A future scenario and dilemma? (1 Viewer)

[Sharp Shin]

A future scenario and dilemma?

It’s early June in 2024 and there has been a report of a possible Gray’s Grasshopper Warbler at Wicken Fen. It is in a remote and inaccessible area. I decide to visit the reserve and take along with me an array of new technology. After I arrive at the area where it is suspected to be, I launch my personal drone which hovers above the fen and, with its on-board camera, scans the surrounding area. The drone transmits images to my Google Glass and, after some searching, I eventually see the bird through the screen. Two things confirm the identity as Gray’s Grasshopper Warbler: comparison of a captured image with a collection of images on my Iphone; and a synchronisation of the bird’s song with a sonogram received through my Google Glass.

I submit my data to the BBRC. Though the bird was never actually seen (i.e. without the aid of digital technology) by anyone, including me, they accept the record and it goes on the British List.

Question: Can I actually claim to have ‘seen’ the bird - i.e. tick it, put it on my BUBO life list, etc?

(I leave aside the larger question of whether it matters or not whether I tick it!)

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

I'd put it my my drone list, but not on my seen list.

 

[dantheman]

I'd also want to my drone to do a full body, brain wave pattern and DNA scan and consult my Gray's Anatomy for extra confirmation ... (actually we might be talking 2054 here).

It would certainly go on my (or one of my clones) eBUBO list.

 

[Farnboro John]

This is the same question as the reputed North American habit of counting birds seen on live TV, as that is just a specialised form of optics with a nice long range (I've always regarded this as an urban myth...?)

No you can't, but the objective of proving the sighting is fulfilled so it can be put on the List.

John

 

[auchinbowie]

Nice one, Stewart.

I think the point you are making is that personal observations, irrespective of independent corroboration, are now only accepted if supported by physical evidence. Physical evidence may become acceptable without personal observation.
The acceptance of technologically developed data, however, also has risks. In future the problem may be hoaxers who can transpose images from one file to another. Was that Emu really in the back garden?

Dave

 

[Mysticete]

I have never ever heard of people counting birds on TV, unless perhaps for an amusing "birds heard in Westeros list". Definitely not for a life list.

I don't see a probably with using remotely viewed (or tracked) birds for addition to a state or regional checklist, since it's a record of it being there (the same as dead birds providing records for regional lists). But I don't see most people being okay with counting drone seen birds.

 

[pshute]

If I had guided the drone and seen the bird by live video, I'd be tempted to tick it. It's not like discovering it in a photo of another bird later, or catching it on a camera trap. I'm not really into the distinction between optical and digital views, so long as it's live. I'd count a bird now if I only saw it on my camera's EVF.

If I was there with you, and saw it on the screen while you guided the drone, I might be tempted to tick it too, but something seems wrong with that, not sure why. It's a bit too much like seeing it on TV, even if it's live. Maybe it's to do with not having located it myself.

I'd certainly have no problem with including it in a survey, or even having it accepted on a country's list. The bird only had to be there to qualify for that.

 

[Zheljko]

The other weekend I saw Goldeneyes with help of my friend's scope and ticked them. It somehow sounds the same as this drone - we knew there are some Goldeneyes somewhere in that faraway part of river so we moved the scope left and right and looked and looked until some of these duck-specks decided to stretch their necks and reveal identifiable Goldeneye features.

As for the TV, I saw some wonderful Little Egrets during live reports (my namesake, who is a "wandering reporter", went to one of my patches to present weather/event forecast) so I knew they are back in the area.

 

[Sharp Shin]

I was prompted to engage in futurology and raise this issue after I read about the RSPB using, or planning to use, small-scale drones to help with local censuses of breeding Bitterns. Like all technology, these small-scale personal drones will start as the preserve of a few and then spread to more general use as they become cheaper. (Mind you, the thought of hundreds of small drones hovering over Minsmere reedbeds is an absolute nightmare and I’m sure that they would be locally banned: “Please leave your drones in your car!”.)

When I read the post saying that this issue was like the pastime of people listing the birds that they’d seen on TV, I thought – no it isn’t. In my scenario, at least there is some active personal craft at work, whereas TV watching is largely passive and, save for using some ID skills, these people have used little or no effort, craft and agency. However, the other post – about the regular and accepted practice of seeing birds through someone else’s telescope – makes me think further about this.

