-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An emailer directs me to a listing of an IBWO study (of sorts) in the Congaree region apparently submitted by Ivory-bill researcher Fred Virrazzi about a month ago. It lists a contact for further info, though I'm not sure how much info they're actually giving out, nor do I personally know the specifics of the study beyond what's indicated in the title, "Assessment of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) and Picidae Responsiveness to Anthropomorphic Double Knocks in the Summer Season." [ You have to select the year "2007," "Congaree NP," and the subject "birds/ornithology" to get to the citation. ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
-- FWIW --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever: http://amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.txt
...and elsewhere on the Web:
If this picture is any indication of mutations-to-be, I s'pose any photograph of a purported Ivory-billed Woodpecker is also now useless as evidence; we will need DNA!
....and some more remarkable pics here (nothing to do with IBWOs):
http://fireflyforest.net/firefly/2006/10/11/tucsons-hummingbird-feeder-bats/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever: http://amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.txt
...and elsewhere on the Web:
If this picture is any indication of mutations-to-be, I s'pose any photograph of a purported Ivory-billed Woodpecker is also now useless as evidence; we will need DNA!
....and some more remarkable pics here (nothing to do with IBWOs):
http://fireflyforest.net/firefly/2006/10/11/tucsons-hummingbird-feeder-bats/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
-- Nothing New --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, report (pdf) from US Fish & Wildlife, summarizing results of the 2006-7 IBWO search season. Also includes some planning, funding, and conservation details, but nothing new in the way of evidence for the presence of Ivory-bills that wasn't already in the public domain in some form (several dozen possible auditory encounters and at most 20 potential visual encounters from across the entire southeast are cited for the season --- slightly more state-by-state detail was given in this earlier report ). And with another season now close to ending, time nears to commence another such report.
......................................................
Elsewhere in the world of birds:
For your laugh of the day this story (which includes this line, just to pull you in: "Nervous postal workers in the area have been armed with water pistols".
And for your cry of the day this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8575
(of course skeptics already got their laughs and cries from the above US F&W summary... just thought I'd throw that in before someone sends it as a comment).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, report (pdf) from US Fish & Wildlife, summarizing results of the 2006-7 IBWO search season. Also includes some planning, funding, and conservation details, but nothing new in the way of evidence for the presence of Ivory-bills that wasn't already in the public domain in some form (several dozen possible auditory encounters and at most 20 potential visual encounters from across the entire southeast are cited for the season --- slightly more state-by-state detail was given in this earlier report ). And with another season now close to ending, time nears to commence another such report.
......................................................
Elsewhere in the world of birds:
For your laugh of the day this story (which includes this line, just to pull you in: "Nervous postal workers in the area have been armed with water pistols".
And for your cry of the day this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8575
(of course skeptics already got their laughs and cries from the above US F&W summary... just thought I'd throw that in before someone sends it as a comment).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
-- Or, Maybe Not --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An e-mailer reminds me that I haven't done a TOP 10 list for awhile, so without further ado:
Top 10 press releases from assorted skeptics in the event an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is caught on videotape:
10. Jerry Jackson: Hallelujah, hallelujah, I'm a believer!!
9. David Sibley: Get it to my studio pronto so I can sketch those coverts and secondaries!
8. Ilya MacLean: If it looks like an Ivory-bill, and it flies like an Ivory-bill, and it toots like an Ivory-bill, c'mon it's gotta be some sorta duck.
7. The Board of the American Birding Association: huuuuuhhh, say WHAAAAAT????
6. Louis Bevier: It doesn't matter a twit, the Luneau video is STIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILL a Pileated.
5. Kenn Kaufman: DOHHHHHHH!!!
4. Patrick Coin: LORD GOD, what a videotape!!
3. Jane Turner: Ok so it's NOT a Pileated, but are we absolutely positively certain it isn't a bloody-crested, oversized, bi-laterally leucistic crow, with jaundiced eyes and steroidal albino beak-syndrome. Are we sure, huh?....
2. Martin Collinson: CRIIIIIIKEY!!!!
1. Tom Nelson: seeeee, what did I tell ya, yet more evidence that global warming is just a friggin' sham! (...oh, and puhhleeeeze everyone, stop by my blog and read today's 163 scintillating posts).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An e-mailer reminds me that I haven't done a TOP 10 list for awhile, so without further ado:
Top 10 press releases from assorted skeptics in the event an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is caught on videotape:
10. Jerry Jackson: Hallelujah, hallelujah, I'm a believer!!
9. David Sibley: Get it to my studio pronto so I can sketch those coverts and secondaries!
8. Ilya MacLean: If it looks like an Ivory-bill, and it flies like an Ivory-bill, and it toots like an Ivory-bill, c'mon it's gotta be some sorta duck.
7. The Board of the American Birding Association: huuuuuhhh, say WHAAAAAT????
6. Louis Bevier: It doesn't matter a twit, the Luneau video is STIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILL a Pileated.
