ABA Big Year 2016 (1 Viewer)

[NYCbirder]

Variegated reported today as well. Olaf's attempt at this bird (or lack thereof) will be very telling as to his ongoing commitment to win this big year battle, as he basically needs every bird such as this while John is still (is he still?) in Alaska. No eBird confirmation that Olaf's gotten this bird, but I suppose it's too early to tell.

 

[timsg80]

As does Laura, although it looks like she may have taken one off, since she's still at 731. Olaf picked up Least Storm-Petrel as of his Facebook post, but I'll wait for it to show up on eBird before I add it.

Joe

Olaf 762 with Least Storm-petrel according to ebird, while Laura is on 732 with the Variegated Flycatcher.

 

[dantheman]

http://www.thebirdingproject.com/blog-1/

couple of blog posts from Christian.

 

[Kratter]

Olaf snagged the Variegated Flycatcher
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S31834266
Andy

 

[dantheman]

... and so has John now ...

Little Bunting on Gambel. Do they all need that??

 

[Mysticete]

I think both folks need it...but now that they are in the lower 48 it's probably a bit too late to do anything about.

 

[trptjoe]

With yesterday's Buller's Shearwater Olaf became the first birder to get all the Code 1 and Code 2 birds in a single year.
Joe

 

[GiG]

New blog post from Olaf - Take It Easy - with another new bird Lesser Sandplover.

Gi

 

[drewweber]

And John has decided to add back in his previously uncounted sand-plover. Interesting timing.

Latest post

 

[trptjoe]

Laura got the Arizona Lesser Sand-Plover, too.

Joe

 

[Paul Chapman]

And John has decided to add back in his previously uncounted sand-plover. Interesting timing.

Latest post

18 September update:-

http://www.birdingfordevils.com/2016_09_01_archive.html

'Although I most certainly did flush a Lesser Sand Plover during a morning ATV blitz along the beach, the worst nightmare followed: no relocation by me or others, and no photos. In my case (which I believed, until my birding experiences of this year, is universal) 'counted' bird sightings go on my list if and only if I can lay in bed at night and know that the sighting was certain. I think that’s the best definition of an adequate sighting. I can do that for this sighting, and it is is the first time that I can think of that I’ve also taken into account the perception of others, and it won't be going on my list. Apart from my own personal integrity, for which I'm responsible, I've dealt with and witnessed some unusual and challenging circumstances over the course of this year that in the fullness of time will be appropriate for comment. With respect to Lesser Sand Plovers it’s still possible for another opportunity on St Paul Island.'

3 October update:-

http://www.birdingfordevils.com/2016_10_01_archive.html

'Last night, when I heard about the Lesser Sand Plover appearing in Arizona, I arranged flights to get back down that way and to return to St Paul four days later – the best that I could manage given the difficulty of getting seats on Pen Air flights. One of the guys up here who I explained the situation to (see previous post re my 31 August sighting on Gambell) asked why in the hell would I leave the island again, head all the way down to Arizona and back, when I’ve already seen a Lesser Sand Plover a few weeks ago. Tossing it over through a mostly sleepless night, I got out of bed with the realisation that heading off for the Sand Plover really was a dumb decision. It was even dumber to have succumbed to scepticism by one or two others at the time of the sighting, and for not sticking to my guns about the bird, which I saw very clearly before it flew from the beach. Having seen literally thousands of sand plovers in Australia, I know a non-breeding sandy when I see one – whether or not it can be confirmed in crazy-high wind conditions by myself or others. So yeah, the purpose of this post is to explain why I’ve decided to return Lesser Sand Plover onto my list – and to explain why I’m not heading south for the cooperative Arizona bird. Those with whom I've discussed this with electronically are uniformly supportive of this decision.'

So if John hadn't decided that he had seen enough to identify Lesser Sandplover from his moving ATV (presumably without optics?), Olaf and John would now be tied on 765.

 

[Mysticete]

Would have been more understandable to just have kept the Lesser Sandplover on the list if he was so certain. Now it looks like he only added back in to counter Olaf's well-documented sighting.

 

[trptjoe]

Here's the list update. I'd mistakenly given Laura a McKay's Bunting; this should be accurate.
Joe

 

[dantheman]

New blog post from Olaf - Take It Easy - with another new bird Lesser Sandplover.

Gi

(Two blog posts from Olaf in quick succession ... http://olafsbigyear.blogspot.co.uk/ )

 

[Paul Chapman]

Would have been more understandable to just have kept the Lesser Sandplover on the list if he was so certain. Now it looks like he only added back in to counter Olaf's well-documented sighting.

I enjoyed this sentence:-

'Those with whom I've discussed this with electronically are uniformly supportive of this decision.'

Presumably the same people who advised him to be secretive on his original sightings.

All the best

 

[Farnboro John]

I enjoyed this sentence:-

'Those with whom I've discussed this with electronically are uniformly supportive of this decision.'