In the scenario I created, it would be wrong to think that the images and data collected from the drone would be personalised. Much more likely that the video images would soon, if not instantly, be broadcast. Knowing my friend was off to use his drone, I could stay at home, sit on the couch, and wait for it to be beamed to me. This would be the new technology version of looking through someone else's telescope. Whatever we think about the user of the drone claiming to have ‘seen’ the bird, surely we couldn’t say that of his or her couch-potato friend!

The other issue here is that the current distinction between seeing a bird through a powerful optic and seeing it through a digital camera will soon be anachronistic. Indeed, it may be so already. As soon as the distinction dissolves (and when it coincides with the practice of instant wi-fi sharing of digital images and videos), there may be little or no difference between watching a bird through another person’s telescope and watching a broadcast video of it. (Coming soon: "Nikon presents a revolution is birding. Our new Wi-Fi digital telescope allows you to share you birding experiences as they happen!")

We are looking at a future, technology-driven ‘ethical’ issue here: when to tick and when not to tick. (Well, to be honest, it will not be an ethical issue on the scale of habitat destruction, hunting, etc.) Could it spell the end of bird listing? Gosh-oh-golly!

Stewart

 

[Richard Prior]

Have I been asleep for a few weeks and awoken on April 1st? ;-)

 

[chris butterworth]

Hmmmm. So, if there are 10, 000 Dunlin on the beach with a solitary Western Sandpiper among them, and a friend shows me a photo of it that they'd just taken - there's no need for me to search through them, just tick it off. Nah! Optics just enhance vision, digital is exactly the same as looking at a photo in a magazine or on television. It doesn't count as a tick - but it does count as 'present' on a survey, a totally different scenario.

 

[jurek]

Already there are many live cams which you can operate (move it left, right and so on). Is anybody counting birds seen on them?

"I saw elephants, giraffe, lions coming to a South African luxury game lodge."
"Wow, I wish I could afford it."
"Well, I just watched their internet cam."

 

[jurek]

I was prompted to engage in futurology and raise this issue after I read about the RSPB using, or planning to use, small-scale drones to help will local censuses of breeding Bitterns. Like all technology, these small-scale personal drones will start as the preserve of a few and then spread to more general use as they become cheaper. (Mind you, the thought of hundreds of small drones hovering over Minsmere reedbeds is an absolute nightmare and I’m sure that they would be locally banned: “Please leave your drones in your car!”.)

Nonono. Technology will allow these things to fly in formation to avoid colliding when they become popular. Drones would be a sight over Minsmere, much like formations of Starlings!

 

[jurek]

there may be little or no difference between watching a bird through another person’s telescope and watching a broadcast video of it.

I recently watched BBC's walking with dinosaurs. Must remember to put Archeopteryx on my "digitally seen" list.

More likely, the world will split into people who see real wildlife, and crowds which immerse themselves in more and more realistic simulations. Like today some people travel to Africa and some go to the zoo.

Probably digital birds will not only always show themselves well, but will recite short lectures about conservation and joining RSPB.

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

Nonono. Technology will allow these things to fly in formation to avoid colliding when they become popular. Drones would be a sight over Minsmere, much like formations of Starlings!

I'm waiting for a discussion about dronespotting. B

 

[Farnboro John]

Nonono. Technology will allow these things to fly in formation to avoid colliding when they become popular. Drones would be a sight over Minsmere, much like formations of Starlings!

Absolutely no need for any such issue. RBA would fly the official drone over the bird and we would all tick it off via the live (subscription) feed on our smartphones. Birdnet the same and Birdguides members queuing for the hides.

John

 

[Dave Ball]

Absolutely no need for any such issue. RBA would fly the official drone over the bird and we would all tick it off via the live (subscription) feed on our smartphones. Birdnet the same and Birdguides members queuing for the hides.

John

Ah, you mean we Birdguides subscribers will remain the only proper birders

 

[pshute]

Would these drones be allowed to use playback?

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

Would these drones be allowed to use playback?

Only if they're leading birding tours. Individually owned drones would be prohibited - they'd be attacked by other drones. :-O

 

[angusmcoatup]

Then of course we get the BF thread about photographers drones getting too close to the bird, drones being deployed into private gardens, the exif data on the drones camera being altered...... I can't wait.