-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's skepticism... and then there's schlepticism ; - ), of the sort that overwhelms the Web. Many will be surprised to hear me say I know few people more skeptical by nature than myself -- only my skepticism runs the gamut across all of science (not to mention government, religion, business, art, and oh yeah, tarot reading). Long ago I cancelled membership in a well-known international "skeptics" organization having become too skeptical of their biases and approach to matters. Having worked most of my adulthood in genetics and medicine I remain highly skeptical of those fields (and the life sciences in general) -- they are chockfull of imprecision, built-in biases, unspoken assumptions, and poorly-thought-out methodologies (not to mention fudged data and experimentation), rarely acknowledged in public. Indeed, most money spent in science is poured down a rat hole... BUUUT, that's simply the price we pay for the brilliant and life-changing science which, through it all, bubbles to the surface -- still, few in the public understand the process.
Anyway, my skepticism doesn't begin in 2005 like so much of the Web-based blathering, or for that matter with Ivory-bill reports of the 1950's; it begins with the 1942 release of James Tanner's study and followup commentary. Once one realizes, critically, the weakness of the generalizations/conclusions in that work it changes how one approaches all future claims/reports/evidence on the subject -- extinction was a possibility, but in terms of probabilities, which is all science can ever go on, that possibility (of extinction) was slim given the multitude of ongoing reports to the contrary (technically, there is NEVER PROOF in science, only evidence and probabilities -- go channel Heisenberg, or better yet Godel, if you don't understand this... or just skip it 'cuz it ain't worth arguing over). For 60 years the evidence and probabilities have simply pointed opposite of what most so-called skeptics think about IBWOs. And so while schleptics continue to believe in something (extinction) that CANNOT be substantiated in the near term (and lacks any good evidence) I believe in something that can... and will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
-- Mr. Cyberthrush's Neighborhood --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey boys and girls can you say "c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n," or how about "l-a-n-d a-c-q-u-i-s-i-t-i-o-n," or maybe "r-e-g-u-l-a-t-o-r-y c-o-d-e-s," or "r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h p-r-o-t-o-c-o-l-s" --- these are a few of the important things that must be set in place before any local Ivory-bill recovery plans can be announced, and often they require time. Once accomplished though there just might be some supercalifragilisticexpialadocious news.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey boys and girls can you say "c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n," or how about "l-a-n-d a-c-q-u-i-s-i-t-i-o-n," or maybe "r-e-g-u-l-a-t-o-r-y c-o-d-e-s," or "r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h p-r-o-t-o-c-o-l-s" --- these are a few of the important things that must be set in place before any local Ivory-bill recovery plans can be announced, and often they require time. Once accomplished though there just might be some supercalifragilisticexpialadocious news.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 10, 2006
-- So Ya Wanna Be An Ornithologist --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- in that case you might want to check out all the graduate programs you have to choose from (...a lot more than just Cornell out there):
http://www.ummz.umich.edu/birds/Gradwinweb.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- in that case you might want to check out all the graduate programs you have to choose from (...a lot more than just Cornell out there):
http://www.ummz.umich.edu/birds/Gradwinweb.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
-- The Rumor Mill --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple rumors around this summer of Ivory-bill finds. The most detailed rumor/story will supposedly be released within 2 months (although, if real, I suspect, like the original Cornell story, it will break out over the internet ahead of time, though NOT at my site). While very hopeful, some of the specifics out there still sound a tad suspicious/fanciful to me, so as usual it's a waiting game for now (I've been waiting 40+ years, another few months or yrs. is nnnnuthin'). Other rumors afloat are less fleshed-out and will probably require further follow-up through the winter months when leaves are off the trees. And for-what-it's-worth, all the buzz that I'm hearing is from NON-Arkansas states -- not too surprising (given the scarcity of summer AR. searching). No one ever said that documenting rare, endangered, sparse, cavity-dwelling, deep woods, swamp-loving, wary, quick-moving species should be easy... and, lo-and-behold, it isn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple rumors around this summer of Ivory-bill finds. The most detailed rumor/story will supposedly be released within 2 months (although, if real, I suspect, like the original Cornell story, it will break out over the internet ahead of time, though NOT at my site). While very hopeful, some of the specifics out there still sound a tad suspicious/fanciful to me, so as usual it's a waiting game for now (I've been waiting 40+ years, another few months or yrs. is nnnnuthin'). Other rumors afloat are less fleshed-out and will probably require further follow-up through the winter months when leaves are off the trees. And for-what-it's-worth, all the buzz that I'm hearing is from NON-Arkansas states -- not too surprising (given the scarcity of summer AR. searching). No one ever said that documenting rare, endangered, sparse, cavity-dwelling, deep woods, swamp-loving, wary, quick-moving species should be easy... and, lo-and-behold, it isn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
-- 'tis the season --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I've stirred the pot enough for awhile (that was fun)... so will keep it short and simple today:
(...tomorrow, probably a brief blurb about the rumor mill).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I've stirred the pot enough for awhile (that was fun)... so will keep it short and simple today:
"To everything, turn, turn, turn...'nuf said, for the moment.
