ABA's Birding News >> ID Frontiers

ID Frontiers bird news by date

Updated on February 27, 2017, 10:05 am

Want to easily find posts that mention ABA rare birds? Choose a code below:

ABA Code 2 Birds  |  ABA Code 3 Birds  |  ABA Code 4 Birds  |  ABA Code 5 Birds


27 Feb: @ 09:52:04 Re: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes [Brent Bomkamp]
27 Feb: @ 09:48:06 Re: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes [Tony Leukering]
27 Feb: @ 09:02:18  Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes [Brent Bomkamp]
26 Feb: @ 17:26:39 Re: Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Lethaby, Nick]
26 Feb: @ 16:53:49  Lesser Black-backed Gull leg color [Lethaby, Nick]
26 Feb: @ 09:14:07  Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Tony Leukering]
26 Feb: @ 08:34:37 Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Tony Leukering]
25 Feb: @ 20:16:50 Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Brian Sullivan]
25 Feb: @ 17:32:52 Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Jeff Davis]
25 Feb: @ 17:09:36 Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [BRUCE DEUEL]
25 Feb: @ 16:09:07  Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Tony Leukering]
22 Feb: @ 21:24:22  Wren ID [Ross Silcock]
11 Feb: @ 12:02:51 Re: Interested gull reported from Florida [Phil Davis]
11 Feb: @ 06:43:27 Re: Interested gull reported from Florida [Suzanne Sullivan]
11 Feb: @ 00:55:12  Interested gull reported from Florida [Mike Patterson]
03 Feb: @ 21:50:54 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael O'Keeffe]
03 Feb: @ 19:26:28 Re: List Owner message re IBWO evidence [Michael Collins]
03 Feb: @ 18:55:11  List Owner message re IBWO evidence [will russell]
03 Feb: @ 14:35:48 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
03 Feb: @ 14:35:39 Re: IBWO evidence published [Collinson, Professor Jon M.]
03 Feb: @ 14:35:34 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
03 Feb: @ 14:05:24 Re: IBWO evidence published [Dominik Mosur]
03 Feb: @ 14:03:07 Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons]
03 Feb: @ 14:02:07 Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons]
03 Feb: @ 12:36:26 Re: IBWO evidence published [Jeff Gilligan]
03 Feb: @ 11:26:20 Re: IBWO evidence published [Bates Estabrooks]
03 Feb: @ 11:25:24 Re: IBWO evidence published [Mike Patterson]
03 Feb: @ 11:12:01 Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons]
03 Feb: @ 10:00:33 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
03 Feb: @ 09:59:57 Re: IBWO evidence published [Andrew Sewell]
03 Feb: @ 09:21:02  Subscribe [Bill-Brenda]
03 Feb: @ 09:20:44 Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons]
03 Feb: @ 07:43:19 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
03 Feb: @ 07:21:41 Re: IBWO evidence published [Don Richardson]
03 Feb: @ 01:39:58 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael O'Keeffe]
02 Feb: @ 20:30:25 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 18:57:13 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 18:20:27 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael O'Keeffe]
02 Feb: @ 15:04:57 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 14:50:13 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 14:34:37 Re: IBWO evidence published [0000029076749262-dmarc-request]
02 Feb: @ 14:31:46 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael O'Keeffe]
02 Feb: @ 14:30:50 Re: IBWO evidence published [Jeff Gilligan]
02 Feb: @ 13:21:51 Re: IBWO evidence published [Phil Jeffrey]
02 Feb: @ 13:10:36 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 12:57:33 Re: IBWO evidence published [0000029076749262-dmarc-request]
02 Feb: @ 12:47:48 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 12:35:22 Re: IBWO evidence published [0000029076749262-dmarc-request]
02 Feb: @ 12:01:46 Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins]
02 Feb: @ 10:22:48 Re: IBWO evidence published [Mike Patterson]





Subject: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes
Date: Mon Feb 27 2017 9:52 am
From: bbomkamp AT gmail.com
 
Apologies for flooding your inboxes, but to clarify the call recorded from
the Oswego grebe was similar to a WESTERN Grebe, not Clark's, as was
probably evident from the tone of the message and the calls. Apologies for
any confusion.

The same questions still apply.

Thanks

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Brent Bomkamp wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I'm sure some are aware an apparent Clark's Grebe was discovered on
> Wednesday the 22nd in Oswego, NY, representing the first state record of
> the species. Although all physical marks (bill color, neck dorsal stripe,
> back and flank coloration, and facial patterning) are strongly indicative
> of Clark's, the bird has been recorded making a call typical of Clark's
> Grebe. Conditions on the lake and the distance of the bird make recording
> difficult, but recordings made by Greg Dashnau and Brad Walker, along with
> photos and descriptions, can be accessed below:
>
> https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...
> https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...
>
> It is worth noting that in at least one of the recordings the bird was
> induced to call using playback of Western Grebe.
>
> Recent discussion among New York birders has suggested that vocalizations
> in the genus are not necessarily a reliable indicator of either species.
> However, published sources such as Nuechterlein and Buitron 1998 (accessed
> here: beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/313.full.pdf) suggest that
> call types are determined genetically and are vital for the reproductive
> isolation
> of the two species. This would seem to call into question the prior
> notion.
>
> I thought I would pose this question to observers familiar with the genus:
> Are vocalizations indeed not a reliable indicator as to species, especially
> in the context of playback? Additionally, and more straightforward, would
> this individual provide you with concerns of hybridization when all factors
> are taken into account?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brent Bomkamp
> Eatons Neck, NY
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes
Date: Mon Feb 27 2017 9:48 am
From: 000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Hi Brent:


The tone of your message suggests the possibility that you intended "Western Grebe" in the third mention of a grebe species in the first paragraph. Is that so?


Tony



Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Bomkamp
To: BIRDWG01
Sent: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 10:02 am
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes

Hi all,

As I'm sure some are aware an apparent Clark's Grebe was discovered on
Wednesday the 22nd in Oswego, NY, representing the first state record of
the species. Although all physical marks (bill color, neck dorsal stripe,
back and flank coloration, and facial patterning) are strongly indicative
of Clark's, the bird has been recorded making a call typical of Clark's
Grebe. Conditions on the lake and the distance of the bird make recording
difficult, but recordings made by Greg Dashnau and Brad Walker, along with
photos and descriptions, can be accessed below:

https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...
https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...

It is worth noting that in at least one of the recordings the bird was
induced to call using playback of Western Grebe.

Recent discussion among New York birders has suggested that vocalizations
in the genus are not necessarily a reliable indicator of either species.
However, published sources such as Nuechterlein and Buitron 1998 (accessed
here: beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/313.full.pdf) suggest that call
types are determined genetically and are vital for the reproductive
isolation
of the two species. This would seem to call into question the prior notion.

I thought I would pose this question to observers familiar with the genus:
Are vocalizations indeed not a reliable indicator as to species, especially
in the context of playback? Additionally, and more straightforward, would
this individual provide you with concerns of hybridization when all factors
are taken into account?

Thanks!

Brent Bomkamp
Eatons Neck, NY

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes
Date: Mon Feb 27 2017 9:02 am
From: bbomkamp AT gmail.com
 
Hi all,

As I'm sure some are aware an apparent Clark's Grebe was discovered on
Wednesday the 22nd in Oswego, NY, representing the first state record of
the species. Although all physical marks (bill color, neck dorsal stripe,
back and flank coloration, and facial patterning) are strongly indicative
of Clark's, the bird has been recorded making a call typical of Clark's
Grebe. Conditions on the lake and the distance of the bird make recording
difficult, but recordings made by Greg Dashnau and Brad Walker, along with
photos and descriptions, can be accessed below:

https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...
https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...

