Just feeling a tad nostalgic about those heady days of Ivory-bill excitement over a dozen years ago, and taking a trip down memory lane via some of the media it spawned:
Trailer for the fictionalized independent film “Woodpecker”:
Trailer for Scott Crocker’s documentary “Ghost Bird”:
Sufjan Stevens' haunting song/memorial to the Ivory-bill, “The Lord God Bird”:
…also several novels, centered around the Ivory-billed Woodpecker came forth:
“The Life List of Adrian Mandrick” by Chris White
“The Lord God Bird” by Russell Hill
“The Lord God Bird” by Tom Gallant
(…and actually long-preceding all of these was Greg Lewbart’s “Ivory Hunters”)
103 comments:
Thanks, I enjoyed this post a lot CT. I especially like the Sufjan Stevens song. So poignant!
At the "researchers" forum they continue the decades with baseless claims. Now its IBWO population numbers could be 150 in USA. The moderators of that site should act once in awhile to herd the feral cats. Although that's doubtful since their intro paragraph has always been some cheery fable that infer the IBWO is doing just great.
The inflated population number "falls back" on M Collins, with Mheal stating Collins is a mathamatician so the number must be based in science. The casual estimate was made many years ago; it was just a subjectively derived opinion based on his feelings on population viability for the last ~ 100 years . There was no math presented as asserted by Motiheal.
In fact math on inbreeding coefficients were shown by others at the time to conclude Ibwo could last 70 years post Tanner thesis with no unequivocal issue caused by deleterious inbreeding. Collins had no rebuttal.
This lack of vigor at researchers forum is repetitive for years now. There are almost certainly NOT 150 ibwos. The species is critically endangered and may be functionally extinct. Grasping at baseless estimates by others and regurgitating them on the forum is low even for that often ridiculous forum.
Posters who need to revert to baseless exaggerations are not helping anyone. The IBWO problem is much deeper and complex than there is "no picture" or "attraction method".
I see the Researchers Forum's threads and also just shake me head.
Motiheal, Houston, Jessie and Danny (DJG~) are off the reservation. They have such observation bias, false concepts and just plain ignorance of many scientific principles that their theories, assertions and any actual future field claims are going to be perpetually damaged as useless unless they take a deep breath and go back to scientific basics.
They are incapable of much self review or baseline review by others. The forum doesn't help the situation with its endless coddling, censorship and falsehoods.
Motiheal recent feeble attempts at bolstering a high number of ivorybills and that there are recent improvements in the population number are baseless; the facts are clearly indicating the opposite.
Granted the Ivory-billed has a very low detection rate but sightings (even if we accept some of the less ridiculous or vague ones) are decreasing. The actual numbers of birds in S two thirds of FL and SC are approaching extirpation.
Sightings are down during a time when the possibility of the bird being encountered went from impossible (thought extinct) to it's out there (mind set of many casual searchers, cheerleaders, layman, etc.). Likewise many in the field who were ignorant of the bird 18 years ago now know it's field marks, flight pattern, habits, double knocks and Kent calls. Some today even think they can look at bark workings and then make us all suffer with their observer bias.
The awareness factor is up orders of magnitude over the last decades yet good sightings are exceedingly rare or drying up. Fame seekers are numerous.
Most actual researchers know where the fresh skeletons are (actual or likely valid sightings). This species is very, very rare and is clinging to some of the same areas as in 1930s. There has been some spreading out in LA and of course there are several large, mostly logged/impaired areas that could each hold a very wide ranging small family.
The above 'busy body researchers' need to crack open a 101 book on population biology and quit torturing the rest of us. The habitat quality today is so different with IB carrying capacity greatly reduced compared to 150 years ago. You need to wisen up; the default hypothesis for what you think you are seeing or hearing is Not Not Not Ivory-billed; that's where you start.
Motiheal and others have only recently come upon the story. Others have been involved in serious research for 40 or 50 years; please have some respect. Motiheal started with elaborate ideas for all of us about how to detect the Imperial Woodpecker. Many of us shook our heads.
Soon after he switched to the Ivory-billed......jokingly it's not good for the IB to have heal on your side. And no Jessie there are no Ivory-billed populations in Illinois! And no the Ivory-billed has not hybridized with another species to fit your theories.
And DJ peninsular Florida is not dripping with IB or 'colonies' of them. And yes if a sabal palm boot is open and it's in the literature that IB might/did do this it doesn't mean that a boot you find is likely IB sign.
You people are not helping. Stop please.
Tks
Why should anyone care about the above opinions?
The supposed experts, represented by the two commenters above, have failed to find and document even one ivorybill for eighty years.
Those who can’t do, criticize and shoot childish spitballs.
ANON 2 from above here.
>>>The supposed experts, represented by the two commenters above, have failed to find and document even one ivorybill for eighty years.<<<<<<
The 2005 Science paper, Ivory-billed Persists was authored by Remsen, Fitzpatrick, Lammertink etc. It documents one bird. Subsequent final decisions by USFWS, IUCN, etc. and the restored Rhein film of Imperial Woodpecker supports the paper as far as the pivotal wing beat Hz.
These people spend and have spent tireless hours on conservation and ornithology. Some of those Ivory-billed Science authors you are ignorant of spent time in brutal habitat suffering to find NEW SPECIES and for preservation of other species.
The list of species they have helped dwarfs anything most will do. I asked you to show some respect and step up your science but you can't even put up one truthful, intelligent sentence about the IB.
Tellingly you are on a forum about IBWOs and portray no knowledge of a truthful, cornerstone, pivotal paper.
I do not even want to list the positive official reports my teams have submitted.
Again you are not helping.
Anon2
Was your documentation universally accepted? No. So all you really have is an effort to ridicule those trying to get it done.
It might be impossible to bring you up to speed on what is or isn't important for the conservation of the IB.
Now you see the forum moderators again curtail basic questions and ideas by posters. The forum is a total failure for meaningful conservation help for the Ivory-billed.
