…but there is a new claim of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting, this one with a picture. Unfortunately, all that has been released so far is a press release. I guess we’ll have to wait to see what it is a picture of…
Corey is a New Yorker who lived most of his life in upstate New York but has lived in Queens since 2008. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy and Desmond Shearwater. His bird photographs have appeared on the Today Show, in Birding, Living Bird Magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest, and many other fine publications. He is also the author of the American Birding Association Field Guide to the Birds of New York.
Thanks for a good laugh. Free press release dot com? “The photographs proving this new find are being sequestered to protect Mr. Rainsong’s right of claim in this discovery.”? A list of people he emailed about it? LMAO…
I wouldn’t dismiss it without seeing the photos, but his credibility doesn’t seem very high. If I took photos of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, I’d be showing them to everyone I could.
Has anyone contacted Van Remsen, Jackson, or the others to verify the existence of the pic or, at least, their awareness that their name’s were dropped in this release?
Criminy!!!
Gosh, if I had photos, they’d be in the New York Times, Heck every and I mean EVERY legit and even not so legit periodical would be clamoring for those shots, and for an interview – no need to go “free press release” route.
The bird is crow sized, and yet cannot be photographed? Doesn’t that tell everyone something? My favorite analysis is by David Sibley on his blog { sorry, I do not have the link handy}
Why does this BS persist??? Even my pet Sasquatch is puzzled.
Regarding the experts he’s contacting, you’d thing he’d get the credentials right.
John Burnett of the “Department of Natural Resources” (the state isn’t mentioned but apparently it’s Iowa, which doesn’t seem immediately relevant) isn’t a Ph.D.
And the entire Cornell Lab or Ornithology has apparently been informed, with nothing more specific than that.
This is amateur hour.
Sorry, Nate, you’re wrong. He contacted the Cornell University Department of Ornithology. I hope he’ll let us know when he hears from them… I was unaware of this department and would like to learn more 🙂
Aha! You’re right, Nick. Apparently, a little observer expectation bias on my part… 😉
I will believe it when I finally see one in the wild. Wouldn’t that be cool 😉 Here is the link to David Sibley’s comment and his blog post.
Remember that hoo-ha about those guys down south with the Bigfoot in their freezer a couple summers back?
Because for some reason I suddenly did…
This *particular* sighting may trip the BS meter … but there’s no reason to dismiss the possibility of living ivorybills out of hand.
If they survive at all, they’d be rare… if there are, to pick a number, 100 left — seeing even one would be INCREDIBLY unlikely. The Cornell team doing searches a couple of years back was not that big; they simply didn’t have that much funding or that many volunteers. And the Southern swamp forests are HUGE. Since the US is such a built-up country, it isn’t always realized just how wild and trackless some corners of it are. If there are just a couple dozen Ivorybills left, or even a couple hundred, I wouldn’t *expect* more than one every several years to be seen *by someone who recognizes its significance*. There could be lots of them deep in the Atchafalaya and chances are nobody would know.
There are hardly any US birds which are found only in bottomland forest habitats, and few that are found primarily there — so birders do not often go deep into IBWO habitats because anything that can be found there (except IBWOs) can be found easier & with fewer mosquito & snake bites elsewhere.
Basically, people often quote that saying about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence — but IBWO survival isn’t really a very extraordinary of a claim, once one realizes how big and trackless those swamps are!
I’ve dug up enough on this guy’s past now (that I don’t feel comfortable relating publicly though) to say this story needs to be trashed AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Move along… nothing to see here…..
@All: For the record, I would like nothing more than for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be proven to still exist. I just don’t think that this is the proof that everyone has been hoping would show up…
He has the pictures, they just aren’t developed yet.
And a Phd means nothing. All it means is that you had collateral to get lots of student loans and went to school for a very long time. A phd does not an expert make. (sorry its a pet peeve of mine).
@Will- Exactly, but Hepperle sticks the PhD label on someone who isn’t (regardless of his expertise, which may be considerable) as an apparent attempt to add credentials to his expert list. I wasn’t making a comment as to the inherent credibility of the degree, more on Hepperle’s laziness in not representing his experts correctly.
