Natural Climate Change Factors
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
The Big Battle — The People versus The Blob4 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
10 comments:
Reading this post reminded me of the that famous old Irish tune, "The Water is Wide"
"The Area is Long"
The area is long
the area is very narrow.
The bird(s) may wander.
The forest is dense.
Even in leafless winter,
a silent bird could spend
an hour within 50 yards
and not be seen.
and my additional verse:
The area is long
the area is very narrow.
The bird(s) may wander.
The forest is dense.
Sew me a Ghillie Suit
so I'll blend in
then I will see
the Lord God Bird again.
Tom,
This was a good post. I have read all the posts on this listserv and various others. And kept up with all the "noise" of both sides.
One thing that struck me is how Skeptics and True Believers are looking for two differenct IBWOs. As a Skeptic, I have to believe that if the IBWO still exists for the last 50 years then a population of breeders must also have existed all this time. And so as any real birder knows, it wouldn't be hard to find a breeding population of the IBWO.
But True Believers, many of whom have gone to Brinkley and searched themselves, act like they are searching for a rare bird as they would do say in South Texas. They are trying to find one bird in 50,000 acres. Even in South Texas, birders do this all the time with good results on relocating rarities.
It just doesn't make since. Cornell et al should have found a breeding population relatively easily by now.
And if they haven't, then they should moved on to other areas by now. It's just that simple.
To be repetitive and redundant:
I'm living in the Twilight Zone; do you all recall that Martin L. said that up to 12 breeding pairs could be living in the White River Area.
These Super Skulkers are incredible!
To be repetitive and redundant:
Marcus Said:
"I'm living in the Twilight Zone; do you all recall that Martin L. said that up to 12 breeding pairs could be living in the White River Area."
"These Super Skulkers are incredible!"
If the bird was to have survived 60 years one would have to assume at least one breeding pair was there. If htis pair produced offspring to keep the species viable, then the population would increase exponentially.
So lets say there are 12 breeding pairs. If each of these only produced 2 offspring in a mating season that would double the number of birds that exist. Now run this forumula of a 60 year cycle. With the population doubling each year, this would leave one to think there would be thousands & thousands of birds scattered all over the area if this trend held true. Say that only 1/10th of this helt true, that would still place the number to where there was a very strong, localized population.
But, as it stands now, none of the above has shown to be true. We don't have a large vivalbe population scattered all over the region. We don't even have a strong, very localized small population that has been found. We don't even have 1, 100% confirmed birds at all! Not a single one! One would surely think that if the above conditions were valid, someone, somewhere, sometime would accidently get a photo of at least one of these many birds that should exist!
All the comments made sound good & all, but common thinking leads one to now assume the above cannot be true because the facts have not only showed the above tends not to be true! One has to wonder to wonder just why a bird that should be in great numbers by statements made is so impossible to find?
Why I no longer think of myself as an Ivory-billed skeptic
The artificial dichotomy of “believers” and “skeptics” has bothered me for some time. Since “skeptic” is defined as someone who “instinctively or habitually doubts, questions or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions” I realize that the adverbs in the definition exclude me from being a skeptic when it comes to the status of the IBWO. The primary reason for my personal reclassification is that I cannot “habitually” doubt the evidence for the existence of 21st century IBWO since there has not been enough evidence to allow me to develop any habit regarding the evidence.
If there was new evidence on a weekly basis and I was instinctively rejecting it I would qualify as a skeptic, but there has been only one presentation of evidence of a recent IBWO, which once I looked at it I doubted as being “irrefutable”. Since then there has been mainly, what could kindly be called, “ornithological gossip”. People who instinctively or habitually ignore or discredit gossip are not typically called “skeptics” – nor are people who pass along and discuss gossip typically called “believers” - and it would be presumptuous of me to offer terms to describe either of those groups.
So I now see myself as a doubter of the 2005 evidence, and given that one examination of evidence, cannot claim to have any habitual or instinctual way with which I will treat future evidence. However, the last year has provided me with numerous opportunities to assess the credibility of institutions involved in the presentation of the IBWO evidence and the actions they feel are warranted based on that evidence. Their year-long exercise in self-promotion, hyperbole, greed and defensiveness will increase my level of scrutiny of any evidence they might produce.
Everybody's on Cornell's back. Well what about other schools who have become Cornell enablers, such as LSU. LSU is another school with a fine Ornithological program. What's up with that? How can LSU be fooled into believing this junk science also?
To date we have not seen LSU or these other school front & center on this issue. We have not heard them make claims that could not be validated openly. We have not seen them take drastic measures to prove their claims that fall way outside the norm.
It looks like the rest of these people you mentioned have decided to take the stand of "It's better to keep thy mouth shut & be thought a fool rather that open thy mouth & remove all doubt!"
Cornell decided to take the latter course of action. They opened their mouth when maybe they should have keep it shut. And for that they have won the prize & the title that comes with opening your mouth when it should have stayed shut!
If these other's open their mouths they will be included, put it looks like they know when to stay shut up & therefore don't look like a fool!
Here a small list of birds that were thought extinct for a long time:
Long-legged Warbler (Trichocichla rufa), Fiji, last seen 1894, rediscovered 2003
Jerdon's Courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), India, 1900 - 1986
Sao Tome Grosbeak (Neospiza concolor), Sao Tome, 1888 - 2001
Sumatran Ground-cuckoo (Carpococcyx viridis), Sumatra, 1916 - 2002
Cone-billed Tanager (Conothraupis mesoleuca), Brazil, 1938 - 2004
Fuerte's Parrot (Hapalopsittaca fuertesi), Colombia, 1911 - 2002
Forest Owlet (Heteroglaux blewitti),
India, rediscovered in 1997 after 113 (!) years.
Bruijn's Brush-turkey (Aepypodius bruijnii), Waigeu (Indonesia), 1938 - 2001
I could add many more examples.....
Although these species have been sighted and photographed all of them
are still very rare and difficult to spot. Their numbers didn't rise considerably. The speculation
that the IBWO must be more numerous if it happened to survive is simply wrong.
Michael (m.strobl4@chello.at)
It's funny how two people can spend 2 weeks in the 'Big Woods' and come out with totally different interpretations.
I can't remove the cloak of anonymity, but I also spent 2 weeks as a volunteer searcher. I was struck by how poor the habitat actually is. I spent time in both refuges. The Cache is nice and all, but it's narrow. The White is also nice, but the big trees are mainly along the roads (left for the visitors to get a false impression of the whole refuge). While I'm sure it's 'big enough' for a couple pairs of IBWO, I really doubt it's suitability for a thriving population. So IF the birds exist and ARE using the refuges, they MUST have to fly around to exploit sub-optimal habitat or move from feeding patch to feeding patch. If the do these movements they become exposed to people, and I just can't believe they SO fear man, that all we can get is 2-3 second views. I watched Pileateds feeding and calling and interacting for minutes at a time. Why not IBWO?
We ALL wish they exist, but it's getting harder and harder to explain our difficulty in obtaining definitive proof.
I'm unconvinced by the comparison between presumed extinct birds from the ends of the earth that few if any people were looking for, and a high profile bird that has been, and is, the Holy Grail of American birding; a bird that has been the subject of the most intense search in the history of birding. And, as noted, those other species have been photographed. (There's actual proof backing the claims, no debate necessary.) Big difference.
Sure, it's mathematically possible the IBWO has survived, but you've got to actually be able to show people the bird!
Post a Comment