If it had allowed comments/action on habitat management or conservation policy for 15 years there could of been progress. Instead of course we have their myopic, rigid strategy of letting any erroneous comment or idea go unchallenged while censoring fair questions or comments on a wide array if pivotal ib issues. Meanwhile the IB approaches oblivion as this therapist Don thinks we all need to be constantly controlled, watched and on a couch.
This hurts basic science and conservation. They have bred people like Sheridan and now these latest posters can't be asked basic field questions without big brother stepping in.
Forum--- you have failed the basic concept that almost every American knows---that free speech, although it gets messy, is better than the death knell of censorship. Because of your laziness and avoidance to moderate correctly, allowing civil scientific discourse you have created a lopsided cesspool like a poorly designed dictatorship. You have willingly contributed to the species demise.
Dan and Don you are a disgrace....and any one who participates in that type of abuse by posting there and not strongly admonishing their fundamentally flawed rules is just as bad. Give that forum to someone who has heard the words "adaptable", "reasonable" and has the time to help the ib.
good luck
Some recent IBR Forum posters don't realize how many decent, helpful and knowledgeable posters have left that forum because of the obtuse inflexibility of the moderators over many years.
When these types of people consistently leave a site over years you are left with an inferior product, experience and result. Those that fled the abuse had collective centuries of important experience and concomitant knowledge and skills. People, for example scientist a, b or c or Dr a, b. c etc had grad students a, b c and d that needed projects. They were all lost as potential Forum contributors.
If the forum had been run reasonably there would have been good sightings leads, much better camaraderie and better results in many categories.
The most deceitful moderator has recently told us the Forum has less visitation now because of FB etc. That is their untrue attempt at rationalization and they know it. Almost all or all good former posters on the IBR Forum do not post on crazy FB, etc. They would have preferred a reasonably run science based forum dedicated to the subject woodpecker but that is not to be found .
These moderators seem to call it a success for the ivory-billed if they get their host fees from posters.
Don and George you need to reform.
I posted there years ago and I asked normal questions and the moderator sent me a PM that was rude and clueless.
How were those forum organizers ever chosen? it was the conservation story of the world or for hundred years and we got people who screwed it up, I agree.
It always struck me as odd that people and evidently these forum people thought that there would be numerous reports in the future after cornell and auburn. Many then thought that there were just a few places left that could even harbor birds. A website to list sightings was way down the list rather than a policy driven or mangement driven strategy.
They were not chosen. They saw a need, and stepped forward to meet it. Here is a recent post on the forum from Fangsheath explaining:
“Let me see if I can clarify a few things. This forum was created as a safe space for researchers to share their findings. Don and I felt strongly that people with sightings and other information to share were being driven away from other fora. It is my experience that most people want to share their experiences without being harangued by naysayers and "debaters." It is not the purpose of this forum, nor has it ever been, to provide "peer review," nor is it a debate site. Professional ornithologists have stated that if they saw an ivory-bill, they would not share that with the birding community! That is how bad the situation has gotten with people feeling apprehensive about their sightings. Share your experiences. Share your insights. Do not debate, do not question each other's credentials, do not put pressure on others to reveal more than they feel comfortable with.”
So rather than just complaining about others, they went to the time, trouble and expense of offering people a choice. Perhaps the critics here should consider doing the same.
Hello 10:39, you're cut and paste of forum moderator just confirms most of the other posters complaints. You have not addressed their points but have verified them.
Yes "they did something" as you said; no one denied that above. The thought process, the methods, rules, abuse of science, censorship, strategy and results of the forum were being discussed. (by the way this type of open, mostly respectful lol opinions ARE NOT ALLOWED on the forum).
Again there were spectacular discoveries 15 years ago.....the status quo is now at a low point. Progress from Hill, Collins and others was not caused by the forum.
The forum
1) never realized the probable status of IBWO (very, very rare)
2) they still do not see the real picture (critically endangered approaching the end)
3) never focused the community in a constructive building way
4) inflexible
5) forced or caused the best researchers to either leave or use the site for links
6) monolithic approach to saving the IB which is very complex
7) simplistic lazy rules that never reflected true field needs
8) created a safe site for anti-scientific attitudes, posts and ideas that led to fraud and continues to mislead the public
9) removed and hampered the solid posts of property managers, researchers, scientists, naturalists and public members with censorship, messages, rudeness, inflexibility and general ignorance/stupidity on the complex situation
10) general and continuous exaggeration of field conditions and IB status with no update
11-30 easily possible
Their whole first paragraph ABOUT US turned out to be UNFULFILLED/false
>>>>Ivory-bill Researchers Forum was born out of the need for a website/forum where those who desire, could share their techniques and experiences with others. Our goal is to offer a warm and encouraging environment that fosters learning and comradery among researchers.<<<<
www.blogspot.com
If you’re so unhappy with www.ibwo.net, then start your own blog. It’s free.
Be helpful, and educate us all on IB and conservation.
You don't get it. It's about the IBWO, the media used to lead a solid effort is moot. It could be the existing forum if it was just run correctly or actually run at all.
Erecting a forum that others presently provide 99.9% of content isn't that hard to run or correct. Let them sign it over to me/my group (AS ALREADY SAID ABOVE BY SOMEONE, I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT). Please stop taking our ideas and regurgitating them as if there yours.
HAVENT HEARD FROM THE FORUM, THOUGH.
I already run several projects so why don't you get the FORUM transfer negotiations going/started. Since you seem happy with the IB progress (AS IN 0 ibwos FOUND BY THE FORUM), its a exceedingly low bar for the new management to beat.
After you are done with your present position of propaganda, defense, changing the subject and obfuscation, we might interview you for comprehension, proofreading and policy.
LOL,
lord god bird save us.
I don't think I would hire him/her---- he hasn't voiced one ivory-billed idea, bad or good, (might just be follower, as you noted he stole our idea).
He/she sure likes wasting time though.
I see no answer from the forum's assumed unelected representative.