There is a season, turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose, under heaven"~ Pete Seeger/Ecclesiates (...and hey, appropriately, made into a hit by 'The Byrds')
(...tomorrow, probably a brief blurb about the rumor mill).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, August 06, 2006
-- Why Skeptics Don't Get It --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, it's a tiresome job, but someone's gotta do it -- so for one last time I'll enumerate why skeptics have it wrong:
1. They greatly UNDERestimate the amount of adequate habitat available for Ivory-bills at any given time.
2. They greatly OVERestimate the amount of previous serious searching carried out (hardly any large-scale, organized searching before 2002); and with typical human arrogance place unwarranted faith in the competency and thoroughness of previous searching, when in fact very limited numbers birders have ever actually accessed likely Ivory-bill habitat for any significant length of time.
3. They wholly underestimate the tenaciousness and adaptability of living things in general, and this species in particular.
4. They fail to comprehend the tremendous ease with which winged creatures can both escape detection and seek out new habitat.
5. They fail to realize that with the elimination of hunting of this species in the early 20th century the remaining IBWOs were given plenty of 'breathing room' to stabilize and regenerate their population.
6. They falsely use a pre-conceived and premature notion of extinction to automatically discount future claims of the bird's existence; failing in short, to keep an open, objective mind (as scientists MUST do) regarding future evidence, yet blindly accepting, with no scientific critiquing, past conclusions/generalizations about the species, that lack a solid basis. In short, they fail to realize or acknowledge that it is ALWAYS easier to criticize, or offer alternative explanations for, any controversial viewpoint (such as Ivory-bill existence), than it is to conclusively substantiate the same. Many skeptics have simply never read the Ivory-bill literature either thoroughly or objectively or critically, but formed opinions based merely on what others say.
7. They utterly fail to comprehend the difficulty of getting photographic evidence of such a deep woods creature, falsely assuming any bird this large should be easy to capture on film. Indeed they seem to labor under the false notion that MOST birds in this country actually get seen and identified by birders, when in actuality most individual birds (including large ones) live their entire lives unseen by birders. Only a small percentage of what is out there is ever recorded by humans, let alone by cameras.
8. They consistently OVERestimate the physical similarity between Ivory-bills and Pileateds concluding (almost insultingly) that experienced birders could repeatedly mistake one for the other. And so we are told to blithely accept the skeptics' cursory cerebral armchair analyses, while routinely discounting the direct on-site observations/conclusions of any others.
9. In a day of instant-this and instant-that, they lack the basic patience and persistence required of real science, and wrongly regard 60 years as a significant amount of time in the life of a species. They operate on the assumption that a lack of solid confirmation for a claim is somehow tantamount to refutation of the claim, and that because some claims were clearly cases of mistaken identification, therefore all were.
10. They ignore the 'law of large numbers' -- the more times an occurrence is reported (in this case, Ivory-bill sightings) the greater the likelihood that some of those reports are true. Co-current species to the IBWO like the Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet have been reported little over the same time period supporting the likelihood of their actual extinction, while the IBWO was being reported over and over and over again.
11. In the particular instance of the Arkansas claims they focused far too much time, energy, and thought on a single 4-second piece of video, rather than looking fully, objectively, at the entire range of evidence past and present.
