absolutely nothing! I have to agree with "the most incredible snipe hunt of the 21st century" How bout' that there Big Foot or the Lock Ness Monster. the sad thing is the Ivory Bill really existed.
If I wanted to pull an Ivory Bill scam to get millions of tax dollars I would catch a common Pileated woodpecker and dye the feather and beak to match an Ivory Bill and make a very blurry video.
This is what I suspect has been done and ta da you have goose that lays a golden egg. Rather a Pileated that lays a golden egg.
Larry of Mombossa
I am attorney. Query: would any jury seeing the evidence presented on the video, which is all the evidence available, be able to conclude that the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the Ivory exists? I think not. It is the very reason so much expert testimony has come under closer and closer scrutiny by the courts. The scientist don't act like scientists.
Like you, I tend to doubt the reported sighting of IBWs. The sightings were not made public until the cat was about to get out of the bag. They were not prepared to go public - they were not overly confident of their evidence. It was interesting that two of the participants released books soon after the sightings were made public - $$$. Even some of feds are not totally convinced. When the director of the SE region visited the area last year he was quoted as saying that they kinda believed the bird was there. He was not very convincing. Anyway, I hope the bird exists but one cannot ignore the emotional element here - some of these biologists have spent most of their careers looking for this bird. They sobbed when they saw what they thought was an IBW. It would be difficult to prove the bird's existence in a court of law. I still say "bring me a dead one." I need more convincing proof.
18 credible sightings since the discovery:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051226100042.htm
birder with over 60 years experience recounts his December 2005 sighting of an ivory-bill in Arkansas with an second eye-witness:
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2006/01/29/news/local_news/1012728.txt
the strongest evidence is the repeated sightings, not just from hicks and farmers, but from people with tons of birding experience. To deny this reality is fantasy run amok.
"birder with over 60 years experience recounts his December 2005 sighting of an ivory-bill in Arkansas"
Wrong, it was a different guy. The closer you look at most of these "sightings" the shakier they become.
None of the Cornell sightings are "credible" to me, because they were SO brief in an area where those aberrant Pileateds were seen. People often see what they want and expect to see, and that includes honest "experts." If they had gotten good looks, that would mean something. Have you ever seen something wrong at a glance? I have.
Weigh all that weak evidence against the fact that no one can get a good photo. Why is that? No bird = no photo.
Cornell’s most recent re-selling and re-telling of the grainy Woodpecker with Black Upper Trailing Secondaries video is a complete departure from science and a blasé effort in sales, marketing, and promotion. I was surprised that they would come back to this
highly questionable video, but they don’t seem to have anything else, and may be getting
frightened. It would certainly seem that they would realize that no legitmate scientific body, such as the AOU committee, would ever give this thing a second look.
Before the birding/scientific community will accept an IBWO sighting as genuine, regardless of the observer, the observer’s credentials, or the observer’s employer, the proof must be irrefutable. What does that mean? Well, go back to the most recent accepted sighting, and look at the evidence presented. That would be the Tensas River, Singer Tract, Louisiana birds. The evidence is 100% unquestionable. Film, still photos, audio, extensive notes, There could be NO alternative explanation. And the search party had numerous obstacles to overcome. There were only four of them, most of the time. They had to pack in their gear with horse and wagon, and had no GPS, no digital cameras, no camcorders, no cell phones, no motel room. But they got proof.
This is the type of documentation that would be required in order to officially raise the Ivory-billed Woodpecker from the dead. Nothing less will suffice.
In 2004 I sent letters to Science and Nature asking how the only good frames in the video could be excluded as the wing of a bird that had just taken off, and thus not diagnostic of an IBWO. I also suggested that the recorded kents and double knocks could have been produced by unauthorized playbacks. It would take only ONE irresponsible person to go in with recordings of the IBWO or a southern relatives. The recordings were almost all made after it was public knowledge that the IBWO might be there. Neither my letters nor anyone else's were published.
I know that some bird books have said that there are still Ivory billed woodpeckers in Cuba,though the population is small. However In my youth @ 1974-1976 in Clinch county georgia I saw what at that time I thought was simply 2 abnormally large woodpeckers that looked a little different from the woodpeckers I was used to seeing.(pileated) It wasn't until around 1990 or so that I became interested in birding myself Oh , by the way Clinch county Ga. is 1 of 3 counties that is home of the Okefenokee Swamp in Ga.