Check this recent moderator exchange. Does this promote the forum of show much interest in finding IBs?
Forum Poster late 2019: In an attempt to bring more activity and vitality to this website, which I admire, I have a question-- how many of us are also on the Facebook Ivorybill Woodpecker-Rediscovered site?
George Moderator: I'm afraid I'm not much of a Facebooker, but if others choose that venue, more power to them.
Did you see that very recent exchange where one poster says ~ ----critiquing various details in someones field observation is basic science-----
And then George goes into the forums ancient and no longer needed ~-----we need to let others say what they want and not push them-----
Incredible, basic, pivotal science doesn't apply to the forum. It's an embarrassment.
The over hyped need to not question others was from 13 years ago when skeptics from United Kingdom and US were rampant. It hasn't been needed for many years. Again these moderators think all of us do not know the history of the minor issues.
The test is has any strong evidence of IB presence been produced by the forums direct actions? Some of the most prolific posters opine that there are 150 birds in the SE.
Yet we can't find a word about even a single actual bird on the forum. And this had been going on for years.
The forums own intro waxes on about how well the IB is doing compared to what we all thought. What have these moderators produced besides endless admonishments about how it must be run like they have.
You aren't fooling everyone.
I have never heard or seen one of these moderators in the field accordding to multiple field searchers. 0r on the many surveys/trips I was on.
They haven't done anything in the field in a decade or more and not much work on the forum besides deleting posts, stopping honest discourse and asking for donations.
They are going to try and remove your posts here too!! ha
George M knows some biology for sure but doesn't seem to active in the field as far as our bird.
Kimball is just the wrong person for this important event for many of the reasons above and more.
Often he doesn't seem to really know the ivorybill with multiple inaccuracies packed into one sentence. And the fibs? are curiously often slanted to making the ivorybilled more likely to be around now or more likely to be around in a wider area.
Here below for example he recently says the IB occurred in NJ. There is an older ~260 year old referance that at least one person claimed to the author that they had seen it in NJ.
How Kimball turns that into the IB occurred in NJ and that it IS more cold tolerant than thought is beyond me. Evidently he is not aware that it reaches 100 degrees in NJ or in seasons.
Being kind he seems loose with facts and deduction. The entire NJ written "record" was not made by any named or actual direct observer.
Kimball:
Occurring as far north of New Jersey would indicate that this species was more cold tolerant than one might envision of a species that thrived in southern swamp country.
http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5&page=29
he also says "southern swamp country" which is also far from being fully accurate.
Fred, how will they know who to give the keys to the forum, if you don’t put your name at the end of your many comments?
I can name three Freds that would be better than the existing cabal, buttercup.
Aren’t you the one in NJ who has been described as “an intense, insistent man”?
Cyberthrush would be a good candidate. He runs his site fairly, posted alot of his own content over the years. Isn't power hungry and actually has some ideas and is adaptable.
He knows something about the ib and is much more savvy than those do nothing's. He could of guided and accomplished something in different areas.
I think we should just run the forum from the comment section here. All 19 active members of the forum will be treated fairly.
Posters will be organically corrected when they bring their bizarre ideas here (this forum doesn't believe in nocturnal ib, that the IB has hybridized with pileateds, that the IB has hybridized with Imperials, that the IB exists in colonies, that the IB is territorial, that the IB is unequivocally increasing, that alleged sightings are not to be discussed, that ibs are in the hundreds, that lies are better than truth.....and many more bad ideas. All these errors have actually been posted, many condoned and proliferated by the existing forum.
I think Motiheal is in this thread. At least the fella has some ideas......yes he can be wrong....and often. At least he doesn't just take the abuse at the IB Fake Forum.
Liked "IB Fake Forum"
I think an interview right here with Motiheal could be enlightening on many levels.
1)M you have recently espoused antithetical ideas (a and b below) without realizing it on the IB Forum (sorry IB FAKE FORUM).
You say a) hots spots should be made public and b) there could be 150 birds (you have already wisely started your walkback to less).
If there are 100 to 150 birds in the at max 5 subsections of states remaining in serious play, you are asserting that every/almost every well known habitat block has multiple ibows. Related you are inferring that there are at least a few thousand square miles in obvious areas of a few states at carrying capacity.
Why then would you need to know where IBWOs are if you have already inferred they are in almost every remaining quality habitat block, therefore answering your own need?
tks
Why are you pretending to be five different people posting here?
The themes are IB and Forums; concentrate.
That forum controls you with passwords, names, registration, rules, censorship, etc. It has proven ineffective.
As a protest we have simplified------same name, anon. The metaphor should be obvious; we are not responsible for others obtuseness.
Being cooped up during stay-at-home must be really getting to you, Fred.
Buttercup are you and Kimball going to make us all suffer and insist we all use names?
Then propose it.
Fred, if you’re unwilling to provide your full name and credentials, and keep pretending to be multiple people, why should anyone respect your personal opinions?
Again, again show us all how you want it done. And use your name and credentials. The cred requirement seems onerous; the existing forum doesn't have this. Do not add impediments.
Also its proposed that posts always/MUST have something possibly interesting about the subject Ivory-billeds. Do you remember them?
Yes on posts must have ivory-billed content.
It is telling that you don’t deny 1) your name is Fred 2) you live in NJ and 3) you have been pretending to be multiple people in this thread. Good move. That way you won’t risk being proven a liar.
I also have a question for Motiheal on what I feel is another error on the forum.
You mention recently that Imperial Woodpeckers may or do not knock. Dennis specifically said they did in the AUk.
There have been several substantial surveys for bairdi post 1987. Some of these surveys used double knocks and were staffed with some top field people.
Had do you explain them using double knocks, Dennis's written reports and likely more references that you disagree with?
Why do think that bairdi exists ?
ok
bairdii typo, pardon me
>>>>You mention recently that Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may or do not knock. Dennis specifically said they did in the AUk.<<<<
Opps double pardon requested. I meant the Cuban Ivory-billed not Imperial.
so here it s again
also have a question for Motiheal on what I feel is another error on the forum.
