Monday, July 10, 2006
-- Tanner... Legacy and Myth --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James Tanner wrote one of the best natural history monographs of all time with his 1942 dissertation on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. But as good as it is, it may NOT be as good as often given credit for. Tanner's study took three years, and many think this more than adequate time to produce a definitive/all-encompassing work on a scarcely-existing species -- an unwarranted assumption. Tanner spent much of those 3 years in Ithaca, NY, site of Cornell University where he received his PhD. By his own account 21 mos. were spent "in the field," with the bulk of that time spent at the Singer Tract in La. where all his direct observations were made. This leaves a relatively small amount of time to cover the entire rest of the South, or specifically, the other 44 locations Tanner reported visiting, most of which he spent 3 or fewer days in (and generally limited to winter or spring months). Upon first arriving at a new area he spent significant time conversing and note-taking with locals and other cursory investigation. Quite simply, sleeping, eating, planning, writing, and traveling (poor back roads) would have consumed another large chunk of his time. In short, one wonders, outside of the self-imposed months at the Singer Tract, how much time did Tanner actually spend deep in the field/woods/swamps of the South in search of Ivory-bills -- possibly relatively little, considering how much ground there was to cover (and his La. studies had already biased him to summarily discount much Southern habitat that didn't fit preconceived notions). This is NOT a criticism, but simply an acknowledgement of the impossible task he had before him as a single searcher (with occasional local guides). Tanner did as good a job as any one man could've done in those days, with the equipment available, and time and financial constraints -- I find no fault with him, but I do question the wisdom of those who followed him and, without question or debate, elevated his meticulous, thoughtful grad student work even beyond what it was or could ever have been. They turned a wonderful and interesting thesis study into gospel beyond discussion (in part because the urgency to save the species took rightful precedence over any critical review of Tanner's findings/conclusions/techniques).
In 2006 though we have the luxury, indeed necessity, not to assume that every conclusion/generalization of 60+ years ago, must be true for the species today (if they ever were), and there is a need to approach each new claim open-mindedly. We have the luxury to do so, but do we have the will and patience....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 08, 2006
-- Worst Case Scenario --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's take the worst case scenario: Ivory-bills are never confirmed in the Big Woods of Arkansas -- no..., we'll make it even worse: the original Arkansas sighters all relent and say they are no longer certain of the bird they saw in 2004-5; it may very well have been a Pileated (normal or abnormal) afterall; and advanced techniques in analyzing pixels come along demonstrating conclusively that the Luneau video captured a Pileated on tape; and Cornell retracts their original SCIENCE article now wanting to set the record straight and move on. Where does that leave us...?
Right back at May (or thereabouts), 1999.
In Jan. 1999, most serious Ivory-billed Woodpecker seekers believed any remnants of the species would most likely reside in Florida, Louisiana, and/or Mississippi. Texas and South Carolina were still considered possible by many, and maybe even Georgia or Alabama. At best, for most IBWO students, Arkansas was rarely higher than 8th on the list of possible locales.
April 1999: David Kulivan claims to see 2 Ivory-bills in the Pearl River region of La. (and adjacent to Miss.) generating much new hope for the species, though in the end no confirmation follows -- it is difficult to evaluate how meaningful the results of the extensive search done by LSU almost 3 years later are, since the 2 birds from 1999 could easily have departed the area by then, or never have resided there to begin with (only dispersing or passing through when encountered by Kulivan). In 2006, researcher Mike Collins insists there ARE IBWOs in the Pearl R. area.
Where are we if the Arkansas searches continue to fail -- right back at the need to focus on FL., LA., and MS., and possibly as many as 4 other states that were well ahead of AR. in speculation prior to Apr. 2005 -- which is why those already searching such areas need to be encouraged to continue, not stigmatized by any perceived (or even actual) failings on Cornell's part. If the above worst case scenario were to arise, skeptics would try to generalize from the specific AR. circumstance to any and all other Ivory-bill claims (known as the "hasty generalization" fallacy in formal logic), but neither science nor fairness give a basis for doing so.
And, if continued credible sightings (confirmed or not) DO come out of AR. then other nearby states, southern MO., IL., Tenn., KY., not previously paid much attention, need to be taken more seriously as well.
