Uk400club 'list Of Lists' Etc Etc (1 Viewer)

Check out any list published in a national newspaper, booklet or pamphlet regarding sporting comparison - do they have some of the major players missing - No? There is no point to a list if it is not reasonably representative of its goals and by not having half, three-quarters or maybe all but one name on the list is pointless. I was a fool to bow to some people's request to place it in the public domain - that won't be happening again - and as soon as the Website manager returns the list that is currently up will be removed. As and when individuals cease breathing or twitching, their names will be removed or placed in italics.

I am not sure how you guys think local committees judge contentious records - they have to be aware of the numerous stringers out there and so does the assoted Birdlines and Information Services. This information is also shared by the Information Services. You have to become a stringer before you get known, so obviously notes of some type (or kept files) have to be maintained and utilised. The late Mike Rogers and I were always liasing about such matters and it still goes on today - it would be naive to think that no checking is made. I am keen to get this more out in the open and to discuss at source, but it seems that others are keener to keep it as a secret society. It looks like their attitude is the correct one as bringing it to the fore, raises all of the problems that Ashley mentions. I take the view though, that I'm hated so much, that it no longer matters anymore and I may as well confront these problems head-on.

Talking to those in the know on a daily basis, they cannot believe just how much rubbish in the way of sightings manages to make it into the three popular birding magazines each month. This is hardly surprising though, because corrections are rarely made. Tim Allwood is always informing me of such nonsense in East Norfolk where he lives and keeps abreast of local sightings - a Red-flanked Bluetail at Waxham also being recorded as a Red-breasted Flycatcher and Greenish Warblers and Pallas's Leaf Warblers reported which are actually Yellow-broweds and Goldcrests....It is a never-ending problem, but surely it is in everyone's interest that a check is kept on it - and as it is so controversial, people would rather that others get involved and take the flak. I'm happy to act as that scapegoat....the whistle blower as such

Lee Evans said:

It is a never-ending problem, but surely it is everyone's interest that a check is kept on it - and as it is so controversial, people would rather that others get involved and take the flak. I'm happy to act as that scapegoat....

Click to expand...

Still not quite seeing what that has to do with telling someone that that their Little Swifts were House Martins then using the someone else said so card when challenged on it (rather than just saying sorry).

Its also not entirely clear to me what that has to do with keeping lists of who has seen what when some people have expressly and as far as I can see politely asked to be removed from them.

Oh and Steve, you will be very pleased to know that the computer hard-drive that stored all of that Birdwatch article information has long gone to the grave - and I was unable to save any of its contents. Likewise the Rare Bird database which I had to start again from scratch. Other birders hold such databases too - I know of at least 7 individuals that record and keep the same information as me, several of which edit, update or provide data for British Birds magazine

Lee Evans said:

And Mark, Martin just wants to stay out of it now as you would expect, but his comments regarding the Pallid Swift report were witnessed by four individuals that I know of - but who cares, we'll see if BBRC think its good enough for acceptance - and I can return to the subject of it then. As Jeff suggested, there's no point in us continuing any sort of conversation so the best ploy is to ignore each other completely and save each other time in writing pointless emails. You have done the right thing in resigning - good on ya.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Martin does (lest us not forget who dragged his name into this to start with Lee). Trying to drive a wedge between birding friends by misquoting and twisting what that person said, whilst not a first for you, is still a pathetic thing to do (and only further alienates more people).

I'm not here to prejudge the BBRC decision - but as Jane has clearly pointed out, you make your opinions (and have the nerve to call it 'investigations') based on second hand comments, assumptions and pre conceived perceptions, often gained through second hand sources. Not once have you approached me to ask about the Pallid Swift, and as I have said nothing of it in public, I'm at a loss to understand what supports your conclusion. You are basically calling me a stringer.

What message does it send when someone who claims to be passionate about birds, birding and the recording of birds is happy to see someone resign from a voluntary position within a local bird Club as a consequence of their actions?? Is this the image you are trying to premote of yourself?

I can forsee that not one word of wisdom from anyone on this forum is every going to change your destructive, rude, underhand and belligerent standpoint. It really is a sad state of afairs.

Lee Evans said:

As and when individuals cease breathing or twitching, their names will be removed or placed in italics.

Click to expand...

I've stopped twitching, so you can take my name off. Many thanks.

Lee Evans said:

I am not sure how you guys think local committees judge contentious records...

Click to expand...

