--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have received a tiny trickle of 3 email responses to my "plea" for further professional opinions on mystery bird #3, and will post at more length sometime tomorrow on one particular respondent. Am still interested in hearing from others as well.
I don't think any really new arguments (that aren't buried somewhere in the comments here) are put forth, I'll just briefly say that one European scientist finds IBWO at least as plausible as the other candidates based on all the same arguments that have been stated here; an Alaska Fish and Game official argues for normal Pileated, and his arguments are more elaborately echoed by the third individual who wishes to remain anonymous but who's judgment I VERY MUCH trust and respect, and who fairly unhesitatingly sees a normal Pileated. I will summarize this person's opinion more fully tomorrow (with quotes), while also awaiting any further input that might come in.
Many (including myself) have difficulty perceiving the normal PIWO scenario and this individual too is not saying much more than has already been offered (and now buried) in comments along the way from a few people who have put forth that notion, BUT coming from this person it means much more to me than hearing it from "Anonymous" or some "John Smith" who I don't know. The crux of course (though there are multiple issues) is how one perceives the white "shield" --- as part of the bird, or, even in Bill's demo, an artifactual component from the background sky. We won't settle it here. I can only say this person's perspective means a great deal to me, just as many were swayed by David Sibley's view of the Luneau video (doesn't mean either of them are right, but they must be taken seriously).
Truly, this is one of those classic wonderful (textbook) examples of how people can view the same given flat image so utterly differently.
NOTE: I have removed the link to a special example Pileated picture that was previously included here, because latest indication is that it was NOT an illusory-appearing natural photo, but in fact simply a human-doctored photo. [ this was a side piece of entertainment having no connection to the Erdy team evidence ].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
-- A Plea --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority (not all) of us here are essentially rank amateurs in this endeavor. Doubt that much will come of this, but I'll make a plea anyway: I'd genuinely like to see some of the more recognizable names out there weigh in with their most objective view of the #3 mystery bird: Louis Bevier, Martin Collinson, Pete Dunne, David Sibley, Van Remsen, Noel Snyder, Kenn Kaufman, Clay Sutton, a few names (of many possible) that come to mind --- what are the best choices for the bird's likely ID as you view it? I know some individuals may feel restrained by confidentiality agreements from what they can say openly. Others with major credentials, but maybe less name recognition, should also feel free to respond (and state those credentials). Some individuals may not view "blogs" as an appropriate outlet for expressing such viewpoints, but it truly would be helpful/appreciated, and hey, you'll have a very interested captive audience. (contact me via a means, email or comments section, that allows verification of identity; i.e., I don't wish to suddenly receive 10 comments all signed "David Sibley" :-))
The sole desire here is to see as many different intelligent viewpoints put out in the open as possible, for study by all... open-access information is a wonderful thing!
p.s. -- I did not include Jerry Jackson above, only because I have already contacted him (he is always remarkably generous with his time and thoughts) and he felt limited in what he could say publicly, so his brief response does not add a lot to the discussion at this moment. Some of the people above I could also individually contact, but am hoping this message will find its way to them.
And for now, I'll just keep re-posting these two pertinent links:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority (not all) of us here are essentially rank amateurs in this endeavor. Doubt that much will come of this, but I'll make a plea anyway: I'd genuinely like to see some of the more recognizable names out there weigh in with their most objective view of the #3 mystery bird: Louis Bevier, Martin Collinson, Pete Dunne, David Sibley, Van Remsen, Noel Snyder, Kenn Kaufman, Clay Sutton, a few names (of many possible) that come to mind --- what are the best choices for the bird's likely ID as you view it? I know some individuals may feel restrained by confidentiality agreements from what they can say openly. Others with major credentials, but maybe less name recognition, should also feel free to respond (and state those credentials). Some individuals may not view "blogs" as an appropriate outlet for expressing such viewpoints, but it truly would be helpful/appreciated, and hey, you'll have a very interested captive audience. (contact me via a means, email or comments section, that allows verification of identity; i.e., I don't wish to suddenly receive 10 comments all signed "David Sibley" :-))
The sole desire here is to see as many different intelligent viewpoints put out in the open as possible, for study by all... open-access information is a wonderful thing!
p.s. -- I did not include Jerry Jackson above, only because I have already contacted him (he is always remarkably generous with his time and thoughts) and he felt limited in what he could say publicly, so his brief response does not add a lot to the discussion at this moment. Some of the people above I could also individually contact, but am hoping this message will find its way to them.
And for now, I'll just keep re-posting these two pertinent links:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Stay Tuned --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to change the subject, but new brief video overview of the Auburn search in north Florida is given here. Again, they have switched to vibration-triggered automatic cameras rather than the Reconyx-type cameras Erdy's team (and others) employed, but no significant news in the video.