12. And finally, they simply feed off each others' cynicism to reinforce their own preconceptions, rather than realistically assessing the probabilities of each new claim -- they are so deeply entrenched in their own regimented "groupthink," and fanciful notions, assumptions, and circular reasoning they fail to even recognize it. The key difference between myself and the skeptics, however, is not that I know more about Ivory-billed Woodpeckers than they do, but rather that I fully recognize just how little I (we) know about these birds, while skeptics continuously operate on the foolhardy assumption that they know a lot.
The loggers, collectors, and hunters of yesteryear may be forgiven for their actions, simply normal for their time; it will be more difficult to forgive skeptics however for their ruinously persistent failures should those lead to the Ivory-bill's final demise.
13. Oh, and did I forget to mention it, they are stubbornly boneheaded.
OR, ...so it seems to me.
.........................................................................................................................................
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
Hey, it's a tiresome job, but someone's gotta do it -- so for one last time I'll enumerate why skeptics have it wrong:
1. They greatly UNDERestimate the amount of adequate habitat available for Ivory-bills at any given time.
2. They greatly OVERestimate the amount of previous serious searching carried out (hardly any large-scale, organized searching before 2002); and with typical human arrogance place unwarranted faith in the competency and thoroughness of previous searching, when in fact very limited numbers birders have ever actually accessed likely Ivory-bill habitat for any significant length of time.
3. They wholly underestimate the tenaciousness and adaptability of living things in general, and this species in particular.
4. They fail to comprehend the tremendous ease with which winged creatures can both escape detection and seek out new habitat.
5. They fail to realize that with the elimination of hunting of this species in the early 20th century the remaining IBWOs were given plenty of 'breathing room' to stabilize and regenerate their population.
6. They falsely use a pre-conceived and premature notion of extinction to automatically discount future claims of the bird's existence; failing in short, to keep an open, objective mind (as scientists MUST do) regarding future evidence, yet blindly accepting, with no scientific critiquing, past conclusions/generalizations about the species, that lack a solid basis. In short, they fail to realize or acknowledge that it is ALWAYS easier to criticize, or offer alternative explanations for, any controversial viewpoint (such as Ivory-bill existence), than it is to conclusively substantiate the same. Many skeptics have simply never read the Ivory-bill literature either thoroughly or objectively or critically, but formed opinions based merely on what others say.
7. They utterly fail to comprehend the difficulty of getting photographic evidence of such a deep woods creature, falsely assuming any bird this large should be easy to capture on film. Indeed they seem to labor under the false notion that MOST birds in this country actually get seen and identified by birders, when in actuality most individual birds (including large ones) live their entire lives unseen by birders. Only a small percentage of what is out there is ever recorded by humans, let alone by cameras.
8. They consistently OVERestimate the physical similarity between Ivory-bills and Pileateds concluding (almost insultingly) that experienced birders could repeatedly mistake one for the other. And so we are told to blithely accept the skeptics' cursory cerebral armchair analyses, while routinely discounting the direct on-site observations/conclusions of any others.
9. In a day of instant-this and instant-that, they lack the basic patience and persistence required of real science, and wrongly regard 60 years as a significant amount of time in the life of a species. They operate on the assumption that a lack of solid confirmation for a claim is somehow tantamount to refutation of the claim, and that because some claims were clearly cases of mistaken identification, therefore all were.
10. They ignore the 'law of large numbers' -- the more times an occurrence is reported (in this case, Ivory-bill sightings) the greater the likelihood that some of those reports are true. Co-current species to the IBWO like the Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet have been reported little over the same time period supporting the likelihood of their actual extinction, while the IBWO was being reported over and over and over again.
11. In the particular instance of the Arkansas claims they focused far too much time, energy, and thought on a single 4-second piece of video, rather than looking fully, objectively, at the entire range of evidence past and present.
12. And finally, they simply feed off each others' cynicism to reinforce their own preconceptions, rather than realistically assessing the probabilities of each new claim -- they are so deeply entrenched in their own regimented "groupthink," and fanciful notions, assumptions, and circular reasoning they fail to even recognize it. The key difference between myself and the skeptics, however, is not that I know more about Ivory-billed Woodpeckers than they do, but rather that I fully recognize just how little I (we) know about these birds, while skeptics continuously operate on the foolhardy assumption that they know a lot.