It is worth noting that in at least one of the recordings the bird was
induced to call using playback of Western Grebe.

Recent discussion among New York birders has suggested that vocalizations
in the genus are not necessarily a reliable indicator of either species.
However, published sources such as Nuechterlein and Buitron 1998 (accessed
here: beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/313.full.pdf) suggest that call
types are determined genetically and are vital for the reproductive
isolation
of the two species. This would seem to call into question the prior notion.

I thought I would pose this question to observers familiar with the genus:
Are vocalizations indeed not a reliable indicator as to species, especially
in the context of playback? Additionally, and more straightforward, would
this individual provide you with concerns of hybridization when all factors
are taken into account?

Thanks!

Brent Bomkamp
Eatons Neck, NY

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sun Feb 26 2017 17:26 pm
From: nlethaby AT ti.com
 
Based on my experience in Santa Barbara County in coastal S. California, I would say many of the birds we claim as Red-naped have the more extensive red shown by your problem birds. A further problem IMO is female RB Sapsuckers of the southern race, which seem to show extensive white in the face (assuming these are not hybrids too). I don't have a clear idea of the intra-specific variation shown by the these 'species'. It's quite likely that a highish % of coastal slope RN Sapsuckers in CA, may in fact be hybrids. I know I tend to just slap a name on the bird rather than have to call half the ones I see a hybrid and suspect quite a few others are similarly lax. I don't really regard this as a good split to be honest.


-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification [mailto:BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Leukering
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 7:14 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance

Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Mlodinow
To: greatgrayowl ; ebird-regional-editors
Sent: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Greetings All


Okay, let me see if my sleepy brain is up to an intelligent conversation about this.


The three birds from south of Colorado look pretty much within the RNSA group to me.
I can not see most of the individuals in the list of 6 (towards bottom of Tony's note) well enough to comment, but ML 40202531 looks somewhat like Bruce's bird, and if seen in WA, most observers would consider this a hybrid w/o a second thought.


I think the keys are within Bruce's comments:
In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside and within the black breast band.


The Tehama bird, really, has more red on the head above the white "malar" stripe than black. To me, that would signify the presence of RBSA genes. Without genes, I guess we will never know. But anything more than a stray red feather in the "cheek" and "obvious" red within and below the black breast band are indications of RBSA heritage.


My experience from 20 years in WA is such:
In e. WA, RNSAs are common breeders but are quite scarce in winter (anywhere in state). RBSAs are common year-round in w. WA and are scarce in winter e. of the Cascades.


In WA, hybrid-like birds are virtually non-existent e. of the Cascades during breeding season, but they do occur occasionally during winter, presumably from the nearby narrow hybrid zone. Notably, more such presumed hybrids are found near the Cascades than farther east. Additionally, apparently pure RN Sapsuckers are rare in w. WA lowlands during migration and winter and are outnumbered by apparent mutts (which are scarce), some of which look much like the Tehama bird. I think this provides evidence for such birds being hybrids, not RNSA variants.


As with all species-pairs that have a true hybrid-zone (vs sporadic hybridization), where to draw the line, phenotypically, between species A vs B is very difficult as discerning variation within either species from hybrid influence may be impossible.


Best Wishes
Steve Mlodinow






-----Original Message-----
From: 'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors
To: birdwg01 ; ebird-regional-editors
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 3:09 pm
Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Hi all:


First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.


I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...


My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).


In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.


Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...




Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.


Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is



Subject: Lesser Black-backed Gull leg color
Date: Sun Feb 26 2017 16:53 pm
From: nlethaby AT ti.com
 
All,

I found an apparent adult Lesser Black-backed Gull on the California coast today. The leg color was rather putty-colored and much less bright than I would expect in an adult. I wanted to get some opinions from those who see a lot of Lesser Black-backed Gulls as to whether the leg color is OK or whether hybrids or "Taimyr Gull" should be considered. Photos are in the ebird checklist at: View this checklist online at http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...

Thanks,

Nick Lethaby
Office: 805 562 5106
Mobile: 805 284 6200
Email: nlethaby@ti.com


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sun Feb 26 2017 9:14 am
From: 000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Mlodinow
To: greatgrayowl ; ebird-regional-editors
Sent: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Greetings All


Okay, let me see if my sleepy brain is up to an intelligent conversation about this.


The three birds from south of Colorado look pretty much within the RNSA group to me.
I can not see most of the individuals in the list of 6 (towards bottom of Tony's note) well enough to comment, but ML 40202531 looks somewhat like Bruce's bird, and if seen in WA, most observers would consider this a hybrid w/o a second thought.


I think the keys are within Bruce's comments:
In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside and within the black breast band.


The Tehama bird, really, has more red on the head above the white "malar" stripe than black. To me, that would signify the presence of RBSA genes. Without genes, I guess we will never know. But anything more than a stray red feather in the "cheek" and "obvious" red within and below the black breast band are indications of RBSA heritage.


My experience from 20 years in WA is such:
In e. WA, RNSAs are common breeders but are quite scarce in winter (anywhere in state). RBSAs are common year-round in w. WA and are scarce in winter e. of the Cascades.


In WA, hybrid-like birds are virtually non-existent e. of the Cascades during breeding season, but they do occur occasionally during winter, presumably from the nearby narrow hybrid zone. Notably, more such presumed hybrids are found near the Cascades than farther east. Additionally, apparently pure RN Sapsuckers are rare in w. WA lowlands during migration and winter and are outnumbered by apparent mutts (which are scarce), some of which look much like the Tehama bird. I think this provides evidence for such birds being hybrids, not RNSA variants.


As with all species-pairs that have a true hybrid-zone (vs sporadic hybridization), where to draw the line, phenotypically, between species A vs B is very difficult as discerning variation within either species from hybrid influence may be impossible.


Best Wishes
Steve Mlodinow






-----Original Message-----
From: 'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors
To: birdwg01 ; ebird-regional-editors
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 3:09 pm
Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Hi all:


First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.


I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...


My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).


In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.


Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...




Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.


Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sun Feb 26 2017 8:34 am
From: 000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Jeff et al.:


As you can probably guess, I would put that bird firmly in the Red-breasted x Red-naped camp.


Tony


Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Davis
To: BIRDWG01
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance

There was this bird in Fresno County recently too:

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...

The continuous red on the head and nape and extension onto the face suggested hybrid to me. But I’d be interested in hearing if others think these features might be within the acceptable range for a pure Red-naped.

Jeff Davis
Fresno, CA

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:09 PM, BRUCE DEUEL wrote:
>
> Hi Tony and all.
> In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside and within the black breast band. To what degree do these features influence the call on the nature of the Tehama bird?
>
> Bruce Deuel
> Red Bluff, CA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors"
> To: birdwg01@listserv.ksu.edu , ebird-regional-editors@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM
> Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
>
> Hi all:
>
> First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.
>
> I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...
>
> My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).
>
> In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.
>
> Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
>
> Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.
>
> Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is
> So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do not match my understanding of the species's appearance.
>
> Lit Cited
>
> Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low levels of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of woodpeckers (Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tony
>
> Tony Leukering
> Largo, FL
> http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...
> http://aba.org/photoquiz/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "eBird Regional Editors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op... .
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sat Feb 25 2017 20:16 pm
From: heraldpetrel AT gmail.com
 
Like Jeff, I'd like opinions on this bird from Monterey recently. I thought
it was a hybrid in the field, but in checking with Sean Billerman on the
possibility, he wasn't too sure, and I'm certainly not either:

https://ebird.org/ebird/view/c...