As far as the so called Extinction label? let me mention a couple of well known so called extinct critters. First of course is the coelecanth,thought to have been extinct since the dinosaurs. Then there is the Florida Panther,a sub-species of the cougar,listed as endangered and thought to have been "extinct"in the 70's. now answer this ... are they in fact extinct?
I think too often just because we personally haven't seen something ourselves it is far too easy to criticize those who may have. Credentials don't matter one Iota if you doubt their veracity to begin with. It probably wouldn't matter if they had every documentation known to man, with every t - crossed and every I - dotted.
Do I know beyond a shadow of doubt that I saw what could've been the last pair of Ivory billed WP in North America? the answer is no. Do I believe that that is what I saw from information I later gained? Beyond a shadow of doubt ,that is what I believe. I only mention this anonymously,simply to avoid ridicule from people who WERE NOT THERE! If you had been then I wouldn't have to tell you would I ?
I think the current situation is very interesting. I saw Bobby Harrison speak and he was very convincing, but the evidence itself is a bit disappointing. It's hard to believe so much can be ascertained by an extremely blurry piece of video.
I'm a bit skeptical of the rediscovery, but I think this Spring should be very important in further documenting the existence of an ivory bill. If no substantial evidence emerges in the spring I believe this further casts doubt on the accuracy of the sighting.
Although I agree with some of the other posters on this site that wild animals can be extremely stealthy, I also feel that quality photos should emerge soon. From what I understand, the lab of ornithology has some extremely sophsiticated remote sensing devices, which should pick up ivory billed activity.
Let me add that I've got my fingers crossed that the ivory bill still lives!
One piece of evidence posted by Cornell was a determintation of wing beats per second that was characteristic of IBWs but not pileateds. Has anyone addressed the debunking of this evidence?
I found Sibley’s Science article to be accurate and insightful. Most every experienced birder I have communicated with shares the opinions of the authors. However, I feel that certain aspects of the video were not addressed. Many of us feel the video shows that
the bird “loses” all white in the wings at a point in which the wings are at their lowest position. This occurs four times in the video, maybe five. When the wings are at the very
bottom of their cycle, due to the way they are cupped, we would only be looking at upper
wing surface, and very, very little of it. We would really only see the trailing edge of the secondaries and primaries at this point. The bird simply seems to disappear from view at
that point, during one freeze frame in each cycle. It disappears because we see NO white in the wing. All wing edge surfaces are dark. This is further indication that the bird is a Pileated, and is most likely even more illustrative than the Sibley demonstration. Also, on the next frame, (which appears to be the one that Sibley used to illustrate) we DO see limited white, but only in the central portion of the PRIMARIES. None in the secondaries. Indicative of Pileated.
I truly believe that the Arkansas search crew will have at least one or two more “sightings” before the end of spring. They desperately need to find an Ivory-billed. As
Gallagher says in his book…paraphrasing…”If you want to see an Ivory-bill bad enough,
you probably will.….A flash of sunlight on a crow’s wing, etc.”
An Ivory Billed Woodpecker was seen in a Montreal park in the summer of 2003. I, my daughter and my 8 yr. old granddaughter jumped to our feet in astonishment when this incredible bird flew in and attached itself to a tree just yards from us. It was unmistakeably the bird that is presented in photos by "The Nature Conservancy" (net). We approached it carefully and had time to watch it. It's size, beauty and red head dress were just amazing to us.
Now it may seem an unlikely place for your "extinct" bird to be living - I see the search is centered in the swamps of the Southern U.S. However, Montreal is an island and in it's center is a large park with natural marshland and a lake. Summers are very humid and with global warming our climate has been changing year by year. I moved here from Michigan in l967 and have noticed how birds "from home" are now relocated to this region.
I am not a professional "birder", just very observant of nature and it's manifestations around me and with an eye for detail.
I do believe you are looking for this bird in the wrong area.
Sharon Bradley
Folks, I was born and raised in the area where the IBWO was supposedly seen. Let me offer to all of you proof that this bird simply does not exist any longer. I am a hunter. I know hunters. Hunters see things. Hunters shoot things. Some hunters will shoot things just to see what it is. Believe me...over the last 60-70 years, if this bird were still in existence, some hunter would have seen one, shot it, brought it out to the local gathering spot and said, "Look at this thing!" I guarantee this would have happened more than once and someone would have recognized the bird. Didn't say it was the right thing to do, just saying human curiosity would have gotten the better of someone over the years.
This amounts to nothing more than some professor at Cornell trying to make a name for himself and trying to sell his book. If this bird is worth over $2 million in federal grants, then Bigfoot must be worth trillions. We have much better video and proof that Bigfoot exists than we will ever have of this damn bird.