And getting back to the subject... in one of those instances of being thrilled to be wrong (hey, I said my first impression/analysis was tentative), after further enlargement and manipulation of the Sheridan color photo, and in conjunction with persistent reasoning by Bill P. and others, I'm happy to now conclude that the bird in question is hugely unlikely to be a Red-headed Woodpecker (hopefully, accurate size measurements will easily confirm that), leaving us with what seem to be only two highly improbabilistic possibilities, leucistic Pileated (with mimicking white shield) or Ivory-billed Woodpecker. (...Is that Twilight Zone music I hear playing in the background?)
One source indicates to me that US Fish and Wildlife may release a summary of the reviewers' findings/judgments "soon" (whatever that means in Gov't. terms ;-), and since my vague understanding (not certain) is that Pileated may have been the majority opinion of reviewers, I'm more curious than ever to see exactly how those judgments are constructed.
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com
Now, pan to Rod Serling, stage left....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to change the subject, but new brief video overview of the Auburn search in north Florida is given here. Again, they have switched to vibration-triggered automatic cameras rather than the Reconyx-type cameras Erdy's team (and others) employed, but no significant news in the video.
And getting back to the subject... in one of those instances of being thrilled to be wrong (hey, I said my first impression/analysis was tentative), after further enlargement and manipulation of the Sheridan color photo, and in conjunction with persistent reasoning by Bill P. and others, I'm happy to now conclude that the bird in question is hugely unlikely to be a Red-headed Woodpecker (hopefully, accurate size measurements will easily confirm that), leaving us with what seem to be only two highly improbabilistic possibilities, leucistic Pileated (with mimicking white shield) or Ivory-billed Woodpecker. (...Is that Twilight Zone music I hear playing in the background?)
One source indicates to me that US Fish and Wildlife may release a summary of the reviewers' findings/judgments "soon" (whatever that means in Gov't. terms ;-), and since my vague understanding (not certain) is that Pileated may have been the majority opinion of reviewers, I'm more curious than ever to see exactly how those judgments are constructed.
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com
Now, pan to Rod Serling, stage left....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
-- March Madness, Indeed --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeeeew... Will start a new post just so people have a blank slate on which to continue comments, as they're getting confusingly long on prior post (anyone who has issues specifically with Bill P.'s stance is certainly free to carry those arguments over to his blog site if you wish for more direct back-and-forth with him, or you're welcome to stay here as you choose).
Just some housekeeping for now:
1. Here again are the important links so you don't have to keep shifting down below:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html
2. THANKS everyone for largely staying on topic and relatively civil (as these discussions go!). Obviously the subject stirs strong emotions on both sides and everyone needs to come here with a fairly thick skin for the snarkiness, terseness, redundancy, etc. that often ensues, but it's been a largely worthwhile discussion.
3. Even though Bill and I don't agree on some things here, I want to thank him for taking so much time to step in not only to defend his view, but to respond to various issues raised, and hopefully everyone realizes he's been dealing with this evidence set much longer than most of us. I'm trying to largely stay out of the discussion and let other people make the points I would want to make; so thanks to all who do that.
4. The size measurements clearly could quickly alter some arguments here. For now, unlike Bill, I continue to believe Red-headed Woodpecker IS tenable (I also believe leucistic PIWO is tenable... and IBWO possible as well), but may not be worth going through all the point-by-point arguments, until those size measurements are in.
Lest anyone be too swayed by my personal opinion though, let me say that I've viewed a lot of mystery bird quizzes in the past and probably been right well UNDER 50% of the time --- so even though I trust my instincts on this one, there's no legitimate reason for anyone else to!!!
5. I'd very much like to see the opinions of the various (~20) reviewers of these pics released in some venue, but that may not happen. There would be great benefit to the rest of us in seeing what those who have spent the most time with the material (besides Bill) have to say.
6. There's some new traffic here daily (surprise, surprise)... hate doing this but if possible I'd request newbies to read through the comments after previous post, just so you're not tempted to say something that has already been voiced 5 times before.
Carry on....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeeeew... Will start a new post just so people have a blank slate on which to continue comments, as they're getting confusingly long on prior post (anyone who has issues specifically with Bill P.'s stance is certainly free to carry those arguments over to his blog site if you wish for more direct back-and-forth with him, or you're welcome to stay here as you choose).
Just some housekeeping for now:
1. Here again are the important links so you don't have to keep shifting down below:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html
2. THANKS everyone for largely staying on topic and relatively civil (as these discussions go!). Obviously the subject stirs strong emotions on both sides and everyone needs to come here with a fairly thick skin for the snarkiness, terseness, redundancy, etc. that often ensues, but it's been a largely worthwhile discussion.