The loggers, collectors, and hunters of yesteryear may be forgiven for their actions, simply normal for their time; it will be more difficult to forgive skeptics however for their ruinously persistent failures should those lead to the Ivory-bill's final demise.
13. Oh, and did I forget to mention it, they are stubbornly boneheaded.
OR, ...so it seems to me.
.........................................................................................................................................
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
~ Daniel Boorstein
"Patience is a bitter plant, but its fruit is sweet." ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Saturday, August 05, 2006
-- Just The Beginning --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I've found interesting over the course of the last year is the number of backwoods/swamper types who have come out of the Arkansas' Big Woods area (either on their own, or as part of the Cornell team) to say that the Big Woods is nowhere near as remote or dense or impenetrable as implied early on by Cornell, and that there were far more genuinely inhospitable bottomland/swamp areas elsewhere through the South. Whether Cornell intentionally painted an especially harsh picture of the Big Woods in order to dissuade large numbers of weekend birders from rushing down there, or whether the initial Cornell crew was simply too inexperienced with deep swamp habitat to recognize truly difficult and inaccessible woodland from more mediocre landscape, I don't know. But what is clear by now is that the Big Woods isn't the end-of-the-line of areas needing searching... rather, it is barely a beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I've found interesting over the course of the last year is the number of backwoods/swamper types who have come out of the Arkansas' Big Woods area (either on their own, or as part of the Cornell team) to say that the Big Woods is nowhere near as remote or dense or impenetrable as implied early on by Cornell, and that there were far more genuinely inhospitable bottomland/swamp areas elsewhere through the South. Whether Cornell intentionally painted an especially harsh picture of the Big Woods in order to dissuade large numbers of weekend birders from rushing down there, or whether the initial Cornell crew was simply too inexperienced with deep swamp habitat to recognize truly difficult and inaccessible woodland from more mediocre landscape, I don't know. But what is clear by now is that the Big Woods isn't the end-of-the-line of areas needing searching... rather, it is barely a beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, August 04, 2006
-- Pre-think --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent TV news segments have recounted how 10 years ago inept FBI agents took the easy, convenient route (based on virtually no evidence) of pursuing an innocent Richard Jewell as the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber, rather than undertake the necessary homework to identify and catch Eric Rudolph who would turn out to be the real culprit and survive 7 more years of Federal blundering before finally being captured by a rookie local N.C. police officer. Therein lies a textbook case of false assumptions, narrow thinking, and the subjugation of reason, evidence, and responsibility to feeble presumptions. For lack of a better term, I'll call this "pre-think," when folks use ill-substantiated preconceptions to draw conclusions rather than engage in the legwork necessary to find the truth (kind of like our current Neo-Con leaders do in establishing policy prior to, and unencumbered by, the thought process ; - ) ...Today's Ivory-bill skeptics fall (or saunter sheep-like?) into the same category, narrowly, lazily stuck on notions spoon-fed to us since the 1940s. The claimed 'definitiveness' of James Tanner's study and resultant clamor of 'extinction' are powerfully biasing and presumptive notions if one allows them to be, impeding an objective, open-minded consideration of the full panoply of evidence out there... from the past, the present, and in all likelihood, still to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent TV news segments have recounted how 10 years ago inept FBI agents took the easy, convenient route (based on virtually no evidence) of pursuing an innocent Richard Jewell as the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber, rather than undertake the necessary homework to identify and catch Eric Rudolph who would turn out to be the real culprit and survive 7 more years of Federal blundering before finally being captured by a rookie local N.C. police officer. Therein lies a textbook case of false assumptions, narrow thinking, and the subjugation of reason, evidence, and responsibility to feeble presumptions. For lack of a better term, I'll call this "pre-think," when folks use ill-substantiated preconceptions to draw conclusions rather than engage in the legwork necessary to find the truth (kind of like our current Neo-Con leaders do in establishing policy prior to, and unencumbered by, the thought process ; - ) ...Today's Ivory-bill skeptics fall (or saunter sheep-like?) into the same category, narrowly, lazily stuck on notions spoon-fed to us since the 1940s. The claimed 'definitiveness' of James Tanner's study and resultant clamor of 'extinction' are powerfully biasing and presumptive notions if one allows them to be, impeding an objective, open-minded consideration of the full panoply of evidence out there... from the past, the present, and in all likelihood, still to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 03, 2006