Thanks

Brian

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> There was this bird in Fresno County recently too:
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch... <
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...
>
> The continuous red on the head and nape and extension onto the face
> suggested hybrid to me. But I’d be interested in hearing if others think
> these features might be within the acceptable range for a pure Red-naped.
>
> Jeff Davis
> Fresno, CA
>
> > On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:09 PM, BRUCE DEUEL wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tony and all.
> > In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned
> about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red
> coloring beside and within the black breast band. To what degree do these
> features influence the call on the nature of the Tehama bird?
> >
> > Bruce Deuel
> > Red Bluff, CA
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors" <
> ebird-regional-editors@googlegroups.com editors@googlegroups.com>>
> > To: birdwg01@listserv.ksu.edu ,
> ebird-regional-editors@googlegroups.com editors@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM
> > Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
> >
> > Hi all:
> >
> > First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple
> copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about
> identification, it has bearing on eBird review.
> >
> > I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a
> sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:
> >
> > http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...
> >
> > My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's
> concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly
> connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white
> extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from
> 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field
> work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs.
> Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use
> that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main
> advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).
> >
> > In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically
> have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females
> nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That
> patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white
> supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in
> this picture:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 231792733.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head,
> particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into
> the black auriculars, such as on this bird:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 190024809.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white
> feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more
> extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.
> >
> > Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am
> familar include these from south of Colorado:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 190024809.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 195807342.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was
> that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that
> looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and
> considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking
> through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I
> found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape
> patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six
> pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 133859788.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 228837726.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all
> west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the
> same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the
> extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of
> the birds.
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 223513945.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 231784797.334541348.1399337695
> >
> >
> > Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact
> zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the
> western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC).
> Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest
> that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.
> >
> > Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably
> migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of
> sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the
> Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the
> northwestern corner of which is from the known breeding range of the species.
> >
> > So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider
> acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch
> individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do
> not match my understanding of the species's appearance.
> >
> > Lit Cited
> >
> > Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low
> levels of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of
> woodpeckers (Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > Tony Leukering
> > Largo, FL
> > http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...
> > http://aba.org/photoquiz/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "eBird Regional Editors" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op... <
> https://groups.google.com/d/op... .
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... <
> https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
===========


*Brian L. SullivaneBird Project Leader *
www.ebird.org

*Photo Editor*
Birds of North America Online
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/B...
-------------------------------

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sat Feb 25 2017 17:32 pm
From: jndavis AT ucsc.edu
 
There was this bird in Fresno County recently too:

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...

The continuous red on the head and nape and extension onto the face suggested hybrid to me. But I’d be interested in hearing if others think these features might be within the acceptable range for a pure Red-naped.

Jeff Davis
Fresno, CA

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:09 PM, BRUCE DEUEL wrote:
>
> Hi Tony and all.
> In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside and within the black breast band. To what degree do these features influence the call on the nature of the Tehama bird?
>
> Bruce Deuel
> Red Bluff, CA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors"
> To: birdwg01@listserv.ksu.edu , ebird-regional-editors@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM
> Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
>
> Hi all:
>
> First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.
>
> I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...
>
> My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).
>
> In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.
>
> Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
>
> Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,
>
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...
>
> has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.
>
> Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is
> So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do not match my understanding of the species's appearance.
>
> Lit Cited
>
> Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low levels of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of woodpeckers (Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tony
>
> Tony Leukering
> Largo, FL
> http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/t...
> http://aba.org/photoquiz/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "eBird Regional Editors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op... .
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sat Feb 25 2017 17:09 pm
From: bdeuel AT wildblue.net
 
Hi Tony and all.
In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside and within the black breast band. To what degree do these features influence the call on the nature of the Tehama bird?

Bruce Deuel
Red Bluff, CA

----- Original Message -----

From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors"
To: birdwg01@listserv.ksu.edu, ebird-regional-editors@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM
Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance

Hi all:

First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.

I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...

My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).

In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.

Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,

https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...

has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.

Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is



Subject: Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
Date: Sat Feb 25 2017 16:09 pm
From: 000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Hi all:


First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it has bearing on eBird review.


I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/ch...


My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).


In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the black auriculars, such as on this bird:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.


Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar include these from south of Colorado:


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds.


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...




Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,


https://macaulaylibrary.org/as...


has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.


Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is



Subject: Wren ID
Date: Wed Feb 22 2017 21:24 pm
From: silcock AT rosssilcock.com
 
http://www.noubirds.org/Birds/...

At the above link, select photos by species (filed here
under Bewick's Wren), and then only consider pics dated 15
Dec 2012.

This wren was photographed in Scotts Bluff County, far
western Nebraska 15 Dec 2012. For either Carolina or
Bewick's Wren, this is an extraordinary occurrence at that
location, and the identity of this bird has not been
ascertained.

We would very much appreciate comments of the ID.

Thank you,

Ross Silcock
Member,
Nebraska Ornithologists' Union
Records Committee

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Interested gull reported from Florida
Date: Sat Feb 11 2017 12:02 pm
From: pdavis AT ix.netcom.com
 
However, true "Azores" gulls (L. azoricus by some authorities) from
the Azores - not including the more southern atlantis form of YLGUs
from Madiera and the Canaries, have streaked heads in the winter, and
more sloped heads.

Not advocating, but just throwing that thought into the mix ...

Phil


At 07:43 AM 02/11/2017, Suzanne Sullivan wrote:
>Mike,
>Not sure what this is but a YLGU would have pure white head at this
>time of year and without any open wing shots it would all be
>speculation. An interesting bird though and HERGXLBBG does seem likely.
>Suzanne Sullivan
>
>On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Mike Patterson wrote:
>
> > This bird popped up on iNaturalist. If it's what some folks are
> speculating it is, it might be a big deal...
> >
> > http://www.inaturalist.org/obs...
> >

==================================
Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA
mailto:PDavis@ix.netcom.com
==================================

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Interested gull reported from Florida
Date: Sat Feb 11 2017 6:43 am
From: swampy435 AT gmail.com
 
Mike,
Not sure what this is but a YLGU would have pure white head at this time of
year and without any open wing shots it would all be speculation. An
interesting bird though and HERGXLBBG does seem likely.
Suzanne Sullivan

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Mike Patterson wrote:

> This bird popped up on iNaturalist. If it's what some
> folks are speculating it is, it might be a big deal...
>
> http://www.inaturalist.org/obs...
>
>
> --
> Mike Patterson
> Astoria, OR
> That question...
> http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
Suzanne M. Sullivan
Wilmington, MA
swampy435@gmail.com

"The self evident vision of who we are as a free and caring nation, and the
ideal to fulfill this destiny is stronger than the division of those who's
only vision is of themselves. “ SMB

Be the Voice of the River
http://www.ipswichriver.org

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Interested gull reported from Florida
Date: Sat Feb 11 2017 0:55 am
From: celata AT pacifier.com
 
This bird popped up on iNaturalist.  If it's what some
folks are speculating it is, it might be a big deal...

http://www.inaturalist.org/obs...