In short, in a worst case scenario.... not a whole lot really changes, and much work remains to be done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's take the worst case scenario: Ivory-bills are never confirmed in the Big Woods of Arkansas -- no..., we'll make it even worse: the original Arkansas sighters all relent and say they are no longer certain of the bird they saw in 2004-5; it may very well have been a Pileated (normal or abnormal) afterall; and advanced techniques in analyzing pixels come along demonstrating conclusively that the Luneau video captured a Pileated on tape; and Cornell retracts their original SCIENCE article now wanting to set the record straight and move on. Where does that leave us...?
Right back at May (or thereabouts), 1999.
In Jan. 1999, most serious Ivory-billed Woodpecker seekers believed any remnants of the species would most likely reside in Florida, Louisiana, and/or Mississippi. Texas and South Carolina were still considered possible by many, and maybe even Georgia or Alabama. At best, for most IBWO students, Arkansas was rarely higher than 8th on the list of possible locales.
April 1999: David Kulivan claims to see 2 Ivory-bills in the Pearl River region of La. (and adjacent to Miss.) generating much new hope for the species, though in the end no confirmation follows -- it is difficult to evaluate how meaningful the results of the extensive search done by LSU almost 3 years later are, since the 2 birds from 1999 could easily have departed the area by then, or never have resided there to begin with (only dispersing or passing through when encountered by Kulivan). In 2006, researcher Mike Collins insists there ARE IBWOs in the Pearl R. area.
Where are we if the Arkansas searches continue to fail -- right back at the need to focus on FL., LA., and MS., and possibly as many as 4 other states that were well ahead of AR. in speculation prior to Apr. 2005 -- which is why those already searching such areas need to be encouraged to continue, not stigmatized by any perceived (or even actual) failings on Cornell's part. If the above worst case scenario were to arise, skeptics would try to generalize from the specific AR. circumstance to any and all other Ivory-bill claims (known as the "hasty generalization" fallacy in formal logic), but neither science nor fairness give a basis for doing so.
And, if continued credible sightings (confirmed or not) DO come out of AR. then other nearby states, southern MO., IL., Tenn., KY., not previously paid much attention, need to be taken more seriously as well.
In short, in a worst case scenario.... not a whole lot really changes, and much work remains to be done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, July 07, 2006
-- Summer of 2006 --
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world," and so it is in the world of Ivory-bill skeptics -- the summer will likely be a time of little 'hard' news (there continue to be reports/rumors of sightings and signs, mostly outside Arkansas, that are being checked upon, but nothing substantial), and a good time to relax until the winter searches begin anew. So I find it interesting/entertaining?? that The Ivory-bill Skeptic blog and its loyalists continue to paint themselves into an inescapable narrow corner pounding away at Cornell, now dredging up old re-hashed material to try to bolster their skeptics' case; and in using words like "fraud" resorting to a near ornithological McCarthyism; their case still primarily built all around disputing a 4-second video that can't be resolved (but that Cornell has analyzed for more hours, with more personnel, and with better equipment probably than all the skeptics combined have access to). They are even calling for a "retraction" of Cornell's original SCIENCE article (do they actually realize HOW MANY life science articles would have to be retracted from SCIENCE if every one with possible flawed data or methodology had to be disallowed -- MOST of them). Unless/until the original IBWO sighters change their stories there is little to retract. As I said previously, the skeptics' only real hope is that they find and document somewhere still alive in Arkansas a leucistic symmetrically-IBWO-white-wing patterned Pileated to possibly account for those prior sightings (and of course there are still the other 3-7 states that IBWOs could easily reside in to take into account) -- short of that their case is simply built on giving easily-concocted alternative explanations -- indeed, the permanent debate over 'evolution' is the result of the ease with which holes can be found in data/evidence presented and alternative explanations proffered. For the first time in history some of the vast amounts of difficult habitat that deserve serious searches are getting the extended attention needed, and skeptics, once again, seem intent on stifling it. And the beat goes on....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world," and so it is in the world of Ivory-bill skeptics -- the summer will likely be a time of little 'hard' news (there continue to be reports/rumors of sightings and signs, mostly outside Arkansas, that are being checked upon, but nothing substantial), and a good time to relax until the winter searches begin anew. So I find it interesting/entertaining?? that The Ivory-bill Skeptic blog and its loyalists continue to paint themselves into an inescapable narrow corner pounding away at Cornell, now dredging up old re-hashed material to try to bolster their skeptics' case; and in using words like "fraud" resorting to a near ornithological McCarthyism; their case still primarily built all around disputing a 4-second video that can't be resolved (but that Cornell has analyzed for more hours, with more personnel, and with better equipment probably than all the skeptics combined have access to). They are even calling for a "retraction" of Cornell's original SCIENCE article (do they actually realize HOW MANY life science articles would have to be retracted