Suppression- name and shame!

[Jono L]

Having got a bit annoyed with birds being suppressed at the site I watch regularly and call "my patch" I would like to start a thread about suppression, the most horrible of birding afflictions.

1. Why do birders suppress stuff?
2. Under what circumstances is suppression acceptable -eg private site, or rare breeding species etc?
3. How can you encourage known suppressors to part with their news?
4. How do you deal with the real baddies i.e. those who use others' news but don't give out their own?
5. Which areas of the country suffer most from this problem?

I apologise if this has been discussed on here before.
Jono Leadley
www.indybirder.com

[pduxon]

I might suppress something in my back garden.....

some sites are environmentally sensitive so I'd have thought that was acceptable. Getting a tick isn't that important. And of course some breeding birds. (although the Monties at the "secret" Norfolk site was laughable).

I suppose if you have a nice quiet patch that only a few people watch it would be tempting to say nowt rather than 100's of twitchers about for days on end.

if you twitch yourself you are perhaps more honour bound to pass out your own news.

having said that I think I'd be too excited to find something to suppress it !!

[pcurpb]

I might suppress something in my back garden.....

some sites are environmentally sensitive so I'd have thought that was acceptable. Getting a tick isn't that important. And of course some breeding birds. (although the Monties at the "secret" Norfolk site was laughable).

I suppose if you have a nice quiet patch that only a few people watch it would be tempting to say nowt rather than 100's of twitchers about for days on end.

if you twitch yourself you are perhaps more honour bound to pass out your own news.

having said that I think I'd be too excited to find something to suppress it !!


Yes - I think you are spot on here, matey.

I couldn't in all conscience call down the masses if a Blackburnian Warbler appeared in my garden (er... yeah, right...). It wouldn't be fair on the neighbours, however well I tried to organise it. But - I WOULD want to tell my friends, of course. And they'd want to tell their friends. And word would get out... so I might as well have tried to organise it in the first place! The hardest part of suppression would be keeping news of a mega to yourself!

[buzzard12]

I have found rarities in the past that have resulted in my local patch being invaded by birders, quite often many among them will never have visited the site before. It can be a little galling if behaviour is not good with regard to trampling vegetation, knocking walls etc, I would have to say that this is not a major problem in general and most birders that come and see the bird behave in exemplary manner and derive a great deal of enjoyment from it. I dont think suppression is justified unless sensitive species or habitat is threatened or if proper access is difficult and results in serious inconvenience or invasion of privacy to others.
The sight of birders trundling up the hillside and ticking off a good bird at a site which you have flogged for years can result in some odd emotions, but I reckon if you find it you derive the biggest buzz of all from the bird so let others enjoy it too eh?

[Woodchatshrike]

It's all too easy to put all suppression down to pure bloody mindedness. That does go on, but the trouble with birders there is always a lot of gossip that goes with these situations and this can often be blown out of all proportion and if birders do miss birds they do often look for a scapegoat and try and sully their reputation.

It is always worth remembering that you do not have the right to see any bird rare or otherwise. It is true that I would be annoyed if someone suppressed something on my patch but at the end of the day in the fullness of time doe it really matter?

Was'nt there an artical in birdwatch a few years ago titled "Suppresion :- You have to live with it" Take note of the title. There is a lesson to be learned from that.

I hardly think naming and shaming suppresers is really the way ahead. Particually that the truth is often not known. I used to live in the suppresion heartland of Gloucestershire. I missed out on Desert Wheatear and Iserbaline shrike. Thankfully those days are over in that county and it did'nt do me any harm in the long run.

If folk are named it will just turn this thread into internet lynch mob mentality and who wants that.

[redeyedvideo]

It is always worth remembering that you do not have the right to see any bird rare or otherwise.


Agreed, but I would publicly like to thank GT for getting the Pacific Diver news out. Not wishing to drag up the recent past but that wasn't in someone's back garden was it?


Dave J

[matt green]

2. Under what circumstances is suppression acceptable -eg private site, or rare breeding species etc?

One thing to remember is the fact that many 'suppressable' birds are not always found on large nature reserves with plenty of 'breathing space'

I haven't found any megas yet on my humble 150 odd acres of rough meadow
and grazing but there has been one or two birds that have attracted the attentions of photographers/twitchers etc, one species in particular is very much anticipated at a certain time of year and could easily suffer as a result of too many ''prying eyes''!!