Presumably the same people who advised him to be secretive on his original sightings.

All the best

Reckon he needs a new grammar adviser as well!

Jhn

 

[Larry Sweetland]

Apols for not following this closely,.... is someone claiming to be able to id a flushed sand-plover to species from a moving vehicle? :smoke: :eek!:

 

[guy_incognito]

Reckon he needs a new grammar adviser as well!

Jhn

I may just be a stupid Yank, but that really doesn't seem like an egregious grammar error. Have you read Olaf's blog?

PS, you spelled your name wrong.

Apols for not following this closely,.... is someone claiming to be able to id a flushed sand-plover to species from a moving vehicle? :smoke: :eek!:

I don't think we know the exact details. John described it as flushing a Sand Plover while driving along the beach on an ATV. We don't know the distance, whether he only saw it in flight, etc. There certainly are circumstances where it could have been identifiable, and obviously other times when it couldn't.

This just once again brings up the fact that both of these birders are having their sightings scrutinized at a far higher level than any other big year birder ever has.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I don't think we know the exact details. John described it as flushing a Sand Plover while driving along the beach on an ATV. We don't know the distance, whether he only saw it in flight, etc. There certainly are circumstances where it could have been identifiable, and obviously other times when it couldn't.

This just once again brings up the fact that both of these birders are having their sightings scrutinized at a far higher level than any other big year birder ever has.

We only have John's description and his actions. There does not seem anything unusual on the level of scrutiny being applied to their sightings in a British context and indeed some of the behaviours look familiar. John has less than a decade's birding experience. In a British context, his credibility would now be shot with many - for right or wrong. This is not a relative thing. His record will be scrutinised in its own right.

All the best

 

[bernerjc]

Whoa-- Were the "Big Year rules" completely disregarded on this one?

18 September update:-

http://www.birdingfordevils.com/2016_09_01_archive.html

'Although I most certainly did flush a Lesser Sand Plover during a morning ATV blitz along the beach, the worst nightmare followed: no relocation by me or others, and no photos. In my case (which I believed, until my birding experiences of this year, is universal) 'counted' bird sightings go on my list if and only if I can lay in bed at night and know that the sighting was certain. I think that’s the best definition of an adequate sighting. I can do that for this sighting, and it is is the first time that I can think of that I’ve also taken into account the perception of others, and it won't be going on my list. Apart from my own personal integrity, for which I'm responsible, I've dealt with and witnessed some unusual and challenging circumstances over the course of this year that in the fullness of time will be appropriate for comment. With respect to Lesser Sand Plovers it’s still possible for another opportunity on St Paul Island.'

3 October update:-

http://www.birdingfordevils.com/2016_10_01_archive.html

'Last night, when I heard about the Lesser Sand Plover appearing in Arizona, I arranged flights to get back down that way and to return to St Paul four days later – the best that I could manage given the difficulty of getting seats on Pen Air flights. One of the guys up here who I explained the situation to (see previous post re my 31 August sighting on Gambell) asked why in the hell would I leave the island again, head all the way down to Arizona and back, when I’ve already seen a Lesser Sand Plover a few weeks ago. Tossing it over through a mostly sleepless night, I got out of bed with the realisation that heading off for the Sand Plover really was a dumb decision. It was even dumber to have succumbed to scepticism by one or two others at the time of the sighting, and for not sticking to my guns about the bird, which I saw very clearly before it flew from the beach. Having seen literally thousands of sand plovers in Australia, I know a non-breeding sandy when I see one – whether or not it can be confirmed in crazy-high wind conditions by myself or others. So yeah, the purpose of this post is to explain why I’ve decided to return Lesser Sand Plover onto my list – and to explain why I’m not heading south for the cooperative Arizona bird. Those with whom I've discussed this with electronically are uniformly supportive of this decision.'

So if John hadn't decided that he had seen enough to identify Lesser Sandplover from his moving ATV (presumably without optics?), Olaf and John would now be tied on 765.

So seemingly just because he doesn't want to travel--John W reverses his previous decision with no new data nor interpretation--just some encouragement from someone he spoke with. (especially when those apparently near him at the time of the observation were skeptical and observation conditions were apparently poor)

While the individual Big-Year birder should be the judge at the time of the sighting--reversals of this sort two weeks later apparently mostly due to travel inconvenience (& possibly due to competition) seems completely inappropriate. You can certainly challenge some of the birds counted in 2016 by Olaf/John (& really reports by any birder without definitive photos) but this reversal seems a new low--

I don't want to play along with this reversal. Maybe we should not count this reversal in our Forum discussions of totals and Forum-generated spreadsheets--not that what we do here matters of course. Does anyone agree?? (I'm sure many of you would disagree with my arbitrary personal decision)

Am I over-reacting??:C Scrutiny of Big Year birders is certainly quite high (maybe too high?) in 2016!

P.S. Just Missed John W and Olaf (again in 2016) at the Variegated FC spot