400 In A Year?? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Chapman]

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...

ZanderII

Glad you like it! Not many in real terms in your first category out of say the likely top 30 or 40. I would say maybe two or three at most. (Maybe those are the ones shooting their mouth off in the pub asking for trouble!)

On the second paragraph, a hell of a big combined self-found list - whatever the rules - if they wanted to work it out.

All the best

 

[davercox]

I think my conscience tells me whether a bird is truly self-found or not (and I'm pretty happy with the punks' rules).
And I don't enjoy twitching: on the few occasions I've done it I've almost always come away feeling "meh", seeing someone else's find just doesn't cut it for me. Finding your own is the way to do it.
Mind you, I can't remember the last time I got a new SF, sign of age I suppose

 

[ZanderII]

On the second paragraph, a hell of a big combined self-found list - whatever the rules - if they wanted to work it out.

The likes of Heard, Millington, Gantlett & Filby needn't pool lists... even Lee for all his manaical twitcherness has fair claim on a self-found list that is probably 300-up...

 

[Gavin Haig]

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.

I think you are reading into my comment much that isn't there. I would certainly never deem praise unacceptable or nauseating - you are putting words into my mouth. As I thought about your response to my post I wondered if you missed my point, but maybe I've missed yours?

and Paul, all I meant by 'Really? I see evidence only of the opposite!' was that we are forever reading that a big list is no proof of birding prowess (which is of course true), so I don't personally believe that big listers are put on a pedestal - not for having a big list anyway.

 

[KenM]

To make it more manageable....how about a self found list composed of just either current BBRC's or ex-BBRC's (all bloody rare..whichever way you look at it), and you could have several categories to suit all, tailoring it to Urban/ Countryside/ Coastal and 'Off Island'', County or National level, during the year or lifetime....just a thought.

It seems that a straightforward suggestion has triggered a lot of ''tangents''

I'd be surprised if a lot of ''Island-Hopping'' top listers with ''deep'' pound note pockets, performed immeasurably better on their own mainland patch (always assuming they have one? and that it's not the UK, with a helicopter at the ready, than say ''yer average dedicated patch worker?

For e.g. using current or ex-BBRC notifiable species only!..(this would exclude Bitterns, Bearded Tits (No offence), Waxwings etc.). I've included ex-BBRC species like Bee-eater, and never notifiable species like Red-backed Shrike, Wryneck etc., accepting that the last two are ''No Big Deal''..to the likes of BBRC..because both species along with Rosefinch and Barred Warbler etc. turn-up in double digit+figures, with yawning regularity on the lowly populated Northern Isles, but on the mainland, especially the overpopulated interior..are bloody rare and would give most finders a real buzz! A little common sense might be applied to those species that fall outside the accepted remit..I think it might level the playing field and put more focus and recognition to those ''all weather'' birders who regularly pound their ''beat'', be it by luck or design, and who self find good birds. I for one, am more interested in the finders experience and the relevant circumstances, than what the current state of play might be concerning the ''big listers''.

Might be worth cogitating over....dunno?...

 

[Paul Chapman]

ZanderII - there are a few additional species that others can add. I did not say that the 'high listers' needed to combine a list but my comment was that a combined list would be very substantial indeed. I'll leave you to add up Lee's self-found list. Despite the fact that he comments on me on occasion, I am happy not to comment upon him. I like the bloke.

Gavin - I understood your comment that way and I certainly agree with it. My comment was simply intended to make it clear that those who suggest that 'high listers' are placed on a pedestal usually do so to justify some form of attack in stating that they should not be.

KenM - most 'high listers' that I know spend the majority of their time local birding. I have not heard anyone suggest that they perform better in doing so than others. They almost certainly do not. I have heard lots of suggestions that they do no local birding and would be unable to identify species unless there were crowds present pointing to them and telling them what the birds were. In my experience, neither of those comments are true in the main.

All the best

 

[bernie b]

ZanderII - there are a few additional species that others can add. I did not say that the 'high listers' needed to combine a list but my comment was that a combined list would be very substantial indeed. I'll leave you to add up Lee's self-found list. Despite the fact that he comments on me on occasion, I am happy not to comment upon him. I like the bloke.

Gavin - I understood your comment that way and I certainly agree with it. My comment was simply intended to make it clear that those who suggest that 'high listers' are placed on a pedestal usually do so to justify some form of attack in stating that they should not be.

KenM - most 'high listers' that I know spend the majority of their time local birding. I have not heard anyone suggest that they perform better in doing so than others. They almost certainly do not. I have heard lots of suggestions that they do no local birding and would be unable to identify species unless there were crowds present pointing to them and telling them what the birds were. In my experience, neither of those comments are true in the main.

All the best

All interesting stuff,but the most important thing no matter at what level you participate in birding ENJOY it :t:

 

[Helsinki Birder]

ZanderII - there are a few additional species that others can add. I did not say that the 'high listers' needed to combine a list but my comment was that a combined list would be very substantial indeed. I'll leave you to add up Lee's self-found list. Despite the fact that he comments on me on occasion, I am happy not to comment upon him. I like the bloke.

Gavin - I understood your comment that way and I certainly agree with it. My comment was simply intended to make it clear that those who suggest that 'high listers' are placed on a pedestal usually do so to justify some form of attack in stating that they should not be.

KenM - most 'high listers' that I know spend the majority of their time local birding. I have not heard anyone suggest that they perform better in doing so than others. They almost certainly do not. I have heard lots of suggestions that they do no local birding and would be unable to identify species unless there were crowds present pointing to them and telling them what the birds were. In my experience, neither of those comments are true in the main.

All the best

It's all subjective I suppose. But one thing I do know for sure.
It is possible to have a high "twitch" list regardless of whether you have any birding ability or not.

Not so with a finds list.

Owen

 

[Paul Chapman]

It's all subjective I suppose. But one thing I do know for sure.
It is possible to have a high "twitch" list regardless of whether you have any birding ability or not.

Not so with a finds list.

Owen

Indeed - very true. I have never pretended for a second that my British & Irish list is a sign of my birding competence. It is not.

This is one of the reasons that I no longer include my list on BUBO and have never included it in my signature because doing either seemed to invite people to have a crack at me for something that I do not believe or contend.

I consider that I have reasonable competence and have found a few things of local interest. I know that the longer I spend in the field, the more competent that I get and also that I would love to be able to birdwatch more but life and particularly working for a living get in the way.

However, I also know that the current self-find list phenomenon is also not as good a guide to relative competence as the new disciples contend that it is:-

"Someone who is broadly competent and has travelled throughout Britain and Ireland will have such a list at a reasonable level. Those who try hard to build such a list regardless of their competence will have a bigger one. Those of better competence may have a bigger or a smaller one depending on their respective search areas and how widely they travel."

Nick said it various posts up - "but like every other type of list, variables other than skill play a huge part in self-found lists (twitchers' lists = time x money x 'drive' ; self-finders' lists = time x location x 'drive' etc etc)..." - he is entirely right in my view.

All the best

 

[Paul Chapman]

All interesting stuff,but the most important thing no matter at what level you participate in birding ENJOY it :t:

BY FAR, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING!

All the best

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Indeed - very true. I have never pretended for a second that my British & Irish list is a sign of my birding competence. It is not.

This is one of the reasons that I no longer include my list on BUBO and have never included it in my signature because doing either seemed to invite people to have a crack at me for something that I do not believe or contend.

I consider that I have reasonable competence and have found a few things of local interest. I know that the longer I spend in the field, the more competent that I get and also that I would love to be able to birdwatch more but life and particularly working for a living get in the way.

However, I also know that the current self-find list phenomenon is also not as good a guide to relative competence as the new disciples contend that it is:-

"Someone who is broadly competent and has travelled throughout Britain and Ireland will have such a list at a reasonable level. Those who try hard to build such a list regardless of their competence will have a bigger one. Those of better competence may have a bigger or a smaller one depending on their respective search areas and how widely they travel."

Nick said it various posts up - "but like every other type of list, variables other than skill play a huge part in self-found lists (twitchers' lists = time x money x 'drive' ; self-finders' lists = time x location x 'drive' etc etc)..." - he is entirely right in my view.

All the best

He is indeed "Entirely Right"...whilst also being entirely wrong...

Those who try hard to build such a list regardless of their competence will have a bigger one.

How does someone who cant ID a robin from a feral pigeon have a big self found list then?

No. There is, as with all things, a base-line. I am not sure what nick considers to be sub par competence but there is a certain level you will not get beyond if you cannot Identify the broad range of birds that are on offer out there.

Once past that threshold "competence" becomes self fulfilling. If you cant ID a bird you are not competent enough to ID it (obviously). If you can ID it you have proven your competence.

Owen

 

[Paul Chapman]

Owen

There is a baseline. I entirely accept that but that baseline can be learned surely for the vast majority? There may be some who will never be capable of reaching that baseline but those are few and far between. They are unlikely to be those who got into birds young because of a fundamental interest in wildlife and the environment and for whom birds were the easiest entry level to wildlife generally. This I suspect is the reason that birdwatching is the most popular form of wildlife interest.

All the very best

 

[Paul Chapman]

Owen

I would also add that for most there is a baseline skill level for twitching as well. I recall a weekend when the Saturday late afternoon was spent looking for a Calandra Lark with two others on the Isle of Man and the Sunday afternoon was spent solo looking for a Yellowthroat on Unst. OK - neither require Frontiers of Bird Identification skills - but securing tickable views of both (including happening to find the first for the other two) required some baseline competence - albeit very well below the baseline competence to find and identify either in the first place.

No doubt some will see this statement as an excuse to categorise it as - "Twitcher claims twitching requires skill. What a muppet." - so I will wait for the usual abuse.

All the best

 

[Johnny Allan]

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.

Hi Frenchy,

I'm wrong ? Let me know when you find the link to an account of this, it's gotta be interesting.

I disagree that there is the same bias for a basic life list as a self-found life list. All things being equal in the amount of birding I've done in my life. There is no doubt in my mind that i'd have self-found more scarce or rare birds had I lived in most coastal regions rather than in Surrey. However, someone based and birding in those places wouldn't have the same disadvantage when it came to basic listing.

Johnny

 

[Johnny Allan]

It's all subjective I suppose. But one thing I do know for sure.
It is possible to have a high "twitch" list regardless of whether you have any birding ability or not.

Not so with a finds list.

Owen

Hi Owen,

whilst I agree with that, I must qualify it by adding that someone who has found lots of scarce or rare birds does not necessarily have more birding ability than someone who has found less

Johnny

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Owen

I would also add that for most there is a baseline skill level for twitching as well. I recall a weekend when the Saturday late afternoon was spent looking for a Calandra Lark with two others on the Isle of Man and the Sunday afternoon was spent solo looking for a Yellowthroat on Unst. OK - neither require Frontiers of Bird Identification skills - but securing tickable views of both (including happening to find the first for the other two) required some baseline competence - albeit very well below the baseline competence to find and identify either in the first place.

No doubt some will see this statement as an excuse to categorise it as - "Twitcher claims twitching requires skill. What a muppet." - so I will wait for the usual abuse.

All the best

Ha. Paul...in fairness the abuse would be somewhat deserved. We all know people who have their birds pointed out to them. There are genuinely people with very high lists and zero ability. This is not a cue to name names or anything but we all know its true.

Owen

 

[Paul Chapman]

Ha. Paul...in fairness the abuse would be somewhat deserved. We all know people who have their birds pointed out to them. There are genuinely people with very high lists and zero ability. This is not a cue to name names or anything but we all know its true.

Owen

'Zero ability' - really? I deliberately said 'for most'. They would definitely be the exception in my personal experience! But then again I have personally birded with lots of 'high listers'. Your personal experience of them may be far more extensive than mine.

Always happy if you want to name me. I have broad shoulders.

Happy birding

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Hi Owen,

whilst I agree with that, I must qualify it by adding that someone who has found lots of scarce or rare birds does not necessarily have more birding ability than someone who has found less

Johnny

True Johnny. It depends on the scenario. I would come back with there are many people who SAY that but pound for pound, same time in the field, same good areas, produce significantly less.

Yes inland areas don't get as much as coastal areas. (they might get a few more quacks). But the point is...if you have a high British/Irish list, but a low finds list, then it shows that you spent your time twitching the birds rather than hunting your own.

The time issue. You clearly had the time to twitch all these birds. Which in britain, means a far more extensive effort that Ireland, going to shetland and scillies etc.

For everyday you went for a tick, or a bird for your county or whatever, that was a day you could have spent looking for your own birds.

You don't even need to stay inland if that is where you are settled. You would go to norfolk or spurn at the drop of a hat if there was a british tick.

Why not go for a day or weekend if the weather looks promising?

On that basis I don't buy into the "poor me I'm in a birding wasteland" excuse.

Most people I know in birding wastelands get themselves to the coast every chance they get anyway.

Owen

 

[Helsinki Birder]

'Zero ability' - really? I deliberately said 'for most'. They would definitely be the exception in my personal experience! But then again I have personally birded with lots of 'high listers'. Your personal experience of them may be far more extensive than mine.

Always happy if you want to name me. I have broad shoulders.

Happy birding

Not naming you Paul. No Idea who you are or what your ability is.
But it is true. We all know there are people who went to twitch a bird and walked away having ticked dunnocks or robins etc.

I've seen it happen over here.

Owen

 

[Frenchy]

Hi James,

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

This was the bit you were wrong about as I had already stated in post 30 that some of us where doing a self found year list this year. In fact, some of us have done one before, the first year i did it was 2009. There is unlikely to be a link to Ken's article as it was either in Birding Scotland or Birdwatch, can't remember which.

There are many people who enjoy finding rarities that moved from crap areas to good ones in order to increase their chances. Not everyone can do that, but thats life. No point moaning about it, just means that you get to compete with yourself rather than others. Which according to some is the whole point anyway.

Anyway, clearly some people are passionately against the whole concept, and that's fair enough.