-- More On Habitat --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article out today on the use of laser-based technology to identify more possible Ivory-bill habitat:
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20060803.075025&time=09%2028%20PDT&year=2006&public=0
...I'm bettin' they're still gonna miss some spots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article out today on the use of laser-based technology to identify more possible Ivory-bill habitat:
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20060803.075025&time=09%2028%20PDT&year=2006&public=0
...I'm bettin' they're still gonna miss some spots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Biding Time --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Verne, not a whole Hilluva lot o' hard news to report at the moment, so fer-what-it's-worth jest anutha IBWO article (ya-a-a-wwwn) from last year (May 2005) to peruse 'til things pick up a little, or a lot :
https://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2005/as-editorials-0504-jflemingcol-5e03r1749.htm
...meanwhile, to any searchers trudging through this stifling heat and swelter, may the forest be with you!! ; - )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Verne, not a whole Hilluva lot o' hard news to report at the moment, so fer-what-it's-worth jest anutha IBWO article (ya-a-a-wwwn) from last year (May 2005) to peruse 'til things pick up a little, or a lot :
https://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2005/as-editorials-0504-jflemingcol-5e03r1749.htm
...meanwhile, to any searchers trudging through this stifling heat and swelter, may the forest be with you!! ; - )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
-- THE Man For The Job --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have been noticing lately the increasing number of Brits active on the 'BirdForum' Ivory-bill threads, and also witnessing a greater number of visits to my blog site from British URLs, and it got me to thinking that maybe we need to get all these rank-amateur, young American boyish whippersnappers (Fitzpatrick, Gallagher, Harrison, Jackson, Remsen etc.) off this Ivory-bill case and turn it over to the one man who can undoubtedly find and film these birds within a 60-minute documentary outing: 80-year-old Sir David Attenborough!! Wouldn't that be a fine way to cap his incredible career (which includes BTW bringing 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' to television). Yo David, it's just a thought if you're out there listening and sipping tea somewhere....
On a completely different note, at another blog, I just came across this older post (Nov. 2005) that includes links to several older, interesting but less-frequently-viewed articles on the Ivory-bill:
http://clarkmtnmusings.blogspot.com/2005/11/its-open-birdline-monday-special-focus_21.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have been noticing lately the increasing number of Brits active on the 'BirdForum' Ivory-bill threads, and also witnessing a greater number of visits to my blog site from British URLs, and it got me to thinking that maybe we need to get all these rank-amateur, young American boyish whippersnappers (Fitzpatrick, Gallagher, Harrison, Jackson, Remsen etc.) off this Ivory-bill case and turn it over to the one man who can undoubtedly find and film these birds within a 60-minute documentary outing: 80-year-old Sir David Attenborough!! Wouldn't that be a fine way to cap his incredible career (which includes BTW bringing 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' to television). Yo David, it's just a thought if you're out there listening and sipping tea somewhere....
On a completely different note, at another blog, I just came across this older post (Nov. 2005) that includes links to several older, interesting but less-frequently-viewed articles on the Ivory-bill:
http://clarkmtnmusings.blogspot.com/2005/11/its-open-birdline-monday-special-focus_21.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
-- More Flap-Rate Analysis --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those intrigued by wingbeat data of Pileateds vs. IBWO I'll refer you to this graphic analysis posted by Bill Pulliam:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/07/woodpecker-wingbeats-without-comment.html
I'm somewhat agnostic about wingbeat analysis given the small sample size available and many uncontrolled variables involved, and Bill himself similarly cautions against reaching hard conclusions, but each piece of analysis is worth a look, and as with Cornell's analysis, Bill's graph indicates the flap rate for the Luneau videotaped bird possibly outside the usual range for a Pileated.