All of the other scarse birds I have found have been one offs/passing through
on migration etc.

Personally, anyone who thinks they have a ''right'' to anyone elses find is a twonk in my opinion.Most birders who have access to a car can have themselves a fantastic days birding where ever and when ever they choose - throwing a stropp because they have been denied a year tick (often for a good reason) seems a bit juvanile to me.

Matt

[Highway Man]

I'm suppressing something right now - but I'm not telling you lot ;)

[Joe Ray]

I feel a very hot and feisty thread coming!

[Collster]

I'm suppressing something right now - but I'm not telling you lot ;)
Is it the urge to burst out laughing ;)

[Highway Man]

Is it the urge to burst out laughing ;)

No but has a lot to do with what I had for lunch :-O

[Steve Babbs]

I feel a very hot and feisty thread coming!
And one that has been gone over many times before. Like a 'gawper' at a traffic accident I feel I won't be able to resist looking.

Within a post or two will come the "What gives you the divine right to hear about a rare bird.........."

There will be tears before bedtime.

[Jos Stratford]

if you twitch yourself you are perhaps more honour bound to pass out your own news.


Not so, I think. Regardless how much you twitch, you are never under obligation to realise news of a bird you find, whatever the reason might be. Who cares if you see a bird or not, only you, i.e. if I find, that is not top of my priorities. For the record, should a first for Europe turn up on my land, I would only release the news if I could be absolutely sure I could control access and even then I would only do so if (a) I was sure it would cause no disturbance to habitat or other birds (b) could see it might raise revenue I could put back into the reserve (c) I was feeling very sociable ;)

Edit. spot on Steve, happened in one post :-O

[joe cockram]

If folk are named it will just turn this thread into internet lynch mob mentality and who wants that.

I do, i'm well bored!

[Steve Babbs]

I presume the comment about 'name and shame' was tongue in cheek. What ever your feelings about suppression public naming of individuals would be totally unacceptable.

And I swore to myself I wouldn't get involved.

[Jos Stratford]

I like the idea of name and shame, can I start? I nominate a good university buddy of mine from days gone past for the unforgiveable crime of suppressing a Desert Warbler. I would have been gutted had I not seen it with him and was involved in the despicable act myself. Truly we should hang our heads in shame for we did it for the pure amusement of it, finding it somehow funny that we decided to get back to university just late enough to ensure there was insufficient daylight left for our other good buddy to get there that day. What proper ba stards we were, but I do remember right big grins as we broke the news to our friend ...what is more surprising is he remained our friend! So, a decade and more has passed, that friend does read this forum, so might I ask a pardon, my conscience weighs me down every day! ;)

[Steve Babbs]

Next prediction: a born again non-twitcher will join in and say there's nothing wrong if people want to surpress and twitchers should get a life even though when he/she was twitching rare birds meant a huge amount to them.

Sorry in a foul mood!! :)

[stuart winter]

You're in a foul mood, Steve? Pity me. Drogba was offside for Shevchenko's goal and Carvalho should have got red carded!
Less seriously, there is no God given right for information to be released. Working in the news media far more important information than rarity sightings is suppressed by all manner of organisations and we have to grin and bear it. Rather than naming and shaming "suppressors" what about forcing long-distance twitchers to off-set their carbon emissions?

Stu
COYS!

[Megapodius]

I generally support the spreading of information on where to find birds but there are circumstances when I shut up. I certainly wouldn't reveal the location of a bowerbird's bower to anyone I wasn't sure had a genuine interest and good birding ethics. It only takes one loony to smash up a bower.

[Collster]

Rather than naming and shaming "suppressors" what about forcing long-distance twitchers to off-set their carbon emissions?

Stu
COYS!
Thats a good idea, infact anyone with any regard for the planet should supress rare birds as a matter of course. Think of all the emmissions that would be saved on one or two suppressed major rarities ;)

[Jono L]

I presume the comment about 'name and shame' was tongue in cheek. What ever your feelings about suppression public naming of individuals would be totally unacceptable.

And I swore to myself I wouldn't get involved.