You mention recently that Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may not or do not knock. Dennis specifically said they did in the AUk.
There have been several substantial surveys for bairdii post 1987. Some of these surveys used double knocks and were staffed with top international and local field people.
Had do you explain them using double knocks, Dennis's written reports and likely more references that you disagree with?
Why do think that bairdii still exists ?
I think the forum came out right after both the good news from AR and FL in 2005 and 7. They just assumed it would be easy .
Well they likely assumed wrong. It was only 1 bird in AR and a few possible birds on the Choctaw. The moderators might have been fooled when Hill mentioned that there could be ~ 7 pairs in the Choctaw. The fact that these two areas were off the radar made them over confident.
Any seasoned biologist would have realized that 1 male bird confirmed AR and a few birds possible in FL doesn't give one carte blanche to market the masses that everything is peachy.
A few made these concerns public in various places including the forum.
Their lack of candor, adjustments and goals are glaring.
I am not claiming that the forum could have made a big difference with the obvious unknowns in 2007. Its just that they did not recognize those unknowns and never have did to this day. They were and are intent in misleading to the end, assuming it is near.
Received this fantastic paper on management of forests for the IB, saw it before. (Tks ML)
Fits in here.
" Taking action need not wait until the presence of Ivory-billeds can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Informed management interventions could in fact serve to facilitate their discovery--by drawing individuals to areas where they are likely to be detected, as well as potentially benefiting other species at the same time."
"Forest Management for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers": https://sora.unm.edu/node/116345
https://sora.unm.edu/node/116345
Hey all you Anonymouses! Motiheal here; I just saw this ( and I guess you're lucky I did-- I don't spend a lot of time here). A number of things if you would like me here (actually... ain't gonna happen). 1.Being on the Researchers Forum or FB is better than here-- contact me there and I will explain (even with the censorship) why 2. Some of you are misquoting me, and worse, changing what I state as hypotheses and new thoughts into certainties. This is just silly, and not worth responding to. 3. Within the past week I have spoken to Courtman, Alayon, Navarro, Gallagher, Kleinhenz, Estrada, regarding some particulars in IBWO behavior, and some possible strategies. I am all about helping find the IBWO. 4. I'm a scientist, so used to critique, but the language of some of the comments here is beneath me to respond to. Bring it to the Forum or FB. You're grown men and women right? BTW NJ Fred (avtrader?), I inquired about you yesterday after seeing comments you made on Tim G's Cuba accounts. You sound knowledgeable. Now I am not going to check for responses here. See you there.
The forum is dying. The IB scene has some parallels to being at an important sports event. Without any good news, as you are losing by more and more, solitude and stillness descends upon the once optimistic crowd.
Who is going to tell Collins that you are all giving up? ? ? ?
Ok I do like the rule to say something about the IB. I was a skeptic at one time but finally got into all the Auburn tapes and their video clips of likely Ibills. They are rather inconspicuous mov ? files hidden at end. Good info in them in line with if a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a film worth?
Concerning Motoheal there is nothing upthread but a few important questions about his sometimes unorthodox and incongruous, on the surface at least, musings/efforts.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Much of the IB media research media has gone quiet. The tension is building.
I guess it might be as bad as the posts here infer as they criticize the media. Have there been any negative or positive reports in the last 2 years from, in no particular order,?
Pearl
Choctahatchee River
Chipola
Other FL Panhandle
Atchafalaya
Apalachicola
Kisatchie National Forest
Congaree and environs
Francis Marion NF
Sabine
or
GA
MS
LA
TX
TIA
The only inkling of sighting with no specific are in LA and FL, But no real buzz.
About 3-4 years ago there was a sighting by a reputable observer I know on an exact stream crossing 20 miles inland on SC coast, a NF area, good habitat, steam with tens of thousands of acres of pine flats and rolling hills.
Also from ~ 2.5 years ago there have been a very few sightings on tangential, trib. streams of the Choctawhatchee. This long unbridged riparian corridor has some excellent sections of forest along the river S of Route 20. This is a long, (~60 good miles) narrow (1 to 3 mile wide) contiguous block that likely still has a very few birds/pairs; its not easy to survey or find them.
The lower 1/3 to 2/3 of Fl looks pragmatically lost to the IB.
Motiheal is claiming he didn't say those things above, Hilarious. He has carried on at the forum for a few years. The above issues I related on his claims are chronicled there. In addition above others just ask him fair questions in what he wrote there.
This is what happens on a forum that coddles. Exaggerators carry on and on and mislead with no review because it's in the bylaws. He HAS stated there that there are 150 Ibwos,he HAS stated that there are more ibwos now because of some percieved, untested hypothesis of better USA habitat. He HAS in the past and present prostletized followers to help the Imperial and Cuban Ivory-billed, without ever discussing that there are no reliable, if any sightings, of either species in 30 or more years.
This doesn't help the Ibwo.
Not mentioned yet is Motiheals belief or claim, while assisting others, that his use of various cogener calls where pivotal in attracting IBs. The other team members didn't seem to agree that this was true.
He didnt seem to be an appreciated team member if he was able to lure in IBs. The team seemed to shun him. Maybe he didn't lure in IBs but rather head scratching claims.
Just got an email that Motiheal also believes the Thycaline is still roaming around . My goodness!! He is likely only right 25% of the time deciding on what species is extant vs extinct. Talk about a disaster for the limited hours we have to get things accomplished.
Motitheal complained: 2. Some of you are misquoting me, and worse, changing what I state as hypotheses and new thoughts into certainties.
It's understood with IBs that almost all things said have an element of conjecture and sometimes wild conjecture and sometimes just plain counterintuitive stupid thoughts and/or against the prevailing literature or known science.
Use the word conjecture or ridiculous conjecture WITH SOME OF YOUR IDEAS if you are in a public forum.
Besides its already been made clear well above that YOUR IDEAS are not based in reality. A hypothesis is an idea.
