...Slugging along on the forest floor, dealing with deadfalls, mud, wild pigs and cotton mouths would test the endurance of even seasoned birders. To catch sight of a bird with such a reclusive nature, maximum stealth would be required in an environment not conducive to quiet travel.I think it's very likely that even this "perfect observation platform" will never lead to definitive Ivory-bill proof from Arkansas.
Four aircraft flying low and slow over the forest canopy when the leaves are off the trees, offers a birds eye view of this isolated habitat and if the weather would cooperate it would be the perfect observation platform.
The Big Battle — The People versus The Blob
37 minutes ago
Posts
16 comments:
Ultralight aircraft aren't very stealthy ... being about as loud as a dozen leaf blowers in symphony. I don't know who came up with that!
A balloon would make more sense.
Yes a balloon would make more sense although I don't know if they like to fly low over forest canopy. Eventually we'll see predator drones
over the Mississippi. I believe in the difficulty of seeing these birds,
for others, it's unbelievable that a loud bird could avoid detection.
Maybe we should band 8 Pileated's in the whole Delta area, tell no one where they live, and use a nice yellow band or something. And see if they are found by searchers who
are told to look for yellow bands.
They move less than IBWOs and everyone is looking at every Pileated anyway. It's that whole inpenetrable/unvisited swamp theory thing. Which goes to the heart of skeptical mind. I understand it.
I bird with several rather phlegmatic and even arthritic bird groups. I don't see hunters 5 miles into the forest. Or 7 miles in.
How long does it take to cover 5 miles in a kayak? Yet, as I concede, I'll look down in the middle of nowhere and see that beer can, keeping a modicum of skepticism
alive in me.
I also believe that Tanner had great power to declare this bird extinct.
I don't know when he became convinced but he was probably instrumental in declaring 1944 the last date for the bird and that
by the mid-50s the force of his
beliefs closed the door.
If the bird is found, it would be
a great twist of irony. He would probably have found our endless debating rather pathetic!
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY.
What would make the most sense of all is admitting that it's not necessary to employ fleets of ultralights or balloons to look for a bird. At least a real bird in the United States.
There is no stealthy sneaking skill required. None. All you have to do is be patient enough to sit in the right area until you see the bird. The fattest, most clumsy hunter in the woods can see the wariest animal alive if he sits quietly in the right area and is patient enough.
And once again, there is no place in the U.S. that is unexplored. Even if there was (and there isn't), I don't think it's rational to believe (as opposed to theorizing the possibility) there are IBWOs there until they've been proven to be there.
There's a seemingly endless list of excuses:
We can't get solid proof because it's too wary,
We can't get solid proof because its home range is too big,
We didn't get solid proof because nobody believed,
We can't get solid proof because there are too few people searching,
We can't get solid proof because there are too many people searching,
We can't get solid proof because there are no organized searches,
We can't get solid proof because they aren't where we're looking, they're somewhere else.
The only thing we know to be true in each of those statements is the lack of proof part.
that by the mid-50s the force of his beliefs closed the door.
How about the Pearl River search and the Cornell search and Jerome Jackson's searches and all the other searches by individuals since the 50s? The world of academia was willing to follow up what they considered to be the most credible reports. The dream of finding living IBWOs has been kept alive all along, even if some in academia had virtually given up. And you don't have to be searching to find something. I have found many extremely rare animals, the kind of animals that few people see in their lifetimes, when I wasn't looking, and sometimes, when I didn't realize the animal even lived in the area.
Has there ever, in the history of birding, been so little results from so much effort???
Well there is a mammal in South America, a relative of the llama
that was found in the wild and presumed extinct until it finally showed up on a remote camera.
It was finally sighted a decade later and there were actually 200 of them. If I can refind the link
I will post it. Again I merely reflect on my own experiences in
the woods as a former mountain runner who jogged over 50,000 miles
much of it mountain trails before the knee surgeon got me to cool it.
It never took me more than 30 minutes of running to get behind the reach of most hunters.
The 2002 Pearl search
was one month, and <30 people.
Explored by birders? Arkansas yes.