--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 21:50 pm
From: okeeffeml AT eircom.net
 
All,

It's late here. I've had a few, celebrating with friends as I end one 10 year career chapter and move towards another. Unlike Mr Collins I lack the stamina to continue on my course. I suspect I am more aware than Trump, even after soaking the old brain in alcohol, but that's another matter. I havnt seen this kind of cut and dried venom in this forum before. I
assume it's partly symptomatic of he times and I feel for everyone across the water, democrat and republican. Folks keep your heads. Let Michael Collins have his say. If you don't agree and have nothing positive to add, follow your mother's direction and say nothing at all. Michael has done nothing wrong. Cut him some slack!

I appreciate the intervention of the moderator. Thanks. But please let this thread die it's natural death. For free speech, which America continues to be the global champion of. As a stand up to bullying, which is evident in recent posts. As a stand up for the little guy
... another beautiful American trait. Let Michael shout out... I have seen the rarest bird in America God Damn it! I publish my sightings and my considered analysis here. I give you the respect of informing you of my findings. Take me or leave em. I engage on my terms. I am not a threat to you and you are free to have and voice your own opinions but you don't need to be nasty and personal. Thanks

This forum is above this crap. Stop it!

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe (mostly)
Ireland (late)





----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Patterson
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 02:05:08 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Worth a look for those who've not seen it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt11...

--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: List Owner message re IBWO evidence
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 19:26 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
I think it’s a mistake to forbid discussions of an identification issue that is relevant to an important topic in conservation just because of the rude behavior of individuals who falsely claimed that the evidence has been refuted. By doing so, you are essentially taking sides and allowing them to succeed in preventing discussions on this topic.   
I don’t have anything further to say other than to thank Martin Collinson for the kind words, which were too generous. Any credit for rediscovering this species would have to be distributed among several individuals. My work is based on following in the pioneering footsteps of John Fitzpatrick and his colleagues in Arkansas. I paid some dues during my work in Louisiana, but I was exceedingly lucky to find those birds. I was able to obtain a video in Florida only because Geoff Hill graciously invited me to visit his study area. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com


From: will russell
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:53 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] List Owner message re IBWO evidence

If anyone else wishes to add their thoughts to this topic, please do so by the end of tomorrow, Saturday Feb. 4. After that point, please continue the discussion privately

Thanks,

Will Russell
List Owner

Will Russell
wcr100@gmail.com










Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: List Owner message re IBWO evidence
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 18:55 pm
From: wcr100 AT gmail.com
 
If anyone else wishes to add their thoughts to this topic, please do so by the end of tomorrow, Saturday Feb. 4. After that point, please continue the discussion privately

Thanks,

Will Russell
List Owner

Will Russell
wcr100@gmail.com










Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:35 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
All of my posts to this forum have been about the evidence. The claim of name calling and victim mentality and other defamatory remarks by David Irons are absurd. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:35 pm
From: m.collinson AT abdn.ac.uk
 
I've got no beef with Michael Collins and if anyone 'deserves' to rediscover the IBWO I kinda feel he's earned it.


The fundamental flaw with the original Science paper that documented the 'rediscovery', was a scientific flaw - a failure to provide adequate controls. While the authors argued strongly that the data were consistent with Ivorybill, they did not undertake an exhaustive attempt to obtain comparable data from Pileated Woodpeckers and to show there was no way the Luneau video bird could have been a Pileated. When other authors subsequently did those controls it was a fairly trivial exercise to show that the Luneau bird could have been a Pileated, so it probably was one.


The critique of this recent paper should be the same - it's not whether the videos are consistent with Ivorybill or even that they are atypical of Pileated, but to obtain extensive comparable video evidence of Pileateds or other potential swamp birds such as Belted Kingfisher and show there's no way the birds in the videos could be these commoner species.


Best wishes

Martin



---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Martin Collinson, Professor in Genetics
m.collinson@abdn.ac.uk

Room 4.37
School of Medical Sciences
University of Aberdeen
Institute of Medical Sciences
Foresterhill
Aberdeen AB25 2ZD
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1224 437515
Fax: +44 (0) 1224 437465, but c'mon... Fax? seriously? Do you want my Telex too?
Mobile: +44 (0) 7572 055385

Aberdeen Clubfoot Consortium - Naked Scientist Interview.
http://www.thenakedscientists....


________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification on behalf of Phil Jeffrey
Sent: 02 February 2017 19:21
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Specifically the videos are part of the supplementary material of the paper
whose direct link is:
http://www.heliyon.com/article...
but I really think that was trivial to determine and my .edu domain isn't a
factor in access. One of the videos (S5) is currently giving me a problem
when I try to view it.

Phil Jeffrey
Princeton

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Collins wrote:

> The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.
>
> From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> >>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where
> Geoff Hill had a sighting".
> Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an
> unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in
> your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
[https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ra8...

Birding etc with Dominic Mitchell
www.birdingetc.com
While I would be lucky to improve on that personal best, yesterday I had another welcome find while sorting out my tax papers. Glancing out of the window from my desk ...


> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out
> last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video
> involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had
> a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended
> for publication by ornithologists.
> From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new
> observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
[https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ra8...

Birding etc with Dominic Mitchell
www.birdingetc.com
While I would be lucky to improve on that personal best, yesterday I had another welcome find while sorting out my tax papers. Glancing out of the window from my desk ...


> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
> From: Mark Szantyr
> To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted
> a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >
> > The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> > http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> > Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >
> > http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
Video and Photos from Alaska during the Fall of 2016
fishcrow.com
During the fall of 2016, I participated in a sea trip in the Arctic Ocean to the north of Alaska. The trip began in Nome on October 15 and ended in Dutch Harbor on ...


> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge"
- Henry Spencer

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clraichte ann an Alba, ir. SC013683.

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:35 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
Discussing ideas is exactly what I had in mind when posting an announcement that the data and analysis have been published. This seems to be a topic that would be appropriate for discussion on this forum. It is difficult to understand why anyone would be opposed to such discussions or falsely claim that the evidence has been refuted. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
From: Dominik Mosur
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Technically, Mr. Irons, that would make patch birding insanity since we keep going to the same place expecting a new result.

If an idea offends us let's discuss the idea. If this ibwo stuff is just nonsense, let's ignore it. No need to disparage the messenger.


Dominik Mosur
A patch birder
Sent from my iPhone




Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:05 pm
From: 00000295f877fad1-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Technically, Mr. Irons, that would make patch birding insanity since we keep going to the same place expecting a new result.

If an idea offends us let's discuss the idea. If this ibwo stuff is just nonsense, let's ignore it. No need to disparage the messenger.


Dominik Mosur
A patch birder
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:20, David Irons wrote:
>
> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO.
>> From: Don Richardson
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
>> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
>> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
>> Pearland Texas
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael L. P. Retter
>> To: Michael O'Keeffe
>> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Hello.
>> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
>> --------------------------
>> Editor, Birder's Guide
>> American Birding Association
>> www.aba.org/birdersguide
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
>>
>> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
>> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
>> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
>> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.
>>
>> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.
>>
>> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect.
>>
>> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Collins
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
>> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an open mind.
>>
>> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.
>>
>> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
>> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
>> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
>> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).
>>
>> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
>> Dominic Mitchell
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>>
>> From: Michael Collins
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>> From: Mark Szantyr
>> To: mike@fishcrow.com
>> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>>
>> Mark Szantyr
>>
>> "He's not my President"
>> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
>> Remove Trump and his Villains
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>>
>>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:03 pm
From: LLSDIRONS AT msn.com
 