5. Kenn Kaufman: DOHHHHHHH!!!
4. Patrick Coin: LORD GOD, what a videotape!!
3. Jane Turner: Ok so it's NOT a Pileated, but are we absolutely positively certain it isn't a bloody-crested, oversized, bi-laterally leucistic crow, with jaundiced eyes and steroidal albino beak-syndrome. Are we sure, huh?....
2. Martin Collinson: CRIIIIIIKEY!!!!
1. Tom Nelson: seeeee, what did I tell ya, yet more evidence that global warming is just a friggin' sham! (...oh, and puhhleeeeze everyone, stop by my blog and read today's 163 scintillating posts).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, April 07, 2008
-- And The 'Expectations' Game --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another frequent contention of skeptics is that Ivory-bill reports are simply the result of excited people going into the woods "expecting" or "anticipating" seeing the bird, even though many if not most serious IBWO claims since the 50s have come from folks who weren't even looking for the species. Indeed, if expectations were such a driving force, by now one might've expected far MORE reports during the last two years of intense searching; FAAAR more. Instead we are getting precisely what one would anticipate for an exceedingly rare species: occasional, few-and-far-between sightings, not a rash of encounters.
Moreover, expectations cut both ways: BY FAR the PRIMARY expectation for the last 6 decades of birding in southern woods has been that any large black-and-white woodpecker was a Pileated. An important question (with unknowable answer) is how many brief sightings over the years, written off as 'Pileateds,' were in fact unrealized Ivory-bills. It is the heavily-biasing expectation birders have for seeing PILEATEDS in the forest which actually needs to be recognized and adjusted, so that in the future all large B&W woodpeckers might be studied more closely, instead of routinely shrugged off.
What all the skeptics' doubts boil down to is this: no Ivory-bill report of the last 60 years has been followed up with multiple quality sightings, nor clear photos, nor roost or nesthole finds, and skeptics simply find this an unfathomable, incomprehensible, unintelligible circumstance, so great is their trust in human capabilities and thoroughness... a trust toward which, needless to say, I am highly skeptical.
...............................................................
Elsewhere on the Web:
"Black Swan theory" here and here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another frequent contention of skeptics is that Ivory-bill reports are simply the result of excited people going into the woods "expecting" or "anticipating" seeing the bird, even though many if not most serious IBWO claims since the 50s have come from folks who weren't even looking for the species. Indeed, if expectations were such a driving force, by now one might've expected far MORE reports during the last two years of intense searching; FAAAR more. Instead we are getting precisely what one would anticipate for an exceedingly rare species: occasional, few-and-far-between sightings, not a rash of encounters.
Moreover, expectations cut both ways: BY FAR the PRIMARY expectation for the last 6 decades of birding in southern woods has been that any large black-and-white woodpecker was a Pileated. An important question (with unknowable answer) is how many brief sightings over the years, written off as 'Pileateds,' were in fact unrealized Ivory-bills. It is the heavily-biasing expectation birders have for seeing PILEATEDS in the forest which actually needs to be recognized and adjusted, so that in the future all large B&W woodpeckers might be studied more closely, instead of routinely shrugged off.
What all the skeptics' doubts boil down to is this: no Ivory-bill report of the last 60 years has been followed up with multiple quality sightings, nor clear photos, nor roost or nesthole finds, and skeptics simply find this an unfathomable, incomprehensible, unintelligible circumstance, so great is their trust in human capabilities and thoroughness... a trust toward which, needless to say, I am highly skeptical.
...............................................................
Elsewhere on the Web:
"Black Swan theory" here and here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, April 06, 2008
-- 'Dogness' etc.... --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you see someone walking down the street accompanied by a 4-legged furry, tail-wagging critter; it's specific shape and color pattern may be different from any animal you've ever seen before... and YET you recognize it as a dog... NOT a cat, not a cow, not a goat, or horse, nor coyote, wolf, or fox, but a DOG. There are a bajillion types of dogs, and yet upon seeing one we pretty automatically know it is a dog, even if we can't recognize the breed or mix. How do we do that!?? It may not help a lot, but some would say that dogs simply have the quality of "dogness," difficult to define precisely, but still recognizable in a split-second, once ingrained in our psyche (in fact, try to come up with a verbal description/definition of dogs that would allow a stranger who's never seen one to consistently identify them, yet not call a fox a dog; it ain't easy).
Another long-time mystery of perception is how we humans are able to quickly recognize from a distance a sibling, parent, friend, etc. in different attires, under so many varying conditions/contexts, and from different angles.
Or this: take out a piece of blank paper and without looking draw from memory a detailed picture of your television set, refrigerator, washer/dryer, or similar common object/appliance in your living quarters. I'm betting your best effort will be hugely devoid of accurate detail even though you see these objects every single day, and if you walked in one afternoon and somebody had substituted a different refrig, TV, etc. for yours you would immediately notice it.
