ilya turkey hunters are by far the most stealthy of all outdoorspeople - several i know ride mountain bikes in rather than atvs to get into the woods without making a lot of racket....That reminded me of a strange pattern in Mennill's sound data, where for a while around mid-March, the "Ivory-bills" seemed to forget completely about double-knocking in favor of producing some squeaky calls that sounded like bicycle brakes (I highlighted one example from March 18).
If I'm reading this PDF file correctly, it looks like the spring turkey season opener in Florida's Northwest Zone happened to be March 18.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the above information proves anything at all.
Posts
22 comments:
Very interesting approach to turkey hunting. However, it would pretty much be impossible to ride a bike through the flooded swamp in which Dan Mennill's recordings have been made. I know this because I was there.
Do you know exactly where all seven ARUs were located in mid-March '06?
If so, are you really confident that no one could reasonably ride a mountain bike within (say) a few hundred yards of any of those ARU positions?
I have personally kayaked next to all seven of them and have their GPS coordinates. I am confident no one could or would be able to ride a bike within a couple hundred yards of any of them. I think you should give up on the bike thing.
Are you a member of the Hill/Mennill team?
If not, what are you doing with the GPS coordinates of the ARU locations?
Note that the "Pictorial Tour" on Hill's site contains some shots of some unflooded terrain that looks pretty bike-able to me...
yes, i am a member of the team.
you have to realize that this swamp is huge and the terrain does vary. the area where the ARUs are located is usually deeper water and only shows land when it's been very dry and the water levels are low. even then that land is quite soft, muddy, and full of debris and isn't bike-able.
When you say the swamp is "huge", what do you mean? Isn't there a road and/or a building within six hundred yards (more or less) of your search area?
In mid-March of '06, did you personally explore all areas within a few hundred yards of all the ARUs?
Also, a lingering question here is whether your team has carefully examined all night-time ARU data for kent-like calls and double-knocks. Can you please clear that one up for us?
Also, a lingering question here is whether your team has carefully examined all night-time ARU data for kent-like calls and double-knocks. Can you please clear that one up for us?
Yes, that would be good to know. If that hasn't been done, that would lead me to believe there is mining for data that seemingly supports the conclusion whilst carefully ignoring data that might lead to a different conclusion altogether.
(Clearly I'm a non-team member.)
By the way, USGS WaterWatch shows that Panhandle streamflows in March-April '06 were "below normal" to "much below normal".
I'm personally not buying the "too much debris" argument. The pictures on Hill's site show formerly flooded bottomland where the forest floor looks pretty dry and clear of debris.
I've volunteered on the project myself and know where the ARUs are. There is no way anyone was biking within 1/2 mile, perhaps as much as 1 mile, of any of them except for one, which wasn't one of the locations providing any of Mennill's "kent"s, anyway.
I don't believe that Mennill's kents are IBWO-produced, but they are also definitely not bike brakes. There are enough squeaky trees and squirrels and jays to explain the noises without having to take the bike route.
It's true that roads are tangent with the perimeter of the Auburn study area. But those ARUs are too remote.
Anonymous #2(?)--ok, so in mid-March of '06 (when water levels were evidently low) did you personally explore all areas within a few hundred yards of all the ARUs?
And do you know if all nighttime ARU data has been carefully examined for kent-like calls and double-knocks?
Tom,
You can call me Anonymous #2. I'm curious to know who Anonymous "1" on the team is!
No, I didn't personally explore all areas within a few hundred yards of the ARUs. I mean, you and I can't say with certainty there are no IBWOs in there, either, though I think that we are both doubtbul.
Anything is possible of course. I think that if you came down however and saw where the ARUs were located, how hard it is to get anywhere near them without taking a boat in first, saw what the forest floor was like even when dry, and were familiar with the activities of the locals you would immediately agree that bike brakes while not impossible are extremely, extremely implausib.e.
Ok.
Again, I think that some of Hill's photos already show how the forest floor looks when it's dry, and it looks pretty mountain bike-able to me. I've seem forests that are quite "inaccessible" in high water, yet are quite easy to explore when dry.
Anonymous #2 said it well. Thank you.
I would like to repeat - the ARU's are in a different area than what you are seeing in the "dry" photos. It is deeper and wetter. Guys are simply not riding their bikes around out there.
And yes, forests tend to be "inaccessible" to bikes during high water.
Annon #2,
How about truck brakes? When I listen to the "kent" cuts on the Mennill website, I am certain I can hear engine noise on many (most?). Is there a building site somewhere nearby where large trucks could have been coming and going (and braking)? If the "kents" were made within a particular tim window, it might correspond to pouring concrete or someother temporary activity requiring heavy machinery.
My Two Cents
Note that on Mennill's site, there is an action shot of Swiston and Mennill setting up the first automated listening station on 1/4/06. They don't appear to be wearing boots, and all visible ground looks completely dry.
what would you like us to say? you're right tom! there's a bike parade in the swamp!
congratulations! you know more about the realities of the study site than the people that are actually there!
Since you won't answer my specific questions, maybe you weren't there in mid-March of '06, and maybe you don't actually know what the terrain looks like for a few hundred yards around each ARU. (Additionally, neither one of us knows just how far a bike squeak could carry under the right conditions.)
Given those uncertainties, I think it's plausible that some of Mennill's putative IBWO sounds were produced by bikes. It wouldn't have to be a parade everywhere around all the ARUs--it could be one guy straying within range of one ARU just one time. It's also completely plausible that none of the ARU "kents" are bike sounds.
Since someone from Hill's group seems to be online. Can we go back to Tom's question about analysis of night time sounds (i.e. selective use of sounds)?
Do the Anons know if all hours of sound are equally examined and if control sounds are regularly input to check the listeners in Canada? Just curious.
Yet another possible source of squeaks in the woods is ATV brakes. Googling for "atv brake squeak" yields some discussion on that subject...
Do the Anons know if all hours of sound are equally examined and if control sounds are regularly input to check the listeners in Canada?
Wow. Controls on your research. Who'd have thought of that? That must be one of those super-duper advanced scientific concepts that most scientists don't know about.
Wow. Controls on your research. Who'd have thought of that?
Sophomoric sarcasm aside, we are still looking for a public yes or no from the Hill anons on this question and Tom's more important questions about analysis of night time sounds.
The answer to whether or not the evening hours have been reviewed as thoroughly as daylight hours is big, but I think that the need for controls is huge. You have the sounds being analyzed by ear by inexperienced grad students. Without inserting control sounds to see what they do and don't pick up (and to see if they analyze the night as thoroughly as the day), you end up with a highly suspect data set.
Post a Comment