The U.S. Census Bureau provides some data (2001) to quantify hunting and fishing pressure in various states. The numbers for Arkansas are here; Florida numbers are here (PDF format; see page 11 in both cases).
For Arkansas, the listed annual numbers are 430,000 hunters and over 8.4 million hunter-days (and another 13 million fisher-days).
The annual numbers for Florida include 226,000 hunters, and about 4.7 million hunter-days.
This all adds up to a whole lot of people spending a whole lot of time in the field (maybe tens of millions of hours annually in each state). Obviously, not all that time is spent in the "right" habitat; however, any way you slice it, the sheer magnitude of those numbers is absolutely staggering.
If you desperately want to believe that the Ivory-bill lives, it's tempting to dismiss all those hunters and fisherman as Cletus, The Slack-Jawed Yokel. In reality, though, a sizable percentage of hunters and fisherman possess birding skills as good or better than those of Sparling, Kulivan, Harrison, Fishcrow, etc.
Could a population of large, noisy, conspicuous birds have escaped confirmed detection by all those people for over 60 years? I think the probability is essentially zero. This will become even more clear by this spring, when none of this season's organized searches results in the confirmed detection of any Ivory-bills.
A personal note: As a hunter and fisherman myself, I've spent a considerable amount of time far off-road. Specifically, over the years I've been out hunting white-tailed deer in Wisconsin, elk in Idaho, and Dall sheep and caribou in Alaska. I've also been fishing in other remote regions in Minnesota, Canada, and Alaska. In all of these "remote" places, I've found one constant: human sign in the form of tracks, evidence of old campfires, small bits of fishing gear, etc.
Club of Rome: COP29 “No longer fit for purpose”
57 minutes ago
Posts
23 comments:
Exactly. Hunters and fisherman frequently visit some of the most remote "unexplored" country out there.
I was just hunting some of the most remote country of Wisconsin. It's wild enough so I ran across fresh bear tracks and listened to timber wolves howling many times. Like many hunters, I spent time sitting quietly watching everything around me. Once in the last few days a fisher loped up to within about 25 feet of me, and a barred owl landed about 15 feet away. A wolf howled a short distance away in the trees. And one morning, after I'd walked nearly 1 1/2 hours in the dark, and after having crossed a major swamp on a long beaver dam. I crawled up into a tree to sit quietly. Before full light I saw a hunter! Believe me, there are hunters in the most remote country around.
Oh, and I had my video/still camera. Had I seen an IBWO, I would have taken a photo of it! (I saw plenty of Pileateds.)
Yep. You are correct, Tom. Your argument plus the fact that few people realize just how completely the swamps of the country were cut by the 1930's are the primarily reasons that Cybercrow et al just don't get it. All you have to do is to look at the trees along the Chockfullowatchee and you can see that very few escaped the saw.
How did they get them out of such a swampy area. They floated them out! Right down the river to the bay. Wasn't hard at all. The only trees not cut were those deemed too small at the time. Those are now the trees that everyone oohs-and-ahhhs over.
But the old growth of the time. It was highly marketable and it was! Marketed, that is.
This is a very important point. Either southern birders are Cletus-like CLODS, incapable of documenting their own megafauna for decades at a time without help from the Ivy Leagues, or the bird really is extinct. The CLO and friends apparently didn't even consider how arrogant it was to rediscover a bird in a densely populated area of the USA, as if Arkansas were a remote corner Brazil (see previous post). Arkansas and north Florida may not be swarming with famous birders like Cape May, but many hunters and other people with some interest in natural history and capable of using a fully automatic point-and-shoot digital camera live in or visit these areas. How sad that the CLO and friends still need to be informed of this fact.
I've found one constant: human sign in the form of tracks, evidence of old campfires, small bits of fishing gear, etc.
Those aren't necessarily human signs. That evidence is also consistent with a wide-ranging population of a hairless dwarf form of Sasquatch. Koenig et al recently reported (e.g., the June 2005 issue of Cryptozoologic Revista) that this dwarf form of the well-known "Bigfoot" is believed to have acquired rudimentary skills, including fire-making. Moreover, they are believed to occasionally don the discarded clothes of hunters and wander the woods "in disguise," though the jury is out on whether they engage in this behavior with the intent to deceive researchers.
One reliable method of distinguishing between the "micro/nude" form of Sasquatch and Homo sapiens is to take a scat sample. Sasquatch scat is notoriously complex, with overtones of tobacco, ripe blackberries, and cedar, and a finish that is said to be evocative of French truffles.
Point well taken. Let us consider the Eskimo Curlew. Not too many of them left. In the early 1960's when the population of a MIGRATORY shore bird the size of a large quail was God knows how small, we have a nice 1962 photograph from (I believe) the Galveston Texas area. This bird looks a lot like several other related Curlews and Whimbrels, yet the distinguishing features are clearly visible in that '62 photo.
In summation, the reason for no real decent photos of IBWP's in six decades is due to the fact that they are extinct.