The point is, that perception is very much a kind of 'gestalt;' we routinely perceive things as a whole, and quite instantly at that, not by their components. Ivory-bills CAN be ID'd in but seconds, by gestalt, just like thousands of other bird ID's that take place every week across the land... or like recognizing your own refrigerator. In birding it's called "giss" or "jizz" or "the Cape May school," (and thank you Pete Dunne for making more people aware of it, even though they've always done it unconsciously). That doesn't mean every Ivory-bill claim is accurate; it means that people who know what IBWOs and PIWOs look like, and who are experienced with the latter, do have the ability to recognize when a large black-and-white woodpecker is NOT a Pileated, leading to one alternative.
It reminds me of the heated debate in American education over the "phonics" method versus the "look-say" method of teaching reading. In "phonics," children are taught to learn words by sounding out phonetic components of individual letters and stringing them together (even though English has a LOT of phonetic inconsistencies). In the "look-say" method children are taught words as wholistic entities based on repetitively seeing them and on sentence context. Both sides have strong arguments and data to support them. But here's the thing, whichever way one learns 'reading' initially, once it is learned one uses the wholistic manner to DO it. No adult reads by focusing in on letters or phonemes (it would take half-a-lifetime to read one Harry Potter volume in that manner!).
Similarly, field marks are a fine learning tool, as well as useful in a multitude of individual cases, but the vast majority of bird IDs simply are NOT made by checking off field marks. Birding is an art and a skill, not a science, and anal-compulsively applying field marks to bird identification, lends a scientific-sounding veneer to the discussion, but in fact misses the reality of how perception and most bird recognition operates.
Skeptics will counter with example after example after example of documented mistaken IDs over the years, but those examples exist and are noteworthy precisely because they are the exceptions-to-the-rule --- for every missed ID due to mis-read field marks by birders there are 100s of correct IDs done on a moment's basis; that is precisely why bird counts are useful and valuable, even though they lack scientific rigor or validation --- enough birders get it right, enough of the time. The same birder who undergoes an inquisition for reporting a single Ivory-bill, can report 65 different species on a Christmas count without any questioning of his/her competency/veracity whatsoever. If birders were as mistake-prone as skeptics sometimes imply, there'd be no point to conducting bird counts; they'd simply be junk science. As it is, they may be in recent parlance, "faith-based ornithology"... but they are not junk.
I've said from early on in this affair that what was most important was NOT IBWO sounds, nor signs, nor the Luneau video, but sightings (the very essence of birding) from credible people, and over the years we've had enough of these, from different places in different circumstances and contexts, to strain the probability that ALL of them are false. Unfortunately though, as with so much in life, probabilities, in the Ivory-bill arena, remain in the eye of the beholder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you see someone walking down the street accompanied by a 4-legged furry, tail-wagging critter; it's specific shape and color pattern may be different from any animal you've ever seen before... and YET you recognize it as a dog... NOT a cat, not a cow, not a goat, or horse, nor coyote, wolf, or fox, but a DOG. There are a bajillion types of dogs, and yet upon seeing one we pretty automatically know it is a dog, even if we can't recognize the breed or mix. How do we do that!?? It may not help a lot, but some would say that dogs simply have the quality of "dogness," difficult to define precisely, but still recognizable in a split-second, once ingrained in our psyche (in fact, try to come up with a verbal description/definition of dogs that would allow a stranger who's never seen one to consistently identify them, yet not call a fox a dog; it ain't easy).
Another long-time mystery of perception is how we humans are able to quickly recognize from a distance a sibling, parent, friend, etc. in different attires, under so many varying conditions/contexts, and from different angles.
Or this: take out a piece of blank paper and without looking draw from memory a detailed picture of your television set, refrigerator, washer/dryer, or similar common object/appliance in your living quarters. I'm betting your best effort will be hugely devoid of accurate detail even though you see these objects every single day, and if you walked in one afternoon and somebody had substituted a different refrig, TV, etc. for yours you would immediately notice it.
The point is, that perception is very much a kind of 'gestalt;' we routinely perceive things as a whole, and quite instantly at that, not by their components. Ivory-bills CAN be ID'd in but seconds, by gestalt, just like thousands of other bird ID's that take place every week across the land... or like recognizing your own refrigerator. In birding it's called "giss" or "jizz" or "the Cape May school," (and thank you Pete Dunne for making more people aware of it, even though they've always done it unconsciously). That doesn't mean every Ivory-bill claim is accurate; it means that people who know what IBWOs and PIWOs look like, and who are experienced with the latter, do have the ability to recognize when a large black-and-white woodpecker is NOT a Pileated, leading to one alternative.