You are responsible for counter science ideas.
I think we should pass on this odd fella Motiheal for awhile. He has gone from one Campephilus sp to the next with multiple bizarre ideas.
He started years ago with multiple posts about a drone project with various Mex? authorities and Cornell? to do an elaborate and no doubt time consuming and semi-expensive search for the Imperial Woodpecker (almost certainly extinct).
He has now moved on to shake the hollow bones of the Cuban IB, that has commonly been called beyond hope for 3 decades, also with widely know sightings in decades.
He never/rarely addresses the actual underlying tremendous ecological problems with these unfortunate species. He is obsessed with organizing projects revolving around others sweating for spp that are at best already functionally instinct.
Stay clear.
Funny, I do see him passing the cup a week ago on the research forum and FB to fund a reward for a picture of a Cuban IB!!!!!!
Como se dice potential fraude. My God I hope Sheridan doesn't show up down there.
See one question after a week on the idea...…….you can't make this stuff up.
sorry I will stop. lol
I don't think the chasing a picture method has worked.
Just about every non-skeptic went the easy, fun, lets go birding, lets go hiking, lets go take pictures way. We discussed mainly where birds were or might be.
No one lobbied citizen scientists, the non-profs, state or federal govt (now its too, late-no money, few birds).
Then every 6 months some newbie, or retiree comes along and tries the same thing and we need to watch them discover the literature.
No one ever seems to discover the literature that says "forest management" is needed.
No one lobbied citizen scientists, the non-profs, state or federal govt (now its too, late-no money, few birds) to get organized and create a yearly crop of standing dead wood to aid breeding (nesting and food resources).
That's the likely limiting factor.
Also snake guards on trees. But how do you decide which ones, which dead snags? Maybe wait for some holes to start, not sure.
An IBWO hatchling likely needs 3 to 5 times as much food as a PIWO to fledge.
So you need a great amount of standing dead wood to have sufficient forage during breeding; this is just not present in todays forest with substantial acreage managed for disease/fire, reducing tons of standing dead wood.
After unexpected fires today logging of damaged forest will be scheduled soon after. This happens on private or public lands. In LA a lot of private land is managed for lumber and rarely do high dbh forests develop since its not productive from a board feet point of view.
tks
There are a string of optimistic fallacies and dogmas that have crept into the scene that are causal to over estimating IB numbers and recovery chances.
1-habitat is improving --- likely not, in the past two centuries the extent of bottomland hardwood forests in the region has decreased from 24 million acres to only 4.9 million acres. LA has lost almost all of its high DBH forest acreage, there has been no reversal in last 30 years. In the 1980s and 90s LA acreage continued to be lost as soybean demand was large.
Good habitat continues to be fragmented and narrowed. Preserved areas sometimes have mixed forest replaced with more pine dominated plantings. In LA the forest industry grows every decade and forests rarely remain unlogged for even 50 years let alone the 6o recommended by various entities for IB.
Standing dead wood is minimal in these new forests, these forests cannot support breeding IBs.
Run off and flood regimes in bottomlands have gotten worse, hurting terrestrial ecology and pertinent insect biomass. Air, water runoff, and river temps have more fluctuations hurting insect biomass. Extreme weather events have gotten worse, perhaps increasing standing DEAD WOOD IN FORESTS (GOOD) but increasing roost/nest mortality.
Feral pigs are increasingly decimating some terrestrial habitats forcing predatory herps into a predominantly arboreal existence. There they are putting increasing pressure on any bird nests and perhaps nest/egg/hatchling abandonment.
Linear habitats are becoming more the norm. Long but narrow river forest bottoms are not conducive to fledging IBs. Forests like this force IB to go many miles leaving nests unguarded for too long--predation is increasing.
No increase in dead wood input from beavers in last 30 years.
More.
2) IBWO has a much narrower niche that the Cuban IB had. The Cuban IB can survive in a lower DBH forest as it did for a short period of time. IB cannot survive in that type of forest structure.
Much more on that.
On last post: 1140 am
are there any bird species in North America going up in the last 30 years besides some species of gulls, Chipping Sparrow, Monk Parakeet, and House Sparrow?
And there I was trying to stay close to non-migratory breeders. If we ask the same questions for neotropical migrants it shows an over whelming downward trend.
Too bad. Its group think to assume a rare bird with many serious issues is going to rebound with no management effort.
have a good day all
I think Turkey Vultures and Northern Caracara are increasing. Obviously not really a correlate with improving ecological conditions in USA. Increase in road kill and drought fatalities is the reason.
John
Good Morning,
IB-Live and the comment section has been visited by about everyone one way or the other. Over the years the skeptics took a pretty good beating here.
Not sure if the above comments are all emanating from them. Seems like they are gone; this seems to have a pro-Ivory-billed slant.
If possible?!
.
I think its good to look seriously at the two largest habitat blocks to see if there have been any recent sightings. And then do a serious analysis of the carrying capacity of these blocks.
1) Atchafalaya Basin approx. 1 million acres plus.
Recently I only know of one sighting that is likely good. Prior to that there have certainly been reputable sightings over the last 4 decades. Regardless the habitat block has limited carrying capacity to support breeding even if no people with guns visited/lived in the area----
Problems low DBH forest, not the most diverse tree community desired, standing dead wood spread out thinly, etc. Flooding regime can be excessive for insect community. Competition with PIWO and other Picidae for all resources.
Tangential issues: Open forest gaps, many waterways, guns are everywhere, few landowners want the IBWO to be found, secrecy, closed mouth society.
Apalachicola lower section ~ 800, 000 acres. No recent sightings. Problems, pine dominated, managed to limit fires, insect outbreaks and dead wood. Thin forest ribbons of a few river bottoms are low dbh and likely lacking in several ways for breeding in lower area.
Apalachicola River and Chipola River upper areas- few if any recent sightings. Better habitat a few birds can be in here.
So right there in perhaps half the remaining probable acreage for IBWO we might have 10 birds (or less).
