Do you count heard only birds on your life list? (1 Viewer)

[Jim M.]

This topic has taken over the 10,000 birds thread. I'm not necessarily looking to initiate further debate on the pros and cons of different listing practices – just curious to get a sense of what forum members as a whole are doing at present. This forum probably skews older and certainly more British than the global population of birders, so it is not a representative sample of birders at large, but poll results would still be of interest to me and likely others.

Personally, when I started birding in the 1960s, the common practice in my area was that you needed to see a bird to add it to your life list, except for nocturnal birds and rails. But heard only was fine for any bird on year or other types of lists. With the advent of eBird, which doesn't distinguish bird encounters based on modality, I have changed my practice, and now count any heard only bird if I am confident of the ID. (Though, of course, for visually appealing birds, I hope to see them if I can--provided that doing so doesn't unduly disturb the bird.) The liberal approach to heard only birds has also been adopted by the American Birding Association.

 

[Mysticete]

Option 3 was what I voted, but I could imagine counting based on vocals alone a particularly skulky species that was identical in morphology to another related species, but vocally distinct.

 

[Farnboro John]

Another option 3. My reasoning is that while I want to see birds and will only take a life-tick on visuals, seeing them again (especially if I got a decent pic the first time) is less necessary to my fun - this is my hobby after all - and year-ticking etc on call reduces disturbance. This matters particularly with scarcer birds that are totally recognisable on call such as Corncrake. It's also often a lot quicker than trying to see that skulker.

John

 

[01101001]

10% of my short list are heard onlys (also, a few with untickable views but heard well). Mostly skulkers but also some birds I'd like to see, although not ticking them on call/song would be a little bit like not ticking a female-type while waiting for a breeding male. Also, I'm saving much time, effort, nerves, and some disturbance, too.

EDIT: Also, I think that finding a heard-only is no worse than seeing a known individual/birds in an area known for them.

 

[earthdragon64]

I ticked option 2, however, the only bird on my life list that is heard only is Corncrake. I have heard them dozens of times, I may even have caught a very brief glimpse through vegetation, but I've never got a decent look at one. I spent 2 nights camping on Tiree a few years ago with at least 3 calling all night around the camp site, including one that I swear was just outside my tent, still didn't see any of the little darlings.

 

[Farnboro John]

I ticked option 2, however, the only bird on my life list that is heard only is Corncrake. I have heard them dozens of times, I may even have caught a very brief glimpse through vegetation, but I've never got a decent look at one. I spent 2 nights camping on Tiree a few years ago with at least 3 calling all night around the camp site, including one that I swear was just outside my tent, still didn't see any of the little darlings.

Next time go and just watch the open grass near patches of iris: when moving in the open they don't usually call so you need to look for silent birds rather than being distracted by calling skulkers.

John

 

[Lerxst]

Option 1, of course. Vision is no more inherently valuable than hearing.

If you are willing to tick a bird you saw but never heard, why is the reverse not acceptable? If I had to go one way on this, I would say that to see but not hear a bird is by far the inferior experience. Unlike the mere passive reflection of light off an external covering, bird song is a dynamic performance that needs a span of time, a mind-meld kicked off in the living brain of a living being executing a complex series of modulations in its syrinx, triggering the ineffable and mysterious human reaction to music (or what in many cases is quite musical, less so for others). Any old dead skin in a museum drawer can be seen. But it won't sing to you. The range of visible light frequencies almost spans a factor of 2. Our audio range spans a factor of 1,000.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

I think there is also the aspect that when I started, field guides were based on appearance, and sound descriptions are even more subject to misinterpretation than poor illustrations!

 

[Farnboro John]

Option 1, of course. Vision is no more inherently valuable than hearing.

If you are willing to tick a bird you saw but never heard, why is the reverse not acceptable? If I had to go one way on this, I would say that to see but not hear a bird is by far the inferior experience. Unlike the mere passive reflection of light off an external covering, bird song is a dynamic performance that needs a span of time, a mind-meld kicked off in the living brain of a living being executing a complex series of modulations in its syrinx, triggering the ineffable and mysterious human reaction to music (or what in many cases is quite musical, less so for others). Any old dead skin in a museum drawer can be seen. But it won't sing to you. The range of visible light frequencies almost spans a factor of 2. Our audio range spans a factor of 1,000.

Tapes and mixed singers: mimicry of other species (admirable but potentially confusing). Hearing is great fun but still inherently less reliable than visuals, even before one considers the silent bird or the one drowned out by a nearby chain saw.

John

 

[Sangahyando]

IMO the bias against heard-only has to do with a number of factors, like 1) neglecting to develop one's auditory ID skills, 2) lack of natural talent in some people, making it extra difficult, and 3) hearing loss, often self-inflicted and starting at a relatively young age.
That is not to say I wouldn't prefer a good view of a bird to a "heard-only" record - but regarding the degree of satisfaction, I'm sure most of us would prefer to "tick" a genuinely wild bird over a reintroduced individual (let alone an established invasive species. Also, sometimes vagrants can be of dubious origin), yet we include them all in our lists if certain criteria are met. So why not "heard only", as long as you can be certain of the ID and provenance?

 

[JTweedie]

I go with 1 too but I mark heard-only birds on my list, but remove the H once I see them. Don't have any birds on my list at the moment that I haven't seen at least once. But there are some like Tawny Owls that I hear often but hardly ever see, so they're usually on my year list as heard only. I do set myself criteria though that I need to be 100% certain what it was before I'll record a bird on my list - that applies also to birds I've seen but are unsure of.