Or how about the New Zealand Storm Petrel, assumed extinct for 150 years? No trees for him to hide behind though they wander widely.
Over wide-open oceans. Here is the
original article. The bird's existence is now proven. I'm sure you will argue "apples and oranges", but these are birds too.
I have no problem with skepticism
as long as it's playful and examines the purported evidence.
I won't be surprised if it's extinct or if it's extant. I think the latter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3344917.stm
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
On the other hand petrels are typically nocturnal and the field charachteristics were also poorly known.
Why does science believe that that South American mammal and the Storm Petrel exist? Because there are good photos of them, correct?
Before their rediscovery, theories of their possible existence would not have served as evidence that they do.
99+% of the time that animals are believed to be extinct, they stay extinct, so to speak. So when people argue that it's possible the IBWO exists, which is true, it's only fair to acknowledge that the stats say that if no one can get an acceptable photo of one, they are probably extinct.
The remote wilderness excuse doesn't explain why no one can get good looks at the IBWOs that are easily accessible. Cinclodes describes the difficulty of accessing the area, while at the same time talking about the hunters in the area. As a hunter who spends as much time hunting as far from the roads as possible, it will be hard to convince me that there is much rarely visited country in the U.S. Furthermore, we keep hearing about the huge home ranges, and how the birds are always moving around, thus making them nearly impossible to document. That means that if they are in the deepest wilderness, at some point they would have to move into accessible areas.
Although Dr. Jackson has a whole lot more hope than I do, his attitude is a good one in my opinion: The IBWO may live, but it must be proven first before science believes it to be true, not the other way around.
This isn't about proving whether they exist... it's about sowing skepticism in the skeptical doctrine. And the burden of proof is not on me when I'm sowing skepticism, only when I'm saying "you should believe."
Which I never will say.
The NZ Storm Petrel isn't a perfect fit... what is a perfect fit to the IBWO?
My point here is that they
didn't get a photo of these "extinct" creatures for some time. The NZ Storm Petrel is only nocturnal at their breeding sites which were not immediately found. The rest of the year they are diurnal and pelagic. Handsome too.
Theories of IBWOs do not prove their existence. However the supposition that while many good birders need only a short glance and often partial looks to tell "confusing" fall warblers apart,
Every single sighting after Sparling's was the result of delirious groupthink. These aren't many people looking at the same fabricated Piltdown skull. There have been separate visual "IDs".
My point is that a bird CAN exist
even if we haven't seen it in 150 years. Even if there were no photos. You can be skeptical but you can also be skeptical of the theories and ideas supporting your
skepticism. Note I put "IDs" in quotes... I can still be skeptical, in part due to this blog.
A skeptic should be skeptical of everything, even skepticism.
A new species of muntjac called the Giant Muntjac was found in 1992 in Vietnam. How the heck do you miss a unique deer-sized mammal that doesn't fly?
Paul Sutera
"The NZ Storm Petrel isn't a perfect fit... what is a perfect fit to the IBWO?"
Bigfoot--it isn't a perfect fit, but it's a much better fit than the NZ Storm Petrel.
Bigfoot and the IBWO are both high-profile U.S. "species" with plenty of believers. The "evidence" in each case consists of lots of sightings, blurry pictures, inconclusive audio and tree damage, but sadly, no definitive proof.
For both the Bigfoot and the IBWO, believers postulate that their quarry must be incredibly elusive and must live in unspecified places where "no one ever goes".
A new species of muntjac called the Giant Muntjac was found in 1992 in Vietnam. How the heck do you miss a unique deer-sized mammal that doesn't fly?
It wasn't being missed. It was being hunted all along. Science missed it because they didn't know to ask and the villagers didn't know to tell. It's like the coelacanth, reasonably easy to document once people know it exists.
As far as being skeptical of skepticism, that's wise, of course. Reports will continue whether there are any IBWOs or not, for sure. When new evidence comes along, like the latest video, I think most of us take a reasonable look at it. I simply need better quality evidence. Quality, not quantity.
When Sibley's standard is met, I'll believe, but not before. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's a reasonable standard and one that should be reached fairly soon if the bird exists. Some would argue it should have already been met, but I'm willing to wait for a while longer.