I do, as I serve on one. They base their decisions on a submission from the observer, whether it be in writing, drawings, photos or sound recordings - this is not how the UK400 Club works, and this will forever be the flaw in your arguement.

Jane

Why do you keep carping on about these Little Swifts. I keep telling you - they were House Martins - 5 very experienced Cornish birdwatchers were looking at them - they were misidentified - end of story. This information was shared by all relevant parties shortly after the event and was common knowledge. What was never forwarded on to me though was that the original sightings were unrelated and only during the thread that we are talking about was this ever realised and hence why I and others have not published the record or existence of Little Swifts in Britain in 2011. It is not a case of anybody being called a stringer anyway - mistaking House Martin for Little Swift is not a string, just a competence matter.

The three observers of the original sighting knew nothing of that particular thread until they were tipped off and hence why one of them responded to explain the situation. One can only act upon information as and when it comes in. You cannot chase up every record all of the time.

Lee Evans said:

You cannot chase up every record all of the time.

Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread you intimated that this is exactly what you do do!! :-O

Lee Evans said:

Check out any list published in a national newspaper, booklet or pamphlet regarding sporting comparison - do they have some of the major players missing - No? There is no point to a list if it is not reasonably representative of its goals and by not having half, three-quarters or maybe all but one name on the list is pointless.

Click to expand...

The difference is these people/teams are listed because they persuing the competition, those who are not involved in any competition are not listed, that doesn't mean they are not or could not be equally as good. An example we all know Usain Bolt is the fastest man to run 100 metres, correct? Well no what we know is he is the fastest man to have been recorded in a specific type of competition running 100 metres the fatsest, there could well be someone in a far flung corner of the globe who has no interest in the competition of running but still enjoys it enough to do it, they may well be quicker but no one knows. If this man does not wish his amazing achievement to be published then it will not be. Only those who CHOOSE to be recorded are known about, this should be the same for those who CHOOSE not to be part of the competition for seeing the most birds.

I do not know any of the "top" listers but they may well be doing it because they enjoy seeing new birds and NOT to compete with the others who have seen high numbers, this is their choice.

In a free land we all should have the right to NOT be included in something if we so choose (many people do not send records to local/national rarities comittees etc because they do not wish to). Forcing people to be included on your lists may or may not be against certain consumer acts but morally IS wrong.

Anyway enough about that from me

Lee Evans said:

Jane

Why do you keep carping on about these Little Swifts. .

Click to expand...

Why are you incapable of saying hey I got it wrong. Sorry chaps that I dissed your record on a public forum then blamed other people when someone pointed out that I was was wrong?

I brought it up because you are so quick to play the "every one is picking on me" card and so slow to appreciate how the way you behave reflects on you.

I guess that's enough from me. The point is made in spades.

Mark

I was out of the country when you claimed the Pallid Swift - I first heard of the claim when reading a thread on Birdforum. Such an unprecedented sighting took my interest and I made enquiries at a local level - and was told it was you. I asked for more information (how many people saw it, was it photographed, how long did it linger for) and I was told - ''it's a typical Mark Hawkes sighting, single observer and on the day news was put out as possible then firmed up after the event - no photos as far as is known - and to give you some idea, just 1 or 2 people bothered to waste their time looking for it''. At that information from a local level, I didn't see any sense contacting you as it seemed the type of record going nowhere, so I didn't bother.

Now like it or not, 5 people witnessed this same conversation from some Cambs birders at the White-winged Scoter last Tuesday when your name somehow came up in conversation. So, yes, I may be guilty of listening to second-hand information - I was certainly not there.

But none of this is unique, this sort of conversation goes on every day throughout the country. Nothing unusual and part of modern-day birding if you have the misfortune of getting hooked on it. Just look at the poor guy who found the Great Snipe at Cley - he found it mid-afternoon, told quite a few people, was largely ignored and consequently his bird did not make the alerts until five hours later - too late in many cases for people to get there.

Mark, to be honest, I'd rather not go here in terms of raking up more and more dirt and arguing pointlessly as nobody can win. I would ignore all of your comments but I keep getting jip for ignoring people. Why don't you just ring me up and talk about it - its clearly affecting you.

Jane

There were only three observers that this affects - how would you know if I have contacted them or not. Anyway, there has never been any suggestion that anyone involved was a stringer. As for competence, the general level of that of UK birders is extremely poor - they spend too much time twitching, very little local birding and never bother to complete an apprenticeship these days. That's why there are so many cock-ups - its general incompetence. In fact, very few twitchers actually want to learn - and very few (less than 1%) carry notebooks. Digital cameras yes but notebooks never - in fact I cannot believe the number of mainstream twitchers that have been doing it for 25 years or more never bother to keep an annual log or anything. They just can't be bothered. The number that submit data to local bird groups, Birdtrack or the BTO Atlas is also pitiful.

Ashley, there has never been any question that these so-called twitchers in the list are better birders or whatever than others not included in the list - of course not. Many of the best field birders in the land wouldn't dream of driving ten miles for a rare - they gain much of their field experience from World birding trips. It really is just a game that delights perhaps less than one per cent of the British birdwatching population. It is stupid and naive to believe that by the simple removal of the 9 individuals that request it from the listings will stop this relentless barrage of opposition - of course it won't - these people love arguing with me - its written all over the pages of Birdforum - it would just be a different topic

Lee Evans said:

Jane

There were only three observers that this affects - how would you know if I have contacted them or not.

Click to expand...

I can't of course, but you would have to be rather dim or disingenuous to post this.......

Lee Evans said:

Incidentally, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the only Little Swifts reported in Britain this year (two birds together in West Cornwall) misidentified House Martins. I certainly received a phone call from on-site claiming as such.

Colin

Could be just rubbish, as you say - but that's what I was told - and nearly three quarters of an hour later the birds were still being phoned in. As you know, none of the 25 or so birders that followed up your original phone calls failed to locate the birds. I am assuming you didn't get any photographs of the birds which is surprising, particularly as some of the species you do manage to catch on film (flyover Red Kites and the like).

Click to expand...

......whilst simultaneously claiming that you weren't suggesting that the record was stringy and that you had spoken to any of the observers.

Lee Evans said:

It is stupid and naive to believe that by the simple removal of the 9 individuals that request it from the listings will stop this relentless barrage of opposition - of course it won't - these people love arguing with me - its written all over the pages of Birdforum - it would just be a different topic

Click to expand...

Very true, but you could still do it as a good-will gesture.... What about all the people that have just scraped over the 400 mark now. Given the relentless push of twitching now there must be plenty of people who aren't 'names' to you.... You know the folk that turn up on Day 4... Tom Logan with his wife, 2.4 kids and 1.2 dogs etc...

Jane

Why are you persisting with this record when it is of no consequence to you. It is a complex situation. There are various versions of events being put forward subsequently. Three observers saw two Little Swifts - apparently they were followed by two independent observers who somehow lost the two Little Swifts and intercepted two House Martins but still believed they were watching the swifts - observers arrived on scene and saw just two House Martins in the next 5 hours of searching. I was uncertain of who was actually who at the time of the initial postings until it was explained the two sightings were unrelated. This was all later made clear. I had initially been told the two were two of the original three observers before it then transpired they were independent of the initial three. It was all very confusing and still is to some extent. It was a thread about House Martins anyway.

If you are trying to get me to apologise to the 11,000 Britsih birders I have upset at one stage or another, I'll happily oblige. I bet you don't remember me falling accidentally-on-purpose over you in your younger days at a Meols twitch do you - when you were dressed as if you had just got off a motorbike - I said sorry to you three times then.

Nomad

I'm not into goodwill or gestures - I do that in enough ways already. The lists will be gone by tomorrow night so you won't need to worry about them - locked away and out of sight for my eye only.

Lee Evans said:

Mark

I was out of the country when you claimed the Pallid Swift - I first heard of the claim when reading a thread on Birdforum. Such an unprecedented sighting took my interest and I made enquiries at a local level - and was told it was you. I asked for more information (how many people saw it, was it photographed, how long did it linger for) and I was told - ''it's a typical Mark Hawkes sighting, single observer and on the day news was put out as possible then firmed up after the event - no photos as far as is known - and to give you some idea, just 1 or 2 people bothered to waste their time looking for it''. At that information from a local level, I didn't see any sense contacting you as it seemed the type of record going nowhere, so I didn't bother.

Now like it or not, 5 people witnessed this same conversation from some Cambs birders at the White-winged Scoter last Tuesday when your name somehow came up in conversation. So, yes, I may be guilty of listening to second-hand information - I was certainly not there.

But none of this is unique, this sort of conversation goes on every day throughout the country. Nothing unusual and part of modern-day birding if you have the misfortune of getting hooked on it. Just look at the poor guy who found the Great Snipe at Cley - he found it mid-afternoon, told quite a few people, was largely ignored and consequently his bird did not make the alerts until five hours later - too late in many cases for people to get there.

Mark, to be honest, I'd rather not go here in terms of raking up more and more dirt and arguing pointlessly as nobody can win. I would ignore all of your comments but I keep getting jip for ignoring people. Why don't you just ring me up and talk about it - its clearly affecting you.

Click to expand...

This is becoming comical... The news of a probable Pallid Swift was put out by me on Cambirds a short time after i saw it, and whilst I tried to relocate it. A short while later, after further views, and whilst watching it, and update was rung to RBA. At least 8 birders arrived in the next hour, including Martin, Jamie Wells, Steve Cooper, Ade Long and Richard Patient. It seems you are fabricating a story that suits you to support your assumptions.

Is a May Pallid Swift unprecedented? Really. As someone who claims to be an assessor of stats, you should well know that it isn't.

You may be getting 'jip', but there seems little public support for you here, and even less reasoned substance. Clearly though you will carry on regardless!!

Lee Evans said:

Mark
I was out of the country when you claimed the Pallid Swift - I first heard of the claim when reading a thread on Birdforum. Such an unprecedented sighting took my interest and I made enquiries at a local level - and was told it was you.

Click to expand...

Lee also recently stated “I can't think of any non-coastal UK records of Pallid Swift - unprecedented perhaps.”

Later on birdforum Lee then said about the Stodmarsh bird “A very pale swift was present at Stodmarsh for a very long time. I along with many others did see that bird but when I got much more experienced with the species on foreign trips, my faith in that record was challenged. I have never seen a Pallid Swift as obvious as that Lampen Wall individual and as I have now subsequently seen many Pallid Swifts in Britain and all manner of leucisitic Common Swifts as well as a number of Needle-tailed and Alpine 'Common Swift-lookalikes', I somewhat worry about that individual.”

Looking at my notes and also published photo’s I can see anything wrong with the Stodmarsh bird. This record was the first accepted sight record of a Pallid Swift in Britain and as such got a lot of scrutiny. It was a bog standard Pallid Swift - nothing more or less.

There has been a few other records of accepted inland records as well e.g. Derbyshire: Willington Gravel-pits; North Yorks at Nosterfield.

Mark

I'm not looking for any public support - not asking for it. Pallid Swifts are not reknown for turning up at too many inland sites - there may be a few May records that's undeniable - but would this not be a first for Cambs? As I say, I wasn't around, just comments from other people who I listen to - perhaps they told me it for alterior motives. I heard mutterings of how it was seen only briefly and stuff but I guess you will submit an immaculate text-book description leaving the Committee with no choice other than to accept it or call you a liar (because you know full well what a Pallid Swift looks like and could describe one off the top of your head). Official Pallid Swift data is way off key anyway so it doesn't really matter which way they decide to go with it - I've seen three different individuals that haven't been accepted (late individuals in Suffolk and two in Norfolk).

Would Pallid Swift not be a first for many counties? In fact, I think the first for Sussex was found the day after mine... I was surprised at this fact, but it goes to show how odd birding is... Much like some of its characters!

Re Steve Webb's Lampen Wall Pallid Swift claims

I saw that Stodmarsh bird on three different days and watched it for hours - I could pick it out with the naked eye it was so striking and obvious. I have seen thousands of Pallid Swifts since, on an annual basis, and Pallid Swifts are very difficult to identify and in certain light conditions, are barely discernible. It was nothing like a classic individual - it was ten times better than classic. Jeff Pick's superb black and white images taken do reveal most of the field characters associated with Pallid Swift but they do not reveal how incredibly pale the bird was. In subsequent years, I have seen a host of leucistic swifts, as well as a bewildering array of other oddly plumaged Common Swifts, and I have always worried about that bird. I have never said that it was definitely NOT a Pallid Swift but it was certainly not a typical one and one that I have not come across in extensive travels in the WP

Only a couple of years back, some birders on Shetland were claiming a very pale juvenile Common Swift as a Pallid Swift which I emailed them about after looking at some exceptionally good quality pix of. This was a Common Swift in my opinion and one very experienced Shetland birder I liased with quickly checked it out and agreed. Pallid Swift identification can be very difficult indeed and rather subtle.