Snow Goose & Sibe Chiffchaff dropped

[Hotspur]

The BBRC have dropped Snow Goose & Sibe Chiffchaff contra to the latest British Birds. Both were deemed too regular vagrants and Snow Goose records were increasingly difficult to assess due to escapes.

[marklhawkes]

Not sure I follow this post.

Can't remember the last time BBRC looked at Snow Geese records, and Siberian Chiffchaff was elevated to BBRC status just last year, the results of which will be far from being published yet, and may yet identify that Siberian Chiffchaff is far from "too regular"

[Microtus]

Is there any significance to the date of this announcement? I see no link to support the statement.

[dan houghton]

Gets a mention here:

www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1601

[Microtus]

So this is a real announcement.
|=:|

[marklhawkes]

Thanks for the link.

I think BBRC's decision not to continue assessing Siberian Chiffchaff is questionable, and I wait with interest to see the results from 2008 (was one year really enough time to solve this issue?). I wonder if, like many local committees, the real problem here is assessing descriptions for this form, which, without photos, is very ambiguous!

[wolfbirder]

Demonstrates to me (as an individual) the folly of following rarity committees. Make you own balanced, informed decision.

[Nigel Hudson]

From BBRC Secretary: Just to put a bit of flesh on this announcement, and a bit of non-excitable comment.
Firstly neither Snow Goose nor Siberian Chiffchaff was a full BBRC species. We had asked for records of both taxa to be sent in so as to establish if they MAY be considered a rarity.
For Siberian Chiffchaff we also set up a sub-committee to look at the complex issue of identification of the taxon and to then assess those records that came in. The numbers of records that we received show Siberian Chiffchaff was substantially above the threshold for a full BBRC rarity. However if you read the Press Release you will see that the sub-committee is still in operation and asks for certain records still to be submitted. We will publish a full paper at a later date with the outcome of their findings. Surely that is a sensible, considered way of looking at the subject with the advantage that the viewpoint will be from a group rather than an individual. I accept Mark Hawkes comment that if the number of records was close to our yearly threshold for rarity status then we would be wrong to ‘drop’ the species, but as I said above the number was substantially over the threshold such that if we had made it a BBRC taxon then it may have accounted for 20-25% of our work-load!
As to Snow Geese we asked for records and from those records became convinced that we would never be able to filter genuine records from escaped birds. Therefore we have decided not to continue to ask for records of the species.

[Johnny Allan]

Also news regarding the Druridge Bay Slender-billed Curlew.

http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/website/content/view/2292/32/

[Jane Turner]

Thanks for the link.

I think BBRC's decision not to continue assessing Siberian Chiffchaff is questionable, and I wait with interest to see the results from 2008 (was one year really enough time to solve this issue?). I wonder if, like many local committees, the real problem here is assessing descriptions for this form, which, without photos, is very ambiguous!

Its pretty ambiguous with photos too!

[Lawts]

Surely you'd have to drop Snow Goose anyhow on the basis of the self-supporting Scottish population in cat. "c", unless the report carried the caveat each time that it excluded them.