from SCIENCE if every one with possible flawed data or methodology had to be disallowed -- MOST of them). Unless/until the original IBWO sighters change their stories there is little to retract. As I said previously, the skeptics' only real hope is that they find and document somewhere still alive in Arkansas a leucistic symmetrically-IBWO-white-wing patterned Pileated to possibly account for those prior sightings (and of course there are still the other 3-7 states that IBWOs could easily reside in to take into account) -- short of that their case is simply built on giving easily-concocted alternative explanations -- indeed, the permanent debate over 'evolution' is the result of the ease with which holes can be found in data/evidence presented and alternative explanations proffered. For the first time in history some of the vast amounts of difficult habitat that deserve serious searches are getting the extended attention needed, and skeptics, once again, seem intent on stifling it. And the beat goes on....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 06, 2006
-- Humor Break --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A break from the business of he-said-she-said-they-said-we-said Ivory-bill discussion today for a few general birding chuckles courtesy of columnist Joe Walljasper (actually, thanks to John Trapp for calling attention to this a week or so ago):
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Jun/20060625Spor001.asp
...tomorrow we may ponder how many skeptics it takes to screw in a light bulb (...or screw up a rare bird species). . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A break from the business of he-said-she-said-they-said-we-said Ivory-bill discussion today for a few general birding chuckles courtesy of columnist Joe Walljasper (actually, thanks to John Trapp for calling attention to this a week or so ago):
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Jun/20060625Spor001.asp
...tomorrow we may ponder how many skeptics it takes to screw in a light bulb (...or screw up a rare bird species). . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
-- Post-Docs: Take Note --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following post-doc opportunity with the Government was posted (about 1/2 way down) last week at this webpage (thanks to some chap named Tom Nelson for originally calling this to my attention...)
The following post-doc opportunity with the Government was posted (about 1/2 way down) last week at this webpage (thanks to some chap named Tom Nelson for originally calling this to my attention...)
----------------------------------------------------------------
POST-DOC OPPORTUNITY at the USGS National Wetlands Research Center - Application of Remote-Sensing Imagery and Associated Models in the Recovery Planning for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker, long suspected to be extinct, is now known to persist in remnant lowlands of the Cache River, Arkansas. Planning efforts are in progress for extensive searches to find more birds in Arkansas and other river bottoms of the Southern US. Anecdotal reports of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the southern US continue to this day. Geographic areas where potential ivory-bill habitat may exist is vast throughout the southeastern US and Gulf of Mexico coastal areas. Research opportunities are available to develop methods for the integration and operation of remote-sensing resources with ground data and other ivory-bill habitat analyses to identify and characterize a range of potential suitable habitat for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. A team of forest ecologists, ornithologists, and geographers at the National Wetlands Research Center conducts a variety of avian habitat investigations, and works cooperatively with the Lower Mississippi Valley and Gulf Coast Joint Ventures. Project activities will be conducted in collaboration with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan--particularly, the Planning and Assessment Framework. The recovery team has identified several primary challenges: (1) how can we develop useful models of ivory-bill habitat relations, (2) how can the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others predict and evaluate the effects of forest management on potential ivory-bill habitat, and (3) the need to develop spatial models that integrate remotely sensed data bases to study the distribution of potential suitable habitat. Outcomes of meeting these challenges will include new knowledge of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat relations, facilitation of rapid and efficient search protocols for ivory-bills, contributions to useful forest inventory and monitoring procedures, and development of predictive models to inform decisions on forest management. The primary need is the development of methods to produce maps of forest structure, forest composition, and forest health (dead/dying trees) with GIS and remote sensing imagery/data at multiple scales and resolutions for regional, landscape, and local applications. Model output should be in the form of variables whose values can be measured in the field during forest inventories. Variables derived from digital imagery and data from LIDAR, ALI, Landsat, Hyperion, AVIRIS, and aerial photography will be provided by USGS. Interested applicants should contact WYLIE BARROW, USGS-National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, LA (PH: 337-266-8668; EM: wylie_barrow AT usgs.gov), or LARRY HANDLEY, USGS-National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, LA (PH: 337-266-8691, EM: larry_handley AT usgs.gov). For application details, see: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/PGA/rap.nsf/ByTitle/90.17.01.B6406?OpenDocument
Monday, July 03, 2006