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Dominik Mosur wrote:
>
> Technically, Mr. Irons, that would make patch birding insanity since we keep going to the same place expecting a new result.
>
> If an idea offends us let's discuss the idea. If this ibwo stuff is just nonsense, let's ignore it. No need to disparage the messenger.
>
>
> Dominik Mosur
> A patch birder
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:20, David Irons wrote:
>>
>> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy.
>>
>> Dave Irons
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO.
>>> From: Don Richardson
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
>>> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
>>> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
>>> Pearland Texas
>>>
>>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Michael L. P. Retter
>>> To: Michael O'Keeffe
>>> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
>>> --------------------------
>>> Editor, Birder's Guide
>>> American Birding Association
>>> www.aba.org/birdersguide
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
>>>
>>> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
>>> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
>>> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
>>> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.
>>>
>>> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect.
>>>
>>> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Michael Collins
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an open mind.
>>>
>>> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.
>>>
>>> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
>>> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
>>> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
>>> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).
>>>
>>> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
>>> Dominic Mitchell
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>>>
>>> From: Michael Collins
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>>> From: Mark Szantyr
>>> To: mike@fishcrow.com
>>> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>>
>>> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>>>
>>> Mark Szantyr
>>>
>>> "He's not my President"
>>> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
>>> Remove Trump and his Villains
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>>>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>>>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>>>
>>>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 14:02 pm
From: LLSDIRONS AT msn.com
 
Jeff,

Just to clear, I am not dismissing the Collins video out of hand. There are some intriguing aspects. The conclusions that he infers are based on somewhat speculative hypotheticals (as Mike has pointed out). Michael Collins is taking somewhat colloquial descriptions of past IBWO behavior and using that as though it is empirically tested data. His video is of exceedingly poor quality and distant, which in the opinion of many makes it useless in terms of drawing meaningful conclusions.

Years ago I sent Collins a very congenial email suggesting that his belligerent approach to those who don't embrace his conclusions does not enhance his credibility as the "scientist" he claims to be. A true scientist would understand that his thesis has to stand up to the rigors of independent review and testing before it will be accepted as fact. Collins soldiers on in the one-man crusade despite the fact that almost no one else endorses his video as proof of the continuing existence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. I admire his persistence and passion and I told him so privately, but his name-calling and persecuted victim mentality are unbecoming. No one is out to get him or discredit his efforts.

Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Jeff Gilligan wrote:
>
> wow - there seems to be a lot of Oregonians opining about this….(all three of us on this post)
>
> I don't see the videos as being conclusive proof of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. That written, Mike Collin's analysis combined with the videos is intriguing and I can see everything that he refers to. I gives me some hope.
>
> I of course have no experience regarding how approachable or wary an Ivory-bulled Woodpecker would be, but living in Oregon I do see Pileateds. Their behavior in regard to people has always been a bit of an enigma to me. Occasionally I have walked right up to one, but other times they have been very furtive. Usually I see one or two flying high and direct over a ridge or across a canyon, going a considerable distance, or perched int eh distance calling and drumming. Most of the ones I see would be hard to photograph if I was inclined to do so.
>
> If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist, the rare sightings in the dense swamps might mostly be of the birds doing long direct flights, and the same birds may if found be very approachable when feeding or near a nest.
>
> Jeff Gilligan
> Portland and Depoe Bay, Oregon
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Mike Patterson wrote:
>>
>> The burden of proof is on Mr Collins to provide evidence in support
>> of his hypothesis. So far he has provided hypotheticals to support
>> his hypotheticals.
>>
>> We will never be able to disprove an hypothesis. We can only demonstrate
>> that it is not the best among competing hypotheses.
>>
>> Until Mr Collins can provide clear and uncontrovertible evidence that
>> can withstand the rigors of peer review, the best hypothesis is that
>> the Ivory-billed Woodpecker no longer exists except in our imaginations.
>>
>>
>> David Irons wrote:
>>> ...without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Irons
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Patterson
>> Astoria, OR
>> That question...
>> http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 12:36 pm
From: jeffgilligan10 AT gmail.com
 
wow - there seems to be a lot of Oregonians opining about this.(all three of us on this post)

I don't see the videos as being conclusive proof of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. That written, Mike Collin's analysis combined with the videos is intriguing and I can see everything that he refers to. I gives me some hope.

I of course have no experience regarding how approachable or wary an Ivory-bulled Woodpecker would be, but living in Oregon I do see Pileateds. Their behavior in regard to people has always been a bit of an enigma to me. Occasionally I have walked right up to one, but other times they have been very furtive. Usually I see one or two flying high and direct over a ridge or across a canyon, going a considerable distance, or perched int eh distance calling and drumming. Most of the ones I see would be hard to photograph if I was inclined to do so.

If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist, the rare sightings in the dense swamps might mostly be of the birds doing long direct flights, and the same birds may if found be very approachable when feeding or near a nest.

Jeff Gilligan
Portland and Depoe Bay, Oregon


On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Mike Patterson wrote:

> The burden of proof is on Mr Collins to provide evidence in support
> of his hypothesis. So far he has provided hypotheticals to support
> his hypotheticals.
>
> We will never be able to disprove an hypothesis. We can only demonstrate
> that it is not the best among competing hypotheses.
>
> Until Mr Collins can provide clear and uncontrovertible evidence that
> can withstand the rigors of peer review, the best hypothesis is that
> the Ivory-billed Woodpecker no longer exists except in our imaginations.
>
>
> David Irons wrote:
>> ...without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided.
>>
>>
>> Dave Irons
>>
>
> --
> Mike Patterson
> Astoria, OR
> That question...
> http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 11:26 am
From: wgpu AT hotmail.com
 
Excellent points, Andy.

People should address the empirical data that Michael presents, and the conclusions that he comes to based on that data .

Thanks.

Bates Estabrooks

Get Outlook for Android


From: Andrew Sewell
Sent: Friday, February 3, 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
To: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification

I am a passive observer on this list serve and joined mainly to learn more about the finer points of identification. I am not an ornithologist but do work in a scientific field, so my observations are based on what I have been perceiving in the rebuttals in this email chain. I have followed the IBWO/Collins controversy for a while. One thing that I have noticed is that Collins' arguments hinge on the physics of woodpecker flight, with the hypothesis he supports being that the flight mechanics of the birds in his videos are incompatible with Pileated Woodpecker but match historical descriptions of IBWO flight and the known physical characteristics of the bird. Surely if one is to disprove Mr. Collins hypothesis, one would concentrate on demonstrating that Pileated Woodpeckers can also exhibit the same flight characteristics. To my admittedly limited knowledge, it would appear no one has attempted this, or at least I am unaware of any such work (if such exists, it should have been addressed in Collins' paper; admittedly I may have missed the reference as I am working from memory of the paper's contents). Instead, rebuttals have mostly focused on Collins' statements about behavior and detectability. Rather than attack his paper around the edges, go right at the science he is using to support it. If it can be demonstrated that PIWO exhibit all the same flight behaviors that Collins appears to claim are strictly diagnostic for IBWO, then his hypothesis can be dismissed. If such studies of PIWO flight show that they cannot share the same flight styles as the birds in Collins' paper and video, then his work should not simply be shrugged off and explanations should be sought to explain what is seen in the videos. Anything else seems unhelpful. My two cents, Andy Sewell Columbus, Ohio On Feb 3, 2017 10:20 AM, "David Irons" wrote: > We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed > in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same > conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or > disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, > as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say > let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the > intellectual eddy. > > Dave Irons > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote: > > > > The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the > unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract > (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, > and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. > The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the > behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not > exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been > reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the > past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have > nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks > during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, > heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can > only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can > only be explained in terms of IBWO. > > From: Don Richardson > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from > Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of > North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had > no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to > find. > > Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, > published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late > 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but > not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. > While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one > close enough to photo them would also hear them. > > I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them > are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this > bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more > conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson > > Pearland Texas > > > > From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Michael, > > > > My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a > couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I > am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the > references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's > advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the > other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive > sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts > of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be > prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a > subject in a new way. > > > > Regards > > > > Mike O'Keeffe > > Ireland > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Michael L. P. Retter > > To: Michael O'Keeffe > > Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT) > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Hello. > > I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but > Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, > conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael > L. P. Retter > > -------------------------- > > Editor, Birder's Guide > > American Birding Association > > www.aba.org/birdersguide > > --------------------------- > > > > From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Michael, > > > > I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a > moment I'll assume IBWO exists. > > > > (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What > approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to > test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and > photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in > these experiments? > > (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable > scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a > live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection > was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less > important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of > different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful > to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. > Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. > The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good > recent case in point. > > (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money > translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we > benchmark its value? > > (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll > note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When > faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one > should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, > these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in > all weathers. > > > > As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter > of probability of success. The current standard method that has been > deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, > which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The > terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your > quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO > undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to > capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so > stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally > stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph > using the current methodology. > > > > On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it > provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, > it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera > deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may > it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, > probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The > camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the > probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the > quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The > efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of > detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or > similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and > perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different > Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most > effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental > effect. > > > > I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as > regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated > Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific > findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be > called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most > authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still > require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do > hope you or others get there in the end. > > > > Regards > > > > Mike O'Keeffe > > Ireland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Michael Collins > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT) > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists > who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to > obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not > criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the > habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the > impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to > have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I > returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent > years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find > those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final > five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of > the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if > they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach > last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly > stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with > this approach is available here: > > https://www.youtube.com/playli... > > > > > > > > > > From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Hi, > > > > I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence > of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, > mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But > then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go > undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 > or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So > I try to keep an open mind. > > > > I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If > detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining > photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it > not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how > these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat > stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a > particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling > woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability > to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly > difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree > IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question > becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of > conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so > quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand > accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed > tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all > rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion. > > > > Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing > various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital > loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 > minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a > reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp > which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. > Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about > audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the > distance between monitoring outposts. > > Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a > camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to > capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree > beside the playback source. > > Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a > camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an > area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. > Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to > visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence. > > Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly > (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different > elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, > times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each > point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different > techniques). > > > > For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' > methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' > in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based > on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of > approach might work? > > > > Regards > > > > Mike O'Keeffe > > Ireland > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48 > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of > new observations here? > > Dominic Mitchell > > ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing > Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the > Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | > Bird tours: Azores and more > > > > From: Michael Collins > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48 > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the > details publicly available and put their names to it. > > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com > > From: Mark Szantyr > > To: mike@fishcrow.com > > Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully > refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? > > > > Mark Szantyr > > > > "He's not my President" > > Sic Semper Tyrannis. > > Remove Trump and his Villains > > > > > > > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote: > >> > >> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here: > >> http://www.heliyon.com/article... > >> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here: > >> > >> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h... > >> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com > >> > >> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > > > > > > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw... > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 11:25 am
From: celata AT pacifier.com
 
The burden of proof is on Mr Collins to provide evidence in support
of his hypothesis. So far he has provided hypotheticals to support
his hypotheticals.

We will never be able to disprove an hypothesis. We can only demonstrate
that it is not the best among competing hypotheses.

Until Mr Collins can provide clear and uncontrovertible evidence that
can withstand the rigors of peer review, the best hypothesis is that
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker no longer exists except in our imaginations.


David Irons wrote:
> ...without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided.
>
>
> Dave Irons
>

--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 11:12 am
From: llsdirons AT msn.com
 
I have no agenda other than to avoid trying to derive conclusions from snippets of murky video that do not reveal them. These videos are what they are and won't get better or become more revealing with more views or more explanation. You see what you see in them and are convinced that you see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. I look at them and see a flying bird that I cannot identify. You are welcome to call that an "agenda" if you wish. However, you cannot "prove me wrong" because I have not put any name to this bird. One cannot be wrong for merely expressing the limits of their own ability to ID birds from poor quality photographic and video images. You do not get to set my criteria in this regard. I and many others have told you that we find your video clips to be inconclusive. Perhaps you could for once simply accept this reality without suggesting that the rest of us are driven by some sort of agenda. I am assuming that everyone in this forum would love to know that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker still exists, but we aren't prepared to believe it so without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided. 

Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:00 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The remarks below suggest an agenda to discourage open discussions of data. What could motivate such an agenda? Fear of being proved wrong? What better way is there to engage than to publish data in peer reviewed journals? There have been claims that the evidence has been refuted, but there has been no substantial discussion on this forum of the evidence in the paper.
> From: David Irons
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com"
> Cc: "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO.
>> From: Don Richardson
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
>> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
>> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
>> Pearland Texas
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael L. P. Retter
>> To: Michael O'Keeffe
>> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Hello.
>> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
>> --------------------------
>> Editor, Birder's Guide
>> American Birding Association
>> www.aba.org/birdersguide
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
>>
>> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
>> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
>> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
>> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.
>>
>> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.
>>
>> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect.
>>
>> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Collins
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
>> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Michael O'Keeffe
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an open mind.
>>
>> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.
>>
>> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
>> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
>> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
>> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).
>>
>> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
>> Dominic Mitchell
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>>
>> From: Michael Collins
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>> From: Mark Szantyr
>> To: mike@fishcrow.com
>> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>
>> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>>
>> Mark Szantyr
>>
>> "He's not my President"
>> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
>> Remove Trump and his Villains
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>>
>>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>>
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 10:00 am
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
The remarks below suggest an agenda to discourage open discussions of data. What could motivate such an agenda? Fear of being proved wrong? What better way is there to engage than to publish data in peer reviewed journals? There have been claims that the evidence has been refuted, but there has been no substantial discussion on this forum of the evidence in the paper. 
From: David Irons
To: "mike@fishcrow.com"
Cc: "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy.

Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO.
>      From: Don Richardson
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
> Pearland Texas
>
>      From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

> Michael,
>
> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus.  Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael L. P. Retter
> To: Michael O'Keeffe
> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Hello.
> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
> --------------------------
> Editor, Birder's Guide
> American Birding Association
> www.aba.org/birdersguide
> ---------------------------
>
>      From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

> Michael,
>
> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
>
> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.
>
> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.
>
> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 
>
> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
>
>
>
>
>      From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

> Hi,
>
> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.
>
> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.
>
> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).
>
> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>      From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>      From: Mark Szantyr
> To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>

>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 9:59 am
From: semillama AT gmail.com
 
I am a passive observer on this list serve and joined mainly to learn more
about the finer points of identification. I am not an ornithologist but do
work in a scientific field, so my observations are based on what I have
been perceiving in the rebuttals in this email chain.

I have followed the IBWO/Collins controversy for a while. One thing that I
have noticed is that Collins' arguments hinge on the physics of woodpecker
flight, with the hypothesis he supports being that the flight mechanics of
the birds in his videos are incompatible with Pileated Woodpecker but match
historical descriptions of IBWO flight and the known physical
characteristics of the bird. Surely if one is to disprove Mr. Collins
hypothesis, one would concentrate on demonstrating that Pileated
Woodpeckers can also exhibit the same flight characteristics. To my
admittedly limited knowledge, it would appear no one has attempted this, or
at least I am unaware of any such work (if such exists, it should have been
addressed in Collins' paper; admittedly I may have missed the reference as
I am working from memory of the paper's contents). Instead, rebuttals have
mostly focused on Collins' statements about behavior and detectability.

