2. Excerpts from an MSNBC story (the bold font is mine):
"On 41 occasions different team members ... heard that double knock; it's a sound the ivory-billed makes that no other bird makes," Auburn ornithologist Geoffrey Hill said3. Don't worry, Arkansas! Just read this.
...
"I think people should be skeptical. I think they should demand clear photographic evidence. I might start to get skeptical myself thinking, 'I've seen this bird,' but how could I have seen a bird that it is impossible to photograph," he [Hill] said.
4. From this article (the bold font is mine):
Whether the Auburn sightings turn out to prove the existence of ivory-billed woodpeckers, [biologist Mike] Owen said, that possibility is exciting,5. From this article:
“It makes people say, ‘Wow, this thing refuses to die,’” Owen said. “It keeps conservation in the news, and anything that points toward conservation is a good thing.”
Hill and two research assistants, Tyler Hicks and Brian Rolek, were paddling kayaks along the Choctawhatchee when suddenly Rolek saw a flash of wings and blurted out, "What was THAT?"6. The Silence of the Listservs
...
The news that the ivory bill might make its home near the airport site electrified the project's opponents.
...
"It's not a phantom," Hill said. "It's a vertebrate animal that lives in the forest. There are eggs, feathers, poop - DNA."
The general birding listservs that I checked yesterday contained very little discussion of Hill's announcement. For example, Florida Birds had only one posting, with zero replies. I would describe the reaction at Birdchat as lukewarm at best.
7. CLO has published this short item labeled "Ivory-bill News from Florida". David Luneau calls it "Big News from Florida!!". The USFWS "IBW Updates" page still contains nothing dated after January 2006.
8. Never fear, Lammertink is here?
Excerpt from another ridiculous article in The Ithaca Journal:
...These latest sightings add fuel to Ithaca-based researcher and author Tim Gallagher's 2004 sighting, and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's research along the Cache River in Arkansas.
Despite Gallagher's initial sighting and extensive searches in the last two years, no Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have actually been seen in Arkansas.
The Lab of Ornithology has been in on the Florida research, sending woodpecker expert Martjan Lammertink to help, said the lab's director, John Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
“He looked at the site and was impressed by the size of the roost cavities (in tree trunks) and by the foraging signs,” Fitzpatrick said.
9. A blog posting here. Warning: it appears to contain sarcasm.
10. Don Hendershot has a new article here. He even provides some song lyrics!
11. An excerpt from this article, datelined Little Rock:
For people in Brinkley, the town that has attracted thousands of birders because of its proximity to the Cache River wildlife refuge, the news from Florida wasn't discouraging, said Sandra Kemmer, the executive director of the Brinkley Chamber of Commerce.
Kemmer said the news confirmed what people there have known for years: that the ivory-billed woodpecker lives in their swamps.
"I think the more places a bird shows up, the more likelihood we have ours around here," Kemmer said. "The news just nailed it for me. If there's more of them out there then you know ours made it."
Posts
75 comments:
I think the Carpentario Real is right about that sound wave. It does sound like Sandhill Cranes.
What a hoot! They documented Sandhills. Love their sound on a cool fall day.
Ahhhh, memories. Thanks for that, Auburn.
You know, after reading Amy and Bill going tete-a-tete. I got to thinking.
Any University that is thinking of going to look for IBWO, please hire Amy as your voice of reason.
Imagine Auburn had done that,
Rolek: I just saw and Ivory Bill.
Amy: No, you didn't!
Rolek: Yes I did. I just saw the white leading edge.
Amy: No, you freekin' didn't! That was a 100 yard Pileated.
Rolek: Damn it, Amy!
Hicks: I just heard a kent
Amy: No, you didn't
Hicks: Yes, I did. Don't you hear them. 'Dem is kents, I tell you.
Amy: But their coming from that big flocks of gray birds that are passing overhead! What are they doing? Freekin' flock Ivory Bills now!
Hicks: (lookin at the Sandhills thru his binocs) Damn you, Amy
I might start to get skeptical myself thinking, 'I've seen this bird,' but how could I have seen a bird that it is impossible to photograph," he [Hill] said.
He might start to get skeptical.
Or not.
...it's a sound the ivory-billed makes that no other bird makes," Auburn ornithologist Geoffrey Hill said
Now, Dr. Hill. Think about it. Obviously, something else can make those sounds. Now go out and find what it is. And when you find out. You will have a nice paper to publish.
Jesus, I feel like your PHD professor!
We could just all go away for 6 months and let Tom resubmit our past comments from a year ago to each of his posts.
Is anyone else feeling a sense of deja vu? Haven't we been here before? Does this story ever go anywhere?
The only difference seems to be that we now have an Airport to oppose rather than a Corps water developement plan.
There is no longer fame in IBWO sightings. Only derision. Didn't Auburn realize that?
I am both a skeptic of the findings and a skeptic of the skeptics, but will offer this:
Holes too big to be PIWO holes are piss poor evidence. Unless you see the IBWO going in them, they are almost useless. Here's why.
Arvin was originally hopeful about holes found in the Big Thicket area that were the right size and morphology and with the right bark scaling. But then he realized he found too damn many of them to support a population of a bird that no one has seen. Hypothesis is that squirrels or something else enlargen PIWO holes.
Four years ago and one hour east of Cincinnati I took
this photo of birds that had never before been photographed in Ohio. Perhaps then, there's hope; IBWO's HAVE been photographed in most if not all of the "new sightings" states. Right? They can hear them ... they MUST be there. I can't wait! A couple of years ago I was planning a vacation to photograph them, anyway ... maybe I can resurrect those plans!
Hypothesis is that squirrels or something else enlargen PIWO holes.
That sounds like a fascinating paper for the next issue of Ecologia des Rodentia Arboreal !!!!
Auburn, consider this your best day. You had your shot. It was deficient.
This now spirals down out of control. Retract while you still have your reputations. Change the paper to challenge Cornell's.
Change the title of your paper to "Why kents and double knocks are not attributable to IBWO"
Really, your paper gets trashed from here on out as it is. What you really proved is that CLO's conclusions were just silly.
Get over the IVY complex. Just do it!
OK everyone. What do you make of this from the original article?
"Sounds that resemble Ivory-billed Woodpecker kent calls are produced by Red-breasted Nuthatches (Sitta canadensis), White-breasted Nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata) (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942), and may also be produced by Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) (R. Charif, pers. comm.). Neither species of nuthatch was detected at our site, either by experienced human observers or on our remote sound recordings. Great Blue Herons are common along the Choctawhatchee River, but their occasionally kent-like calls could be distinguished because they were followed in sequence by repeats of their more common squawk-like calls. Gray squirrels, which are plentiful throughout our study site and produce a “chuck” call with harmonic structure similar to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s kent call, could be distinguished on the basis of a drawn-out squeal that follows the “chuck.” Blue Jays have immense vocabularies of vocalizations (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999) and may be able to produce notes that closely resemble Ivory-billed Woodpecker kent calls (Charif et al. 2005). Such vocalizations are atypical sounds for Blue Jays and should not be their exclusive vocalizations. If Blue Jays were the source of our putative kent calls, then kent calls should be commonly associated with more familiar Blue Jay vocalizations. However, none of the 210 putative kent calls recorded by our listening stations were associated with any known Blue Jay vocalizations. Between December and March, Blue Jays were absent from the core study area and were detected only at the edges of the swamp next to pine (Pinus spp.) stands. Blue Jays were not detected within the core study area either by experienced human observers or by our listening stations until the end of March, at which time both humans and listening stations recorded the appearance of Blue Jays, especially at the periphery of the study area. Numerous putative kent calls were heard by human observers and recorded by listening stations in February and early March, when no Blue Jays were present."
So if there weren't any nuthatches or Blue Jays around when the kents were recorded, who was making them? Is it just too hard to see _anything_ there in those swamps?
none of the 210 putative kent calls recorded by our listening stations were associated with any known Blue Jay vocalizations
For the billionth time: SO WHAT?
That does not mean that the calls were more likely made by an IBWO (not seen ANYWHERE for six decades) than a Blue Jay (seen all over the goddamn place).
Reading that paragraph from the Science paper just makes me puke. It's all rhetoric and propaganda wrapped around mundane but highly selective "data".
Anybody can go in their backyard and set up a microphone and extract sounds from hundreds of hours of recordings and say, "Now what is that? Gee, I can't explain that easily." Is it reasonable to assume, then, that whatever is making the recorded sound is something incredibly precious and interesting and rare?
I don't think so. But that's all that's going on with these recordings. As always, this IBWO farce has more to do with arrogance and self-deception than anything else.
Despite my own personal doubts about the chances of Ivory-bills persisting in the real world, I think that Avian Conservation and Ecology did a fine job justifying the publication of the paper--if you haven't read their editorial, go ahead and do so now:
http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art3/
The Auburn researchers have done everyone a service by publishing so much of what have been taken in previous searches (Pearl River, Arkansas, etc.) as possible ivorybill sign (scaling, large cavities, kent calls, double knocks). If nothing else, they may have gone a step farther than Cornell and others towards showing that these signs are NOT clear evidence of IBWO.
There is value in documenting what can be taken as IBWO sign, whether or not it actually is. Of course, that evidence will be more valuable when we can determine what other creatures make these signs. Since there is no clear answer to that right now, its an open research question. If you think IBWO are extinct, then you can question the real world relevence of such a research topic. But it is still an interesting question.
At any rate, the message for IBWO searchers is now clearer than ever. No photo, no IBWO. Period.
"Numerous putative kent calls were heard by human observers and recorded by listening stations in February and early March, when no Blue Jays were present."
Well, for one, this is an assumption not a known fact. Nesting blue jays can get very silent at nesting time. Especially, near the nests. How do they know blue jays weren't around their listening stations?
Just a convenient truth that they have convinced themselves of in order to support their data? Probably.
That's how bias works. That's why medicine studies are double blind.
What I really object to is that Auburn repeatedly states as fact conditions that are really just assumptions. Assumptions often made on very little or incomplete facts.
It's very poor science. They really have a paper showing how easy it is with CLO assumptions to fool oneself into believing that Ivory-billeds are numerous.
They should have publish THAT paper. But instead, they publish nonsense. Which will take them many years to live down.
This in a report by www.al.com
"Because the Auburn team was unable to produce clear photos, the veracity of the Florida sightings may hinge, in the short term, on Hill's reputation."
Dr. Hill, what have you done?
I admit that I know nothing about woodpeckers but it seems odd to me that out of 131 “cavities” not a single feather or egg shell was recovered. Usable DNA samples are routinely extracted from feathers and egg shells. There is absolutely no need for the feathers to be “fresh”, as even old evidence would boost the value of the manuscript. I assume Hill has access to a basic molecular ecology laboratory or if not the USFWS certainly has several. Seems to me that even an incomplete sequence comparison would greatly enhance the validity of these sightings. Is there something about nest cavity contents that I do not understand? The woodpeckers around my house certainly leave feathers around their nest trees. This question applies to the other “sighting” locations as well.
There is value in documenting what can be taken as IBWO sign, whether or not it actually is. Of course, that evidence will be more valuable when we can determine what other creatures make these signs. Since there is no clear answer to that right now, its an open research question. If you think IBWO are extinct, then you can question the real world relevence of such a research topic. But it is still an interesting question.
What? What is the question that is interesting if IBWO are extinct?
Whether humans can find "unexplainable" fragments of audio by applying various "filters" to 11,500 hours of raw field recordings?
Is that the interesting question?
Is there something about nest cavity contents that I do not understand?
Why climb a tree and get all dirty when you can sit on a rock and see stuff out of the corner of your eye, or sit in an air-conditioned room with headphones listening to birds chirping?
Let's be practical, people.
none of the 210 putative kent calls recorded by our listening stations were associated with any known Blue Jay vocalizations
For the billionth time: SO WHAT?
That does not mean that the calls were more likely made by an IBWO (not seen ANYWHERE for six decades) than a Blue Jay (seen all over the goddamn place).
Actually, they didn't see any Blue Jays in the study areas, but they did see Ivory-billeds, so Ivory-billeds being the source of the sounds are more likely. Duh.
For the billionth time: SO WHAT?
It is very interesting to me that you could get hundreds of these calls unassociated with any other Blue Jay calls, or without Blue Jay or nuthatch sightings. Agreed that there is only a minute chance that they are Ivory-bills. But what then are they? That seems like an interesting question, something that would really be useful--especially if you wanted to put the lie to Cornell. Agreed that that should have been Auburn's task...to prove why all this crap isn't good IBWO evidence.
They were biased towards believing IBWO a possibility.
Amy Lester is biased against.
No clear evidence either way. Arguing from Occam's Razor and probabilities and negative evidence is subjective and maybe weak on the skeptical side, though agree that due to lack of good evidence for 60 years, IBWO claims require extraordinary evidence beyond anything we've seen since the 40s.
Auburn researchers took their best shot in a published journal.
Amy Lester took her best pot shot in a snarky blog post.
Granted we all think the Auburn paper is off. If we want to play fair, we should be crafting real responses that can be published in the same journal. Or admit we're just playing around here.
Actually, they didn't see any Blue Jays in the study areas, but they did see Ivory-billeds, so Ivory-billeds being the source of the sounds are more likely. Duh.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
(head explodes)
This was Auburn's best day?
I seem to remember the glory days of Pete Maravich on the Auburn basketbal team.
Oh...wait a minute...that was LSU.
"...but how could I have seen a bird that it is impossible to photograph," he [Hill] said."
Just like Fitzcrow's email warning to his lads that their lives were about to change, Hill knows better than to publish with the evidence he has.
But all those grad students spending all that time in the swamp and in the lab. What is he supposed to tell them? Sorry, we need to find you a new project?
I thought a sighting that involved BILL COLOUR, DORSAL STRIPES, and TRAILING WHITE WING EDGES was sufficient to be a credible Ivory bill sighting, so why isn't it now? Another sighting (two?) also involved the underwing pattern which is characteristic of an ivory billed.
HI:
Amy, are you single by any chance? You sound like my kind of woman ;)
If we want to play fair, we should be crafting real responses that can be published in the same journal. Or admit we're just playing around here.
Oh get real.
This blog has a far better track record than that journal and will probably be around longer.
It is very interesting to me that you could get hundreds of these calls unassociated with any other Blue Jay calls, or without Blue Jay or nuthatch sightings.
How about we first take the 11000 hours of audiotape and have some students spend all summer to search the "audio imprints" for matches to blue jay and nuthatch calls before we make unsubstantiated claims.
And then repeat with all the other possible birds that are known to live and exist or fly over the areas in question.
I think that would be interesting.
Not as interesting as the "Satan experiment" I proposed below (hat tip to Judas Priest) but still interesting ...
They were biased towards believing IBWO a possibility.
Amy Lester is biased against.
My friend, OBJECTIVE REALITY and REASON is biased against the possibility existence of the IBWO.
As with the Cornell paper, this Auburn "publication" shows the opposite of what its promoters imagine it shows.
Unphotographical birds that are everywhere and nowhere at the same time? The IBWO is the avian embodiment of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
With regards to the sounds in the recordings, I think we are limiting ourselves too much by only saddling nuthatches and jays as the only possible alternatives.
To me, most of the "kents" sound like mechanical noises (bike brakes, maybe even truck brakes, horns, or who knows what?), and the double-knocks... well, we know that there are lots of possible sources for them (in the recording with nine knocks in the distance and foreground, I'd offer cars crossing bridge joints as my leading hypothesis... those "double knocks" certainly don't sound like any Campephilus I know!).
Furthermore, we are told "you can't see anything in those forests" yet the researchers are certain that there are no jays or nuthatches around? And yet they "saw IBWOs," according to one Annonymous who's posted above (but yet, they didn't get documentation). Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like a double standard to me.
Finally, I notice, much like in the Cornell search style, the Auburn researchers proudly state that they did not playback IBWO recordings.... Can I ask: WHY NOT?!? I mean for chrissake, any field birder who's worked in the tropics (and many who work in North America) knows that playback works wonders in pulling in big woodpeckers. I'm sorry if the putative IBWO is inconvenienced for 20 minutes or whatever, but you'll get your stinking photos, and the world will believe you (and then the money will really flow!). Heck, the woodpecker might even experience the happiest day of its life: it is given hope that there is another "live" IBWO out there (hey, they don't know what tape players are). So what's the big freaking problem?!?!? Sounds like none of these search parties really wants to know whether or not there really is an IBWO out there (eg., they play tape and nothing responds). It'd be like finding out that your dad ate the milk and cookies all these years.
...sniffle...
My Two Cents
WAIT! Look at Figure 1.G in the ACE-ECO paper. It's not a spectrogram. It's an image of a polyacrylamide gel from a western blot. What kind of science is this?!
The Carpinterio wants to repost this ditty ... we've seen it before, but we should see it again because it accurately shows you what kinds of "things" happen in Florida (this belongs with the Nolin videos as "proof") ... Now imagine that you weren't right there but in the strand, a mile behind this woman:
Double Knocks
Now the kent calls discussion is interesting, but if you can't hear sandhill cranes off in the distance in this one then you still think 33.3 is perched on the side of a tree.
Also why do these kent sounds vary from one another so much?
Oh, I forgot ... because they come from different birds.
Also, why are all the kents so "fragmentary" in nature ... I mean why don't they record one kenting away like on the Singer Track recording?
Has anyone here ever heard an Alligator make this sound or a sound like this?
Or a moorhen
or how bout a coot?
It is just amazing that these guys have gone out to the florida woods and drug in this grab bag of yelps knocks and bangs ... and said "IVORY BILL" ... it really does beggar the mind ...
Can anyone tell the carpinterio how close this microphone was to human activity?
In rural florida, things like cow trailers, windmills, pumps, gates being opened or moved by the wind, hog traps, deer feeders swingin from a chain, cattle pen accessories and other various farm and ranch activity ALL make the sounds that are in these "kent" calls.
With all this banging, and squeaking, it sure sounds just like there is farm or a ranch within earshot of this microphone ...
Please tell me that there aren't farms or ranches anywhere near this microphone ... please.
The carpinterio just spent a little time flying around Bruce FLA with help from Google earth ... there definitely could not be any man made noises in that area ... could there?
can anyone tell me if the area that Google earth has near Bruce with the label "black" hammock and "bear" hammock? south of the area where the powerline clearing cuts through the swamp? Is the area they are in ... it is about as wide as the swamp gets ...
The carpinterio has some Florida Bona fides ... and he can tell you that these kinds of activities are going on in and around Bruce, FL (as evidenced from the aerial photos):
digging ponds, clearing ditches, grading roads, fixing the road graders with a big hammer, fixing the backhoe with a big hammer, planting loblolly pines, cutting loblolly pines, fixing the feller buncher with a big hammer, fixing the log truck with a big hammer, installing and removing the side bars,on the log truck, building deer stands, stringing barbed wire, using a batwing brush hog, fixing the batwing brush hog with a big hammer, opening and closing large metal gates, fixing large metal gates with a big hammer ... do you really want me to go on here?
Also there are powerboats in the stream by the looks of ones that are bigger than john boats (which are metal and get banged on) but ones that are fiberglass and get banged on ... and lookie ... tin roofs on just about every thing ... and I guess nothing falls on roofs and bounces ... no one repairs tin roofs in Fla ...
it just beggars the mind ... this is a collection of holes in trees, loose bark, and bangs, squeeks, and sandhill cranes ... that can be recorded in ANY cypress strand in Florida.
the florida IBWO sightings seem more credible than arkansas. especially the black head of the female. this could be incredibly good news...let's hope it was not imagined!
"...this could be incredibly good news.."
Well, cybercrow, just close your eyes and continue imagining. And maybe all your dreams will come true. Esp. that one about a puppy for christmas... Ahhhhh....
Anonymous said...
>the florida IBWO sightings seem more credible than arkansas.
7:12 AM, September 27, 2006
Indeed! Nothing like 14 fleeting, mostly naked-eye views of birds in flight to seal'er up. Color me convinced. Add to that the giant heap of equivocal audio and you've def got a little bitty hill of beans.
can you say house of cards?
-black sheep
Cool! The airport made the news.
This story just gets better and better. We have intrique. Fischcrows, that crows, aliens, TBs, Pds, Germans, Wives, birdchicks.....
Now Dr. Hill is in the middle of the largest private landowner battle in America!
All over an extinct bird!
Life doesn't get much better than this!
Well, the location is pretty well out now.
The river just North of Bruce, Florida? I can't believe Dr.Hill is going to have all that to himself this fall.
I already know birders that are headed over there.
My friend, OBJECTIVE REALITY and REASON is biased against the possibility existence of the IBWO.
Amy, there is no objective reality here. You have your suppositions about the likelihood of a bird going unphotographed for 60 years, others have their own. But these are just suppositions and guesses. Any freshman philosophy course would reveal that you can get anywhere you want with "reason" depending on your initital assumptions. You assume that 60 years, no good photograph, means no birds. Others think that it means no complete search of potential IBWO habitat. There is no proof either way.
I happen to agree that 60 years of no photograph is a big problem for those who want to claim IBWO are still out there. But that is my own personal assessment.
You can knock the "evidence" all you want. That's fair. You can question the assumptions others are making about how hard it could be to photograph a big woodpecker in the swamps. Fair again.
But don't pretend that you have some priviledged reasoned position. Your position may well be right. I suspect that it is. But it isn't completely obvious to everyone--and not just because people are deluded with wishful thinking (though we've seen lots of that). Its just impossible to KNOW, without a complete search, just what the state of affairs is out there.
I'll give you that all the evidence so far is crap. Most of the sight records seem stringy. But others make you think that more searching is called for.
And I agree that any search that doesn't involve tape playback is rediculous. We need real birders with real birding skills to do this kind of search. The past year has shown that scientifically, there is little valid reason to collect "evidence" of IBWO...The only valid aim would be to get a photo or DNA.
Can we all agree? No photo. No bird. Don't come back until you've got that in hand?
"Can we all agree? No photo. No bird. Don't come back until you've got that in hand? "
You pretend to take on Amy in your long post. But almost every paragraph has the statement "I agree" to what Amy says!!
Next time just say "I agree with everything Amy says" and leave it at that!
Tom Wolfe where are you? Your destiny awaits!
Wait, is Kurt Vonnegut still alive?
"Now Dr. Hill is in the middle of the largest private landowner battle in America!"
Yes, but really it started back in Arkansas with Fitz and crew. Or really back with Sparlings in those days long ago.....I remember them well....
Sparling
The darling
Was first
To thirst
For grail
So frail
He conceived
And believed
views fleeting
Heart beating
His nursery
Made history
As Skeptics, we owe it to the world to remember how this all started.....ahhh....memories...
The Ithaca news paper is doing Fitzcrow a solid ... notice how he has repositioned himself, not as someone claiming to have seen the bird, but as someone who supports those who have seen the bird.
Send Lammartink ... can you image what a crazy dutchman does all day at the lab ... of course Fitz is willing to deploy him to the field ... "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest".
He is now promoting a widespread mulitstate, multipartner, "effort" ... no longer is he mano y mano with David Sibley, he is simply just "supporting" the research ...
nice. Could not have been better news from FL. Could there?
But does anyone have a moustache like the fitzcrow?
Amy assumes its a waste of time to even discuss this, since the birds are extinct. I don't know if they are extinct. That's where we differ. I suspect that Amy could be convinved that the birds are still there, but it would take a photo, video, recent DNA etc.
Since most people don't seem to be buying any of the "evidence" put forward yet, I'm just trying to cut to the chase here.
No matter how good your sight record, millions of kent calls or double knock recordings, large cavities, or bark scaling...it won't be good enough to overcome 60 years of no verified reports. You got a clearly identifiable photo, video, or DNA then we'll talk business.
I can agree with Amy that the evidence so far is not convincing, and disagree that this means that we KNOW the birds aren't out there. I think we may disagree on our assessment of how well every backwater in the South has been searched by people able to find or identify Ivorybills.
Here's where I think we stand.
Round 1 (Pearl River Search): Nothing--"double knocks" can come from anywhere.
Round 2 (Arkansas): Not good enough evidence, and beware of wishful thinking.
Round 3 (Florida): A million recordings and habitat photos do not an ivorybill make.
What all this has taught us is how we're not going to ever settle this without a photo. Some folks would have said this all along, but I think that has been clarified quite a bit. Which makes it simpler for all of us. Don't waste your time photographing bark scaling or entrance holes or reporting flyby sightings.
Get the bird itself or leave us alone.
Decades ago, when what is now birding was bird watching, I heard that someone was considering publishing a newsletter of West Virginia birds, as an alternative to The Redstart, and calling it The Upstart . Its motto was apparently going to be "Send us your doubtful sight records".
This led to a discussion of how people would always share their doubtful observations with friends and that, in theory, it might not be bad to have someplace where people could share these type of observations with other interested parties. It was clear, however, that an ornithological "gossip" column full of uncertain sightings would not be good for either the discipline or the people involved.
Fast forward to the early 21st Century and you have first Cornell and now Auburn thinking that doubtful sight records are not only worth sharing, they are able to resurrect formerly extinct birds. And no need to have some upstart newsletter to disseminate that misinformation . It is now in Science and Living Bird.
Any person bird watching in the 1960s who knew what Cornell represented then and sees what it represents now, has to grieve for what has become of ornithology in America.
Ithaca Journal wrote:
"Despite Gallagher's initial sighting and extensive searches in the last two years, no Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have actually been seen in Arkansas."
Wow, did they actually write that? That must be a slap in the face to the hometown boys and girls!
"Decades ago, when what is now birding was bird watching," and the National Audubon Society was still an effective and functioning organization who funded Tanner, Robert Port Allen, Alexander Sprunt, Baker, and many other great researchers on many great bird projects, Audubon would never have gone along with such foolishness. Let alone promoted this IBWO mess.
On behalf of the ghosts of all that is great in your past, Audubon should stand up and say "enough is enough". "Let's get back to science."
But no, they have Gallagher's wife writing for them. That's what has happened to National Audubon. They suck now. And it's been bad for the birds ever since, because the people who purport to take their place, such as the CLO, are worse than useless.
I have to side with "jumping the snark" with respect to this issue.
There is a difference between ridiculing people because they think that IBWOs might still survive, and ridiculing people because they think that the crappy evidence that they have been able to produce should convince people
that IBWOs survive.
I haven't seen any public pronouncements from the AOU, Jon Dunn/NGS, or David Sibley that IBWO is definitely extinct. If they are unwilling to say so I don't see that ridicule is in order for people that hold out hope, want to spend their own time and money searching, etc.
snark jumper
Any freshman philosophy course would reveal that you can get anywhere you want with "reason" depending on your initital assumptions.
Yes, like creationists, IBWO believers do find support in and hack relativist philosophy in order to create the impression that there is a "controversy." Unfortunately, rather than simply attack the data and arguments which show that the IBWO is extinct, the believers have chosen to literally create data to support their view. And that fact is going to bite them in the ass.
You assume that 60 years, no good photograph, means no birds.
There's more missing than a photograph. See how you play games with the facts, snark? It's a bad habit.
I happen to agree that 60 years of no photograph is a big problem for those who want to claim IBWO are still out there. But that is my own personal assessment.
It's a big problem for the believers, PERIOD. It's as big a problem for the IBWO believers as it is for the Sasquatch believers.
But don't pretend that you have some priviledged reasoned position.
I'm not pretending any such thing. On the contrary, I had stated many times that I am not a "professional" ornithologist or birdwatcher. One does need to be either to smell the giant steaming manure pile created by the Cornell and Auburn teams.
I can agree with Amy that the evidence so far is not convincing
Again, the "evidence" presented by the would-be promoters of the IBWO's existence is worse than "not convincing." It supports the view that the IBWO is extinct and supports a few other things as well (things about human beings in general that were well-known, and things about specific human beings that were less well-known).
Well, cybercrow, just close your eyes and continue imagining. And maybe all your dreams will come true. Esp. that one about a puppy for christmas... Ahhhhh....
I see cybercrow as more of a pony type.
Forget about ornithology. This is way beyond that. These jokers are embarrassing American cryptozoology!
I could make better field sketches in grade school. These sightings wouldn't pass muster as documentation of a rare-but-regular bird seen on a CBC.
Oh my, poor Bill Pulliam is feeling picked on. Go over to his site and look for yourself.
I guess when your arguments all get countered with common sense then you begin to see conspiracies everywhere.
Hey, Bill, how about this? The bird is extinct. Doesn't that simple fact explain all of your problems?
He is now promoting a widespread mulitstate, multipartner, "effort"
-----------------
Umm, what does he think the USFWS has been doing by funneling money to SC, GA, TX and other southeastern states during this last year. Does he want to take charge and send in the flying dutchman?
The CLO had more than enough stats, just no decent evidence.
By the way, Tom: YOU DA MAN!!!
I'm happy that our intimate connection has found in this blog a proper forum for its expression.
Damn, Methinks,
That was good. What else ya got?
It would seem that Auburn did do themselves some justice by putting it all out there. But why they didn't name the paper,
"How to fool oneself with kents, double knockies, and 3 sec sightings: Has American Ornithology lost it?",
is beyond me.
The carpinterio might not have been explicit enough on this point.
The ithaca paper is saying EXACTLY what FITZCROW wants it to say ... even the quote about him not seeing the bird in Arkansas is what he wants the history on this to be ... he wants to merely be supportive of the idea of recovery ... not the reason that this is no longer the stuff that people in yurts whisper about.
At this point Fitz gets to erase the past, now poor Hillcrow inherits the wind.
Fitz doesn't care about money. The only thing that really kept him awake in all this was the idea that his wikipedia entry was, "built the new building at Sapsucker woods and then mistakenly claimed that he saw the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and went to the grave swearing that frame 33.3 was a bird perched on the side of a tree".
This is the best possible turn of events for CLO ...
Holy smokin' rings of Zorax! Fighting blogs! Humans! How did you know this was sweeps week on Zorax!
Kneep.....kneep.....
I haven't seen any public pronouncements from the AOU, Jon Dunn/NGS, or David Sibley that IBWO is definitely extinct.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." -- Maxwell Scott in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
I fear the Carpinterio as blundered into the truth, as he usually does.
Fitzcrow is shedding the IBWO mantle. As fast as he can!
Wonder if he heavily encouraged Hillcrow to publish, public opinion be damned!
This will make a great great book. Tom Wolfe, you there yet? Vonnegut is waiting in the wings.
Oh my god, I just realized the name of Tom Wolfe's next book,
"The Sand Hills of Walton County"
Thank you thank you very much. Above is officially copyrighted by Anon 2006.
Send royalties to Pd's $1000 Bet Insurance Fund.
The Carpinterio thinks that Amy has to tone it down a bit. The Man of Constant Sorrow, oh him of the frame by frame sketches in the spirit of sibley, really is feeling badly because of you and your agressive, Julian Simon-like, ways.
And now he has gone off and stopped just short of accusing Nelson of FRAUD ... I warned Nelson not to push that fraud stuff ... but he did anyway and now the Soggy Man is using it againt him.
Bill come back ... Amy is sorry, she is just having fun. Who cares if she is make believe? It is just bloggery.
I mean any journalist (like the one in St. Pete), who quotes an anyonymous blogger as a source, is an idiot. Accept it for what it is.
And I don't agree with everything Tom nelson says, and if he axed your comment and passed it onto lester ... well I can understand why you'd feel hurt. Tom, apologize to Soggy.
Soggy ... don't go. The carpinterio is very fond of you. You were like a litumus - every hard earned admission that the CLO paper was bunk was a joy to me. It was a sign that there was hope. That people in the USA could think for themselves.
Now we have to go through point by point with the Hillcrow stuff. So be it.
Here you are "believing" again, but your own eyes and ears say that these sounds don't make sense.
Trust the force ...
Your a good man Soggy. I admire you. I really do.
Tom, you need to tell Soggy that you are sorry ...
Hey Tim aka Jonny Rotten:
Ever feel like you've been swindled?
"Tom, you need to tell Soggy that you are sorry".
1. As far as I know, I've never met "Amy Lester". I thought we exchanged an email or two back when she first appeared on this blog's comment section; if so, that's the complete extent of our "intimate connection".
2. The "head exploding" thing is a complete coincidence as far as I know, unless "Bill" and "Amy" have an "intimate connection".
3. I did axe Bill's comment, and I offer no apologies. Bill has his own blog, and I don't guarantee him unlimited posting rights here.
Hey there... Rotten here...
swindled?
moi?
never mind the bollocks (there's enough of that floating around at the moment...!!!) and keep focussed in these heady times.
Even though i half suspected Auburn to be polishing a turd, they appear to be gold plating one and trying to flog it off as a 24ct IBWO. I couldn't have predicted such tosh in my wildest dreams.
At least Hill and Stringclodes have been in touch sounds like a marriage made in heaven. Tragic isn't the word.
There once was a man called Cinclodes
He saw IBWOs with relative ease
He got out of his tent
Heard a cracking great kent
And went down with the swamp stringing disease...
Ciao amicos
Tim
pd,
It occurred to me that you've been had!
Given the odds that Tom had laid out, 99 to 1, for your $1,000, Amy should be betting $99,000!
Amy, are you willing to place a bet against pd's $1,000 given Tom's odds? You know there's no risk of having to pay out.
Note: Even Tom has not publicly put the final nail in the IBWO coffin (of course that was before the Hillcrow paper was published).
pd,
It occurred to me that you've been had!
Contracts normally have 3 days for the buyer to get out. Does that apply to bets?
You made the bet on Auburns best day. It's all downhill from here. Or is it uphill?
Damn, is it downhill to hell or uphill the hard way? I never can remember that saying!
Well, anyway, she'll understand if you have buyer's remorse!
Ok, so pd and Amy made their deal and a bet's a bet, but Amy are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and take Tom's odds if we can produce another mark, I mean skeptic/believer, willing to put up $1,000?
Ok, so pd and Amy made their deal and a bet's a bet, but Amy are you willing to forgive Pd for his rashness? I like Pd. I hate to see this happen to him. He may have kids his has to feed!
Ok, so pd and Amy made their deal and a bet's a bet, but Amy are you willing to forgive Pd for his rashness?
Of course. All pd has to do is admit that the "evidence" for the IBWO's continued existence is a huge pile of smelly crap.
I'm very capable of speaking candidly about the quality of the evidence, but I simply cannot bring myself to use language that might cause a proper lady to blush. I’ll have to decline… thanks though.
pd
I'm very capable of speaking candidly about the quality of the evidence, but I simply cannot bring myself to use language that might cause a proper lady to blush. I’ll have to decline… thanks though.
pd
I simply cannot bring myself to use language that might cause a proper lady to blush.
I fear for this country.
Post a Comment