3. Even though Bill and I don't agree on some things here, I want to thank him for taking so much time to step in not only to defend his view, but to respond to various issues raised, and hopefully everyone realizes he's been dealing with this evidence set much longer than most of us. I'm trying to largely stay out of the discussion and let other people make the points I would want to make; so thanks to all who do that.
4. The size measurements clearly could quickly alter some arguments here. For now, unlike Bill, I continue to believe Red-headed Woodpecker IS tenable (I also believe leucistic PIWO is tenable... and IBWO possible as well), but may not be worth going through all the point-by-point arguments, until those size measurements are in.
Lest anyone be too swayed by my personal opinion though, let me say that I've viewed a lot of mystery bird quizzes in the past and probably been right well UNDER 50% of the time --- so even though I trust my instincts on this one, there's no legitimate reason for anyone else to!!!
5. I'd very much like to see the opinions of the various (~20) reviewers of these pics released in some venue, but that may not happen. There would be great benefit to the rest of us in seeing what those who have spent the most time with the material (besides Bill) have to say.
6. There's some new traffic here daily (surprise, surprise)... hate doing this but if possible I'd request newbies to read through the comments after previous post, just so you're not tempted to say something that has already been voiced 5 times before.
Carry on....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 09, 2009
-- News, Addendum, P.S. --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker photos incoming... :
Everyone will want to visit the new website from Gary Erdy and Steve Sheridan for recently-released pictures (from 2007) of possible Ivory-bills in a location not as yet publicly disclosed:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
Bill Pulliam's current take (as one of the outside reviewers) on this evidence below (bottomline, he leans toward identification of mystery bird #3 as IBWO, and be sure to read his full analysis):
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html
The proponents here (Erdy/Sheridan) seem to be taking a judiciously cautious, but optimistic, approach to their findings and seeking out further opinion and analysis. Many individuals have already extensively reviewed the material presented (and more) and offered various opinions which I'm hoping will be made public at some point. The enlarged color picture of "mystery bird #3" (actually captured on film by accident while focused on another bird) will undoubtedly draw the most comment; the black-and-white Reconyx images are much less convincing, but are interesting, worth studying, and further indicate the difficulty of obtaining good photographic results from automatic equipment under such conditions. (May be worth mentioning that IBWO-like sound has also been recorded for the area in question, though not included as part of website.)
Once again the evidence is NON-definitive (is that the high-pitched sound of skeptics tearing out their last few hair follicles that I hear in the background...), but maybe on par with the Luneau video, or some may think increments better, or, worse... tantalizing and worth pursuing, while also maddeningly inconclusive. I suspect the cyberspace debate over this material will be INTENSE, lengthy... and likely unfortunately, unresolvable (except by additional material). ...But for now, a nice adrenalin rush that may yet lead to something more solid.
For a variety of reasons I won't express an opinion on the material just yet --- though I have a 'first impression,' it is not a firm opinion and could be swayed by further disclosures. A 'vetting' process of sorts will likely ensue across the internet (there are certain individuals I'm particularly interested in hearing from). Given more time, details, and information I may voice a more definite opinion later. For now I simply encourage readers to view the evidence carefully and cautiously. Otherwise...... have at it!!
ADDENDUM:
I wasn't planning to jump in this quickly, but since some commenters are already echoing my initial thoughts, I'll go ahead with my FIRST gut impression/analysis:
First, I think there COULD be 1 or more IBWOs in these pics; knowing that there have been sighting and sound claims for the general area helps make that POSSIBLE. So I DO NOT DISCOUNT that as a possibility. The images do not appear to match ANY obvious candidate very precisely. What follows then is just an initial interpretation subject to change:
I believe "mystery bird #3" (as some others have indicated) is most likely a Red-headed Woodpecker; putting the shape/proportions aside (because they are easily distorted), the general color pattern matches RHWO better than alternative candidates (in my view). MOREOVER, I believe the bird may have its HEAD TURNED 180 degrees PREENING its back or wing, such that what people are interpreting as a neck stripe may actually be its beak and a tiny piece of white breast showing through separated (preened) feathers. The head-turning would also help explain the admittedly distorted look the bird exhibits for a RHWO. Clearly, other arguments can be made, but I don't believe RHWO can be easily ruled out.
I don't make out much at all from the last Reconyx image (bird on trunk way left); the flying bird image is intriguing (I'd like to hear further analysis), but I suspect also to be a RHWO, and the "blurry head" bird, while also intriguing, lacks enough detail to shout out IBWO more than the alternatives.
I want to stress that these are very tentative conclusions on my part, but in what I have heard/read so far they are tending to be reinforced, more than shaken. But I also want to add that even if ALL these particular images were shown to be NON-IBWOs, it does not eliminate the possibility of Ivory-bills residing in the area under study.
P.S.: it occurs to me that these pictures, at least the color photo, might be suitable (I would think) for discussion on the "Frontiers of Identification" birding listserv (which often has excellent insights), but I'm not a member over there. Surely though some reader here is a member and could direct that group to Gary's page for discussion at their listserv (they actually had a "woodpecker identification" thread going on recently, but it had nothing to do with Gary's website). ...Just a thought (unless it is inappropriate there for some reason? --- possibly, the Frontier group just doesn't touch IBWO stuff anymore???)
P.P.S.: from comments I see on the Web and in email it's clearer to me how ambiguous this bird (color photo) is to viewers. It can be viewed as angled leftward, angled rightward, or facing directly ahead; the head can be viewed in a wide variety of positions; not even absolutely certain what is bird and what is not part of the bird (I'm reasonably convinced by Bill's demo that the shield is part of the bird, but some other subtle elements less sure). That's why I like hearing from as many different people viewing on as many different screens as possible. Obviously, there is no exact species match for the bird as it appears; we can only look for a "best" match and then explain away the anomalies by distortion and special posturing. Accurate size measurements would certainly help, though those very measurements may be endlessly debated as well. And beyond all this there are probably many other tangential questions yet to be clarified.
...Have to go now, and let my head explode ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker photos incoming... :
Everyone will want to visit the new website from Gary Erdy and Steve Sheridan for recently-released pictures (from 2007) of possible Ivory-bills in a location not as yet publicly disclosed:
http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
Bill Pulliam's current take (as one of the outside reviewers) on this evidence below (bottomline, he leans toward identification of mystery bird #3 as IBWO, and be sure to read his full analysis):
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html
The proponents here (Erdy/Sheridan) seem to be taking a judiciously cautious, but optimistic, approach to their findings and seeking out further opinion and analysis. Many individuals have already extensively reviewed the material presented (and more) and offered various opinions which I'm hoping will be made public at some point. The enlarged color picture of "mystery bird #3" (actually captured on film by accident while focused on another bird) will undoubtedly draw the most comment; the black-and-white Reconyx images are much less convincing, but are interesting, worth studying, and further indicate the difficulty of obtaining good photographic results from automatic equipment under such conditions. (May be worth mentioning that IBWO-like sound has also been recorded for the area in question, though not included as part of website.)
Once again the evidence is NON-definitive (is that the high-pitched sound of skeptics tearing out their last few hair follicles that I hear in the background...), but maybe on par with the Luneau video, or some may think increments better, or, worse... tantalizing and worth pursuing, while also maddeningly inconclusive. I suspect the cyberspace debate over this material will be INTENSE, lengthy... and likely unfortunately, unresolvable (except by additional material). ...But for now, a nice adrenalin rush that may yet lead to something more solid.
For a variety of reasons I won't express an opinion on the material just yet --- though I have a 'first impression,' it is not a firm opinion and could be swayed by further disclosures. A 'vetting' process of sorts will likely ensue across the internet (there are certain individuals I'm particularly interested in hearing from). Given more time, details, and information I may voice a more definite opinion later. For now I simply encourage readers to view the evidence carefully and cautiously. Otherwise...... have at it!!
ADDENDUM:
I wasn't planning to jump in this quickly, but since some commenters are already echoing my initial thoughts, I'll go ahead with my FIRST gut impression/analysis:
First, I think there COULD be 1 or more IBWOs in these pics; knowing that there have been sighting and sound claims for the general area helps make that POSSIBLE. So I DO NOT DISCOUNT that as a possibility. The images do not appear to match ANY obvious candidate very precisely. What follows then is just an initial interpretation subject to change:
I believe "mystery bird #3" (as some others have indicated) is most likely a Red-headed Woodpecker; putting the shape/proportions aside (because they are easily distorted), the general color pattern matches RHWO better than alternative candidates (in my view). MOREOVER, I believe the bird may have its HEAD TURNED 180 degrees PREENING its back or wing, such that what people are interpreting as a neck stripe may actually be its beak and a tiny piece of white breast showing through separated (preened) feathers. The head-turning would also help explain the admittedly distorted look the bird exhibits for a RHWO. Clearly, other arguments can be made, but I don't believe RHWO can be easily ruled out.
I don't make out much at all from the last Reconyx image (bird on trunk way left); the flying bird image is intriguing (I'd like to hear further analysis), but I suspect also to be a RHWO, and the "blurry head" bird, while also intriguing, lacks enough detail to shout out IBWO more than the alternatives.
I want to stress that these are very tentative conclusions on my part, but in what I have heard/read so far they are tending to be reinforced, more than shaken. But I also want to add that even if ALL these particular images were shown to be NON-IBWOs, it does not eliminate the possibility of Ivory-bills residing in the area under study.
P.S.: it occurs to me that these pictures, at least the color photo, might be suitable (I would think) for discussion on the "Frontiers of Identification" birding listserv (which often has excellent insights), but I'm not a member over there. Surely though some reader here is a member and could direct that group to Gary's page for discussion at their listserv (they actually had a "woodpecker identification" thread going on recently, but it had nothing to do with Gary's website). ...Just a thought (unless it is inappropriate there for some reason? --- possibly, the Frontier group just doesn't touch IBWO stuff anymore???)
P.P.S.: from comments I see on the Web and in email it's clearer to me how ambiguous this bird (color photo) is to viewers. It can be viewed as angled leftward, angled rightward, or facing directly ahead; the head can be viewed in a wide variety of positions; not even absolutely certain what is bird and what is not part of the bird (I'm reasonably convinced by Bill's demo that the shield is part of the bird, but some other subtle elements less sure). That's why I like hearing from as many different people viewing on as many different screens as possible. Obviously, there is no exact species match for the bird as it appears; we can only look for a "best" match and then explain away the anomalies by distortion and special posturing. Accurate size measurements would certainly help, though those very measurements may be endlessly debated as well. And beyond all this there are probably many other tangential questions yet to be clarified.
...Have to go now, and let my head explode ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, March 08, 2009
-- 'Ghost Bird' Panel Update --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" blogs briefly about the "Ghost Bird" discussion panel in San Diego this weekend here. The most interesting note to me is that Jerry Jackson apparently joined the panel as a last minute addition. Cornell, BTW, chose not to participate (in the film). Birdchick says she'll have more to tell later about the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" blogs briefly about the "Ghost Bird" discussion panel in San Diego this weekend here. The most interesting note to me is that Jerry Jackson apparently joined the panel as a last minute addition. Cornell, BTW, chose not to participate (in the film). Birdchick says she'll have more to tell later about the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 06, 2009
-- Gulls Just Wanna Have Fun --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic, but with the weekend and warmer weather approaching, too good not to pass along:
http://jet-point.com/2009/02/24/birds-stealing-ice-cream/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic, but with the weekend and warmer weather approaching, too good not to pass along:
http://jet-point.com/2009/02/24/birds-stealing-ice-cream/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
-- Florida This and That --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a poster over at IBWO Researchers' Forum some description of one of the areas in north Florida's Appalachicola region for prospective searchers:
http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4817&postcount=184
From Cornell, pics posted from south Florida by the Mobile Search Team below... nice pics, no IBWOs.
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/photos/0809Florida/view
No accompanying written report, but the team should be close to wrapping things up in Florida and possibly headed to South Carolina next???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a poster over at IBWO Researchers' Forum some description of one of the areas in north Florida's Appalachicola region for prospective searchers:
http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4817&postcount=184
From Cornell, pics posted from south Florida by the Mobile Search Team below... nice pics, no IBWOs.
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/photos/0809Florida/view
No accompanying written report, but the team should be close to wrapping things up in Florida and possibly headed to South Carolina next???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 02, 2009
-- Upcoming --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" reports that she will be part of a panel discussion later this week with filmmaker Scott Crocker and David Sibley following a sneak preview screening of Crocker's documentary release, "Ghost Bird" at the San Diego Bird Festival (Mar. 5-8).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" reports that she will be part of a panel discussion later this week with filmmaker Scott Crocker and David Sibley following a sneak preview screening of Crocker's documentary release, "Ghost Bird" at the San Diego Bird Festival (Mar. 5-8).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Stepping Lightly --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel like I walk a tightrope a bit when I post these days. From emails I get it's clear that many people either think I'm too pessimistic, or think I'm being cryptic and know a major piece of news as yet unreleased. The truth is in-between; I'm optimistic that some IBWOs persist, pessimistic that conclusive (to everyone) evidence will arise this season... and even more pessimistic that even if it did, there's much chance of saving the species (though the chance at salvaging some fantastic habitat remains a strong impetus). Again, NONE of the things I'm aware of publicly/privately seem (to me) any more compelling than what has come before. While there's always a chance of some well-kept secret that could alter everything, recent history consistently suggests that a paucity of news from official sources usually reflects a paucity of information worth telling, NOT some conspiracy of silence (unreleased news usually being 'more-of-the-same,' and not 'game-changing').
Skeptics have won the immediate battle... verbal claims, pictures of cavities, foraging sign, intriguing habitat, recorded sounds, fuzzy video analysis, are all of interest and must be compiled/analyzed, but they simply won't be enough. Even DNA or a sighting and accompanying drawing by David Sibley could be debated. For good or for ill, critics have set the bar that establishes clear, indisputable photography/video as the required standard of evidence in this case; for a sparse, quick-moving bird of thick forest, it is a high bar. And if that standard is ever achieved, those in a position to do so will need to thoroughly analyze what worked and what didn't, to try and insure that we never again require this amount of time to attain that standard in any future analogous situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel like I walk a tightrope a bit when I post these days. From emails I get it's clear that many people either think I'm too pessimistic, or think I'm being cryptic and know a major piece of news as yet unreleased. The truth is in-between; I'm optimistic that some IBWOs persist, pessimistic that conclusive (to everyone) evidence will arise this season... and even more pessimistic that even if it did, there's much chance of saving the species (though the chance at salvaging some fantastic habitat remains a strong impetus). Again, NONE of the things I'm aware of publicly/privately seem (to me) any more compelling than what has come before. While there's always a chance of some well-kept secret that could alter everything, recent history consistently suggests that a paucity of news from official sources usually reflects a paucity of information worth telling, NOT some conspiracy of silence (unreleased news usually being 'more-of-the-same,' and not 'game-changing').
Skeptics have won the immediate battle... verbal claims, pictures of cavities, foraging sign, intriguing habitat, recorded sounds, fuzzy video analysis, are all of interest and must be compiled/analyzed, but they simply won't be enough. Even DNA or a sighting and accompanying drawing by David Sibley could be debated. For good or for ill, critics have set the bar that establishes clear, indisputable photography/video as the required standard of evidence in this case; for a sparse, quick-moving bird of thick forest, it is a high bar. And if that standard is ever achieved, those in a position to do so will need to thoroughly analyze what worked and what didn't, to try and insure that we never again require this amount of time to attain that standard in any future analogous situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 28, 2009
-- Birding Comedy Relief --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for some weekend comic-relief, if you haven't already viewed this piece from first-time birder Conan O'Brien:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for some weekend comic-relief, if you haven't already viewed this piece from first-time birder Conan O'Brien:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 27, 2009
-- True Believers --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog peaked at 700+ readers/day for a couple weeks back following the original Auburn Choctawhatchee announcement. Ever since then it gradually but steadily declined until stabilizing around 100+ unique hits per day, where it has remained for quite some time now. It's not the exact same folks every day since some readers only check in every few days or even once a week. Maybe 130 people from around the globe read the blog on some sort of regular basis out of millions of active birders worldwide; i.e. a very tiny percentage of the potential audience.
I suspect many of those 130-or-so folks are 'agnostics' who still aren't sure what to conclude about the IBWO, and an even larger number are likely full-fledged skeptics just checking in to keep up with what 'foolishness' is recited here. In short, I'd guess less than 100 folks check here routinely and loyally who would be comfortable with the label "true believer" (or even leaning in that direction). Again, out of millions of birders, a few score of them willing to unabashedly believe in the Ivory-bill's persistence; too few people to have much impact, as has always been the case through the Ivory-bill's history.
Early on I didn't much care for the term "true believer" with its implication of believing blindly, foolishly, or unscientifically, especially since in most areas of science I'd probably be classified as excessively skeptical; but over time, in this narrow IBWO arena, I've grown comfortable with the 'true believer' handle, because every time I re-read the data and history of this species... the full panoply of it, not just some myopic portion... my conviction is renewed that the probability for the Ivory-bill's existence exceeds the probability for its extinction (and I can only approach science in terms of probabilities).
So I'm content to see this story through to the end (whenever and however that comes about), and happy to be part of a narrow 100 or fewer individuals who may eventually feel richly rewarded... or, be robustly ridiculed... for having been, when all around them were capitulating to a tempting party line..."true believers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog peaked at 700+ readers/day for a couple weeks back following the original Auburn Choctawhatchee announcement. Ever since then it gradually but steadily declined until stabilizing around 100+ unique hits per day, where it has remained for quite some time now. It's not the exact same folks every day since some readers only check in every few days or even once a week. Maybe 130 people from around the globe read the blog on some sort of regular basis out of millions of active birders worldwide; i.e. a very tiny percentage of the potential audience.
I suspect many of those 130-or-so folks are 'agnostics' who still aren't sure what to conclude about the IBWO, and an even larger number are likely full-fledged skeptics just checking in to keep up with what 'foolishness' is recited here. In short, I'd guess less than 100 folks check here routinely and loyally who would be comfortable with the label "true believer" (or even leaning in that direction). Again, out of millions of birders, a few score of them willing to unabashedly believe in the Ivory-bill's persistence; too few people to have much impact, as has always been the case through the Ivory-bill's history.
Early on I didn't much care for the term "true believer" with its implication of believing blindly, foolishly, or unscientifically, especially since in most areas of science I'd probably be classified as excessively skeptical; but over time, in this narrow IBWO arena, I've grown comfortable with the 'true believer' handle, because every time I re-read the data and history of this species... the full panoply of it, not just some myopic portion... my conviction is renewed that the probability for the Ivory-bill's existence exceeds the probability for its extinction (and I can only approach science in terms of probabilities).
So I'm content to see this story through to the end (whenever and however that comes about), and happy to be part of a narrow 100 or fewer individuals who may eventually feel richly rewarded... or, be robustly ridiculed... for having been, when all around them were capitulating to a tempting party line..."true believers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 26, 2009
-- "a drop in the bucket" --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a $50,000 reward was offered in Arkansas for photographic evidence of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that led researchers to a live bird, it was not entirely clear if that reward applied only to the state of Arkansas or to any state wherein the species was documented (which certainly made more sense). This article in a South Carolina paper implies the latter is indeed the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a $50,000 reward was offered in Arkansas for photographic evidence of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker that led researchers to a live bird, it was not entirely clear if that reward applied only to the state of Arkansas or to any state wherein the species was documented (which certainly made more sense). This article in a South Carolina paper implies the latter is indeed the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
-- Of Birds and Basketball --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An occasional sighting claim here, an auditory encounter there, and the usual paucity of updates from Cornell or the USFW 8-[ ... This search season is proceeding much like the previous three. With even fewer searchers in the field, fewer acres being covered, and fewer remote cameras in operation, it's difficult to imagine that the next two months will pull off what the last three years have failed at... indisputable photographic or video evidence for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (though several states are still involved and one would like to believe that the search is a bit more honed and focused than before). We await a 'buzzer-beater.'
Several key skeptics of the past seem to have dropped from the radar at the very time one might expect them to be taking parting shots; their silence is deafening, or is it all just too boring and tiresome for them by now; the essential arguments in this debate, afterall, have changed little in the last 60 years, let alone the last three.
Should the season end with no more to show than prior search years, it will be left to the few independent searchers out there, with limited time and funds, to continue the quest, including Bobby Harrison's Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation --- if you wish to receive their email newsletter send them an email requesting such at: ivorybillwp@aol.com
2+ months to go... including what U.S. basketball fans know all-too-well as March Madness. . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An occasional sighting claim here, an auditory encounter there, and the usual paucity of updates from Cornell or the USFW 8-[ ... This search season is proceeding much like the previous three. With even fewer searchers in the field, fewer acres being covered, and fewer remote cameras in operation, it's difficult to imagine that the next two months will pull off what the last three years have failed at... indisputable photographic or video evidence for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (though several states are still involved and one would like to believe that the search is a bit more honed and focused than before). We await a 'buzzer-beater.'
Several key skeptics of the past seem to have dropped from the radar at the very time one might expect them to be taking parting shots; their silence is deafening, or is it all just too boring and tiresome for them by now; the essential arguments in this debate, afterall, have changed little in the last 60 years, let alone the last three.
Should the season end with no more to show than prior search years, it will be left to the few independent searchers out there, with limited time and funds, to continue the quest, including Bobby Harrison's Ivory-billed Woodpecker Foundation --- if you wish to receive their email newsletter send them an email requesting such at: ivorybillwp@aol.com
2+ months to go... including what U.S. basketball fans know all-too-well as March Madness. . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 19, 2009
-- A Bird In the Hand... --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't going to mention the story of the "extinct" Worcester's buttonquail being found... and eaten (it's whirling around the Web well enough without an assist from me), but now John over at DC Birding Blog has reported it with a wonderful coupling to, and old quote about, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that I have to link to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't going to mention the story of the "extinct" Worcester's buttonquail being found... and eaten (it's whirling around the Web well enough without an assist from me), but now John over at DC Birding Blog has reported it with a wonderful coupling to, and old quote about, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that I have to link to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- IBWO Researchers Forum --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assiduously follow all-things-Ivorybill likely already know that one of the recent topics of discussion over at IBWO Researchers Forum has been potential drumming (or tapping) patterns for the Ivory-bill possibly heard in the field by searchers or recorded in Cornell's original (and only confirmed) soundtrack of Ivory-bills from the Singer Tract (1930s), available here:
http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio.do?id=6784
Bill Pulliam weighs in with his thoughts on the matter here.
I'm all for pursuing all leads and forms of analysis. My only precaution being that the Cornell recording represents a single example from a miniscule sample of birds at one isolated location 70 years ago, and I'm not willing to assume that the tape is NECESSARILY technically representative of remnant birds left today in other parts of the country, separated by several generations from the birds recorded... BUT, that tape is all we got, so of course, by all means use it (and I think there is reason to believe that rapping or drumming patterns would change less over time than "kent" sounds might... still, very small sampling size). So have at it.