(p.s. -- I'm breaking my own self-imposed rule-of-thumb here in even making reference to the Luneau video which has been beaten to death.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those intrigued by wingbeat data of Pileateds vs. IBWO I'll refer you to this graphic analysis posted by Bill Pulliam:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/07/woodpecker-wingbeats-without-comment.html
I'm somewhat agnostic about wingbeat analysis given the small sample size available and many uncontrolled variables involved, and Bill himself similarly cautions against reaching hard conclusions, but each piece of analysis is worth a look, and as with Cornell's analysis, Bill's graph indicates the flap rate for the Luneau videotaped bird possibly outside the usual range for a Pileated.
(p.s. -- I'm breaking my own self-imposed rule-of-thumb here in even making reference to the Luneau video which has been beaten to death.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, July 31, 2006
-- Google Trends --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a cue from John Trapp at his 'Birds Etcetera' blog** I checked "Google Trends" to see what cities were showing the most interest in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (i.e. generated the most Google searches for "Ivory-billed Woodpecker"), and found the results a little disappointing, though not surprising. Not too unexpectedly Little Rock, AR. was BY FAR the city with the most searches for our favorite topic. A little scarily though, second in the rankings was Minneapolis, MN. home of a skeptically-minded blog that shall remain nameless -- or maybe folks there are just trying to get at the truth and away from some of their hometown blather ; - ) The top 10 list for Ivory-bill-interest from Google Trends rounds out as follows:
3. Denver, CO.
4. Wash. DC.
5. Atlanta, GA.
6. Seattle, WA.
7. New York, NY.
8. San Francisco, CA.
9. Chicago, IL.
10. Toronto, Canada
I suppose it's not unusual that the list is dominated by large, northerly metropolitan areas, but still would've been fun to see some of the smaller southern Gulf Coast towns that really ought to have an ongoing interest in this bird show up out of nowhere. How's about it, Naples, Pensacola, Jacksonville, Fla., or Valdosta or Albany, GA., or Mobile or Auburn, Alab., or Pascagoula, Vicksburg, or Natchez, Miss., or Slidell or Baton Rouge, LA., or... or... or... Don't you feel the least bit ashamed being beat out by the likes of Seattle, San Francisco, and that long-time bastion of Ivory-bill lore, Toronto, Canada!!
.............................................
( ** as an aside for those with general birding interests I'll note that John maintains one of the best lists around of other birding blog links on the right side of his blog -- worth a gander.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a cue from John Trapp at his 'Birds Etcetera' blog** I checked "Google Trends" to see what cities were showing the most interest in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (i.e. generated the most Google searches for "Ivory-billed Woodpecker"), and found the results a little disappointing, though not surprising. Not too unexpectedly Little Rock, AR. was BY FAR the city with the most searches for our favorite topic. A little scarily though, second in the rankings was Minneapolis, MN. home of a skeptically-minded blog that shall remain nameless -- or maybe folks there are just trying to get at the truth and away from some of their hometown blather ; - ) The top 10 list for Ivory-bill-interest from Google Trends rounds out as follows:
3. Denver, CO.
4. Wash. DC.
5. Atlanta, GA.
6. Seattle, WA.
7. New York, NY.
8. San Francisco, CA.
9. Chicago, IL.
10. Toronto, Canada
I suppose it's not unusual that the list is dominated by large, northerly metropolitan areas, but still would've been fun to see some of the smaller southern Gulf Coast towns that really ought to have an ongoing interest in this bird show up out of nowhere. How's about it, Naples, Pensacola, Jacksonville, Fla., or Valdosta or Albany, GA., or Mobile or Auburn, Alab., or Pascagoula, Vicksburg, or Natchez, Miss., or Slidell or Baton Rouge, LA., or... or... or... Don't you feel the least bit ashamed being beat out by the likes of Seattle, San Francisco, and that long-time bastion of Ivory-bill lore, Toronto, Canada!!
.............................................