Steve, you are right, it was tongue in cheek, but I thought this might attract a bit of attention to a subject I was interested in hearing people's views on.
Cheers
JL

[whomes]

You're in a foul mood, Steve? Pity me. Drogba was offside for Shevchenko's goal and Carvalho should have got red carded!
Less seriously, there is no God given right for information to be released. Working in the news media far more important information than rarity sightings is suppressed by all manner of organisations and we have to grin and bear it. Rather than naming and shaming "suppressors" what about forcing long-distance twitchers to off-set their carbon emissions?

Stu
COYS!

Drogba was 'not interfering with play'. Quite appropriate for this thread.

[colonelboris]

I think the other part to supression is stop egg collectors and anyone with a reason to destroy nests. So if something rare and breeding turned up on my doorstep, I might inform the county recorder, but ask him to keep schtum.

[DunnoKev]

As Mr Babbs has banned my natural response born from born-again non-twitching religious fervour, I'll not preach to the heathens but offer instead theological debate based on Jono's Letter to the Forum Chapter One Verse One:

Having got a bit annoyed with birds being suppressed at the site I watch regularly and call "my patch"

Having checked out your weblink, surely Jono you should not be saying 'my' patch as I think several others worship at the birding altar of 'your' site on a very regular basis.

So, why not just change mindset and try saying 'our' patch instead? Those sinners you see around the shore of your Lake Galilee could well be saved from their sins of suppression, but you won't do it by spouting hellfire and brimstone on here.. try talking to 'em!

Talk about a book of Revelations eh? Heaven forbid we all try to get on.

No, the days of the Old Testament are passed and you should cast aside the Ten Demandments that you have lived by until now...

1) I demand to know every sighting from wherever I so chose..

2) I will challenge every defintion of acceptable suppression offered to me..

3) I will slang off every record a suppressor puts in, even if I know it's good..

4) I demand everybody involved in birding plays the news game by the news rules that I subscribe to (even if they've never seen the rules)..

5) I will support anyone from the furthest reaches of the county / country who bleats on about a fellow birder that I have no knowledge of who is charged with suppressing yearticks, and I will refuse to ever look at the facts of the matter with a clear head. I will also demand that all these sinners are pointed out to me when birding, by use of the words '(S)he's the one who suppressed the (insert species here) the bar steward'.

6) I will always scapegoat offenders at every possible opportunity when in an assembly of birders, 'cos it's more fun than talking about salient i.d. features of what's actually on show in front of me..

7) I will still judge sinners harshly even twenty years after the Yank warbler has departed, even if I've had the opportunity to twitch one since..

8) I demand that all must condemn any accused suppressor as being a 'p-poor birder anyway', regardless of their birding abilities - because they did not realise they had an obligation to tell the world about their sightings..

9) I reserve the right to sulk whenever I pass by a bush that once contained a bird I was not told about..

and (10) I demand that every anti-suppressor rises up on 'Birdforum' should any non-believer dares write a good word about withholding information.

May your birding God go with you. (But if He's omnipotent he's always going to see a lot more than you will - live with it.)

[Steve Babbs]

I think the other part to supression is stop egg collectors and anyone with a reason to destroy nests. So if something rare and breeding turned up on my doorstep, I might inform the county recorder, but ask him to keep schtum.
I don't think many people would argue with the suppression of rare breeding birds. Hopefully that prediction won't be proved wrong.

[dan pointon]

I don't think many people would argue with the suppression of rare breeding birds. Hopefully that prediction won't be proved wrong.

I would, just for the sake of it ;) Seriously i'm also bored of the ''no one has a right to see any bird'' response. Suppresion is good in terms of breeding birds, private land, protection of important habitat etc, but why suppress otherwise? I for one would much rather see people enjoying a bird I had found, getting good pics etc, than sit around and keep quiet about it!

It's like knowing a Never Mind the Buzzcocks special is on, and not telling your mates!

[Frenchy]

I've suppressed rare breeding birds because its a very sensible thing to do. There are far to many evil t***ers around that still insist on nicking eggs to risk putting news out on certain species/individual pairs. I think this goes without saying. Any birder who doesn't agree with this should attend any forthcoming court cases involving egg collectors.