Rather than attack his paper around the edges, go right at the science he
is using to support it. If it can be demonstrated that PIWO exhibit all the
same flight behaviors that Collins appears to claim are strictly diagnostic
for IBWO, then his hypothesis can be dismissed. If such studies of PIWO
flight show that they cannot share the same flight styles as the birds in
Collins' paper and video, then his work should not simply be shrugged off
and explanations should be sought to explain what is seen in the videos.
Anything else seems unhelpful.

My two cents,
Andy Sewell
Columbus, Ohio

On Feb 3, 2017 10:20 AM, "David Irons" wrote:

> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed
> in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same
> conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or
> disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile,
> as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say
> let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the
> intellectual eddy.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >
> > The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the
> unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract
> (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy,
> and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites.
> The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the
> behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not
> exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been
> reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the
> past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have
> nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks
> during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period,
> heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can
> only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can
> only be explained in terms of IBWO.
> > From: Don Richardson
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from
> Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of
> North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had
> no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to
> find.
> > Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts,
> published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late
> 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but
> not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less.
> While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one
> close enough to photo them would also hear them.
> > I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them
> are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this
> bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more
> conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
> > Pearland Texas
> >
> > From: Michael O'Keeffe
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a
> couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I
> am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the
> references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's
> advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the
> other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive
> sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts
> of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be
> prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a
> subject in a new way.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael L. P. Retter
> > To: Michael O'Keeffe
> > Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Hello.
> > I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but
> Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud,
> conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael
> L. P. Retter
> > --------------------------
> > Editor, Birder's Guide
> > American Birding Association
> > www.aba.org/birdersguide
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > From: Michael O'Keeffe
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a
> moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
> >
> > (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What
> approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to
> test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and
> photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in
> these experiments?
> > (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable
> scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a
> live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection
> was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less
> important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of
> different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful
> to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong.
> Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually.
> The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good
> recent case in point.
> > (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money
> translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we
> benchmark its value?
> > (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll
> note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When
> faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one
> should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment,
> these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in
> all weathers.
> >
> > As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter
> of probability of success. The current standard method that has been
> deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO,
> which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The
> terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your
> quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO
> undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to
> capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so
> stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally
> stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph
> using the current methodology.
> >
> > On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it
> provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp,
> it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera
> deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may
> it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp,
> probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The
> camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the
> probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the
> quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The
> efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of
> detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or
> similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and
> perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different
> Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most
> effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental
> effect.
> >
> > I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as
> regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated
> Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific
> findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be
> called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most
> authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still
> require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do
> hope you or others get there in the end.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Collins
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists
> who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to
> obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not
> criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the
> habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the
> impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to
> have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I
> returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent
> years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find
> those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final
> five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of
> the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if
> they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach
> last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly
> stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with
> this approach is available here:
> > https://www.youtube.com/playli...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Michael O'Keeffe
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence
> of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate,
> mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But
> then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go
> undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009
> or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So
> I try to keep an open mind.
> >
> > I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If
> detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining
> photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it
> not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how
> these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat
> stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a
> particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling
> woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability
> to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly
> difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree
> IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question
> becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of
> conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so
> quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand
> accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed
> tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all
> rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.
> >
> > Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing
> various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital
> loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30
> minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a
> reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp
> which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.
> Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about
> audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the
> distance between monitoring outposts.
> > Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a
> camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to
> capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree
> beside the playback source.
> > Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a
> camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an
> area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.
> Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to
> visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
> > Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly
> (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different
> elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps,
> times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each
> point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different
> techniques).
> >
> > For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad'
> methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live'
> in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based
> on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of
> approach might work?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of
> new observations here?
> > Dominic Mitchell
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
> >
> > From: Michael Collins
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
> > From: Mark Szantyr
> > To: mike@fishcrow.com
> > Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully
> refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
> >
> > Mark Szantyr
> >
> > "He's not my President"
> > Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> > Remove Trump and his Villains
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >>
> >> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> >> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> >> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >>
> >> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> >> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
> >>
> >> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: Subscribe
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 9:21 am
From: bt-bf AT hurontel.on.ca
 
Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 9:20 am
From: llsdirons AT msn.com
 
We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy.

Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO.
> From: Don Richardson
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
> Pearland Texas
>
> From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Michael,
>
> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael L. P. Retter
> To: Michael O'Keeffe
> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Hello.
> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
> --------------------------
> Editor, Birder's Guide
> American Birding Association
> www.aba.org/birdersguide
> ---------------------------
>
> From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Michael,
>
> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
>
> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.
>
> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.
>
> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect.
>
> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
>
>
>
>
> From: Michael O'Keeffe
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Hi,
>
> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an open mind.
>
> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.
>
> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).
>
> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?
>
> Regards
>
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
> From: Mark Szantyr
> To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 7:43 am
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO. 
From: Don Richardson
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
Pearland Texas

      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Michael,

My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus.  Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland





----- Original Message -----
From: Michael L. P. Retter
To: Michael O'Keeffe
Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Hello.
I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
--------------------------
Editor, Birder's Guide
American Birding Association
www.aba.org/birdersguide
---------------------------

      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.

(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.

As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.

On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland











----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 7:21 am
From: donrich514 AT sbcglobal.net
 
I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find.
Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them would also hear them.
I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
Pearland Texas

From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Michael,

My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus.  Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland





----- Original Message -----
From: Michael L. P. Retter
To: Michael O'Keeffe
Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Hello.
I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
--------------------------
Editor, Birder's Guide
American Birding Association
www.aba.org/birdersguide
---------------------------

      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.

(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.

As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.

On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland











----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Fri Feb 3 2017 1:39 am
From: okeeffeml AT eircom.net
 
Michael,

My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland





----- Original Message -----
From: Michael L. P. Retter
To: Michael O'Keeffe
Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Hello.
I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter
--------------------------
Editor, Birder's Guide
American Birding Association
www.aba.org/birdersguide
---------------------------

From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.

(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.

As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.

On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland











----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 20:30 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
The IBWO has several behaviors that can be used to rule out other species, including folding the wings closed during the middle of each upstroke in cruising flight (PIWO is the only other large bird of the region with this wing motion); a high flap rate according to Tanner (the flap rate of the bird in the 2008 video is about 10 sd greater than the mean flap rate of the PIWO); usually has to flap its wings during short flights between limbs according to Tanner (this would be expected for a massive bird with narrow wings); deep and rapid flaps during takeoffs according to Tanner and Christy; a flight that is "graceful in the extreme" according to Audubon (this suggests that this bird has truly remarkable flights, and there are some remarkable flights in the 2007 video); double knocks (such as the one in the 2007 video); side to side motions that are nearly constant in the Singer Tract film; frequent flirting of the wings according to Tanner; and extreme wariness at ranges of 300 to 400 yards according to Arthur T. Wayne. All of these behaviors appear in the videos.
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com

From: Andrew Haffenden
To: mike@fishcrow.com; BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 8:46 PM
Subject: RE: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

I am nowhere near as qualified as many in this and previous rounds of this debate, and offer no comment one way or the other on the quality of the evidence Collins presents. But his general thrust - a definitive photo is unlikely and so other considerations should be made - are reasonable. Camera traps are one way to go certainly,  but there's a lot of territory out there. But all birders, and ornithologists, use experience with other factors to id birds. Time of year, habitat, behavior, stance, gait, distribution, foraging height, agression and more. The three US peeps, Semipalmated, Western and Least can usually be differentiated by foraging gait. This would be true if there were three Westerns or three million. Mountain Thornbill can be often id'd by its landing place on a tree. Sprague's and American Pipits by how long their wings are folded to their sides during flight. When I say usually, there may be some apparent overlap, but for the most part these things are clearly different, so at that level they are diagnostic. So a grayish peep in December in the US consistently foraging with a step step step pause one leg briefly before putting it down or even holding it up step walk - Western. In silhouette. In April occasionaly seen in a much reduced action in the now possible Semipalm, but never to the jerkiness of a Western. Least piper never. So let's not reduce bird id to "the definitive photo." 