-- The Ivory-bill Leak --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya-a-a-awn.... I don't find it of any real significance, but there has been some Web discussion of late concerning the timing of the original story 'leak' that caused Cornell to make their public announcement (April '05) of the Ivory-bill's re-discovery earlier than originally planned -- this seems to be just another attempt to cast aspersions and tarnish the credibility of Cornell's Dr. Fitzpatrick or others involved. Otherwise, not sure what importance the details of the leak actually have (except to conspiracy-theorists seeing money-grubbing skullduggery behind every Ivory-bill curtain), but may simply make interesting reading as outlined in John Trapp's blog post today (...reads like a classified CIA report, names expunged to protect their cover):
http://birdstuff.blogspot.com/2006/07/ivory-billed-woodpeckermore-on-leak.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya-a-a-awn.... I don't find it of any real significance, but there has been some Web discussion of late concerning the timing of the original story 'leak' that caused Cornell to make their public announcement (April '05) of the Ivory-bill's re-discovery earlier than originally planned -- this seems to be just another attempt to cast aspersions and tarnish the credibility of Cornell's Dr. Fitzpatrick or others involved. Otherwise, not sure what importance the details of the leak actually have (except to conspiracy-theorists seeing money-grubbing skullduggery behind every Ivory-bill curtain), but may simply make interesting reading as outlined in John Trapp's blog post today (...reads like a classified CIA report, names expunged to protect their cover):
http://birdstuff.blogspot.com/2006/07/ivory-billed-woodpeckermore-on-leak.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Back to Pete Dunne --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Have now read Pete Dunne's piece in (August) Birder's World alluded to earlier -- for regular readers of this blog, nothing new, since Pete's arguments have all been made here repeatedly over the last year. Worth reading though for Dunne's inimitable writing style, and hey, higher credibility than coming from Cyberthrush! Hooray for Pete for speaking up in print against all the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' (S. Agnew's phrase, NOT Pete's) out there ...if someone finds the piece on the Web somewhere, let me know and I'll link to it.
Dunne draws a distinction between a birder's perspective (his) and a scientist's perspective (skeptics) -- but the line between the two is more blurry than he implies, and at this point much of what passes for science in the IBWO debate seems little more than pretense and posturing in the face of hardened stances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Have now read Pete Dunne's piece in (August) Birder's World alluded to earlier -- for regular readers of this blog, nothing new, since Pete's arguments have all been made here repeatedly over the last year. Worth reading though for Dunne's inimitable writing style, and hey, higher credibility than coming from Cyberthrush! Hooray for Pete for speaking up in print against all the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' (S. Agnew's phrase, NOT Pete's) out there ...if someone finds the piece on the Web somewhere, let me know and I'll link to it.
Dunne draws a distinction between a birder's perspective (his) and a scientist's perspective (skeptics) -- but the line between the two is more blurry than he implies, and at this point much of what passes for science in the IBWO debate seems little more than pretense and posturing in the face of hardened stances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 02, 2006
-- $10,000 Reward Re-visited --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My initial gut reaction to a monetary reward offered for information leading to the confirmation of the Ivory-bill in Arkansas was one of leery skepticism. Birders/conservationists should not require such an incentive, and other more dubious types may wreak mischief from such motivation. However, on further reflection I feel better now about the 'bounty' approach in this instance. One of the thoughts over decades, has been that the very individuals, hunters, fisherman, swampers, who would be most likely to spot Ivory-bills would never report it due to their fear of the 'Feds' stepping in to tightly regulate the land they hold dear. To the degree that the financial incentive is aimed, not at birders, but at securing the cooperation/aid of 1000's of Southern outdoorsmen bearing such fears, just maybe it will serve a purpose overriding its potential downside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My initial gut reaction to a monetary reward offered for information leading to the confirmation of the Ivory-bill in Arkansas was one of leery skepticism. Birders/conservationists should not require such an incentive, and other more dubious types may wreak mischief from such motivation. However, on further reflection I feel better now about the 'bounty' approach in this instance. One of the thoughts over decades, has been that the very individuals, hunters, fisherman, swampers, who would be most likely to spot Ivory-bills would never report it due to their fear of the 'Feds' stepping in to tightly regulate the land they hold dear. To the degree that the financial incentive is aimed, not at birders, but at securing the cooperation/aid of 1000's of Southern outdoorsmen bearing such fears, just maybe it will serve a purpose overriding its potential downside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 01, 2006
-- Pete Dunne's Take --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a post today Laura Erickson alludes to the newest (August) edition of "Birder's World" (due on newstands shortly) which includes an article by Pete Dunne, one of my favorite birder/writers, giving his take (as a believer) on the Ivory-bill's existence. Article not yet available on the Web so far as I know, but magazine sold at many birding supply stores and big chain bookstores.