I won't belabor the point. You are aware that the IBWO did exist more recently than say Australopithicus which exists only in fossil records. Now they advertise pelagic birding trips to see the New Zealand Storm Petrel.
How did birders miss a bird that flies over open water. Did groupthink about extinction work in reverse? This wasn't a gnarly swamp afterall. 150 years is a long time w/out evidence. Frankly I woulda put my money on Bigfoot over a NZ Storm Petrel.
In the end the believer troop may
be more attuned to both the rare and the imaginary.
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
The old "Bigfoot" straw man.
Show me a bigfoot in a museum, and I'll give you the validity of the comparison. Lacking that, it is an utterly false analogy.
Conversely, show me a conclusive, current Ivory-bill photo, and I'll grant it is a false comparison.
Oh lordy, here's another recent announcement (today) of a newly discovered crustacean species Lobster-sized and living off Easter Island.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307/ap_on_sc/france_new_crustacean
New species and old one's rediscovered. My whole point is
it's not impossible for a bird
to elude us for a long time before
being rediscovered. Compare the
IBWO's existence to any urban
or rural legend you like.
The evidence does have that
same funny kind of blurry smell
to it.
But hey look, I'd be daft not to
look at all the near-misses to get good incontrovertible evidence and not be a little suspicious.
And if I started hearing Kents,
dang my hand would be on that
hip-mounted tape recorder in 5 seconds flat... I wouldn't miss 'em every time, would I ?
Despite all this, I still believe
Mike Collins is a good 'twitcher'
but perhaps an unlucky guy with his
technology. He's still out there
and seems pretty intent and serious. This is no magic-guy with
models in Orange trees.
Paul Sutera
Fact: Australopithecus is known to have existed.
Fact: It was NEVER officially declared extinct, and there’s NO proof it is.
Fact: It is likely hiding in the same remote places that the Ivory-bill is hiding, places where it wouldn’t be seen because those places are so rarely visited.
Fact: Most Australopithecus/Bigfoot reports are dismissed out of hand. Most people are reluctant to report them for fear of ridicule. Scientists in their ivory towers simply refuse to take a serious look at the reports we do have.
Fact: There are MORE purported recent photos of Australopithecus/Bigfoot than the Ivory-Bill.
Fact: There have been no decent organized searches for Australopithecus/Bigfoot. Remember the coelacanth? It was believed extinct for 65 million years. Australopithecus is known to have lived AT LEAST until 2.5 million years ago, MUCH, MUCH more recently than the coelacanth, and a blink in the eye in earth's history. Let’s wait another 62 (million) years before we rush into writing off Australopithecus.
Fact: There have been numerous sightings by credible witnesses. Do you really think they are all deluded or liars? ALL of them???
Fact: It is easy to snipe at any single piece of evidence. What's important is the TOTALITY of the evidence. There have been HUNDREDS of sightings. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Fact: Australopithecus/Bigfoot has consistently been reported to be very wary. Even so, it is NOT fair to say we have no good evidence for them. Sightings ARE good evidence, PLUS there are photos, tracks, hair, and much more. Granted, the photos and film are blurry, but the important field marks are there, among them are the hairiness, the "jizz" of the beast (DEFINITELY not a bear nor does it walk like a man) and the SIZE of the beast, far too big to be a human. When the Patterson film was released, skeptics moved the goal posts once again. There is clearly no evidence they’ll accept.
What do you people want, a bleeding, dead body of an Australopithecus/Bigfoot? Do you REALLY want to see them dead? No wonder they're so rare after we've turned our backs on them for so long as their habitat has been destroyed.
Of course, I am kidding, but you can plug nearly every "believer" debating point into the Bigfoot debating points.
If you think it's insulting to compare the two, why can't Bigfoot exist?
When it comes to living beasts, the evidence separating fantasy and reality is often clear photos and really good looks, not fuzzy photos and quick looks and conviction.
Flawed anthropology... Australopithecus was tiny, Bigfoot is huge. Or maybe Bigfoot is an abberant Australopithecus viewed in bad light?
Same analogy, substitute Gigantopithecus.
Post a Comment