1. IBWO searcher "Fangsheath" describes toots from rubbing trees and also "an occasional squeaky sound ... from a gas well almost a mile away" here.
2. Mennill sneaks up on large cavities in the dark here.
3. Please see the Ivory-billed Woodpecker model linked from here. Lots of graphs and calculations are provided.
In my humble opinion, IBWO densities (per hectare) anywhere in the U.S. may be calculated quite accurately using this simple equation:
IBWO density = 0.000 * X
where X = absolutely any factor that you can imagine
Wednesday
2 hours ago
Posts
9 comments:
Dan says this:
" Early morning was the only time of day that I could reliably locate a Pale-billed Woodpecker... by staking out a roost cavity."
But at a meeting he said he could lure in Pale-billed Woodpeckers 50% of the time by simulating a double rap by banging too sticks together.
Is this just semantics or is he trying to justify lack of IBWO evidence?
Dan says: "Early morning was the only time of day that I could reliably locate a Pale-billed Woodpecker... by staking out a roost cavity"
I've never looked for Campephilus woodpeckers but have seen several species, including Pale-billed, simply by wandering through their habitat while looking for the many bird species that are genuinely difficult to locate and identify.
He is clearly trying to justify lack of IBWO evidence but is unlikely to fool any serious birders. However, he may very well fool some ornithologists, big conservation donors, and journal editors.
As I've said many times before, all of the technology and all of the models and statistics applied to the IBWO searches are irrelevant. Real woodpeckers are readily found by real birders wearing street clothes and armed solely with bins and cameras, and real evidence would trump all gratuitous probability calculations based on false premises.
Neither of you know what you are talking about. There is plenty of IBWO evidence. Maybe you should ask Dan yourselves.
"Early morning was the only time of day that I could reliably locate a Pale-billed Woodpecker... by staking out a roost cavity"
The key word here is "reliably". It says that if somebody asked that they be showed a Pale-billed Woodpecker NOW, the hole at dawn is the only way he could do it. He does not mention if he "randomly" saw/heard them 2 to 10 times a day.
Pileated has nested in my yard and is in the area all year round, but it's not reliable except when the male drums and calls every morning for the 4-6 weeks prior to egg laying. That doesn't mean I don't see/hear them on a regular basis. They just aren't "reliable".
"Neither of you know what you are talking about. There is plenty of IBWO evidence."
There is no good, publicly-available evidence that IBWOs persisted in the USA after 1944. I will never be impressed by bark adhesion, kents, double knocks, bad video of Pileateds, sight records documented by substandard descriptions and poor or implausible field sketches, etc. Real woodpeckers and all other conspicuous, non-skulking, vocal, diurnal, large landbirds are invariably photographed within a 62 year span when actually present in a first-world country with an active birding community.
Any North American bird that cannot be documented conclusively for 62 years, at the nest site or otherwise, is pretty damn unreliable...or perhaps we skeptics are to blame for the lack of evidence as we are (or will be according to Cyberthrush) for the IBWOs extinction? .
"Maybe you should ask Dan yourselves."
Ask him what? I assume that if he or anyone else had any worthwhile evidence it would be published or at very least mentioned on the internet.
I would like to ask the CLO what happened to "The Rediscovery" and "Rediscovering" the IBWO on their website? Now they are merely "searching" like all the other TBs.
I'll never forget my encounter with a Pale-billed Woodpecker in Guatemala. I was out birding, looking for nothing in particular and seeing all sorts of things, when I heard some relatively loud wingbeats. Looking up, I saw a Pale-billed land in the upper reaches of a nearby tree. Though the bird could perhaps be described as "wary", or "somewhat difficult to follow through the foliage", I managed to stay with it across a few trees, and had great looks. If I had had the proper camera rig and basic photography skills, there is no reason that at least a few diagnostic shots could have been taken.
And immediately after, I remember thinking to myself, "this is what it would have been like to see an Ivory-billed."
My point is, for practical purposes, it is very, very close to inconceivable that Ivory-billeds have persisted all of this time with no hard documentation. Given the growth of birding and the ever-increasing number of skilled birders in the field, inconceivably has been achieved for practical purposes.
My biggest lament over this fiasco is the inevitable backlash against conservationists and their work. The backlash alone warrants sustained, public criticism from the ornithological community against those promoting and/or benefiting from the "rediscovery".
Whoops. I should have typed "...there is no reason that at least a few diagnostic shots could NOT have been taken."
"My biggest lament over this fiasco is the inevitable backlash against conservationists and their work."
What backlash?
My biggest lament over this fiasco is the inevitable backlash against conservationists and their work. The backlash alone warrants sustained, public criticism from the ornithological community against those promoting and/or benefiting from the "rediscovery".
This is well stated. The backlash has already begun. There is a groundswell of anti-birder, anti-"tree hugger" sentiment afoot, regarding the CLO Arkansas mishap.
Many of those who protest are sportsmen who feel that they have been scammed by intellectual ivy-league enviro-nuts. These folks feel that CLO, TNC, and Arkansas authorities have perpetrated an elaborate hoax in order to eventually make their hunting and fishing areas off-limits. They use the word "hoax" repeatedly.
I have been in communication with some of these folks. They ask searching questions. They don't have any underlying motives. They have honest, legitimate concerns.
Their voices will grow much louder.
Meanwhile, the searchers keep measuring cavities, and recording squeaky sounds.
Post a Comment