That's I see a quick and dirty look at the population.
see ya
1.8 million acres will support only ten birds? 560 square miles for each pair. You need to go back to quick and dirty school.
I gave ecological reasons why these 1.8 KK acres do not support many IBs. You gave none to support your higher estimate.
Also used the very low standard of recent sightings in these areas (very very few) but moved the estimate up since the detection rate is low but far from zero, to even get it to 10 birds.
If you have more sightings than I know about then we are open to learning about them. If you know why we are collectively not seeing many IB anywhere lets here. If the ecology is different than described above, ears are open.
tks
38 milling acres in Georgia......but no sightings.
And certainly very few birds if any.
Kimball at it again with his incompetence.
Theorizes that Ivory-bills will have no problems with inbreeding.
To bad another SE US woodpecker has shown serious effects of inbreeding: see: INBREEDING DEPRESSION AND ITS EFFECTS ON NATAL DISPERSAL IN RED-COCKADED WOODPECKERS
Another study on inbreeding in a SE woodpecker.:
Inbreeding and experience affect response to climate change by endangered woodpeckers.
Schiegg K1, Pasinelli G, Walters JR, Daniels SJ.
Author information
Abstract
In recent decades, female red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) have laid eggs increasingly earlier in response to a changing climate, as has been observed in several other bird species breeding at north temperate latitudes. Within each year, females that lay earlier are more productive than females that lay later. However, inexperienced females, experienced females who change mates and inbred birds have not adjusted to the changing climate by laying earlier, and have suffered reproductive costs as a result. Failure to respond to global climate change may be a further example of the reduced ability of inbred animals to respond to environmental challenges.
PMID: 12061959 PMCID: PMC1691008 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.1966
You really have to shake your head when it comes to someone casually dismissing the chances of inbreeding for an endangered species. No competent scientist dismiss this.
Many species of animals have outbreeding mechanisms to counter and prevent inbreeding. The literature strongly infers the IBs had behaviors to prevent inbreeding.
We must hope that IBs prefer not to breed with new or older siblings which may be the only possible mates they encounter in their first year after maturity.
Unfortunately this could be the driver (remember Elvis, rumor was shot) that causes at least males into dangerous dispersal events that will place them in a strange part of IB range or in a part of the range with no females. Or worse a line of pintail duck hunters.
tks
If there were 30 Ivory-billeds in those 1.8 milion acre habitat blocks of Atcha. and Apalachicola they have a reproductive capacity of 300 birds/20 years.
This is when we give each pair only 1 hatchling a year which is actually below their rep. capacity.
Anyone who seriously believes the bird is increasing has to explain why we are not seeing some or very few of these 330 hypothetical birds.
Are the proponents of the baseless assertion that habitat is improving ever going to explain the incongruity between there theories and the lack of sightings.
If there were 60 birds twenty years ago the reproductive capacity was 600 birds. If the habitat is so good, improving, or under carrying capacity as is claimed by some we should see/hear more birds as the hatchlings become fledglings/adults.
Why are there practically no Ivory-bills sightings or even reports of any kind in the subject "improving" acres?
good day
I'll admit things are quiet but there are some birds left. I am not sure there are many experienced searchers out and about anymore.
Not many of the comments so far are explicitly arguing that there are not some birds left .
So that was not the points. More like there are serious issues/problems to look at. Seems reasonable.
The 2010 Recovery Plan had skeptics on the draft committee. There was also pressure not to spend too much money.
Some of us sent strong comments to start habitat management. Usfws did with academic partners some good studies to learn more.
But the lack of meaningful habitat management on lands already controlled was/is a glaring error. The species has shown some staying power likely caused by it's size, long life span,wariness and possibly low Allee effect.
The recovery plan recommended to find birds and said nothing about the FL discovery that did that. This should have triggered management in the panhandle. Did it? Where is the usfws, FL water management, others?
I did check the IBWO Recovery Plan of 2010. For some reason it has little to nothing about the Choctawhatchee evidence which was peer presented in multiple data sets from 2005/06. It was a solid paper.
multiple excellent people repeated the sightings for years and they continued until recently at a decreasing rate. The drop may be related to less effort, and no ARUs.
Shows you that the USFWS has some problems with getting to their own next step in the recovery plan ---active management. The paper is there, data sets was there, land is there, volunteers perhaps waiting to be organized.
Time to breakaway from the skeptics and this endless disorganized, foolish picture chase.
Its time.
It’s time....
Maybe you’re not aware, but FWS has moved the other direction. It has recommended delisting the species from the endangered species list to declare it extinct. Apparently, AR and FL evidence was not strong enough to keep hope alive.
Over the years I have spoken to many of those involved with the recovery plan and about all the "original" searchers.
The number of members on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team grew as people wanted on, some for dubious reasons. It swelled to 90 people!.
At the time I officially made it known to the very top that vocal IB skeptics, concerned with budget competition for their own separate projects, did not have the IBs survival in mind. They had a conflict.
They were going to argue that the evidence for IB persists in AR, FL and La was weak/absent (all untrue) and a recovery plan therefore pointless.
We fought hard in various arenas that the evidence was good; a solid recovery plan was obviously overdue. We warned USFWS that these people were committed to weakening or sabotaging the recovery plan to the best of their ability.
Some of us also said via official comments that the plan should START habitat management immediately.
I was told that "we know the people you are talking about, we know what to do". I insisted these skeptics were Trojan horses. They actually had more interest in the IB not being found at that point.
Its true the USFWS specifically and in terse writing told authors of the scientifically flawed, short Science Note and Collinson's odd paper, their conclusions were not convincing/believable.
After all this and a good start for the century there is not much field management done even though studies such as successfully creating dead wood were completed ~ 14 years ago.
Why did the collective AR, FL and LA evidence not get things going on the habitat side? Cornell stacked the recovery plan with USFWS.
bewildered in the Potomac bayou!