( ** as an aside for those with general birding interests I'll note that John maintains one of the best lists around of other birding blog links on the right side of his blog -- worth a gander.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 30, 2006
-- Fly, Fly Miss American Pie --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Helter skelter in the summer swelter...' Rumors of Ivory-bill reports continue to dribble in from multiple areas even through the hot, steamy summer months, when it helps to be just a tad crazy to even be out there looking. MUCH habitat remains in need of thorough checking -- not as large and extensive in many cases as one would like, more fragmented than would be ideal, but nonetheless potential habitat. The early-on notion that Ivory-bills required virgin forest for survival simply lacks any necessary proof, as if the first thing a bird does upon entering a patch of woods is to ask, "let me see, are you a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-growth tree?" Most of the animals, and all of the other woodpeckers, of the early American woodland adapted as needed when America's virgin forests declined. Adaptation, far more than specialization-to-the-point-of-extinction, represents the history and nature of living things in general. When the Ivory-bill is documented (in multiple locales probably) cries of "miracle," "incredible," "mind-boggling," will go up across the land in many quarters, though there will be nothing unusual about it, no miracles involved, just creatures doing what they have done for millennia, whilst Mankind falsely assumes that he knows and understands all there is of relevance worth knowing and understanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Helter skelter in the summer swelter...' Rumors of Ivory-bill reports continue to dribble in from multiple areas even through the hot, steamy summer months, when it helps to be just a tad crazy to even be out there looking. MUCH habitat remains in need of thorough checking -- not as large and extensive in many cases as one would like, more fragmented than would be ideal, but nonetheless potential habitat. The early-on notion that Ivory-bills required virgin forest for survival simply lacks any necessary proof, as if the first thing a bird does upon entering a patch of woods is to ask, "let me see, are you a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-growth tree?" Most of the animals, and all of the other woodpeckers, of the early American woodland adapted as needed when America's virgin forests declined. Adaptation, far more than specialization-to-the-point-of-extinction, represents the history and nature of living things in general. When the Ivory-bill is documented (in multiple locales probably) cries of "miracle," "incredible," "mind-boggling," will go up across the land in many quarters, though there will be nothing unusual about it, no miracles involved, just creatures doing what they have done for millennia, whilst Mankind falsely assumes that he knows and understands all there is of relevance worth knowing and understanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, July 28, 2006
-- Looking Back --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the turn of the 20th century A.T. Wayne was one of the most active hunters/dealers of bird specimens in America and his prized item-for-sale was the Ivory-billed Woodpecker at a whopping $22 (compared to $3.50 for a Carolina Paroquet and $2.50 for Bachman's Warbler!). And among his chief customers was William Brewster who eventually ended up with 61 Ivory-bills in his collection.
Thankfully, times do change... just not always soon enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the turn of the 20th century A.T. Wayne was one of the most active hunters/dealers of bird specimens in America and his prized item-for-sale was the Ivory-billed Woodpecker at a whopping $22 (compared to $3.50 for a Carolina Paroquet and $2.50 for Bachman's Warbler!). And among his chief customers was William Brewster who eventually ended up with 61 Ivory-bills in his collection.
Thankfully, times do change... just not always soon enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 27, 2006
-- Looking Ahead --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those thinking of searching on their own this winter it might be a good time to review the information/thoughts posted awhile back by Bill Pulliam and Bob Russell :
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/03/potential-ivory-billed-woodpecker.html
http://www.birdingamerica.com/toptenibwpsites.htm
I'll just add for any mavericks out there that parts of southern Georgia, southern Alabama, and western Tennessee (maybe even southern Illinois, Missouri and western Kentucky) which are relatively neglected by searchers just might nonetheless be of interest for varying reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those thinking of searching on their own this winter it might be a good time to review the information/thoughts posted awhile back by Bill Pulliam and Bob Russell :
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/03/potential-ivory-billed-woodpecker.html
http://www.birdingamerica.com/toptenibwpsites.htm
I'll just add for any mavericks out there that parts of southern Georgia, southern Alabama, and western Tennessee (maybe even southern Illinois, Missouri and western Kentucky) which are relatively neglected by searchers just might nonetheless be of interest for varying reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
-- A Bit o' Science and A Bit o' Humor --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a relatively recent online paper (pdf) in which the authors report evidence from the mitochondrial DNA of both the N. American and Cuban Ivory-bill to measure their relationship to one another, as well as to other Campephilus woodpeckers:
http://www.hmnh.harvard.edu/ivorybilled.pdf
--- a bit technical, but among other things they do make the point that they have established a "DNA barcoding resource" which can be used in identifying the source of future (genetic) material that might require testing.
...and now for something totally different, have to give credit to "DocMartin" over at BirdForum for giving me a chuckle on Tue. with the following:
................................................
- Knock knock
- Who's there?