“laziness”… methinkest you be too charitable 😉
In follow up to my original post, here is the link to the blog post of David Sibley that is by far the most cogent explanation of why there is no IBWO
http://www.sibleyguides.com/2007/10/ivory-billed-woodpecker-status-review/
Some background info on Hepperle and Rainsong at my blog:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2010/01/facts-on-hepperle-and-rainsong.html
Great detective work Bill. And, Corey, kudos for the title to this post – pretty darn astute if you ask me!
It’s sad that Sibley was/is able to fool so many with his attempts at amateur psychology, careful parsing of evidence, all accompanied with no actual Ivory-billed field data. When a PIWO is found that looks like and does what the AR video shows, and we find the rare land duck that double knocks I will call Dr. Hill wrong and will humbly apologize to the greatest field guide artist to have every called a bird prematurely extinct from a drawing desk.
From IB LIVES BlOG
>>> Lets not forget what Sibley, G. Graves, wise use types, and others announced publicly about the 27 million dollar figure that was to be spent on the IBWO over 5 years if certain successes in the field were obtained.
They presented it as if 27KK$ WILL be spent on the IBWO regardless of field success (a willful misrepresentation) and had to be publicly corrected several times by the USFWS service and others like us.
They were using the “good for conservation excuse” as a rationale for purposeful misleading their audiences about the overall impact to the ES budget. It’s ethically bankrupt and a convenient argument since none of these people had ever been public crusaders for an increased ESA budget (as far as I know). Their worry was mostly newborn and contrived quickly as any actual increased spending could expose them as wrong on several fronts and Graves certainly is in the market for competitive grant awards.
Their actions smacks of the rationale used by this Sheridan fella for his actions. Some less than discerning “believers” and fence sitters (including CT) considered Sheridan honest even though his drawing of a sighting 25 years before was so bloated with detail it made the fella scream of stink.
Amazingly (or actually not so) some of the same fence sitters seem to not be able to recognize a pattern of misleading statements and works by some of the major skeptics.
Although I was amazed at the pattern myself, and who was weaving it years ago, it only made me look closer at the Science rebuttal and their supporting website for any further manifestations of their expectation bias, mixed in with basic ego and status saving attempts.
Sure enough the rebuttal is a very poor piece of science and the separate website musings of the author(s) on flight dynamics are shocking and bewildering. IBWO is predicted to have a Hz of 4 by these “researchers”!!
Every great historical ornithologist/naturalist/birder that was lucky or dedicated enough to see the bird (and make field guides) wrote the bird is a rapid flyer. Dear rebuttal authors, CT, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker would drop from the air with a 4 flap rate. And concommitingly the AR video IS AN IBWO since no PIWO has ever had a 8.5 Hz 4 secs post take off and shown no bounding. NEVER.
Their attempts to bias every ambiguity in data, videos or heuristic inferences about the IBWO, to a place that supports their expectations of extinction and always being right is not well hidden.
The fact that they dance with the wise use people should have given us some minor thought. They have stumbled into the curtain, exposing the Wizard as not being a benign and powerful entity.
They are beyond rehabilitation as fair reviewers of any evidence on the IBWO subject…..they are like Sheridan.
This is all painful to relate; who would think these ASSUMED pillars of fairness and conservation would have a grotesquely scewed value system on this subject and try and have us blindly march with them in such an important matter. It was our assumptions and high expectations that hurt us.
Extinction is a very serious subject; its no place for on the job training in video artifact analysis and flight dynamic work ups. Its not like drawing birds where mistakes are a pencil eraser away from disappearing and no one knows this is your third attempt at drawing a bird’s toe nail.
Individuals that have shown they will use their hefty reputations to rush upon the public bad science should be aware this became more obvious after the FL data did not trigger a visit from any of you or any support. There is much more to this whole story.
Conservation is secondary to some.
10:36 AM
@Previous poster who failed to leave his name: How did you even manage to post a comment about ten times as long as the actual post? And what are you talking about?
Please, the next time you want to quote something at length just link to it. Thanks.