... with this post, as previously indicated, I'll hereby re-open the 'comments' section of blog in 'moderated' mode. Try not to feed the trolls too much or too often...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a post today Laura Erickson alludes to the newest (August) edition of "Birder's World" (due on newstands shortly) which includes an article by Pete Dunne, one of my favorite birder/writers, giving his take (as a believer) on the Ivory-bill's existence. Article not yet available on the Web so far as I know, but magazine sold at many birding supply stores and big chain bookstores.
... with this post, as previously indicated, I'll hereby re-open the 'comments' section of blog in 'moderated' mode. Try not to feed the trolls too much or too often...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 29, 2006
-- GISS --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed, with some interest, that 2 of the newest and more highly acclaimed birding volumes hitting the bookstores recently both focus on the so-called "GISS" approach to bird identification: "general impression of size and shape," also known popularly as the 'jizz of a bird' (color, movement, behavior, also come into play). Both books, Crossley et.al's The Shorebird Guide, and Pete Dunne's Essential Field Guide Companion, have been favorably reviewed, and in a sense downplay the traditional emphasis on Peterson-like field marks to hone in on (although certainly still important) for ID'ing birds.
I bring all this up because it once again plays to my contention that the vast majority of visual bird-identification, is consciously or otherwise, done in a GISS-type manner, and that the solid 'impression' of seeing an Ivory-bill by a number of competent/credible Arkansas sighters (experienced with Pileateds) carries with it as much or more weight than the specific field mark details over which so much unresolvable debate has been expended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed, with some interest, that 2 of the newest and more highly acclaimed birding volumes hitting the bookstores recently both focus on the so-called "GISS" approach to bird identification: "general impression of size and shape," also known popularly as the 'jizz of a bird' (color, movement, behavior, also come into play). Both books, Crossley et.al's The Shorebird Guide, and Pete Dunne's Essential Field Guide Companion, have been favorably reviewed, and in a sense downplay the traditional emphasis on Peterson-like field marks to hone in on (although certainly still important) for ID'ing birds.