As far as rare migrants are concerned, i've had to suppress on one occasion due to the landowner refusing permission to let a twitch be organised. It was a horrible experience that luckily we managed to turn around before the bird left, but at the time, i had no choice but to suppress the bird. On the other hand, with another species, i actually missed the oppurtunity of keeping watch of the bird as it went over the hillside as i was too busy ringing the news out! I wish i had suppressed that for at least 30 seconds to enable me to run up the hill!

Its never a black and white situation with regards to putting news out of a rarity. There is always something to consider. Luckily, in the majority of cases, it's a simple case of asking yourself "can the bird/habitat/locals cope with a twitch", and the answer is usually yes. If its a simple case of childish suppression for the sake of "oneupmanship" then its a bit childish and you probably don't have any friends anyway.(no offence intended to a certain forum member currently living somewhere in the Baltic countries... ;) ;) ),

[Steve Babbs]

As Mr Babbs has banned my natural response born from born-again non-twitching religious fervour, I'll not preach to the heathens but offer instead theological debate based on Jono's Letter to the Forum Chapter One Verse One:



Having checked out your weblink, surely Jono you should not be saying 'my' patch as I think several others worship at the birding altar of 'your' site on a very regular basis.

So, why not just change mindset and try saying 'our' patch instead? Those sinners you see around the shore of your Lake Galilee could well be saved from their sins of suppression, but you won't do it by spouting hellfire and brimstone on here.. try talking to 'em!

Talk about a book of Revelations eh? Heaven forbid we all try to get on.

No, the days of the Old Testament are passed and you should cast aside the Ten Demandments that you have lived by until now...

1) I demand to know every sighting from wherever I so chose..

2) I will challenge every defintion of acceptable suppression offered to me..

3) I will slang off every record a suppressor puts in, even if I know it's good..

4) I demand everybody involved in birding plays the news game by the news rules that I subscribe to (even if they've never seen the rules)..

5) I will support anyone from the furthest reaches of the county / country who bleats on about a fellow birder that I have no knowledge of who is charged with suppressing yearticks, and I will refuse to ever look at the facts of the matter with a clear head. I will also demand that all these sinners are pointed out to me when birding, by use of the words '(S)he's the one who suppressed the (insert species here) the bar steward'.

6) I will always scapegoat offenders at every possible opportunity when in an assembly of birders, 'cos it's more fun than talking about salient i.d. features of what's actually on show in front of me..

7) I will still judge sinners harshly even twenty years after the Yank warbler has departed, even if I've had the opportunity to twitch one since..

8) I demand that all must condemn any accused suppressor as being a 'p-poor birder anyway', regardless of their birding abilities - because they did not realise they had an obligation to tell the world about their sightings..

9) I reserve the right to sulk whenever I pass by a bush that once contained a bird I was not told about..

and (10) I demand that every anti-suppressor rises up on 'Birdforum' should any non-believer dares write a good word about withholding information.

May your birding God go with you. (But if He's omnipotent he's always going to see a lot more than you will - live with it.)

Seem a lot more sensible then most of the original ones to me!

[gyrfalcon]

I would, just for the sake of it ;) Seriously i'm also bored of the ''no one has a right to see any bird'' response. Suppresion is good in terms of breeding birds, private land, protection of important habitat etc, but why suppress otherwise? I for one would much rather see people enjoying a bird I had found, getting good pics etc, than sit around and keep quiet about it!

It's like knowing a Never Mind the Buzzcocks special is on, and not telling your mates!

You tell your mates.. if you want to keep them that is! I think many people stall at telling the world, with the subsequent problems of disturbance, damage to habitat / property, tresspassing, invasion of locals's privacy, bird getting flushed by people not happy to spend more than 5 minutes waiting for it to show, photographers with 2000mm lens wanting to get pics from 30 cms away, indecent parking, tape luring, lamping with lighthouse bulbs.. allegedly! ;)

[Jos Stratford]

If its a simple case of childish suppression for the sake of "oneupmanship" then its a bit childish and you probably don't have any friends anyway.(no offence intended to a certain forum member currently living somewhere in the Baltic countries... ;) ;) ),

Totally agree ;)

[Helenelizabeth2]

Totally agree ;)

Well, of course, you do. Since your oneupmanship more often takes the form of bragging endlessly about all the species you've got out there that other people have been dipping on! ;)

[Jono L]

"Having checked out your weblink, surely Jono you should not be saying 'my' patch as I think several others worship at the birding altar of 'your' site on a very regular basis.