I see Cyberthrush has backed off his unnecessary and unscientific way off treating individuals who claim pictures or evidence of this exceedingly rare bird. CT’s stopping all others posting opinions so he can work the story and MAYBE get it correct is hilarious in many ways.
Others upthread unfamiliar with the still, fully accepted AR 2004 video, the extensive FL Choctawhatchee evidence (never debunked or fully explained by any skeptic)and other putative IBWO videos should know that Sibley’s opinion of the species being extinct are seriously flawed.
Proper scientific procedures are that you look at the evidence first and resume second. Bad evidence will collapse on its own. This witchhunt is waht was unclean and reminds of the mob in Frankenstein.
Many blogs are such kangaroo courts….. its no wonder so many upthread and in the public do not know how to correctly and fairly evaluate evidence. Instead we have the prejudging of unseen evidence with slanted, catchy headlines and other tactics to feel good about oneselves.
Next time you feel like buying your 12th field guide save some money and grab your kids grammar school science book, and thumb though it on the tennets of science and defintions of evidence and how to treat it an review it.
thanks
@Mr. Anonymous who likes leaving really long comments: The only evidence we have to evaluate is a poorly-written press release and what we can find on google. I’m not sure who “fully accepted” the AR video unless you mean taht people accept it is a video.
Did you read the actual blog post here? It says, in its entirety “…but there is a new claim of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting, this one with a picture. Unfortunately, all that has been released so far is a press release. I guess we’ll have to wait to see what it is a picture of…”
As I have said, I really hope that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is found. I doubt this is it. If it is, I will admit that I am wrong, but I sincerely doubt that I am.
And please don’t go on about “proper scientific procedure” when you are defending those who do science by press release!
Seems to me that you have an axe to grind with Cyberthrush. Please feel free to grind it elsewhere rather than cluttering this one up with your claptrap.
First, I’ll just say I haven’t backed off anything: all indications are this IS a hoax until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is on Mr. Rainsong (I just hope those involved in the investigation are asking him the right questions).
And I have left my comments off solely for one reason: there are certain details and specific material I do not want showing up on my blog regarding this matter, and while most commenters would respect that, a few, including possibly the above individual, might not.
I find it amusing that the name of the anonymous poster and the IVWO are invisible!
Anyone advocating for this current “sighting” would do well to apply Occam’s Razor. To wit, a simple evidence like a clear photo vs wing beat Hz analysis. Boy, if that isn’t grasping for straws.
It is also ironic that no-name is a proponent of the scientific method, yet clearly does not know it when he sees it; Sibleys post is a good example, and why I gave the link in the first place. That his conclusion disagrees with the desired outcome of some is too bad.
I will speak for all the non anonymous posters here and state that we unanimously desire the IVWO to persist, though we regrettably acknowledge that they do not show any evidence of still being around.
1 picture is all it would take.
Concentrate Arie. >>>Anyone advocating for this current “sighting”<<<
Am advocating for the proper & courteous review of purported evidence on this species or any critically endangered sp. Your comments and Corey’s portay the preposterous proclivity to dismiss possible evidence before it is reviewed by ANYONE. Notice the words “possible” and the words “dismiss”.
Many are asking for proper review not premature acceptance or rejection of POSSIBLE evidence. The fooling of oneself into believing that one need not look at any POSSIBLE data at all (Sabine) or carefully (AR 2004 video, various other data) and then writing there is no evidence is not a valid method or any method.
Look at POSSIBLE evidence, then pass or reject. The obtuseness of anyone DISMISSING this nominal scientific sequence is concerning.
Newsflash-Review was done by the AR BRC; the sightings, acoustical and video ( collectively by definition evidence). IBWO was accepted as extant by AR BRC in 2005; no present reversal. Also still on other state list as possible. In AR evidence then became proof, triggering via the ESA, USFWS responsibilities to field survey.
Arie I take it you have no unique, unpublished field data, evidence supporting your hypothesis of extinction? Can you share it, even for one specific locality? Will even review Corkscrew or Anhinga Trail data. Orlando has been surveyed.
thanks greatly
ASDYHAFD
@ASDYHAFD: There is no evidence for us to review this time around. The pictures were taken a month ago and have not been released (but a press release has). That stinks like something, and it is not Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
In the absence of direct evidence (the pictures) we can only judge on what we do know and what we do know ain’t pretty.
