• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

ABA Big Year 2017 (3 Viewers)

Some updates:
Ruben & Victor (still on Gambell) picked up Red-flanked Bluetail and McKay's Bunting; the Deans picked up Little Gull.
Here's what I have:
Ruben & Victor: 744+3
Yve: 738+4
Gaylee: 724+3
Richard: 722+3

Joe: 253 in Illinois
 
A couple of ABA firsts (or "firsts" depending on your viewpoint this week): A River Warbler was just found up in Alaska, while New Mexico had a Variable Hawk at a hawk watch site. There is a previous record of the latter from Colorado in the...1980's? which was not accepted on provenance, but maybe is worth a second look?
 
A couple of ABA firsts (or "firsts" depending on your viewpoint this week): A River Warbler was just found up in Alaska, while New Mexico had a Variable Hawk at a hawk watch site. There is a previous record of the latter from Colorado in the...1980's? which was not accepted on provenance, but maybe is worth a second look?

Where can I find information about the hawk?
 
I saw it mentioned on facebook in the ABA rare birds group. It was originally ID'ed as a White-tailed Hawk. Haven't looked for references elsewhere
 
Thanks, Mysticete. I didn't see anything on the Ariz/N.M. list when I checked earlier, and I'm not on Facebook so I never think to check the ABA rare birds group (if it's even an open group?).
 
Yve is back in the game with Ross's Gull! See her Facebook page for some stunning photos of pink birds. The Stolls have been out of communication for awhile, but are still on Gambell.
The latest ABA Birder's Guide, which is the listing issue, arrived over the weekend. Although we don't have a definitive list just yet, there were some nuggets to be gleaned: Cuban Vireo was approved; Shelduck still in committee, no mention of the Pine Flycatcher. The Bishop's Museum list of Hawaiian birds will be close to the ABA's with a few exceptions (and it's not quite finished). Mitred Parakeet was not accepted, and Burrowing Parakeet is not likely to be included. I'm hopeful that the decisions will soon be finished, but I won't be surprised if it's November.

Joe
 
John Weigel's Blog Entry Post Script

A little off-topic, but for those interested in a summary of John Weigel’s take on last year’s ABA Big Year, his recent post on http://www.birdingfordevils.com/www.birdingfordevils.com makes for a good (but lengthy) read. I don’t know how long the post has been up, but was alerted to it from Laura Keene’s recent FB post:

"A new blog post by John Weigel, postscript to his 2016 Big Year. John worked harder and sacrificed more to get to the top and into the record books last year than most realize. I witnessed his hard work and high integrity throughout the entire year. In a year that provided very slow showing of species on pelagics and the slowest fall season in Alaska imaginable, he succeeded with single-minded focus. He started on January 1 targeting every reported bird, at any price, and at any expense to his health and well-being. I'm looking forward to reading his book!"

John’s post follows his July talk at Birdlife Australia in Melbourne that I saw, which was widely touted as one of the best talks we’ve ever had. I do agree!

Also of relevance regarding last year’s American big year, I believe that after months of deliberation, ABA is nearing a decision about inclusion (or not) of the 2016 big year birders’ Hawaiian sightings post-Hawaiian-annexation (Oct 2016), as the Records Standards and Ethics Committee (RSEC) has recently voted on the matter. I’ll post results of the decision when I hear of it.
Cheers y'all from Lara, Victoria
R. Bruce
 
Yve added Boreal Owl last week, and just added her final Code 1 species, Philadelphia Vireo! Five more Code 2 species and she'll join John & Olaf as the only birders to get all the Code 1 & Code 2 species in the same year!
She needs:
Yellow Rail
Common Ringed Plover
Dovekie
Smith's Longspur
McKay's Bunting

Sweeping the Code 2 species is harder than it seems. Mottled Petrel (which should not be a Code 2, IMHO) was missed by every Big Year birder until Neil Hayward, and Dovekie is never a given (ask Christian & Laura). The Stolls need three more Code 2s (they also need the Code 1 Purple Sandpiper), and the Deans need six more.

Joe
 
Paul,
1) I certainly think it's possible to end up with six birders hitting 700.
2) When looking at the eBird lists keep in mind that the Stolls have nine exotics in their total. The totals I have (from the birders themselves) is:
747 (Yve, Ruben & Victor)
727 (Gaylee)
725 (Richard)

My guess is that the top three will end up in the high 750s. Yve might be a bit more able to chase, just because it's easier for one person to pick up and go compared to two, although the brothers seem quite able to handle that aspect of logistics.