So, why not just change mindset and try saying 'our' patch instead? Those sinners you see around the shore of your Lake Galilee could well be saved from their sins of suppression, but you won't do it by spouting hellfire and brimstone on here.. try talking to 'em!"


I don't really know what you mean by your first sentence. Of course I do not claim sole rights to "my patch", in the same way as if I said, "my hobby is birding" it is not suggesting that I am the only birder! My "patch" is GW, as in it is the place I go birding at as much as possible. This in no way reflects on how much effort the band of other GW regulars put in, or the countless hours put in by more sporadically visiting birders. Using the word "our" would have just been bad grammar?!

JL

[gyrfalcon]

The other extreme to this thread used to really annoy me, used to happen every now and then, when I was a young "beginner" birder: I'd be in a hide at our local Nature reserve, and I'd find a half decent bird, point it out to someone else in the hide, who would then put it in the hide log book, with their name / initials next to it!
Trivial I know, but used to wind me up no end! The assumption that either I was incapable of writing myself, or not worthy of any recognition!
Nowadays of course, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest, nor would walking past someone who was looking at a rarity and "suppressing" it.. mellow or what!

[michaelmacey]

Having got a bit annoyed with birds being suppressed at the site I watch regularly and call "my patch" I would like to start a thread about suppression, the most horrible of birding afflictions.

1. Why do birders suppress stuff?
2. Under what circumstances is suppression acceptable -eg private site, or rare breeding species etc?
3. How can you encourage known suppressors to part with their news?
4. How do you deal with the real baddies i.e. those who use others' news but don't give out their own?
5. Which areas of the country suffer most from this problem?

I apologise if this has been discussed on here before.
Jono Leadley
www.indybirder.com

Its the same in the fishing world, people keeping quiet when fish turn up or a new bait works. Dont worry about the saddo's, if you enjoy sharing, share, just dont tell the numpties anything, or make something up and send them on a wild goose chase Mick

[Farnboro John]

I think there are some generally accepted rules coming out here:

1. Suppression of rare breeding species is OK. (Suits me anyway, no rare breeding species in UK is going to be rare enough to bother me or my list.)

2. No-one should feel pressure to put news out except that which comes from within, which should fall into two sorts:

a. the urge to share;

b. the desire to give something back if one twitches other peoples birds. Every twitcher should feel this, but plenty don't. thise that don't shouldn't be named and shamed, but they should be aware that eventually they will be roasting in hell.

Have a nice day everybody.

John

[DunnoKev]

Re: the Ten Demandments Seem a lot more sensible then most of the original ones to me!

Oh ye sinner! Repent! ;) To save your soul I will offer up a sacrificial Yank duck from my local marshes (in deepest Suppressex) to the Birding Gods.. Would you prefer a vagrant or are your sins worthy of a first for Europe???

[DunnoKev]

"Having checked out your weblink, surely Jono you should not be saying 'my' patch as I think several others worship at the birding altar of 'your' site on a very regular basis.

So, why not just change mindset and try saying 'our' patch instead? won't do it by spouting hellfire and brimstone on here.. try talking to 'em!"...


I don't really know what you mean by your first sentence. Of course I do not claim sole rights to "my patch", in the same way as if I said, "my hobby is birding" it is not suggesting that I am the only birder! My "patch" is GW, as in it is the place I go birding at as much as possible. This in no way reflects on how much effort the band of other GW regulars put in, or the countless hours put in by more sporadically visiting birders. Using the word "our" would have just been bad grammar?!

JL

I wasn't talking about grammar. Perhaps I shoul've typed try thinking of it as our patch. I'm saying try changing the mindset (unless your mind is set..). You could say "I work a local patch at.." for pedantry, but the issue here is that 'my' is possessive, and that's where most of the problems come from.

You have to take the views of others into consideration. You have to accept they have every right to be there, and (like it or not) they have every right to do with their sightings what they please. Only then can you try to find compromise with people.