It reminds me of the heated debate in American education over the "phonics" method versus the "look-say" method of teaching reading. In "phonics," children are taught to learn words by sounding out phonetic components of individual letters and stringing them together (even though English has a LOT of phonetic inconsistencies). In the "look-say" method children are taught words as wholistic entities based on repetitively seeing them and on sentence context. Both sides have strong arguments and data to support them. But here's the thing, whichever way one learns 'reading' initially, once it is learned one uses the wholistic manner to DO it. No adult reads by focusing in on letters or phonemes (it would take half-a-lifetime to read one Harry Potter volume in that manner!).
Similarly, field marks are a fine learning tool, as well as useful in a multitude of individual cases, but the vast majority of bird IDs simply are NOT made by checking off field marks. Birding is an art and a skill, not a science, and anal-compulsively applying field marks to bird identification, lends a scientific-sounding veneer to the discussion, but in fact misses the reality of how perception and most bird recognition operates.
Skeptics will counter with example after example after example of documented mistaken IDs over the years, but those examples exist and are noteworthy precisely because they are the exceptions-to-the-rule --- for every missed ID due to mis-read field marks by birders there are 100s of correct IDs done on a moment's basis; that is precisely why bird counts are useful and valuable, even though they lack scientific rigor or validation --- enough birders get it right, enough of the time. The same birder who undergoes an inquisition for reporting a single Ivory-bill, can report 65 different species on a Christmas count without any questioning of his/her competency/veracity whatsoever. If birders were as mistake-prone as skeptics sometimes imply, there'd be no point to conducting bird counts; they'd simply be junk science. As it is, they may be in recent parlance, "faith-based ornithology"... but they are not junk.
I've said from early on in this affair that what was most important was NOT IBWO sounds, nor signs, nor the Luneau video, but sightings (the very essence of birding) from credible people, and over the years we've had enough of these, from different places in different circumstances and contexts, to strain the probability that ALL of them are false. Unfortunately though, as with so much in life, probabilities, in the Ivory-bill arena, remain in the eye of the beholder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 04, 2008
-- :-) --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to approach the weekend with a smile on my face if possible (...it's getting harder and harder all the time), so today just a link to an article posted by John Cleese, er rather, that is Martin Collinson, which falls into the category of "why-can't-more American-companies-think-like-this" :
http://tinyurl.com/45nl74
I justify linking to it on the basis that the very first word in the piece is "Woodpeckers," as well as the fact that I'm always willing to peruse articles written by anyone named "Farquhar." Moreover, Martin claims to be quoted in the report (...can you find his quote?). He doesn't tell us just how old the piece is, nor whether it perhaps came out on a prior April 1st....
I actually do have several IBWO-related posts in the works, but they keep needing revision, so who knows when/if they'll appear.
And a good weekend to all.... but most especially to the University of NC Tarheels ;-) [ Addendum: :-(((( ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to approach the weekend with a smile on my face if possible (...it's getting harder and harder all the time), so today just a link to an article posted by John Cleese, er rather, that is Martin Collinson, which falls into the category of "why-can't-more American-companies-think-like-this" :
http://tinyurl.com/45nl74
I justify linking to it on the basis that the very first word in the piece is "Woodpeckers," as well as the fact that I'm always willing to peruse articles written by anyone named "Farquhar." Moreover, Martin claims to be quoted in the report (...can you find his quote?). He doesn't tell us just how old the piece is, nor whether it perhaps came out on a prior April 1st....
I actually do have several IBWO-related posts in the works, but they keep needing revision, so who knows when/if they'll appear.
And a good weekend to all.... but most especially to the University of NC Tarheels ;-) [ Addendum: :-(((( ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, April 03, 2008
-- Ruminating --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics generally deny having any deleterious influence on the search for the Ivory-bill, noting that skepticism is a 'healthy' thing. And certainly skepticism comes in a wide variety of forms. But the overall effect of IBWO cynicism over 6 decades (especially the more recent sort of piling-on, sometimes-derisive, always-quick-to-criticize-or-castigate skepticism), yes, has been obstructive to open Ivory-bill discussion, and moreover had a very 'chilling effect' on the current free flow of information. So much so, that official search leaders now seem largely afraid to even release information if it falls short of being definitive (i.e., accompanied by a photograph), leaving skeptics and others alike with an impression that nothing is being found, when in fact they have no idea what evidence has been gathered. The healthy, free flow of information in science is often stymied by competitive pressures, but rarely by the sort of browbeating intimidation at work in this instance.
This is likely the last major month of Ivory-bill searching for the season, most official searches likely not venturing far into May. There are probably at least 4-5 IBWO efforts outside of Arkansas and the Fla. Panhandle that aren't much publicized, and may not even publicly release their data this year. I mentioned Tuesday being surprised that Cornell was even publicly acknowledging searching for the Ivory-bill in Tennessee, given how close-to-the-vest they've held most findings. The tight clamp down on the free flow of information for the last year+ is a somewhat unfortunate, but predictable, reaction to the given state of affairs.
My guess (and it is SOLELY a GUESS, based on a few things) is that the season will end with additional sightings, auditory encounters, and signs, like past seasons (maybe even more than past seasons), and maybe even new geographic locales of focus as well, but no photo or anything else at all conclusive. In short, enough to maintain believers' interest and even most true agnostics' hopes, but nothing that hardened skeptics won't easily dismiss... again. I fear that failure to attain definitive evidence may even cause most findings to be withheld from public view --- and various final reports may NOT be released publicly (even Auburn's final report from last year has yet to be publicly released).
Again, all of this is just guessing on my part (otherwise known as blog-post filler ;-) --- so DON'T run with it! Indeed, I hope I'm wrong, and there is better evidence than I suspect, and most findings are openly released, but if that doesn't come about, I know who to blame for it... and then here we'll be 3 years later and not much changed. As some of my old Chicago Cubs fan friends would say, 'there's always next year...'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics generally deny having any deleterious influence on the search for the Ivory-bill, noting that skepticism is a 'healthy' thing. And certainly skepticism comes in a wide variety of forms. But the overall effect of IBWO cynicism over 6 decades (especially the more recent sort of piling-on, sometimes-derisive, always-quick-to-criticize-or-castigate skepticism), yes, has been obstructive to open Ivory-bill discussion, and moreover had a very 'chilling effect' on the current free flow of information. So much so, that official search leaders now seem largely afraid to even release information if it falls short of being definitive (i.e., accompanied by a photograph), leaving skeptics and others alike with an impression that nothing is being found, when in fact they have no idea what evidence has been gathered. The healthy, free flow of information in science is often stymied by competitive pressures, but rarely by the sort of browbeating intimidation at work in this instance.
This is likely the last major month of Ivory-bill searching for the season, most official searches likely not venturing far into May. There are probably at least 4-5 IBWO efforts outside of Arkansas and the Fla. Panhandle that aren't much publicized, and may not even publicly release their data this year. I mentioned Tuesday being surprised that Cornell was even publicly acknowledging searching for the Ivory-bill in Tennessee, given how close-to-the-vest they've held most findings. The tight clamp down on the free flow of information for the last year+ is a somewhat unfortunate, but predictable, reaction to the given state of affairs.
My guess (and it is SOLELY a GUESS, based on a few things) is that the season will end with additional sightings, auditory encounters, and signs, like past seasons (maybe even more than past seasons), and maybe even new geographic locales of focus as well, but no photo or anything else at all conclusive. In short, enough to maintain believers' interest and even most true agnostics' hopes, but nothing that hardened skeptics won't easily dismiss... again. I fear that failure to attain definitive evidence may even cause most findings to be withheld from public view --- and various final reports may NOT be released publicly (even Auburn's final report from last year has yet to be publicly released).
Again, all of this is just guessing on my part (otherwise known as blog-post filler ;-) --- so DON'T run with it! Indeed, I hope I'm wrong, and there is better evidence than I suspect, and most findings are openly released, but if that doesn't come about, I know who to blame for it... and then here we'll be 3 years later and not much changed. As some of my old Chicago Cubs fan friends would say, 'there's always next year...'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
-- Close Encounters of the Bird Kind? --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never cared much for science fiction (have never seen a Star Trek or Star Wars movie, and you couldn't pay me to sit through one), but one offering I did fancy was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." If you saw it you know part of the plot involves disparate people from around the country eerily drawn together by the coming arrival of extraterrestrials on Earth. Sometimes I think about the 'feel' of that movie as we await now, as it were, for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers to land!
One of the grand things about this whole Ivory-bill adventure is that in an oddly similar way it too has drawn together dozens and dozens of people (many having believed in this bird since childhood), who otherwise might never have known each other, or shared anything in common, yet are now inextricably connected by the draw of this iconic species. People with academic credentials and/or titles, or unsung names, or internet handles, all intertwined like the seekers at Devil's Tower in the award-winning movie. And the full cast of characters in this ongoing saga is even more outlandish than that cast of "Close Encounters..." Who would've scripted a "Bill Smith" or a "Tom Nelson" or even a Gene Sparling, or a... well, nevermind. And who knew a movie could be this long and hold an audience... Indeed, like any good movie, many of us anxiously await the ending... which in this case will be the only way of determining whether the plot itself was science-fiction, or science-fact. ...Oh, and did I mention, I don't usually sit through science-fiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never cared much for science fiction (have never seen a Star Trek or Star Wars movie, and you couldn't pay me to sit through one), but one offering I did fancy was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." If you saw it you know part of the plot involves disparate people from around the country eerily drawn together by the coming arrival of extraterrestrials on Earth. Sometimes I think about the 'feel' of that movie as we await now, as it were, for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers to land!
One of the grand things about this whole Ivory-bill adventure is that in an oddly similar way it too has drawn together dozens and dozens of people (many having believed in this bird since childhood), who otherwise might never have known each other, or shared anything in common, yet are now inextricably connected by the draw of this iconic species. People with academic credentials and/or titles, or unsung names, or internet handles, all intertwined like the seekers at Devil's Tower in the award-winning movie. And the full cast of characters in this ongoing saga is even more outlandish than that cast of "Close Encounters..." Who would've scripted a "Bill Smith" or a "Tom Nelson" or even a Gene Sparling, or a... well, nevermind. And who knew a movie could be this long and hold an audience... Indeed, like any good movie, many of us anxiously await the ending... which in this case will be the only way of determining whether the plot itself was science-fiction, or science-fact. ...Oh, and did I mention, I don't usually sit through science-fiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
-- But, A Little More Seriously --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New update from Cornell's Arkansas search team, you can link to via "ARK. '08 Search Log" near top of my left-hand 'IBWO Links' --- generally, little of great import to report, and I may stop routinely announcing these updates unless something of special note appears (you can just check those links on your own from time-to-time). There is, however, one semi-interesting note in the March 6 entry:
On another note, as a poster to BirdForum reminded me, TODAY is the 9th anniversary of David Kullivan's sighting of a pair of Ivory-bills at Pearl River in 1999. Happy Anniversary!!...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New update from Cornell's Arkansas search team, you can link to via "ARK. '08 Search Log" near top of my left-hand 'IBWO Links' --- generally, little of great import to report, and I may stop routinely announcing these updates unless something of special note appears (you can just check those links on your own from time-to-time). There is, however, one semi-interesting note in the March 6 entry:
"Today, Ron Rohrbaugh and I flew into Memphis, Tennessee, to meet up with Scott Somershoe from Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. We talked about the use of Reconyx cameras and autonomous recording units (ARUs) to monitor some areas not far from the Mississippi River."I assume this means the use of Reconyx cameras and ARUs in TENNESSEE, and would imply the seriousness of rumors that have emanated from that state off-and-on for the last couple years. Last year's IBWO Draft Recovery Plan mentioned several areas in TN. of interest, and most all are near the Mississippi River. (Historically, there were also Ivory-bill reports from that area.)
On another note, as a poster to BirdForum reminded me, TODAY is the 9th anniversary of David Kullivan's sighting of a pair of Ivory-bills at Pearl River in 1999. Happy Anniversary!!...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- (Ivory-bills?) Gonna Fly Now --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- APRIL 1, 2008 Post:
For your viewing enjoyment and edification, some slightly-retouched, behind-the-scenes video here of Cyberthrush going through his daily regimen (that's me in the beard and mustache... not 100% certain, but I think the blonde bloke just may be Martin Collinson).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- APRIL 1, 2008 Post:
For your viewing enjoyment and edification, some slightly-retouched, behind-the-scenes video here of Cyberthrush going through his daily regimen (that's me in the beard and mustache... not 100% certain, but I think the blonde bloke just may be Martin Collinson).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 31, 2008
-- March Ends --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Images....
A drrrrrumroll continues for Florida's Bill Smith who claims his self-published Ivory-bill book is sooooooon to appear, and now says it will have an "accompanying disc with unaltered color pictures" to prove the authenticity of his wares to detractors (although I'm not quite clear how images on disc are any less susceptible to altering than those on the printed page?). There are possibly several things coming down the pike that I'm anxious to hear more about... uhhhh, but this isn't exactly one of 'em!
Speaking of images, Mike Collins publishes probably his last couple pics from the Pearl (La.) for this season here, showing a bird flying beneath him while he was positioned high in a tree canopy. 2nd photo appears to show a possible trailing white dorsal wing edge (too few pixels to tell for sure what's goin' on), while 1st photo shows only the shadow of same bird upon water below as it flies through (actual bird hidden by vegetation) [Mike corrects me to note it is the bird's reflection upon water, not shadow, that is seen]. His explanation is here under March 30th entry. To my eye there are several possibilities, and not clear to me why he originally assumed this bird was a Wood Duck? [also, slightly further expanded by Mike in comment below]
....................................................
Elsewhere on the Web:
For your sheer viewing pleasure some reeeally nice nature/bird images here: http://wildnaturephoto.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Images....
A drrrrrumroll continues for Florida's Bill Smith who claims his self-published Ivory-bill book is sooooooon to appear, and now says it will have an "accompanying disc with unaltered color pictures" to prove the authenticity of his wares to detractors (although I'm not quite clear how images on disc are any less susceptible to altering than those on the printed page?). There are possibly several things coming down the pike that I'm anxious to hear more about... uhhhh, but this isn't exactly one of 'em!