For the "New ABA" (totally subject to change once the new checklist comes out):
839 (John Weigel)
833 (Olaf Danielson)
818 (Laura Keene)
803 (Ruben & Victor Stoll)
784 (Yve Morrell)

Yve is heading back to Hawaii once more; I don't believe Ruben and Victor plan to do that.
I refuse to guess totals for this one; we don't even know if the 2016 birders will be eligible.

Joe
 
Joe

Many thanks and noted.

It would be intriguing if the ABA change the rules to allow the 2016 Hawaiian bird totals to count, particularly as there was an ABA blog when only Olaf had visited which clearly stated that they would not count:-

http://blog.aba.org/2016/11/aba-big-year-update-three-past-the-record.html

I suppose that it may depend on the lobbying!

If they were to add any rules, I would suggest a disqualification rule for anyone who withheld news for a competitive advantage together with a requirement to use e-bird and make any effort public. But then again, I am merely an armchair critic (apparently). :king:

All the best
 
Last edited:
Here's the rationale, as I understand it:
Using the 2016 Pine Flycatcher as an example - the species is not yet officially countable as it has not yet been added to the ABA Checklist. If it's not added then everyone drops the bird. If it is, then all four of them add the bird; it's still not on any of their "official" lists. How is that different than, say, Hawaii Elepiao? In the same update, this species will either be added to the checklist or not, with the birders having the same result. At this moment, all the Hawaiian species are provisional until the list comes out.
Now, if ABA decides to stand by the original statement that Hawaiian species seen in 2016 do not count for 2016 Big Years, that's a decision they're allowed to make. Their ball, their rules. By the same token, if they decide to let birders count them, that's their call, too.

An eager birding nation awaits.
Joe
 
Here's the rationale, as I understand it:
Using the 2016 Pine Flycatcher as an example - the species is not yet officially countable as it has not yet been added to the ABA Checklist. If it's not added then everyone drops the bird. If it is, then all four of them add the bird; it's still not on any of their "official" lists. How is that different than, say, Hawaii Elepiao? In the same update, this species will either be added to the checklist or not, with the birders having the same result. At this moment, all the Hawaiian species are provisional until the list comes out.
Now, if ABA decides to stand by the original statement that Hawaiian species seen in 2016 do not count for 2016 Big Years, that's a decision they're allowed to make. Their ball, their rules. By the same token, if they decide to let birders count them, that's their call, too.

An eager birding nation awaits.
Joe

Joe

I've never understood the ABA reluctance to update and review lists including established exotics & taxonomy.

Exactly the same arguments can be made for those as firsts and Hawaiian birds in my view.

I just find it amusing with the 2016 scrap that the differing arguments on all sides seem to be dictated by who is putting them forward and when and now the dust has settled and all four went, Hawaii is being pushed when the contrary was being spun before that happened. B :)

But that has never been any different. I re-read the Epilogue last night of the most recent edition of Kingbird Highway when Ken Kaufman was practically rejoicing at the expectation that Sandy Komito's historic totals may be struck from the record. Something that never happened in the end.

None of this is any different over here. I could tell you practically identical stories from British yearlisting scraps a quarter of a century ago (over fifteen years before the current record-holder discovered birds because his car passenger started counting..... ;))

All the best
 
Last edited:
Joe

I've never understood the ABA reluctance to update and review lists including established exotics & taxonomy.

Exactly the same arguments can be made for those as firsts and Hawaiian birds in my view.

I just find it amusing with the 2016 scrap that the differing arguments on all sides seem to be dictated by who is putting them forward and when and now the dust has settled and all four went, Hawaii is being pushed when the contrary was being spun before that happened. B :)

But that has never been any different. I re-read the Epilogue last night of the most recent edition of Kingbird Highway when Ken Kaufman was practically rejoicing at the expectation that Sandy Komito's historic totals may be struck from the record. Something that never happened in the end.

None of this is any different over here. I could tell you practically identical stories from British yearlisting scraps a quarter of a century ago (over fifteen years before the current record-holder discovered birds because his car passenger started counting..... ;))

All the best

A lot has to do with the fact that the ABA records extend as far back as the birth of the organization. How do you constantly update big year totals for folks who either don't have good enough notes to figure out what they did and didn't see splitwise (remember, not all putative splits were obvious a few decades ago, or split in the way folks anticipated), or who are not even alive anymore? It's one thing to add in a bird after it's been evaluated (most ABA first records are evaluated within a year...maybe 2 years if its really challenging). Keep in mind that the only thing the ABA gets is a raw number...it's not like people are submitting daily birding diaries.

Not counting splits that do not occur in the year of or prior to the big year attempt simply makes for easier book keeping.
 
I also think it has to do with fairness, time and resources. Should you spend precious Big Year time/money chasing a subspecies? Should you be retroactively penalized for not doing so? IMHO, no. Let's take Hawaii out of this for a moment. What if Olaf picked up four subspecies that get added two years from now? Does he unseat John? I would not think that fair, and I get along famously with all four of them. John busted his tail at the end just to get that one last species that could end up making the difference. Olaf could have gone for it, too, and chose not to. Eyes wide open.
The rules of the game are set at the start of the year: go! Everyone knows that new ABA records (Pine Flycatcher) are fair game; everyone has a clue about splits during the year with enough time to clean them up (all the 2017 people went after the Cassia Crossbill).
The Hawaii aspect is tricky; Olaf's agenda was to set a US record and to raise awareness of the endangered/threatened Hawaiian species. He'd planned to go to Hawaii all along, even at the possible cost of missing Continental ABA species. The fact that John and Laura also went contributed greatly to their now (unintendedly) joint agenda of raising awareness about these species. I believe they forwarded that mission much more thoroughly than any of them could have imagined. Heck, I couldn't have spelled Elapiao a year ago! Now I've typed all the Hawaii species into a new version of the spreadsheet that I'll share after ABA releases the updated list. I have the species list for all three last year and all three this year, all confirmed by each respective birder.

Joe
 
yeah I have less of a problem retroactively adding Hawaii to those folks lists, if only because there had been enough talk of late that it should have been on the radar. Of course, the final totals would still need to wait for the ABA checklist update that includes Hawaii, which is coming in December I believe. It's possible that some of the exotics targeted by those folks didn't make it to the list.
 
I also think it has to do with fairness, time and resources. Should you spend precious Big Year time/money chasing a subspecies? Should you be retroactively penalized for not doing so? IMHO, no. Let's take Hawaii out of this for a moment. What if Olaf picked up four subspecies that get added two years from now? Does he unseat John? I would not think that fair, and I get along famously with all four of them. John busted his tail at the end just to get that one last species that could end up making the difference. Olaf could have gone for it, too, and chose not to. Eyes wide open.
The rules of the game are set at the start of the year: go! Everyone knows that new ABA records (Pine Flycatcher) are fair game; everyone has a clue about splits during the year with enough time to clean them up (all the 2017 people went after the Cassia Crossbill).
The Hawaii aspect is tricky; Olaf's agenda was to set a US record and to raise awareness of the endangered/threatened Hawaiian species. He'd planned to go to Hawaii all along, even at the possible cost of missing Continental ABA species. The fact that John and Laura also went contributed greatly to their now (unintendedly) joint agenda of raising awareness about these species. I believe they forwarded that mission much more thoroughly than any of them could have imagined. Heck, I couldn't have spelled Elapiao a year ago! Now I've typed all the Hawaii species into a new version of the spreadsheet that I'll share after ABA releases the updated list. I have the species list for all three last year and all three this year, all confirmed by each respective birder.

Joe

I take a rather different view. I think birders going for a big year ought to record all identifiable sub-species seen, and their totals should be adjusted if these are subsequently split (and reduced by relevant lumps). It's up to them whether they want to go for insurance birds, and those who make the effort to do so ought to enjoy the benefit.

I would also remove all exotic / introduced species from the reckoning. To me it seems just plain silly to make arbitrary decisions about whether e.g. Budgie populations are self-sustaining. Spending hundreds (or is it thousands?) of dollars chartering a helicopter to see an introduced Asian partridge seems just plain nuts...

It would also presumably make Hawaii much easier to deal with.
 
Lets consider such an idea: the goal is always seeing full 100% of bird species observed in the ABA area that year. This would give 100 points. People like Olaf would get something like 95 to 98.5 points.

Every participant's year total would be simply divided by number of species recorded that year. The concept is intuitive even to a child which knows basic maths. This levels the playing field between years: splits, lumps, introduced species establishing and dying out, good and bad rarity years, places like Attu becoming accessible or inaccessible for birding community and recently adding Hawaii. These give more ticks, but also move the goal forward. All these do not change the total of 100% of the year.

I think it is best that it also removes that temptation of splitting species purely to make more ticks.

Calculating how many species were possible every given year is surprisingly easy. All regular species are automatically in. Adding together lists of Big Year participants themselves will give a fair list of rarities available that year. All exceptional rarities over the years are summarized in the book 'Rare Birds of North America'. There would be only a handful, if any, species which were not regular, but not extremely rare either and not seen by any of the participants that year. Only these few would need to be checked in the internet or rarity report from the relevant state.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top