(True example) If, after an evening e-mail to local birders I get a phone call from a person I know watches a place regularly saying 'Why didn't you phone me to say you'd had a (insert very common bird here) when you went to my patch yesterday I need it for my Year List?' then I have every right to react and think 'stuff that trumped up little whatnot I'm not telling him anything in future'.

(Made up example for your position) If that someone watches GW, reads your opening remarks and thinks 'Who does Jono think he is, I've been watching there for X years, and no-one's gonna tell me what I can and can't do..' then you won't ever change him.

If you engage the supposed sinners, explain what you're about and what you'd like to see accomplished by a better disemination of info, perhaps, just perhaps, you might get 'em on board.

If you don't, then you will either just stay bitter about it, or you will have to say 'forget 'em'. (The latter is better for your peace of mind in the long run.)

A decade ago I had access to a brownfield site which was recognised as a potential IRA terrorist target and was not allowed to release any news that might bring crowds to the perimiter fence, because this would increase Security workload.

Basically, some local listers could accept this, some local listers never accepted this. The latter were the ones that felt they had a divine right to see everything because they 'needed birds for my list..' regardless of the circumstances. What would you do Jono?

Here's an interesting (true) one. What if you have a condition where you can't deal with crowds or interact with individuals but go birding as a release? I know one really good birder who has this problem. Some accept him. Others that demand they should know everything about the area he goes to because they want to know all that goes on can't accept him. What would you do Jono?

You cannot have 'rules' for dealing with suppression, as not everyone is playing your game, not everyone can accept your rules.

[Jos Stratford]

I'm saying try changing the mindset (unless your mind is set..). ... the issue here is that 'my' is possessive, and that's where most of the problems come from.

In my humble opinion, you are perhaps barking up the wrong tree here, don't most of us often refer to the area they frequently bird as 'my local patch', without in any way wishing to suggest possession or ownership.

Personally don't see anything wrong with the mindset of someone that reports, for example, 'my local shop sells bird feeders', 'my local serves beers from all over the world', etc etc. Would you understand from these sentences that I feel some sort of possessive rights over these or am the only person to visit them, don't think so.

[Gastronaut]

Bring on the lynch mob, lets name & shame. Given that there's so few birds left these days (the twitchers flushed them all) it's only the gossip that keeps this hobby interesting. That and the childish sense of oneupmanship I keep getting from suppressing stuff.

[Xenospiza]

Don't most of us often refer to the area they frequently bird as 'my local patch', without in any way wishing to suggest possession or ownership.
I guess a dozen people might call "my" local patch "my local patch"... and while some would share a rare sighting, others would not, either because they wouldn't think that anyone cared, or because they just don't do that. Oh well.
There are access and sensitivity issues (most of them dealing with a rare breeding bird that needs to be suppressed!), which will lead to interesting variations of suppression like "keeping the news within a small group" (only available to an inner circle – which can be annoying if you're not there yet) or "keeping the news low-key" (available to all those who care to check the local website). Sometimes, people copied sightings onto more popular platforms, but a kind request usually got that sorted out...

[Gastronaut]

3. How can you encourage known suppressors to part with their news?
Dangle them over a cliff by their ankles.

4. How do you deal with the real baddies i.e. those who use others' news but don't give out their own?
Drop them.

5. Which areas of the country suffer most from this problem?
Those that don't get any rare birds of their own?

[DunnoKev]

You are certainly entitled to that opinion Jos. It's just in my humble 25 yrs' experience, possessiveness is a major cause all sorts of bleatings, tantrums and spat-out dummies all over the hide floor - and, sadly, sometimes even blood and bruises..

[Steven Astley]

- and, sadly, sometimes even blood and bruises..

Get a thread started on Ruffled feathers Kev, it's pretty discrete in their ;)

[greensand39]

The last time an Arctic Redpoll turned up in
Wyre forest, three families couldn't get home due to cars blocking a narrow lane and I , as warden was blamed.
So, since then , work it out for your self .

Perhaps if, as warden, you had arranged parking then the three families may have got home more easily! problem solved and no need to suppress :hi:

[Gastronaut]

Perhaps I should become one of those bird people and get a pager or something and then I could run around arranging parking for everyone.
JohnR

Yeah I'd certainly appreciate it if you could arrange a parking space near the beach at Sennen for me next time I go on a sunny day in school hols. :t: