400 In A Year?? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Chapman]

Haven't followed all the arguments here, but I can fully understand those who attach no real value to counting species seen at places like Minsmere or Titchwell, which are nowadays little more than zoos with free-flying collections (micro-managed habitat with clearly-numbered islands etc).

Richard

You've been to Chew today! Did you look at the ducks? (Never used one of those before but it seemed appropriate for once!)

All the best

 

[Richard Klim]

Richard
You've been to Chew today! Did you look at the ducks? (Never used one of those before but it seemed appropriate for once!)

Paul, I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't study the sundry wildfowl, being emotionally overwhelmed by the sight of the distant Sharpie (honest!), but happily didn't notice any rogue Ruddies.

More to my liking, we've got a brace of wild duck for lunch tomorrow... :t:

 

[ZanderII]

ZanderII

I cannot recall with an autumn Woodchat Shrike on Fair Isle twenty years ago whether my friend or I saw it first, who said Woodchat first or who first started recounting the features to eliminate Masked Shrike - which at the time would have been a first. Similarly when I mentioned badius on a Woodchat locally, and I believe that I was the first to say it, I did not care that someone wanted to lay claim to being the first to express the view.

In which case you have very reasonable arguments to have found 2 Woodchats subspecies....

2 more than me.

 

[Phil Andrews]

In which case you have very reasonable arguments to have found 2 Woodchats subspecies....

2 more than me.

So where do self-found rules stand if you deliberately go to see a bird (lets say a Great Grey Shrike) but then re-identify it as another (say Steppe Grey)?

 

[StuartReeves]

So where do self-found rules stand if you deliberately go to see a bird (lets say a Great Grey Shrike) but then re-identify it as another (say Steppe Grey)?

I think that counts as a find along the lines of example H here.

 

[Paul Chapman]

In which case you have very reasonable arguments to have found 2 Woodchats subspecies....

2 more than me.

I suppose you are right but as I say not something which has ever occupied my mind. Occasionally my mind has been troubled by which subspecies the Fair Isle one was though. I cannot make it anything other than a senator from the single photo that I took which is in my album but somewhere in my father's loft there are several films which may contain a bit more detail on the tail.

All the best

Paul Chapman

PS In the examples linked above, I was surprised at Example D that Andy Holden had Kimberley's telephone number.

 

[Mono]

So...

You are sat in a hide, peering through the slot, another birder is in there also, you have nodded hello by otherwise are sitting in companianable silence.

A bird you would not expect at that site.. eg marsh harrier.. flies in.

The other birder sees it first and says aloud "Marsh harrier flying right" or somesuch.

If you move your gaze in the implied direction and see it, it is not self-found but if you keep your eyes/bins/scope unmoved and wait for it to fly into your gaze it is self-found?

 

[Frenchy]

I think you know the answer to that.

 

[Frenchy]

Hi James,

having read the various points made, I agree. Whatever set of rules one applies, surely a life list of self-found birds is going to be biased to where you live and bird. That said, no reason why someone can't have one if they wish. Correct me if i'm wrong but I just can't see anyone setting out to do a serious national self-found year list.

Johnny

You're wrong. See post 30. Ken Shaw also wrote seriously about a self found year list, i think it was in Birding Scotland but i could be wrong about that.

Of course a life list of self found birds is going to be biased as to where you live and work, but then a straight forward life list is going to be biased by the same factors, as well as to how much money you earn, whether you have a birding partner or not, how fast you drive, whether you have birdnet or RBA etc etc.

Some people prefer to just twitch, some do a local patch or two and then twitch occasionally, others like to increase their chances of finding something out of teh ordinary by reading the weather and acting on it accordingly. Its all the same hobby at the end of the day.

 

[Gavin Haig]

So where do self-found rules stand if you deliberately go to see a bird (lets say a Great Grey Shrike) but then re-identify it as another (say Steppe Grey)?

I think that counts as a find along the lines of example H here.

Yes, I think you're right - it does count according to the Punkbirder rules. But how would you feel about it? Would you feel like you actually found a Steppe Grey Shrike? I certainly wouldn't - I'd feel a total fraud with that on my 'self-found' list.

While I agree that the PB rules could be used to adjudicate a competition, they're a long way from defining what many birders would actually call 'self-found'!

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

Yes, I think you're right - it does count according to the Punkbirder rules. But how would you feel about it? Would you feel like you actually found a Steppe Grey Shrike? I certainly wouldn't - I'd feel a total fraud with that on my 'self-found' list.

While I agree that the PB rules could be used to adjudicate a competition, they're a long way from defining what many birders would actually call 'self-found'!

Putting that in reverse would you claim self-found on the shrike as a Steppe Grey if you had 'found' it and identified it as Great Grey? ( I think I already know the answer Gavin just highlighting and probably agreeing with you that in reality most are only happy with 'found and identified').

 

[Gavin Haig]

Putting that in reverse would you claim self-found on the shrike as a Steppe Grey if you had 'found' it and identified it as Great Grey? ( I think I already know the answer Gavin just highlighting and probably agreeing with you that in reality most are only happy with 'found and identified').

Well, I'd know I 'found' it but would be gutted that I'd mucked up the ID. Would I count it on a 'self-found' list? This is a trickier question (for me anyway) - the answer isn't an instant and unequivocal 'no' and illustrates very nicely why I don't keep a self-found list. I've wanted to, but the whole concept presents too many issues for my little head to cope with. As someone (Frenchy?) put earlier, I probably 'overthink' it.

I wouldn't be happy to use PB Rules (as I imply a couple of posts back), but if I used 'rules' that satisfy me, some might look at my list and go "Hey, why haven't you counted that Steppe Grey Shrike you ID'd? I would!" but if I counted a Steppe Grey Shrike that I truly did find but didn't ID correctly, well...then someone else would be on my case.

And another thing. I've seen 'self-found' lists that have provoked a torrent of derision to hit this keyboard and appear in print. I'm not proud of that, because I don't want to judge my fellow birders. But when they publish such lists I find it hard not to. No, best if I just steer clear of the whole shebang.

 

[Gavin Haig]

Actually, while I'm on this little soap-box, I will add one more thing:

The seeming trend for virtual hero-worship of birders who find a lot of rare birds is highly depressing, and rather sad. I'm glad there are birders whose circumstances, ability and attitude provide the rest of us with lots of good birds to see. Pat them on the back, but don't put them on a pedestal.

 

[Paul Chapman]

You sound like the most boring birdwatcher ever...

Just got in from a thoroughly enjoyable morning on the patch - Short-eared Owl, Black-tailed Godwit, Merlin, 3 Snow Bunting, 6 Golden Plover, usual selection of other waders, wildfowl etc, a couple of calls that sounded promising from where a Firecrest hung around for a while last winter from a bird that did not show itself and that I might follow up again later, a coffee with a few mates, a chat with a few members of the public including lending my bins to a couple to show them the Snow Buntings, a fantastic enjoyable experience - just in case anyone was still worried whether I enjoy my hobby. (Never surprised once because all was foreseeable after thirteen years of similar visits even if the combined quality was unusual - most visits would simply read "usual selection of waders, wildfowl, etc.)

All the very best

 

[Frenchy]

Actually, while I'm on this little soap-box, I will add one more thing:

The seeming trend for virtual hero-worship of birders who find a lot of rare birds is highly depressing, and rather sad. I'm glad there are birders whose circumstances, ability and attitude provide the rest of us with lots of good birds to see. Pat them on the back, but don't put them on a pedestal.

I agree, but then many people put the high listers on a pedestal, and thats even more depressing and rather more sad in my view.

 

[Jeremy Squire]

I got 475 species in Uganda and we sere there for less then 3 weeks.

 

[Gavin Haig]

I agree, but then many people put the high listers on a pedestal...

Really? I see evidence only of the opposite!

...and thats even more depressing and rather more sad in my view.

Yes, it would be, but stop changing the subject!

 

[Paul Chapman]

Really? I see evidence only of the opposite!

Indeed but people have to claim that they are placed on a pedestal to justify criticising them as frequently as they do. Otherwise its a bit like walking across the pub and in an unprovoked attack for no reason taking a swing at someone simply sitting on their bar stool drinking a pint.

The reality is that 'high listers' simply enjoy twitching new birds and have been doing it for a long time in a determined manner. For that reason and for that alone, they have seen a lot of birds. They will continue doing it until they no longer enjoy it. That's the top and bottom of it.

All the best

 

[ZanderII]

The seeming trend for virtual hero-worship of birders who find a lot of rare birds is highly depressing, and rather sad. I'm glad there are birders whose circumstances, ability and attitude provide the rest of us with lots of good birds to see. Pat them on the back, but don't put them on a pedestal.

Maybe someone can do a count-up and see how many times the finder's name appears in a BF rare bird thread and how many times that the praise (if offered) exceeds whatever you deem to be an acceptable (non-nauseating) level.

 

[ZanderII]

Otherwise its a bit like walking across the pub and in an unprovoked attack for no reason taking a swing at someone simply sitting on their bar stool drinking a pint.

Nice analogy, but let's not forget that there are some pretty polarising figures at the top, who maybe do not help their cause.

There are of course others, who receive ample praise but do not court controversy, indeed their hide as best they can... Some of them even have massive self-found lists...