>>>Apparently, AR and FL evidence was not strong enough to keep hope alive.<<<<
If you don't ask you almost never get help from the govt. I bet you would be hard pressed to give out a $10,000 reward to any general public individual who could show they demanded action on IB centric habitat management.
Why would anyone demand and expect management of habitat to aid a species that most ornithologists and fws believe to be extinct? It isn’t rational.
The “foolish picture chase” is actually essential to IB recovery. Only when the species is irrefutably documented will meaningful habitat recovery and conservation begin.
You have two short paragraphs and they are not consistent. 1) it's crazy to manage 2) but a picture is essential.
Other points I made and you totally miss: the management was requested and should have been done many years ago. At that time data was fresh. Choctaw was not a bad candidate.
Point: the Usfws did not consider the species extinct then and still doesn't.
Point: you have not read the esa....getting a picture doesn't trigger important levels/advantages of the act. You need to have population evidence to get that. Your belief that a picture is a game changer is greatly exaggerated. Read the act.
Management of habitat can produce more birds getting the species closer to triggering the act. A picture will do little; it's a short-sighted dogma created by those who want to have some fun and compare pictures, hiking and fishings stories with one another.
Of course you were trying to move my points on the past to today. Yes now there are serious difficulties, you are right. However to just rationalize now and still cling to the picture chase as the only answer is and always was ignoring that habitat management and funtime could have been concurrent.
The pix chase has also always been an acquiescence to the skeptics point of view... You chose that route and now want to rationalize it was the only choice. Untrue.
The serious and short clock this species was on was in the 2010 recovery plan. The plan SAYS the chances of recovery are very small with unknowns in genetic viability and habitat needs billed near the top.
The idea that a picture of one bird from one locality was going to be a game changer was only hope. Hope is not a plan. The esa codifies what is needed to get to various helpful trigger points. There was a brief window of opportunity only if we ALL ignored the wrongful cloud caused by skeptics.
The Usfws did slap the skeptics down but the FL evidence seemed forgotten by 2010. Neither hill or mennill on the rec. Team. But skeptics were.
The public had to be organized,informed, right and vocal on every step. That was a tall order; everyone had their own mostly simplistic ideas and thoughts of "time to have fun in the field".
Now we are still in the field in habitat that is far from improved for the IB. There are surely points of no return on a policy side, genetics, carrying capacity, population viability, stochastics, predation, habitat degradation,etc. A picture would not elucidate much on these agreed issues.
You are arguing the past. I’m talking about the present and future. The only way to kickstart conservation of IB habitat in the here and now is to get clear and convincing evidence.
>>>>The number of members on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team grew as people wanted on, some for dubious reasons. It swelled to 90 people!. <<<<<
That is where the money and future were being decided to a point. The Team did not have:
Hill
Mennill
But did have
Jackson
Luneau
Kulivan
Graves
Point is that it had a few people that saw the IB early on but not the FL people who did an elegant and efficient project.
FL data sets greatly exceeded AR paper, although their videos are low quality they are suggestive. The bark stripping examination data was convincing with control forest bark adhesion
confirming that the bark in the study area was more adhesive than area with no puitaitve IBs.
tks Paul
9:32 said said...
You are arguing the past. I’m talking about the present and future. The only way to kickstart conservation of IB habitat in the here and now is to get clear and convincing evidence.
Any idea on the deliverable decade? Any idea if there will be IBs left by then? Any idea why you can't do IB habitat management concurrently? And how and why should we trust this (not new) idea after is has failed for 15 year with many more people in the field than in the past ?
tyia Bird
correction ----- how are you going to get a picture with many more people in the field in the past then now ?
Bird
How are you going to get any government agency or NGO to manage habitat for IB without indisputable evidence of persistence?
You seem unwilling to defend your position that getting a picture is the only way to do this. You were asked fairly basic questions about your deliverable date, why this picture attempt will be different, etc.
You are silent about the holes in your opinions an ideas and plans; please go back and respond to the reasonable questions if you want specific answers to your questions.
Assuming you will not answer again, and out of courtesy to others, it should be known to most readers that there are multiple NGOs that have been, are willing, and are presently spending money/people power on direct IB projects.
In addition there has been a tremendous willingness of citizen scientists and private donators to rise up for the IB in the recent past.
With the right ideas, and a level of cooperation its all doable. Granted it takes hard work.
CT has also asked us several hours to go to sign your posts.
Bird
Paul to persons who think only pictures will help and the government will only help if there are pictures.
If you need to be led by skeptics or the desk bound keep going the way you are going and see what happens. I and a few others have improved habitat on small scale with no outside funding other than our own elbow grease.
We need to stop pretending that you need a new congressional act to manage for a handful of 1 lb birds. It far from impossible to increase food resources for a couple of fledglings.
My cousins chicken coup produced 400 lbs of product in one year. The analogy being it's about as much work to produce 400 lbs of avian biomass as it is to read the literature, hike to a chosen patch and girdle 100 trees. Bring your camera if you like.
Tks p
Nice, someone finally said it in one post. A little less listening to the skeptics who demand a picture. And a bit more citizen-led, which is a must, direct forest management.
Professional scientists connected to the recovery team have already said this.
" Taking action need not wait until the presence of Ivory-billeds can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Informed management interventions could in fact serve to facilitate their discovery--by drawing individuals to areas where they are likely to be detected, as well as potentially benefiting other species at the same time."
"Forest Management for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers": https://sora.unm.edu/node/116345
The habitat improvement angle is the right one. In certain states they have begun to push the idea that there is greater species diversity in managed forests of uneven age stands than a large contiguous, maturing secondary forest. The pros and cons are debatable.
If one proposes the girdling of trees as a way to create heterogony for biodiversity enhancement and it helps woodpeckers in that initial stage of succession then fine. This could actually go the permit route with or without some funding.
Its also intriguing to be able to create your own standing dead wood acreage, off the grid, since you may be literally the only person/group who would know the gps. Large woodpeckers might like your secluded patch if you know IB tastes but competing paparazzi's would not.
lol. SWTH22
At the end of the recovery plan was several papers on IBWO centric research; one of them was on creating dead wood stands. It had some data on the species of insects that came in and more
In the general literature could be more. Someone should take a look.