I wonder what it would be like for blind birders who rely on sound alone, their heard birds are no less valid than those that are seen by others. At the end of the day, it's your list and as long as you're honest with yourself, what does it really matter to anyone else?

 

[Lerxst]

Tapes and mixed singers: mimicry of other species (admirable but potentially confusing). Hearing is great fun but still inherently less reliable than visuals, even before one considers the silent bird or the one drowned out by a nearby chain saw.

John

Not 'inherently less reliable' for an Alder vs Willow Flycatcher....

Yes, you point out challenges but I find these less daunting than the visual ones. Nothing ever works perfectly. But in the end, the question is only this: can I identify the bird with high confidence? Confidence sufficiently high that it would be perverse to reject the ID? That determines if I tick it or not, nothing else.

If one makes that their sole criteria, then HO birds pose no problem for counting. If the bird 'must' be seen, then it merely argues that the birder requires a certain kind of experience in addition to the ID. And there is nothing wrong with that, of course, whether it be the near-universal desire to see it, or turning the tables, the requirement to hear it. Which would be a no less valid way to approach it.

What I would find interesting is the birder with healthy ears and eyes who requires both seeing and hearing the bird in order to tick it. Obviously what that person is recording isn't what they have ID'ed, but what they have fully experienced.

 

[Lerxst]

I wonder what it would be like for blind birders who rely on sound alone, their heard birds are no less valid than those that are seen by others. At the end of the day, it's your list and as long as you're honest with yourself, what does it really matter to anyone else?

I know a birder who has been 100% blind from birth. I have had the privilege to go birding with him. He loves birds no less than anyone here, even though he has no concept of what "blue' even means, for example. While it would be absurd to say that he isn't missing anything due to his disability, I don't think his experience of birdsong is any less rewarding than that of a sighted birder upon seeing a glowing hummingbird gorget.

I've said this in the other thread, that if I had normal eyesight, I'd probably resist ticking HO birds, just like most birders. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a visual ID your requirement. It is that I cannot stand the sometimes implicit denigration of hearing, that it is a 'second-hand' experience, that comes with certain assertions made around here. Well if it is 'second-rate' to you then I feel sorry for you. That is a limitation you created for yourself. It isn't objective.

 

[raymie]

I only count birds that I see for my life and year lists. I still enjoy hearing birds, and I fully acknowledge how important hearing is for birding, I just don't feel as satisfied by heard-only bird encounters and I do when I see them. I do, of course, include heard-only birds on eBird checklists.

I do keep a "heard-only birds" list as a footnote at the end of the document I keep my life list on, next to where I put the escapees. I personally consider heard-only birds is a similar vein to how I feel seeing escaped birds. I love the experience but it just doesn't feel right counting them.

Many of the birds on my "heard-only" list I am very annoyed are on there. Like Fiery-billed Aracari and Black-backed Woodpecker. It's really annoying, but it does motivate me to get back out there and try to get those species on my life list for real. That list is currently 26 species long, and getting a species onto my real life list after years of looking for it after hearing it is really satisfying. My favorite instance of this was Northern Saw-whet Owl.

 

[Nightjar61]

Option 4 for me. I must see a bird before I count it on any of my lists, even my Year List. That is how I’ve been doing for 50 plus years, I’m happy doing it that way, and I’m not about to change now. (God, I sound like a grumpy old man.) If I don’t see a calling bird today, there will be other chances tomorrow. And this is not due to neglecting to develop my auditory skills or a lack of natural talent. I just feel that I have a “cleaner” list by not having heard-onlys on it.

Of course, some birds have to be heard (and, for me, seen) before they can be counted, such as the Empidonax flycatchers, but if they don’t call and I can’t identify them, they’re not counted. And I do initially locate a large portion of the birds I see by their songs and calls, and that helps me to pinpoint their location, usually giving me satisfying views.

I don’t begrudge anyone who counts heard-onlys, but as they say, my list, my rules.

Dave

 

[Ruff-Leg]

View attachment 609042022 (1).wav

My recording of an unseen Coraya Wren. Why would I not count that? (No, there was no one hiding in the thicket doing playback 😉)

 

[Steve Babbs]

3 but I haven't actually kept a year list since 1985.

 

[Andy Adcock]

View attachment 1565169

My recording of an unseen Coraya Wren. Why would I not count that? (No, there was no one hiding in the thicket doing playback 😉)

I failed to see, after hearing, Whiskered Wren, Southern Nightingale-Wren and Flutest Wren in Venezuela, whilst they are noted in my trip report, none appear on my life list. We did manage to see Coraya Wren.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

Glad it's not just me who has trouble with wrens! I've only got 24 heard only birds and 2 of them are wrens: Wing-banded and Chestnut-breasted. I even saw vegetation move around the Chestnut-breasted, and the Wing-banded was ear-splittingly close but I couldn't scramble up a vertical bank high enough to peer over. I don't feel they're properly ticked.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Glad it's not just me who has trouble with wrens! I've only got 24 heard only birds and 2 of them are wrens: Wing-banded and Chestnut-breasted. I even saw vegetation move around the Chestnut-breasted, and the Wing-banded was ear-splittingly close but I couldn't scramble up a vertical bank high enough to peer over. I don't feel they're properly ticked.

Same story with the above, I also have a similar tale of woe with Blue-naped Pitta which remained unseen, despite being just feet away in Vietnam.