Mark Michaels points us to this nice current article on the ongoing search/hope for Ivory-bills (perhaps a bit unfortunate that it gets published on April 1, but oh well!):
(One small bit of new info from the piece, I hadn't previously heard, is that Mike Collins is said to be writing a book based upon his claims/experiences.)
Meanwhile, over at their “Kints” blog (and with a little assist from woodcarver Dean Hurliman) the Carlisles have posted some wonderful Mississippi photos! ;)
Soon the forests will fully sprout out, the winter search season will be over... yet again, and Ivory-bills, IF they exist at all, will have maintained their Holy Grail status.
------------------------------------------------------------
7 comments:
These recent searchers have more books than any additional acres actually preserved for the Ivory-billed.
At least the Arkansas sightings resulted in some land conservation. For these recent "writers" you can tell the hoped for unambiguous discovery is strongly driven by ego and hey look at me. Some of their publicized efforts has likely resulted in habitat destruction.
After 15 years by both these main efforts, with endless promotion, it would be nice if they spent a solid year doing some land conservation work only.
thanks
HELLO, Yes several people like Stoddard visited many places, saw the bird in a few, and then kept it within a tight circle in consideration of possible impacts to the bird. They then worked on preserving various key areas.
These recent people go decade after decade with every field day memorialized as news and every possible kent, bark piece and possible IB hole waxed poetically upon.
But there is rarely any ecological observations, habitat management or proactive IBWO-centric work done other than "get that picture" and "flash--look at this".
I wish them all luck but spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and wasting tens of thousand of viewers hours on field events that go over the same alleged problem is not the solution. Other prior competent field biologists were able to accomplish better results in a fraction of the field time since they were not worried about the next "sensational" yap yap to write about.
There really is not much pertinent to learn from these types of efforts and more importantly there is not much the IBWO has benefited from them.
Sorry but that's how some of us feel.
Goodnight.
HELLO,
Talk about unnecessary writing----One of the last remaining posters at the gladly dying Research Forum read an article about Stoddard that was good ; the article states Stoddard died ~ 5 decades ago.
The same poster then asks---Good article, is Stoddard around to contact?--- Too funny.
Most IBWO searchers know that Stoddard had important field presence from the early to mid 20th century. And the poster claimed he had just read the article.
The same poster was with the Coyote group; his IB detection rate rivalled another Coyote member. Unfortunately the standard of a good sighting by sometimes horrific field people was mutable. Regardless I believe there are IBs in the area.
thanks
Freddy, nobody cares what you think.
(Is that why you're so bitter?)
Wonder of any of these searchers directly supported or can write about some of the pertinent projects (below) in the SE US?
Various groups including some with the Arkansas IBWO discovery have done more than chase low quality pictures and write about personal exploits; they work on IB habitat.
Projects are right where various IBWO claims are. Would be nice to see searchers spend a fraction of the large amount of money and hours they spend on book "research" on habitat considerations.
Check out forest projects near the Pearl River, Florida Panhandle and East Texas:
Tree Potential Project
https://www.microsoft.com/inculture/tree-potential-project/
thank you
More from the guy who's FAVorite behavior is to take anonymous shots at those trying to find the bird, because he is no longer invited. Boo-hoo. Cry me a riparian zone.
The original poster is basically right; the efforts to assist the Ivory-billed have been paltry.
The IUCN and other important bodies have improved the official status of the species due to prior work by serious researchers. The species is not considered definitely extinct for several years.
Recent searchers might mean well but they are hampered on many levels; their efficacy has been marginalized since they repeat prior work that centered on simple existence.
Existence has been strongly asserted and suggested by well known, peer reviewed papers (2005; 2007). Duplicating prior published data sets or finding new ones to again establish existence is only marginally beneficial.
if you have a repetitive/weak abstract that is not centered on improving the actual field status of the species you are wasting everyone's time while showing you erroneously do not know that extinction is a possibility.
There is no evidence after 15 years that numbers are increasing although some allege the habitat is "improving". Many "fans" really know little about what is actually needed to bring back this species. Pictures, audio files and DNA and not on the list as prerequisites to actually help the species.
good day
Post a Comment