Hey Tom - I've been studying the video in Mike Collins' webstite, www.fishcrow.com. Although the images are distant and not sharp, I tend to agree with Collins' assertion that several ivory-billed field marks are visible on the bird shown in the video. Your analysis?
I think part of the reason that there have not been good images taken is because you first need to find a roost site or nest so you have that place where quality observations can occur. I've read that the ONLY good images ever taken of Ivory bills were at nest sites so it's not surprising that no one has gotten any pictures. Anyway the place that most of the sitings have occured is most likely just a flyway where only brief glimpses could really be expected.
Tom,
I'm just wondering if you have ever seen or have an opinion on what the large black and white bird in Bobby Harrison's Sept. 2004 video is. It after all has a wingbeat rate even higher (at least 10 beats/sec.) than the Luneau video. So I can't see a Pileated being a possibility here, since they normally only have rates between 3-6 beats/sec. and a documented max of 7-7.5.
Thank you, Peter
Folks, I grant you that there is no evidence that rises to the level of scientific proof, but your skepticism flirts with condemnation of many good people and institutions. You are, in a sense, calling the Sparlings, Harrisons and Gallaghers of this whole drama liars. I don't doubt, for a minute, that these men saw what they said they saw. The bird(s) may well have been the last of their kind, but the personal observations of those who have seen the bird(s) will, ultimately, be vindicated.
What the "believers" don't get is that the skeptics never say that the ivory-bill is extinct, but that the scientists at Cornell have not come up with sufficient proof that satisfies a basic scientific standard. What aggravates scientists like Jerry Jackson is that so many resources have been devoted to this cause, which if proved faulty, will make it all the more difficult to marshall those resources if a scientifically-founded observation is made elsewhere.
In other words, will the Nature Conservancy, Interior Department, and other funding entities, be supportive in protecting another location after this failed investment in Arkansas? My fear is that they will become hesitant, with justification. It would serve some "believers" well to think about the real implications here.
This bird does exist. Jerome Jackson knows that I told him of a pair of the birds I saw in Eastern AR in early 90s, at a local meeting in Memphis of amateurs like myself. Sour grapes (and he knows it) is the one thing that drives you and your ilk to spew your contempt for the unwashed that reported, and were dismissed, so many years ago...your arrogance has spoiled your chances of ever finding the bird you so desperately seeked. Oh how sweet to recall the way you rolled your eye's when I described the location, 25 miles from the exact location of the birds first discovered location...
I know where An Ivory billed woodpecker lives in N.Alabama as I have seen it and possibly a mate on numerous trips.I have not said anything to anyone for fear of removal.
I but don't know what purpose the skepticism serves. If you and others doubt the existence that Ivory-bills were seen in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005, then perhaps there is no reason to believe that the birds ever even existed. Maybe the studies by James Tanner were a hoax. Maybe the 400 or so specimens are actually hoaxes, and didn't come from real birds. Do we really know? Maybe all bird sightings are hoaxes, even yours and mine!
One of the people who reported seeing the Ivory-bill in Arkansas was John Trochet of California. This person does not lie. I think that the really smart thing is for the ornithological community to continue to express doubts. Let's send in more researchers to scan every square inch of its potential habitat. Have huge teams of "scientists." That way, the few Ivory bills that are left will be so disturbed that they will cease to breed and the species actually does become extinct. But that is all right, at least according to many of the doubters. The important thing is to have good scientific proof, and to not concede that someone else actually saw something that you wanted to see.
I have not visited this site for a long time, but I just reviewed the Cornell 2005-2006 final report and looked for "real" news on the 2005-2007 search season. It is more clear than ever that 2004 to present evidence for the IVWP has not past any meaningful standard.
The Ivory-bill Skeptic has done his home work, makes sound arguements and communicates articulately. It is sad that this bird is gone in the US, but I'm convinced that is the case. Cornell has painted itself into a corner.
In reference to Justin Sollars post: I am a native Arkansan and have hunted the area of the reported sightings. I don’t think a lot of hunters would necessary be particularly interested in a woodpecker one way or another. I asked my cousin whom has hunted the area since the 1950’s if he has even seen an IBWP? He said well if I did I wouldn’t have know it, or had any reason to care until now. For Mr. Sollars to even assume the IWBP was even always been the area is naive. The woodpeckers sited could have recently arrived and are now gone. Maybe his buddies might consider should something they wouldn’t eat, but I think that is the norm. Most of the people I know are ethical hunters and would never do such.