I believe there are clues in the recovery plan of what some of the good people wanted the public to do concurrently with the organized but sometimes flawed state searches.
Mainly the skeptics on the recovery plan purposely made the searches less effective by suddenly having budgetary epiphanies. They made Cornell, others, do surveys and data sets for various taxa and things in addition to the target species (IB). They justified the demands by degrading the AR Science IB paper (prior to the supporting Imperial Woodpecker film analysis).
They said we do not want to waste money; add these target species and extra tasks.
The supportive people on the recovery team and related authors have some sentences in the plan/papers that could be them urging the public to get involved with management.
Naturally as mentioned here by others the public is going to, and mostly did, turn it all into a ten year long, photo-centric birding trip.
tks Paul
Wow all these posts, I read most of them. Its something different al least from what we usually have. Maybe that's good. I can't say I know the ins and outs of the politics of the IB.
I do know its worth saving.
good luck all,
Tim
It is going to be hard work; not sure the community has what it takes to help the species. There are no leaders and the existing ways of communicating ideas in a productive manner don't exist. The academics have often put their interests ahead of the bird; some repeatedly degraded others evidence of existence.
The government departments are set up to rule by committee; purposely or not this structure is unproductive when there is controversey. Also budgets are now destroyed.
There has to be some way those left with any ability to do some pro bono habitat management get organized and going.
An average picture of a single bird, if it ever happens, will not create much government money or more importantly additional birds.
Happy mother's day
Think we should wrap this up for this comment section under this post. We can go to the next cyberthrush post if there is a reason. Thanks cyberthrush.
Think ST should summarize here or next post since he knows the parts of the issues.
We found out somethings about the bird and the landscape.
Be safe all bird.
Summary of the prior ~ 100 posts: The belief that IB habitat was unequivocally improving was questioned. Facts, opinions and points to support that it might not be improving were presented. It was pointed out that few if any uncommon to rare species of birds have been increasing in the US without management.
Some posters agreed it was not improving. It was not effectively supported by any posters that habitat is improving or in other media although it's often repeated at the forum.
Strong opinions and ideas on the forum that there may be up to 150 IBWOs in USA were presented as being based in math by a frequent forum poster. IB Lives posters disagreed in multiple posts with facts, points and opinions, that the estimate was too high. Some forum posters also questioned the estimate.
The response from the original poster was that " the 150 was only an idea".
It was presented in several posts that the IB needs more than the failed, picture chase to increase numbers; direct and basic management is needed and should have begun.
Some agreed. Responses from those who evidently like the status quo ranged from one to two sentences and centered on mainly "no one will do much without an unequivocal picture".
It was presented in several posts that the IB is facing many serious issues. Some posts with links said peer reviewed papers, scientists and common sense says that we don't need to wait for unequivocal pictures to proceed with obvious and needed habitat improvements.
Some posters agreed.
One poster asked if there have been any sightings in the last ~ 36 months.
Some posters answered with a few sightings.
Some posts said waiting on the government to lead us and do something might be folly; the general public, NGOs, searchers, etc. should start management actions before it is too late.
Criticism for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Forum was leveled with details.
Many specific complaints and points were made such as:
very poor results on many levels, no IBs were found due to forum actions, the stated vision was never met, over promised, inflexibility, unwavering belief that IBs were going to be found with no plan if they were not, condoning a policy that curtailed basic science principals, systemic underestimation of problems facing the Ivory-billed, constant bias that the species is doing fine, censorship of good ideas and questions, failed to foster much camaraderie, coddling and ignoring errors by posters, lack of knowledge in many science areas, fostering only a narrow range of actions by the public in the field, no parallel plans to help the IB, low level of commitment to important policy issues, no policy efforts fostered at all, and more. They were asked to give the forum to someone more capable.
Responses were: Some agreed, with short examples of mismanagement.
Some said the forum saw a need to create a safe place to post sightings and did it. Some said, Others did nothing. Some, Why should we listen to you; formal efforts have produced nothing (they seemed ignorant of the Cornell and Auburn efforts).
Conclusion: Ivory-billed knowledge and conservation has seen little to no improvement post Auburn U. study in FL.
The main Ivory-bill social media site has low energy and has been unadaptable for over a decade; without change they will continue to fail their mission. The Ivory-billed is critically endangered.
thanks.
05/10/20
SWTH22
I will move this to next post if needed.
thsnks all
SWTH22
I have read the 100 posts. Sounds like SWTH22 is ornithologist who failed to find the ivorybills. He cant stomach idea of amatures finding ivorybills instead of him so he wants them to stop looking. Now he blames every one except himself. Pointing fingers is not a plan and does not help ivorybills.
DFW Raptor
You have read the posts yet all your sentences are about a person and not the Ivory-billed.
This is a site about discussing them.
Understanding what is needed for the IB would require honest answers to the fair questions brought up. Everyone sees they are being ignored.
The IB has been found by me and others. It is not as hard as everyone CLAIMS to find if THE BIRD is actually in the 10 plus square miles that you correctly survey acoustically. The bird responds at a distance to a very prudent (low) number of ADKs but does not approach closely. the issue is there are very few left and reproduction is obviously pitiful
Your other comments about me are ridiculous and unimportant. If the bird goes extinct everyone loses something and many including me will have failed.
If you have a list of what could be done, could be done better or instead FOR THE IB, we are all ears. We are not stupid though; we know its been 15 years and YOUR PLAN HAS PRODUCED NOTHING.
good day
SWTH22
They might delist the species, there are few if any sightings of any quality, ecological concerns growing, unknown genetic issues.,.....and this fella is worried about honest questions.
Answer all the questions. Why can't volunteer management start? Where are the IBs? How are you suddenly going to get pictures after hundreds of thousands of field hours and cams haven't worked?
John
Post a Comment