- Ivor
- Ivor who?
- Ivory-billed Woodpecker
- Can you prove that?
- No I kent
...............................................
...okay, so maybe I'm an easy audience, or just not getting enough sleep lately!!
anyway, for now, back to sipping some (cheap) red wine, munching M&Ms, and looking over some maps of the southeast U.S., while doing a little arithmetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a relatively recent online paper (pdf) in which the authors report evidence from the mitochondrial DNA of both the N. American and Cuban Ivory-bill to measure their relationship to one another, as well as to other Campephilus woodpeckers:
http://www.hmnh.harvard.edu/ivorybilled.pdf
--- a bit technical, but among other things they do make the point that they have established a "DNA barcoding resource" which can be used in identifying the source of future (genetic) material that might require testing.
...and now for something totally different, have to give credit to "DocMartin" over at BirdForum for giving me a chuckle on Tue. with the following:
................................................
- Knock knock
- Who's there?
- Ivor
- Ivor who?
- Ivory-billed Woodpecker
- Can you prove that?
- No I kent
...............................................
...okay, so maybe I'm an easy audience, or just not getting enough sleep lately!!
anyway, for now, back to sipping some (cheap) red wine, munching M&Ms, and looking over some maps of the southeast U.S., while doing a little arithmetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
-- Odds/Ends --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't cover the decision of a judge last week to halt a multi-million $$$ irrigation project in Arkansas that might impinge on Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat, because it was a "temporary" decision and I knew it would simply promote controversy. I do find it interesting though that the numerous vocal critics of the decision seem very quick to assume that they are privy to all the evidence that the judge had at his disposal. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Tomorrow will be the 33-year anniversary since a father and son, both bird-banders familiar with Campephilus woodpeckers in Argentina, had a credible sighting (and hearing encounter) of an Ivory-bill along the Ogeechee River, about 25 mi. west of Savannah, Ga.; but what the hey, that wuz 33 yurs ago, probly dun't mean a durn thing these here days, huhh Verne.
...speaking of skeptics, how many skeptics does it take to screw in a light bulb? Apparently 2; one to screw the bulb in and one to videotape the whole affair to prove that the first guy did what he claims he did. -- Actually, kinda wondering just how many (don't send in your answers, it's a rhetorical question) self-proclaimed skeptics will even be left standing (in quicksand) by this time next year? ...with them in mind, lastly, some light verse from poet Robert Service:
"They have cradled you in custom.
They have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase;
You're a credit to their teaching;
But can't you hear the Wild? -- it's calling you.
Let us probe the silent places,
Let us seek what luck betides us;
Let us journey to a lonely land I know.
There's a whisper on the night wind,
There's a star agleam to guide us,
And the Wild is calling, calling... let us go."
-- Ciao.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't cover the decision of a judge last week to halt a multi-million $$$ irrigation project in Arkansas that might impinge on Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat, because it was a "temporary" decision and I knew it would simply promote controversy. I do find it interesting though that the numerous vocal critics of the decision seem very quick to assume that they are privy to all the evidence that the judge had at his disposal. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Tomorrow will be the 33-year anniversary since a father and son, both bird-banders familiar with Campephilus woodpeckers in Argentina, had a credible sighting (and hearing encounter) of an Ivory-bill along the Ogeechee River, about 25 mi. west of Savannah, Ga.; but what the hey, that wuz 33 yurs ago, probly dun't mean a durn thing these here days, huhh Verne.
...speaking of skeptics, how many skeptics does it take to screw in a light bulb? Apparently 2; one to screw the bulb in and one to videotape the whole affair to prove that the first guy did what he claims he did. -- Actually, kinda wondering just how many (don't send in your answers, it's a rhetorical question) self-proclaimed skeptics will even be left standing (in quicksand) by this time next year? ...with them in mind, lastly, some light verse from poet Robert Service:
"They have cradled you in custom.
They have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase;
You're a credit to their teaching;
But can't you hear the Wild? -- it's calling you.
Let us probe the silent places,
Let us seek what luck betides us;
Let us journey to a lonely land I know.
There's a whisper on the night wind,
There's a star agleam to guide us,
And the Wild is calling, calling... let us go."
-- Ciao.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)