Dear Tom
I witnessed the Ivory Bill Woodpecker on my tree as we were coming on to our property in Plant City Fla.one day both my husband and I we were at ah. It was so big and colorful and never seen anything like it before except small woodpeckers.Unfortnately it took flight when we got closer up the drive way. I know what I saw and it was beautiful. So I believe they are still around but a very shy bird.Sincerely, Kristen McDaniel
Tom on my last blog I didn't give the year it was just shortly after we and my husband were married so it was in or around 2003. Sincerely, Kristen McDaniel
When I was in 1st grade some 44 years ago, I made am ivory billed out of paper mache and have been interested in them since. Of course I was very excited about the AK sitings, but as with Tom, as time went on I became less than impressed by the blurry footage and recordings held up as evidence. I hope it is out there, but again, as with Tom my confidence level is low.
i have pileated woodpeckers living on my property and see them all the time.the woodpecker in the video claiming to be ivory billed were clearly not a pileated woodpecker,the white patches,the size,the difference in flight pattern was clearly not pileated woodpecker.the only other choice is that was an ivory billed woodpecker.anyone that says that was a pileated woodpecker is either a liar or a fool,there is no third choice.
the video shows white wing feathers that extend to the end of the wing and their is much too much white to be a pileated.its clearly and easily distinguishable from a pileated,has to be an ivory -billed cause definitely not a pileated.also too large for pileated and the flight pattern is significantly different than a pileated woodpecker.ivory billed woodpeckers were never common and were always rare shy birds.1944,the last verified sighting was not so long ago,some areas of their habitat remain unchanged since then,its not such a stretch to believe they still exhist.there are many credible sightings.
What do you think about the Collins Video?
http://ftp.aip.org/epaps/j_acoust_soc_am/E-JASMAN-129-024103/jasa_movie6.mp4
I would be interested in your thoughts?
Doug
I'm wondering if you believe that the several experienced & credible birders (including ornithologists) who have been lucky enough to see Ivory-billeds in the past few years were just stupid or maybe drunk?
In case you can't tell, I believe that the EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS bear weight on their own, and while the video is certainly iffy, you should also be able to poke holes in each and every (expert) eyewitness account in order to make your case.
Tom,
I recently watched the documentary "Ghost Bird" and subsequently have done a little research on sightings. I was shocked to see that none were verified.... seemingly the sightings in eastern Louisiana as well!
My wife and I regularly saw Ivory Bills when we lived in an area of Florida. My wife's first sighting was in 2004 and our last was in 2009.
I want no money or notoriety IF these can be confirmed, only to assist in verifying that the bird still exists, as my wife and I are convinced.
This habitat is perfect for the birds to exist in AND remain undiscovered. It also is relatively stable at the moment.
Like those in the documentary, we have no reliable photos. The birds did no appear at OUR convenience and are quite shy of humans!
If you would like to discuss this further with us, please contact me. Since this is a public blog, I WILL verify the contact is YOU before discussing it, so others, leave me alone!
Robert
matthew campbell says.. i'm watching the " ghost birds " on netflix, half way through it , say this fella talking about his blog and what not. so to me so far .. it seems that the bird got knocked off in some way or another by humans. i guess i don'treally need to see something to belive i. i'm really enjoying the movie. sincerely me .. matthew campbell: wyoming
unbelievably bad sciece from Cornell! thanks for hosting this site. Watched Ghost Birds and had to visit. Wish the bird still lived, but it's gone.
Tom, as to weather or not the ivory bill still exist any more I have no idea. I know for a fact they were still alive and doing fine in Oak Ridge, La. back in 2000. My parents owned land located south of Oak Ridge which was located next to Lake Lafourche. This lake is many miles long and has hardwood woods along its banks and some cypress swamps here and there.I know a good portion of this land got logged and have no idea if they are still there or not
It's all good news for birders and birds. The more talk, the more people get involved, the better the chances of saving some other birds.
Saw the documentary, its unbelievable the claims these supposedly scientific people made without credible proof. The economic benefits outweigh denying they may have been mistaken. Its sad to see the way this was handled.
-Thomas S.
I saw the documentary "Ghost Bird" last night and it comfirmed what I already suspected that good people can see what they want to see. My children saw quite a few jackalopes while we were driving though South Dakota. As the years have passed and we still do not have definitive photographic proof of the bird's existance, I am sorry to say that this magnificent bird is probably extinct
👍👍
Post a Comment