Either southern birders are Cletus-like CLODS, incapable of documenting their own megafauna for decades at a time without help from the Ivy Leagues,
Oh, great. First we were just "bad". Now we are likened to
Cletus! Remember, we Southern Birders are sooo bad that we have not been able to FIND IBWOs, despite decades of searching, let along DOCUMENT them. It was only when the Ivy Leaguers arrived on the scene that IBWOs started popping up.
And, let's see... they were going to help us to document them? OK. When does that start?
And that "point and shoot" camera thing...do you really reckon us southerners could figger it out?
Cletus here, I may be slack jawed and inbred, but I can figger out that............................
if numerous qualified people such as Kulivan, Gallagher, Harrison, Collins, Hill and the umpteen others in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida are all CERTAIN they saw ivory-billed woodpeckers then, by golly, most likely at least some of them (in more than one state) have REALLY seen ivory-billed woodpeckers and the birds really do exist!
It AIN'T complicated! There is a thin population of birds out there, and the fact that you yankee, uptight, terrain misunderstanding, need to get laid and get some common freakin' sense types won't ACCEPT it is hurting recovery prospects.
Stick that in your ditty bag, bozos.
Stick that in your ditty bag, bozos.
Spoken and reasoned like a true slack-jawed-local-yokel-cletus. Your parents must be proud.
Beautiful day up here in the NE. Think I'll go sailing this morning and have a light snack at the yacht club afterwards. Life is good.
"It was only when the Ivy Leaguers arrived on the scene that IBWOs started popping up" in Science
Tom wrote: "For Arkansas, the listed annual numbers are 430,000 hunters and over 8.4 million hunter-days (and another 13 million fisher-days).
The annual numbers for Florida include 226,000 hunters, and about 4.7 million hunter-days."
Impressive numbers indeed, and your belief that there are no Ivory-bills out there may be correct, but your arguments are unobjectively one-sided. What percentage of these hunters now know what an Ivory-bill is, what percentage knew what an Ivory-bill was before 2005, and what percentage routinely toted a camera with a telephoto lens along with their gun or bow while hunting in swamps before 2005 and now? And are there not some avid hunters (e.g., Fielding Lewis, Choupique) who are convinced they've not only seen but even photographed the pecker?
"What percentage of these hunters [yadda yadda]..."
The most important number is how many confirmed detections have resulted from that truly vast amount of coverage over six decades. It's zero.
With that much observer coverage, it should go without saying that false positive sightings of Ivory-bills (and Bigfoot) will be generated.
Tom, have you commented on why you believe the Fielding Lewis photos were bogus rather than legitimate? And if you believe they were bogus, how can you be 100% certain?
The claims of Fielding Lewis fail to pass any reasonable "smell test". He supposedly saw Ivory-bills well many times between at least 1971 and 1987, and he supposedly knew plenty of other people who saw them as well. As quoted in The Grail Bird, Fielding claims his high school classmate Wilbur Cole saw Ivory-bills "every day".
Despite the long-standing presence of all these easy-to-see Ivory-bills, Lewis always failed when attempting to show his Ivory-bills to third parties like George Lowery. And his only alleged photos were two very lousy ones of a "bird" in a similar position, with no view of the eye, bill, or feet.
Around page 106 of "The Grail Bird", Lewis claims that the local chief of police would shoot somebody "about once a week", and shot one baseball player in the foot "three times". I'd like to see some corroboration of those claims as well.
Tom, Amy, John & other Ivory-bill atheists,
The identity of the bird in Fielding Lewis' photos is beyond dispute. Either he photographed a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker or he staged a hoax (specimen or decoy) and lied about it.
Similarly, David Kulivan did not glimpse a fleeing Pileated Woodpecker and mistake it for an Ivory-bill, but claims to have seen one perched nearby that he described in vivid detail. Either he saw a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker or he lied about it.
Are you 100% certain that BOTH Fielding Lewis and David Kulivan, fellow hunters like Tom, are liars? Are you 100% certain that had you been standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time that these southern gentlemen were present, you either would not have seen a live Ivory-billed Woodpecker or you would have obtained the extraordinary proof that you demand?
And, finally, had you actually seen a live woodpecker or taken a couple of crummy photos at the time, would you have told anybody about it or shown the photos to anyone?
"Lewis always failed when attempting to show his Ivory-bills to third parties like George Lowery"
And how often do you think this actually occurred? On p. 110 of Gallagher, Lowry wrote that he made "several trips" without seeing one, but also had spent a week in the Singer Tract in 1934 without seeing one. Anybody competent birder knows that rare birds found in extensive forest habitat can be difficult to relocate. I see no mention of Fielding Lewis attempting to show the bird to any other ornithologist or birder, and it appears that George Lowery honored Lewis' request to maintain his anonymity.
Frankly I'm not convinced Lowry was being totally honest, but neither am I convinced he has lied. What specifically about the photos convinces you that there is not even a 1% chance that they are legitimate? Or is it your preconceived belief that the Ivory-bill was already extinct by 1971, therefore it was impossible for anybody to have seen or photographed one?