I bring all this up because it once again plays to my contention that the vast majority of visual bird-identification, is consciously or otherwise, done in a GISS-type manner, and that the solid 'impression' of seeing an Ivory-bill by a number of competent/credible Arkansas sighters (experienced with Pileateds) carries with it as much or more weight than the specific field mark details over which so much unresolvable debate has been expended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Comments/Happy Independence Day --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm back from a vacation now and not expecting much of consequence to happen in IBWO-land for the summer (unless those folks at BirdForum begin strangling each other off one-by-one!), so may re-open the comments section of blog, around or following July 4th, for all the pent-up thoughts/ideas/emotions/well-reasoned cogitations of the believers and short-sighted, misbegotten-contentions of the skeptics out there ; - ))). I'll be moderating the comments (maybe extensively!) to maintain some civility and flow, so be forewarned that points I perceive as overly weak, redundant, poorly-stated, or simply unnecessary will be edited. (This also means a delay in their being posted.) We'll just see how it goes... Meanwhile, a happy holiday weekend to all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm back from a vacation now and not expecting much of consequence to happen in IBWO-land for the summer (unless those folks at BirdForum begin strangling each other off one-by-one!), so may re-open the comments section of blog, around or following July 4th, for all the pent-up thoughts/ideas/emotions/well-reasoned cogitations of the believers and short-sighted, misbegotten-contentions of the skeptics out there ; - ))). I'll be moderating the comments (maybe extensively!) to maintain some civility and flow, so be forewarned that points I perceive as overly weak, redundant, poorly-stated, or simply unnecessary will be edited. (This also means a delay in their being posted.) We'll just see how it goes... Meanwhile, a happy holiday weekend to all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 23, 2006
-- Wanted: On Tape and Alive --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official Nature Conservancy announcement of a $10,000 reward for information leading to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker can be seen here (pdf. file) :
http://www.nature.org/ivorybill/files/ibw_reward_flyer3.pdf
Mason Spencer need not apply....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official Nature Conservancy announcement of a $10,000 reward for information leading to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker can be seen here (pdf. file) :
http://www.nature.org/ivorybill/files/ibw_reward_flyer3.pdf
Mason Spencer need not apply....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 22, 2006
-- 'Ghost Bird' Movie --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A reader has sent along this link to a small-scale documentary about the Ivory-bill under production for film festival release; includes some interesting tidbits, but not a whole lot of info yet:
http://www.ghostbirdmovie.com
There is likely also another more cinematic production underway as well, but for which I don't have confirmed details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A reader has sent along this link to a small-scale documentary about the Ivory-bill under production for film festival release; includes some interesting tidbits, but not a whole lot of info yet:
http://www.ghostbirdmovie.com
There is likely also another more cinematic production underway as well, but for which I don't have confirmed details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
-- What Skeptics Have Brought Us To --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There had been much internet chatter recently about the possibility of offering a major monetary reward for definitive evidence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; I never took any of it seriously, but lo and behold, according to this apparently legit report official agencies are indeed planning to offer $10,000 "to anyone who provides information that leads biologists to an ivory-billed woodpecker's nest, roost cavity or feeding site." This is what skeptics have brought us to. I'm very leery of such an approach and can only hope that good might indeed come of it. It's almost certain to bring crackpots, hoaxers, and other ne'er-do-wells out of the woodwork and unnecessarily into the woods. Any legitimate birder/conservationist or other individual genuinely concerned for this species already knows there's fame and possible fortune awaiting the person who brings forth such evidence; this offer conjures up potential ill scenarios that skeptics can take credit for should they come to pass, but I'll withhold final judgment and hope for the best... but even if achieved, it sets a risky precedent.
http://www.kthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30216
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There had been much internet chatter recently about the possibility of offering a major monetary reward for definitive evidence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; I never took any of it seriously, but lo and behold, according to this apparently legit report official agencies are indeed planning to offer $10,000 "to anyone who provides information that leads biologists to an ivory-billed woodpecker's nest, roost cavity or feeding site." This is what skeptics have brought us to. I'm very leery of such an approach and can only hope that good might indeed come of it. It's almost certain to bring crackpots, hoaxers, and other ne'er-do-wells out of the woodwork and unnecessarily into the woods. Any legitimate birder/conservationist or other individual genuinely concerned for this species already knows there's fame and possible fortune awaiting the person who brings forth such evidence; this offer conjures up potential ill scenarios that skeptics can take credit for should they come to pass, but I'll withhold final judgment and hope for the best... but even if achieved, it sets a risky precedent.
http://www.kthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30216
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, June 19, 2006
-- 'Blazing Paddles...' ??? --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmmm.... starring Harrison Ford, Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Gene Hackman and... Al Pacino, as Cyberthrush : - ))) :
Supposedly (vaguely referenced on the Web) there is a movie in the works about the search for the Ivory-bill. Not clear to me if this would be a 'Hollywood-release' or 'made-for-TV'-type endeavor; also not clear if this is strictly documentary in style or more of a docu-drama. If someone out there is directly involved in the effort and can fill in additional specifics/details, I suspect readers would be interested to hear more (email me at cyberthrush@wildmail.com).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmmm.... starring Harrison Ford, Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Gene Hackman and... Al Pacino, as Cyberthrush : - ))) :
Supposedly (vaguely referenced on the Web) there is a movie in the works about the search for the Ivory-bill. Not clear to me if this would be a 'Hollywood-release' or 'made-for-TV'-type endeavor; also not clear if this is strictly documentary in style or more of a docu-drama. If someone out there is directly involved in the effort and can fill in additional specifics/details, I suspect readers would be interested to hear more (email me at cyberthrush@wildmail.com).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, June 17, 2006
-- IBWO Souvenir --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't quite fit my taste, but some readers might be interested in Ivory-billed Woodpecker replicas (plastic, 2+ inch) offered for sale over the Web. At just $3 each ya can't hardly go wrong:
http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/birds/woodpecker-ivory-billed-f1202.htm
They have other birds and animals (including stuffed animals and jewelry) for sale as well in case there's something in particular you're looking for.
(...I have no financial interest or connection to the above.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't quite fit my taste, but some readers might be interested in Ivory-billed Woodpecker replicas (plastic, 2+ inch) offered for sale over the Web. At just $3 each ya can't hardly go wrong:
http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/birds/woodpecker-ivory-billed-f1202.htm
They have other birds and animals (including stuffed animals and jewelry) for sale as well in case there's something in particular you're looking for.
(...I have no financial interest or connection to the above.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 16, 2006
-- The (Inconvenient) Truth Is Out There --
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again I'll stray off topic momentarily, to put forth a plug for Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" -- not quite as powerful a film as I had hoped it would be, but good enough to recommend that all, and especially young people, see it... ASAP. Be forewarned though that if you're already manically-depressed over the current Administration, this movie ain't gonna cheer you up, and I suspect that George, Dick, Condi, and Karl (some of the few who don't fall into that latter category), will likely view the film from their world-view, not as a documentary, but as a comedy, on par with the satirical script they once handed Colin Powell to read to the U.N. Oyyyy veyyyyy....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again I'll stray off topic momentarily, to put forth a plug for Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" -- not quite as powerful a film as I had hoped it would be, but good enough to recommend that all, and especially young people, see it... ASAP. Be forewarned though that if you're already manically-depressed over the current Administration, this movie ain't gonna cheer you up, and I suspect that George, Dick, Condi, and Karl (some of the few who don't fall into that latter category), will likely view the film from their world-view, not as a documentary, but as a comedy, on par with the satirical script they once handed Colin Powell to read to the U.N. Oyyyy veyyyyy....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
-- Just A Thought --
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I had expected, almost hoped, that Ivory-bill chatter would settle down for the summer months, but those folks at BirdForum just keep it going at a fine clip! -- The following reply (regarding newly re-discovered creatures) from "Andigena" to skeptic "Piltdownwoman," appeared there this evening :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had expected, almost hoped, that Ivory-bill chatter would settle down for the summer months, but those folks at BirdForum just keep it going at a fine clip! -- The following reply (regarding newly re-discovered creatures) from "Andigena" to skeptic "Piltdownwoman," appeared there this evening :
"Robust Redhorse, a two-foot long fish found, of all places...in southern bottomland swamps...specifically the Oconee/Altamaha area of Georgia, rediscovered in 1990s, first time seen in the 20th century.In short, one might be tempted to say that the whole notion that a large woodland bird COULDN'T possibly evade detection by humans for 60 years is little more than short-sighted, egocentric, myopic, gnarled thinking on the part of shallow scientific minds.... but, I shan't say it.
How could a large, slow-moving, edible vertebrate species just hide out for over 100 years in North America with:
a) all our ecologists doing studies of aquatic life?
b) thousands of Georgia fishermen dangling hooks in their habitat?
c) destruction of its habitat so nearly complete?
d) limited ability (due to dams) to migrate to new habitat?
For that matter, how could 8 or 10 new species of birds be discovered in Peru in the last 20 years? And how many of them were photographed before they were collected? How could a new species of monkey be discovered in Bolivia a couple years ago (by asking local hunters)? And a large new species of primate in Tanzania last year? And a new family of rodent (Laonastes sp.) in Laos this year (collected by hunters)?
You boys and girls keep looking for IBWO, and don't forget to keep asking hunters...and, remember, Tanner said he thought IBWO moved long distances. Who said the bird seen in Arkansas in 2004-05 isn't in Tennessee today, or Mississippi, or ????
These folks busting their butts out looking for IBWO aren't wasting their time are they Piltdownwoman? After all, what fool would look for a big ole fish that hadn't been seen in over 100 years?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)