Speaking of images, Mike Collins publishes probably his last couple pics from the Pearl (La.) for this season here, showing a bird flying beneath him while he was positioned high in a tree canopy. 2nd photo appears to show a possible trailing white dorsal wing edge (too few pixels to tell for sure what's goin' on), while 1st photo shows only the shadow of same bird upon water below as it flies through (actual bird hidden by vegetation) [Mike corrects me to note it is the bird's reflection upon water, not shadow, that is seen]. His explanation is here under March 30th entry. To my eye there are several possibilities, and not clear to me why he originally assumed this bird was a Wood Duck? [also, slightly further expanded by Mike in comment below]
....................................................
Elsewhere on the Web:
For your sheer viewing pleasure some reeeally nice nature/bird images here: http://wildnaturephoto.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, March 29, 2008
-- Upbeat --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's been enough baaaaad news from around the world, as well as nationally and locally for this month, so just a few miscellaneous upbeat, non-IBWO items from the Web Grab Bag today:
I'm not generally a big 'joiner' of blog participation exercises, but Mike over at '10000birds' blog has come up with one I am comfortable taking part in, due to my fondness for Jonathan Rosen's new book, "The Life of the Skies" (my previous review of it here, but also plenty of other reviews on the Web if you google the title). Mike is giving away a few copies of the volume over the next several weeks; see contest details here:
http://10000birds.com/the-life-of-the-skies-giveaway.htm
And from Toyota, good news here.
Finally, from last week, a family portrait of the California Great Horned Owl family (ok, Dad was off galavanting around with some bimbo(wl) when this pic of insanely proud Mom and kids was snapped)... say, 'cheeeese' :
The little buggers have already grown considerably on pigeon-and-squirrel sushi since this pic was snapped. Keep up with them here:
http://www.cs.csubak.edu/owlcam/camera.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's been enough baaaaad news from around the world, as well as nationally and locally for this month, so just a few miscellaneous upbeat, non-IBWO items from the Web Grab Bag today:
I'm not generally a big 'joiner' of blog participation exercises, but Mike over at '10000birds' blog has come up with one I am comfortable taking part in, due to my fondness for Jonathan Rosen's new book, "The Life of the Skies" (my previous review of it here, but also plenty of other reviews on the Web if you google the title). Mike is giving away a few copies of the volume over the next several weeks; see contest details here:
http://10000birds.com/the-life-of-the-skies-giveaway.htm
And from Toyota, good news here.
Finally, from last week, a family portrait of the California Great Horned Owl family (ok, Dad was off galavanting around with some bimbo(wl) when this pic of insanely proud Mom and kids was snapped)... say, 'cheeeese' :
The little buggers have already grown considerably on pigeon-and-squirrel sushi since this pic was snapped. Keep up with them here:
http://www.cs.csubak.edu/owlcam/camera.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 28, 2008
-- Ta Daaaa --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask and you shall receive.... newest update from Cornell's Mobile Team now posted here. A few nice pics from South Florida, and some habitat they view favorably, but nothing more substantial to report of IBWO presence. Also, no indication if they are still in S. Florida (last posting, Mar. 6) or have by now moved north.
Also, New York birder Rich Guthrie, who last year reported an Ivory-bill sighting as part of Cornell's volunteer Arkansas team, reports no such luck this season after a recent two-week stint in the Big Woods, reported here:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/birding/?p=141
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask and you shall receive.... newest update from Cornell's Mobile Team now posted here. A few nice pics from South Florida, and some habitat they view favorably, but nothing more substantial to report of IBWO presence. Also, no indication if they are still in S. Florida (last posting, Mar. 6) or have by now moved north.
Also, New York birder Rich Guthrie, who last year reported an Ivory-bill sighting as part of Cornell's volunteer Arkansas team, reports no such luck this season after a recent two-week stint in the Big Woods, reported here:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/birding/?p=141
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The Weekend Awaits --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell's latest "brownies and ice cream" update from Arkansas ;-) here. Still awaiting to hear from their Mobile Search Team's current efforts. Meantime, Mike Collins reports having only a few days left in the Pearl River for this season before heading back home to Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell's latest "brownies and ice cream" update from Arkansas ;-) here. Still awaiting to hear from their Mobile Search Team's current efforts. Meantime, Mike Collins reports having only a few days left in the Pearl River for this season before heading back home to Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 27, 2008
-- A Few Comments on "Comments" --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest it be useful to others, just passing along some things regarding blog comments that has surfaced in email exchanges with some readers:
1. First, there is a glitch with some blogger accounts, such that 'comments' don't always get successfully sent when you hit the "send" button --- IF the comment was sent, then it disappears from view on your screen and you get a message at top confirming that it was sent and is awaiting moderation. IF, after striking the 'send' button, your comment still appears on the page and there is no such message at top, then it was NOT sent, and you need to try sending it again. If in doubt, it is always better to re-send a comment since I can cancel out any duplications at my end.