What specifically about the photos convinces you that there is not even a 1% chance that they are legitimate?
As I said, the photos are legitimate. They are real photos. It's just that the photos don't come close to proving that any IBWO has lived on earth for the past half-century.
I recommend hounding Bigfoot skeptics. There are so many more of them. You've got your work cut out for you and if you don't hurry up, those shy beasts of the forest will soon be extinct.
"As I said, the photos are legitimate. They are real photos. It's just that the photos don't come close to proving that any IBWO has lived on earth for the past half-century."
Amy, you've ducked the question again. Are these photos of a living, dead or fake bird? Which of the above and why? If you haven't bothered to study the photos in the past and can't explain your reason why you don't think it's a living Ivory-bill, how can you be 100% certain that the Ivory-bill was extinct in 1971? Are you dismissing the photos simply because they don't fit your preconceived notion that the bird became extinct long before 1971?
I wouldn't waste my time hounding bigfoot skeptics because I happen to be a bigfoot atheist. I don't believe bigfoot ever existed, and it doesn't irritate me that some people do, but the Ivory-bill did exist. And I'm incredulous that the last Ivory-bill dropped dead in 1944. I don't know when it happened, or even if it did, but I'm puzzled by why you are absolutely convinced it didn't survive up until 1971 (or even later). I mean, how many people were out there searching the swamps for them with movie cameras or SRL cameras with telephoto lenses back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s?
"I'm incredulous that the last Ivory-bill dropped dead in 1944."
Why?
If you and other incredulous TBs are unhappy with this hypothesis please refute it with credible evidence.
Are these photos of a living, dead or fake bird? Which of the above and why?
I don't know. How could I know? Maybe it's a living bird wearing make-up to appear as if it's dead. I don't "know for certain."
But here's what's more important: it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to everyone except maybe a few metaphysicians.
Let's try another example. Is Andy Kaufman alive? I say no. You say yes. Who's right? I am. Am I 100% sure? Yes. How can I be 100% sure? It doesn't make any difference. All that matters is: I am 100% sure I'm right and you are wrong. If you don't like this state of things, then guess what: you need to collect some truly compelling evidence to support your favorite myth and present it to me and my fellow doubters. Have fun while you're at it and, yes, I'll be having a laugh at your expense. Sorry if that bugs.
"I don't believe bigfoot ever existed, and it doesn't irritate me that some people do"
You are such an easy-going chap! If only everyone was as tolerant of malarkey, the world would be like a big circus of pure fun 24 hours a day.
"I mean, how many people were out there searching the swamps for them with movie cameras or SRL cameras with telephoto lenses back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s?"
I dunno. Five? Five hundred? Five thousand? Regardless, the IBWO is extinct and nobody has credibly documented a living IBWO since the forties. Tough luck for anyone who wants to promote the bird's continued existence for the next year, ten years, fifty years, or how many years it takes before the rubes finally tire of tilting of windmills.
"or how many years it takes before the rubes finally tire of tilting of windmills."
Don't hold your breath Amy. Consider how many people continue wasting time and money looking for intelligent signals from outer space.
"The identity of the bird in Fielding Lewis' photos is beyond dispute. Either he photographed a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker or he staged a hoax (specimen or decoy) and lied about it."
The majority of the experts who originally examined the Lewis photo considered it to be a wooden model. I have always considered that to be correct. The bird was photographed on two different trees in exactly the same position. It appears to be just another in a long line of creative practical jokes perpetuated by cagey cajuns.
....and it appears that George Lowery honored Lewis' request to maintain his anonymity.
I dunno about this. There were those who seemed to know the location back in the 70s.
IBWO searches have been done all over Louisiana by good birders for many years. Birders carrying good camera equipment. Birders with well-known reputations. They have all dipped. Except Collins, the Fishcrow. The Grandest Yankee of Them All. He's got the IBWOs coming out of the woodwork. Damn.
I think Amy's on to something with her obsession with Sasquatch. Can they be trained to operate cameras?
Those aren't necessarily human signs. That evidence is also consistent with a wide-ranging population of a hairless dwarf form of Sasquatch. Koenig et al recently reported (e.g., the June 2005 issue of Cryptozoologic Revista) that this dwarf form of the well-known "Bigfoot" is believed to have acquired rudimentary skills, including fire-making. Moreover, they are believed to occasionally don the discarded clothes of hunters and wander the woods "in disguise," though the jury is out on whether they engage in this behavior with the intent to deceive researchers.
Either he saw a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker or he lied about it.
Or, here's a crazy idea, he thought he saw living Ivory-bills and he was just wrong. It does happen.
Or, another crazy thought, he WAS simply lying. It being April Fool's Day and all. Sometimes people do make up things like that and paint themselves into a corner when the joke gets out of hand.
There are more liars than IBWOs, so if someone comes to you in all seriousness and swears they watched a pair of IBWOs feeding, the smart money goes with assuming it's a lie and not the story of the century, especially if the guy has a camera.
Post a Comment