2. Gary Graves weighs in on the Arkansas Birding List here:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with maintaining an optimistic,
wait-and-see attitude about ivory-bills in Arkansas or Florida. We all wish that seeing an ivory-bill was just a simple matter of driving to St. Charles for the afternoon. Given the amount of scientific attention being focused on the remaining tracts of bottomland forest in the Mississippi Valley and other watersheds in the SE USA, ivory-bills will soon be found and documented if they actually exist. Despite the obvious personal and professional incentives, there is still no unequivocal evidence of ivory-bill survival in the USA since the 1940s. The burden of proof lies with those that claim rediscovery. Fantastic claims require an exceedingly high standard of proof. Every purported contemporary ivory-bill photo or video (or tape recording) that has come to light over the past decade has been effectively disputed (or has a more scientifically logical interpretation). That doesn't mean that ivory-bills are extinct, it just means that there is no scientific proof at this point of their continued existence. Ivory-bill sight records unsupported by high-quality video or multiple, high-quality photographs (exhibiting a variety of behavioral positions) are insufficient proof. Since the recent hype, there are now dozens if not hundreds of birders and sportsmen that swear they have seen ivory-bills (from Texas to Maine). But where is the proof? Just as contemporary sight records of Carolina parakeet, passenger pigeon, Labrador duck, or woolly mammoth are not taken seriously, ivory-bills that can't be adequately photographed and seen repeatedly by a variety of skeptical observers are most likely the products of wishful thinking.
Posts
7 comments:
On Mr. Collinson's paper and statements:
Over-all a very good paper, but I think there's still some serious waffling going on concerning the sight records...
Tyler Hicks has twice described sightings that appear to be IBWOs on the basis of seeing more than one field mark. That's the science bit. They are credible sightings, in that some people might believe them.
SOME people MIGHT believe them? Not my definition of credible.
I don't believe that Ivory-bills are currently being sighted.
That doesn't square with
I really have no reason to doubt the recent sight-records
He can't have it both ways, and it weakened the message of the paper. If he didn't want to address the sight records, it would have been better to avoid the topic completely (as Sibley did in his first paper) rather than saying something he didn't believe himself. His "no reason to doubt the recent sight-records" has been repeated by believers all over the internet.
TimeShadowed says: Just how many skeptical observers are there out in the deep swamplands searching for the IBWO?? I would venture to say very few to none if at all! So that makes that staement null and meaningless. I don't know of any that are willing to spend their own dime searching for this bird. In fact most skeptical observers live across the pond and don't even know how difficult is is to search amid the tangles of fallen trees and flooded bayous that are located mostly on private land. IBWO habitat is NOT like 'birding' from a nice comfy trail though the forest!
********************** Gary Graves says:
"But where is the proof? . . .ivory-bills that can't be adequately photographed and seen repeatedly by a variety of skeptical observers are most likely the products of wishful thinking."
Well, from a skeptic/non-believer who searched with Cornell last year in Arkansas and again this year in the southeast, there are actually quite a few skeptics on the organized searches. Obviously not as many as believers, but none-the-less true skeptics are looking hard too.
Though I don't think there are birds to be photographed, it is not quite as easy as many think anyway. It is not just a matter of "oh there's one flying, let me videotape it". It would indeed take a perched bird or a constantly running, luckily situated camera. Otherwise, there is virtually no chance at all of capturing a surprise, fleeing bird on film.
Though we've spent 1000's and 1000's of hours sitting patiently still, no birds have yet wandered into camera range. I'm afraid there is a very good reason for this. IBWO RIP.
As well, for those who think current IBWO's are silent birds, remember you can't hack tightly adhering bark from a tree quietly.
"TimeShadowed says: Just how many skeptical observers are there out in the deep swamplands searching for the IBWO??"
Skeptical observers prefer to search in streetclothes for rare birds in the Neotropics, and in the process see plenty of extant Campephilus. There are no particularly interesting birds from a world birding perspective remaining in the deep swamps of Arkansas that can't be seen more easily elsewhere, so why should we go there?
"there is virtually no chance at all of capturing a surprise, fleeing bird on film."
Real Campephilus, including both the Amazonian species and Magellanic Woodpecker, are not particularly wary and often remain perched in the open for extended periods, even when a birder in street clothes closely approaches their tree on foot. When they flush they often fly to a nearby tree and can very easily be relocated. The CLO large woodpecker experts know this but do not admit it in public. This is disingenuous of them, to put it as politely as possible.
"but none-the-less true skeptics are looking hard too."
True skeptics like me would never waste time looking for an extinct bird. Anyone searching for the IBWO is a closet TB.
"It would indeed take a perched bird or a constantly running, luckily situated camera"
Real Campephilus perch in the open for extended periods and can easily be photographed and videoed using cheap prosumer ultra-zoom cameras
Why does ibwo atheist feel the need to pull selected comments from my post and then say nothing to actually debunk the selected quote, all the while adopting an aire of accomplished refutation.
I said:
"It would indeed take a perched bird or a constantly running, luckily situated camera"
i a said:
-Real Campephilus perch in the open for extended periods and can easily be photographed and videoed using cheap prosumer ultra-zoom cameras-
That's all good and fine, but the fact remains that it would (if they did exist) undoubtably take a perched or repeatedly perched bird. The fact that they don't exist to perch, doesn't change this reality.
I said:
"there is virtually no chance at all of capturing a surprise, fleeing bird on film."
i a said:
-Real Campephilus, including both the Amazonian species and Magellanic Woodpecker, are not particularly wary and often remain perched in the open for extended periods, even when a birder in street clothes closely approaches their tree on foot. When they flush they often fly to a nearby tree and can very easily be relocated.-
That's all good and fine, but the fact remains that there is virtually no chance of capturing a surprise, fleeing bird on film (IBWO or any other species).
I said:
"but none-the-less true skeptics are looking hard too."
i a said:
-True skeptics like me would never waste time looking for an extinct bird. Anyone searching for the IBWO is a closet TB-
Well, here I can tell you that you are flat out wrong, though thanks for trying to tell what I really am. Sorry if you can't fathom the fact that some people really enjoy being outside in places they've never been before while having to pay nothing for lodging. If I have to have a video camera strapped to my hand to accomplish this, so be it. I never think of it as wasted time (though constantly writing to blogs very well may be). The arrogance displayed in your comment is saddening.
I believe the video quite obviously shows a normal Pileated.
I don't trust eye witnesses as far as I can throw them.
Interesting scaling, cavities? Forget it.
I see no reason at all to believe in the continued existance of the IBWO.
Or maybe I should refer to ibwo atheist to see if I really do think that............
Quote:
"True skeptics like me would never waste time looking for an extinct bird. Anyone searching for the IBWO is a closet TB." . . . .That was my point, TB. Thus the comment
by Gary Graves is null and void!!. .TimeShadowed
"It would indeed take a perched bird or a constantly running, luckily situated camera"
Or a robot camera (Wait, they have those.)
Or an automatic trail cam (Wait, the searchers do have dozens at "IBWO scaling and cavities" and hunters have them in the woods by the tens of thousands.)
Or a living bird. They got film of flying IBWOs in the 30's, why not now with 1,000 times the effort and far better technology?
That, by the way, was a rhetorical question. At this point, the Ivory-bill is, obviously and unfortunately extinct.
Post a Comment