Cheers,
Andrew Haffenden



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 18:57 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
You may very well be correct that nobody will obtain a photo without stumbling upon a nest, but I would prefer to focus on the material that is presented in the paper: 
1. An analysis on the expected waiting time for obtaining a photo, which is consistent with the history of this bird and suggests that it is unlikely that anyone will obtain a clear photo. 
2. An analysis of three videos that contain the strongest evidence for the persistence of the IBWO that has been obtained during the past several decades. 
From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.

(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.

As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.

On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland











----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




      From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 18:20 pm
From: okeeffeml AT eircom.net
 
Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment I'll assume IBWO exists.

(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments?
(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point.
(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value?
(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers.

As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph using the current methodology.

On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect.

I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end.

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland











----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 15:04 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with this approach is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...




From: Michael O'Keeffe
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 14:50 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
Nobody has refuted any of the evidence that is presented in the paper. If you wish to claim otherwise, you need to provide details to back it up. The evidence has now been published in a peer reviewed journal, and it is irrelevant when it was obtained. 
From: "0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Aside from a 2015 clip of a Pileated Woodpecker, all of the videos listed in the summary at the link below are old, from 2006, 2007 and 2008.
There still appears to be no actual "evidence", new or old, and though approached from a different perspective in this paper, I recall that a lot of the issues with the material presented here have been debated extensively on this Listserv and elsewhere before.
No matter how much we would all like to have faith in the continued existence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker, without firm supporting evidence it is hard to fathom why BirdLife International, Audubon and others continue to trumpet this as a potential rediscovery.
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesNew book: Birds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Phil Jeffrey
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 19:21
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Specifically the videos are part of the supplementary material of the paper
whose direct link is:
http://www.heliyon.com/article...
but I really think that was trivial to determine and my .edu domain isn't a
factor in access.  One of the videos (S5) is currently giving me a problem
when I try to view it.

Phil Jeffrey
Princeton

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Collins wrote:

> The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.
>
>      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
>  To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> >>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where
> Geoff Hill had a sighting".
> Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an
> unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in
> your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>      From: Michael Collins
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out
> last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video
> involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had
> a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended
> for publication by ornithologists.
>      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
>  To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new
> observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>      From: Michael Collins
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>      From: Mark Szantyr
>  To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted
> a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >
> > The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> > http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> > Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >
> > http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge"
- Henry Spencer

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 14:34 pm
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
Aside from a 2015 clip of a Pileated Woodpecker, all of the videos listed in the summary at the link below are old, from 2006, 2007 and 2008.
There still appears to be no actual "evidence", new or old, and though approached from a different perspective in this paper, I recall that a lot of the issues with the material presented here have been debated extensively on this Listserv and elsewhere before.
No matter how much we would all like to have faith in the continued existence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker, without firm supporting evidence it is hard to fathom why BirdLife International, Audubon and others continue to trumpet this as a potential rediscovery.
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesNew book: Birds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Phil Jeffrey
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 19:21
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Specifically the videos are part of the supplementary material of the paper
whose direct link is:
http://www.heliyon.com/article...
but I really think that was trivial to determine and my .edu domain isn't a
factor in access.  One of the videos (S5) is currently giving me a problem
when I try to view it.

Phil Jeffrey
Princeton

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Collins wrote:

> The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.
>
>      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
>  To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> >>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where
> Geoff Hill had a sighting".
> Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an
> unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in
> your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>      From: Michael Collins
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out
> last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video
> involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had
> a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended
> for publication by ornithologists.
>      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
>  To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new
> observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>      From: Michael Collins
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
>      From: Mark Szantyr
>  To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted
> a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >
> > The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> > http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> > Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >
> > http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge"
- Henry Spencer

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...




Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 14:31 pm
From: okeeffeml AT eircom.net
 
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an open mind.

I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion.

Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts.
Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback source.
Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques).

For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might work?

Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 14:30 pm
From: jeffgilligan10 AT gmail.com
 
I think people should keep an open mind and examine the evidence that Mike is presenting.  I have looked at it only once, but it is intriguing.    

Jeff Gilligan

On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Michael Collins wrote:

> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended for publication by ornithologists.
> From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
> From: Mark Szantyr
> To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 13:21 pm
From: phil.jeffrey AT gmail.com
 
Specifically the videos are part of the supplementary material of the paper
whose direct link is:
http://www.heliyon.com/article...
but I really think that was trivial to determine and my .edu domain isn't a
factor in access. One of the videos (S5) is currently giving me a problem
when I try to view it.

Phil Jeffrey
Princeton

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Collins wrote:

> The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.
>
> From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> >>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where
> Geoff Hill had a sighting".
> Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an
> unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in
> your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out
> last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video
> involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had
> a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended
> for publication by ornithologists.
> From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
> To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new
> observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
> From: Michael Collins
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com
> From: Mark Szantyr
> To: mike@fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted
> a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
> >
> > The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> > http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> > Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >
> > http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>



--
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge"
- Henry Spencer

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 13:10 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.

From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

>>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting".
Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended for publication by ornithologists. 
      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...





Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 12:57 pm
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
>>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting".
Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended for publication by ornithologists. 
      From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

      From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...

 

 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 12:47 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended for publication by ornithologists. 
From: "dominic.mitchell@yahoo.co.uk"
To: "mike@fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...





Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 12:35 pm
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu
 
To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new observations here?
Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter: @birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: Azores and more

From: Michael Collins
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
 
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 12:01 pm
From: mike AT fishcrow.com
 
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details publicly available and put their names to it. 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike@fishcrow.com 
From: Mark Szantyr
To: mike@fishcrow.com
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?

Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...




Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...



Subject: IBWO evidence published
Date: Thu Feb 2 2017 10:22 am
From: celata AT pacifier.com
 
It's just the annual February IBWO thing.

...but it never sees its shadow...

Mark Szantyr wrote:
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
>>
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article...
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.h...
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes@yahoo.com
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...
>
>
>

--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/commu...

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdw...


ABA RBA
Episode #6: Lang Elliot on Natural Soundscapes

ABA RBA

ABA RBA



ABA's FREE Birder's Guide. Get the most recent issue now >>



If you live nearby, or are travelling in the area, come visit the ABA Headquarters in Delaware City. Beginning this spring we will be having bird walks, heron watches and evening cruises, right from our front porch!

Click here to view the full calender, and register for events >>



Get Flight Calls, the ABA newsletter, delivered to your inbox each month...




Contact us.