How many rarities are we missing? (1 Viewer)

[cnybirder]

Inspired by this thread I decided to see what people think now (the other thread is 4 years old):
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=18005

That thread states about 800 rarities are missed in the UK every year.
If that is the case (which I think it is), think of how many we miss here in the states where birders per square mile is very low compared to the UK.
In my county there are probably 2 or 3 active birders, even in surrounding counties there are larger populations there are only 10-20 active birders.

There are rarities everywhere, you just need to be looking for them:
When you think of how many rarities have been found around Ithaca, NY it is amazing. That area is nothing special, there are far better areas in the state (like along Lake Ontario - Monroe and Oswego Counties) but they consistently find more rarities than the better places. This is because there are 100+ active birders in that area.

So I was thinking about how many rarities are missed in the US.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
And how might we be able find more rarities (especially in our own areas)?
I have a few thoughts on this last question but I'll see what others say first.

 

[ovenbird43]

I've sometimes pondered similar questions, especially relating to my own location. Arkansas is not the most active birding state, and the active birders are concentrated around Little Rock. Consequently, most rarities are found around Little Rock or in popular birding spots within a few hours' drive of there. I see very few reports coming from northwest Arkansas, there are only a couple birders that get out regularly within a 4-county area. I'm always reading about enticing rare birds from the central part of the state, but rarely less than 3 hours from home, so I don't often go after any of them.

And of course, a Long-billed Curlew turned up in my county this spring... but while I was clear over in Memphis :C

Certainly the number of rarities found in an area depends on how much the area is birded, perhaps more so than any physical characteristics of the area that might somehow attract vagrants. I've found a number of unusual (though not rare) birds in the Ozarks by chance, simply by getting out and birding... Swainson's Warbler, Great-tailed Grackle, Barn Owl... none at recognized "hotspots" that are regularly birded by large numbers of people.

I havent' checked out the thread you linked yet, but I have to wonder... how does one estimate how many rarities are NOT found?

 

[Microtus]

I found a couple of rarities completely accidentally. In one case, two blocks from my house, I turned right instead of left and ended up heading toward place B instead of place A. In the other case, my girlfriend could only spend so much time out birding that morning, so we went to a close-by area, where we were the only birders, that I would not have visited had I been by myself.

 

[cnybirder]

I think finding rarities has to do with three things:
1. