Friday, October 13, 2006

More from Willy Zimmer

Here.

The article suggests that skeptics believe the Luneau bird is an "abnormal pileated woodpecker". Personally, since late August 2005, I've said that the Luneau bird is likely to be a normal Pileated Woodpecker. This post (about Cornell misinterpreting out-of-focus vegetation as a perched Ivory-bill) came a few days later.

You may remember Zimmer from this posting last month. Note some good comments on Zimmer's own blog posting here.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since you pointed out the error of the "abnormal pileated", I have to comment on your quote:

"It's nonsense," Nelson said of the Florida reports. "They looked for a conspicuous, noisy diurnal bird for 16 months in a 2-square-mile area, yet never got a good look at a perched bird and never found so much as a feather."

It sounds like they actually on searched for about 5-7 months. The Auburn website says there was a sighting May 21 2005, and then they returned a week later. They returned in late July, after which they planned a winter search mid-Dec to end of April. They mention that 9 of 14 having sightings through July 2006, but there's no indication of the amount of search effort after April.

So the search wasn't 16 months. Sounds more like 5, but I'll be generous and call it 6 or 7. Still plenty of time to find an Ivory-billed, you'd think, but what's up with only searching two square miles? Tanner estimated maximum densities of 1 pair per 6 square miles, though it was one pair per 17 square miles at the Singer Tract in 1934 (but he also mentions birds ranging over 3-4 square miles in the breeding season).

They must have just been in the wrong 2 square miles. Obviously they just weren't searching a large enough area, right?

Anonymous said...

Right. So if you've been birding since 1976, you can't say you've been birding "for 30 years."

No, you add up all the actual birding hours during that time. So when people ask, you need to say, "I've been birding for 2 months."

Methinks said...

Gallaghercrow says....

"The skepticism about the ivory-bill rediscovery doesn't bother me," he said. "We've all been told for our entire lives that these birds are extinct, so naturally it's a difficult pill to swallow when someone comes along and claims to have found one."
_________________________________

Ah, Gallaghercrow's reality raises its voice once again. If only we could all shake our narrow-mindedness and let the truth in!Actually Timmer we were not all told the IBWO was extinct, we have all been drowning under the spectacular lack of evidence or facts indicating that it was indeed extant. Now, as you know those are two different things.

Now Timmer, the hard pill to swallow here is that even with years of searching, umpteen million dollars, ARUs, NDAs and area closures, you and Fitzcrow's jolly band of thieves didn't add one single fact to our Avian Knowledge Network (another 3 million to CLO) about the IBWO. That is the hard pill to swallow.

And indeed, I couln't agree with you more - all you did was claim the bird Tim, you never proved anything. That is why no one believes the sighting Tim - you never backed it up.

PS - Hey, How is Wanda Tim? - you remember Wanda, the woman who first saw the IBWO and sent Sparling, the putative non-birder kayaker, in to the swamp. You always told us he was just a kayaker, not someone out hunting IBWO. Never got a word back from the Missus regarding Wanda...odd.

Amy Lester said...

"The skepticism about the ivory-bill rediscovery doesn't bother me," he said. "We've all been told for our entire lives that these birds are extinct, so naturally it's a difficult pill to swallow when someone comes along and claims to have found one."

Oh, the eternal whine of the paradigm shifter.

Fight the dogma, Tim! Fight the dogma!