The other focus of attention lately over at the IBWO Forum has been a recent possible (brief) sighting claim for 2 Ivorybills in the Congaree (S.C.) by one of the independent searchers there. The Cornell search team is scheduled to be in S.C. in mid-March anyway; we'll see if the latest claim gets them there any sooner. S.C. remains near the top of everyone's list for best potential IBWO habitat in the entire Southeast; whether there are birds there to utilize it, time will tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assiduously follow all-things-Ivorybill likely already know that one of the recent topics of discussion over at IBWO Researchers Forum has been potential drumming (or tapping) patterns for the Ivory-bill possibly heard in the field by searchers or recorded in Cornell's original (and only confirmed) soundtrack of Ivory-bills from the Singer Tract (1930s), available here:
http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio.do?id=6784
Bill Pulliam weighs in with his thoughts on the matter here.
I'm all for pursuing all leads and forms of analysis. My only precaution being that the Cornell recording represents a single example from a miniscule sample of birds at one isolated location 70 years ago, and I'm not willing to assume that the tape is NECESSARILY technically representative of remnant birds left today in other parts of the country, separated by several generations from the birds recorded... BUT, that tape is all we got, so of course, by all means use it (and I think there is reason to believe that rapping or drumming patterns would change less over time than "kent" sounds might... still, very small sampling size). So have at it.
The other focus of attention lately over at the IBWO Forum has been a recent possible (brief) sighting claim for 2 Ivorybills in the Congaree (S.C.) by one of the independent searchers there. The Cornell search team is scheduled to be in S.C. in mid-March anyway; we'll see if the latest claim gets them there any sooner. S.C. remains near the top of everyone's list for best potential IBWO habitat in the entire Southeast; whether there are birds there to utilize it, time will tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, February 15, 2009
-- ....And Waiting --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn's Dr. Hill has updated his site to re-summarize the 2008 Choctawhatchee season, and bring folks up-to-date on current activities, while continuing to express optimism that their new vibration-detection cameras stand a greater chance of capturing an IBWO on film than previous remote cameras (subject to various failures) did.
So far as I can tell there have been no plans to re-deploy the ACONE cameras in the Bayou de View area of Arkansas for this search season, since they were last taken down (they suffered from mechanical breakdowns and from difficult accessibility during flooded times). If someone knows otherwise please let us know. (Some automatic Reconyx cameras are still in use there.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn's Dr. Hill has updated his site to re-summarize the 2008 Choctawhatchee season, and bring folks up-to-date on current activities, while continuing to express optimism that their new vibration-detection cameras stand a greater chance of capturing an IBWO on film than previous remote cameras (subject to various failures) did.
So far as I can tell there have been no plans to re-deploy the ACONE cameras in the Bayou de View area of Arkansas for this search season, since they were last taken down (they suffered from mechanical breakdowns and from difficult accessibility during flooded times). If someone knows otherwise please let us know. (Some automatic Reconyx cameras are still in use there.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 09, 2009
-- While We're Waiting --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event you've got way too much free time on your hands ;-) :
Bill Pulliam has pulled together for easy accessibility his various analyses of the original Luneau video in a recent post here:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/02/summary-of-my-luneau-postings.html
For opposing points of view:
Louis Bevier's original analysis of the matter is still up below (...so I guess he hasn't changed his mind yet ;-)) :
http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/ivorybilled/Identification.html (several pages)
And Martin Collinson's study of the matter as published in an open access journal is here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-5-8.pdf
What I stiiiiiiiiill have not seen anywhere are the conclusions of an extensive analysis Cornell did on a computer-generated, digitized Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight, to see how it would match up against the pixels of the bird in Luneau's video. If anyone can fill in the results of that analysis, I'd appreciate hearing of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event you've got way too much free time on your hands ;-) :
Bill Pulliam has pulled together for easy accessibility his various analyses of the original Luneau video in a recent post here:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/02/summary-of-my-luneau-postings.html
For opposing points of view:
Louis Bevier's original analysis of the matter is still up below (...so I guess he hasn't changed his mind yet ;-)) :
http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/ivorybilled/Identification.html (several pages)
And Martin Collinson's study of the matter as published in an open access journal is here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-5-8.pdf
What I stiiiiiiiiill have not seen anywhere are the conclusions of an extensive analysis Cornell did on a computer-generated, digitized Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight, to see how it would match up against the pixels of the bird in Luneau's video. If anyone can fill in the results of that analysis, I'd appreciate hearing of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)