As for your asking Arie for “unique, unpublished field data, evidence supporting your hypothesis of extinction,” well, do you have unique, unpublished field data showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? Very well then, his noodly appendages must also be extant.
Stop setting up straw men and knocking them down. Do you, whoever you are, find it at all odd that a press release has been released but no pictures?
CY, some comments are fair; some aren’t. Your headline & some continuing words feed the Frankenstein mob mentality.
>>In the absence of direct evidence (the pictures) we can only judge on what we do know<<<>Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?<<< You seem to miss the point; you were unaware that the IBWO is OFFICIALY ACCEPTED by those much more experinced in these matters than you. Analogies that pit an imaginary beast with an accepted species are poor. Your point that extinction is not easily proven is valid but that doesn’t negate the resposiblity that an extiction hypothesis to be well researched with field data. Data is in from scores of scientists and researchers; more unpublished, that strongly supports the extant hypothesis.
Forgiving a representative segment of the skeptic side, Arie, from needing evidence of any kind while defending a precedent of prejudging unseen evidence is your stated, but by definition, flawed position.
The IB is on a few state lists as possible; field work is often a knowledge building process. People more capable than average can get info out of presentations that you would discard as worthless because of an innate, limited, skill set.
respectfully,
ASDYHAFD
>>>Do you, whoever you are, find it at all odd that a press release has been released but no pictures?<<<<
Odd, nothing they or you say would strike me as odd. It the internet age which makes images ripe for theft and misuse…..along with the ablity to augment mosb quickly.
Dr. Hill and Dr. Mennill whose teams announced with significant evidence (good read, and listen, if you get the time) supporting IBWO presence hypothesis did not release three videos of putative IBWOs until well after their press release. I didn’t have to go far for an example…we can only imagine how many examples there actually are.
By the way your last post was a bit long, ha.
Every comment is more hilarious than the last. Please, please, keep feeding this troll, Corey 🙂
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them.”
Will assume that this is Arie’s and Nick’s way of saying they are like Sibley, BIG, COMPREHENSIVE OPINIONS, but no actual data, field effort or knowledge on this subject.
Well, I certainly do have big, comprehensive opinions. But, I have about a year’s worth of data showing a positive absence of Campephilus species on the Lake Wales Ridge in central Florida. And I have many years of experience identifying birds in other people’s photos and videos. And I have seen real live Campephilus species in two neotropical countries. Does that mean I am better than Sibley? LOL 🙂
By the way, in case anyone is interested, the troll posting as “Arie, Sibley do you have any field data?” is likely Fred Virrazzi, a man who never met an Ivory-bill sighting he didn’t believe.
I have never outed an anonymous commenter before but I get sick of obnoxious trolls.
I’ll ignore your personal attacks; they are off subject.
Semi-satisfied that the Sabine claim is being looked at by scientists. Am interested in the general procedure rather than any great defense of these individuals.
Yes Rsong was an unlikely candidate; always long odds of anything being unequivocal. They can’t get the capitalization right on the sp. name; claim of a young male due to a short tail (fide Rsong)in December is inconsistent with breeding phenology, they inconsiderately posted scientists names causing 100s of other inconsiderates to insert themselves into the process including me. Its argueable that publicly giving location data out of a critically endangered species shows lack of conservation values.
Regardless the correct community procedure could be for scientists to privately look at any CLAIMED PIXS without interblog witch hunts breaking out. Public posting wouldn’t be terrible but can be problematic to owners. An SOP should stand even for an known, unknown researcher or worse…….so that when high value evidence comes along its quickly, properly and fairly vetted. This class system thet some advocate is wrong.
Nick your field work in that area for FL is potentially important. Can you elaborate on exact methods, area covered, field hours, roosts, standing dead wood density, dbh, seclusion characteristics and any acoustical points of interest (false DKs, kents)?
tks
ASdyhafd