2. My personal view is that comments, especially on a controversial topic, should somehow move the discussion along, not just be idle conversation or simple "yays" or "nays." At one stretch of time I had a general rule-of-thumb that comments of one sentence or less got rejected 'cuz there was little of substance that could be said in a single sentence (-- I've dropped that requirement). And despite common myth, over the history of this blog I've rejected far more "believer" comments than "skeptic" comments, because they merely re-stated what I'd already said, or simply voiced agreement with a point I was making.
At a different period of time I realized that by publishing "snarky" one-sentence comments from skeptics, it would actually show them in a bad, shallow light!!, so I resumed posting those comments until they got too ridiculous or repetitive, and I truly did them a favor by again rejecting such terse babble (...but I've never rejected skeptics' comments that took the time to seriously address an issue, or thoughtfully put forth an argument ).
3. Last year I made the decision early-on to turn off comments during the summer months when there is little new going on, and turn them back on come January 1, with winter searches again underway. It's possible I'll do the same this coming summer, though that depends on several factors.
4. Finally, sometimes people send me emails that are essentially comments to blog posts --- I assume if you send an email it is because you DON'T want that input included in the "comments" section (or you would have sent it as a comment?). If you ever desire that something sent via email be included in the comments section, let me know that, and whether you want a name used or just an 'anonymous' label attached to it. (In fact, in general, it's always good to let me know in email if something you're passing along is intended for my eyes only or usable in a subsequent blog post if I so desire.)
Lastly, moderating comments (even as few as this blog gets) is a hassle, not only in deciding which ones to include, but in deciding whether or not to respond for the 21st time to a point being made for the 21st time, or just let it pass --- there is so little really new to be said in this debate. But it's not my intention to either encourage or discourage comments per se, though I do prefer fleshed-out, on-point, cogent comments whenever possible (civility and/or humor are ok too).
....just some housekeeping to get out-of-the-way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
-- The Ideas of March --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it's tempting to say some more about the previous Pileated videos, I think I'll move along rather than further open the whole can of worms that is the Luneau video....
Once again, well over a month has passed since Cornell's last Arkansas update, nor anything new from their Mobile Team since arrival in the 'Sunshine State.' And silence on some other fronts as well. But searching continues in earnest, and if anybody's gonna locate a nesthole, this oughta be the time to do it.
Meanwhile Bill Pulliam almost waxes poetic here.
Which in turn reminds me of an old quote from Rebecca Solnit that I included here over two years ago:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it's tempting to say some more about the previous Pileated videos, I think I'll move along rather than further open the whole can of worms that is the Luneau video....
Once again, well over a month has passed since Cornell's last Arkansas update, nor anything new from their Mobile Team since arrival in the 'Sunshine State.' And silence on some other fronts as well. But searching continues in earnest, and if anybody's gonna locate a nesthole, this oughta be the time to do it.
Meanwhile Bill Pulliam almost waxes poetic here.
Which in turn reminds me of an old quote from Rebecca Solnit that I included here over two years ago:
"The reappearance of the [Ivory-billed] woodpecker seems like a second chance --- a chance to expand its habitat, to get it right this time. Maybe that's what links the big surprises of 2005, this sense that there can be another unexpected round, the tenth inning in which the outcome could be different; that failure and devastation are not always final...Carry on folks, azaleas and redbuds are blooming, it's springtime in the Southeast.
The woodpecker was a spectacular thing unto itself, but also a message that we don't really know what's out there, even in the forests of the not-very-wild southeast, let alone the ocean depths from which previously uncatalogued creatures regularly emerge. Late last month, University of Alaska marine biologists reported seven new species found during an expedition under the arctic ice that uncovered a much richer habitat with far more fauna than anticipated...
The woodpecker is a small story; the big environmental story of our time is about extinctions and endangerments, about creatures and habitats moving toward the very brink this bird came back from; but this small story suggests that there are still grounds to hope --- to doubt that we truly know exactly what is out there and what is possible. Hope is not history's Barcalounger, as is often thought: it requires you get back out there and protect that habitat or stop that war. It is not the same as optimism, the belief that everything will probably turn out all right despite your inactivity, the same kind of inactivity that despair begets. Hope involves a sense of possibility, but with it comes responsibility."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
-- Not Ivory-bills, but.... --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube clips of Pileated Woodpeckers, the first, at a distance, showing 2 birds in courting(?) mode, and involving a bit of ground level dance I've not seen before. The second, closer up, is also labeled "mating ritual," though I think it is actually 2 males(?) in a territorial wrangle (...or maybe they're just gay ;-)
Addendum (see comments below): here are direct links to M.Collinson's take on these videos: here and here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube clips of Pileated Woodpeckers, the first, at a distance, showing 2 birds in courting(?) mode, and involving a bit of ground level dance I've not seen before. The second, closer up, is also labeled "mating ritual," though I think it is actually 2 males(?) in a territorial wrangle (...or maybe they're just gay ;-)
Addendum (see comments below): here are direct links to M.Collinson's take on these videos: here and here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)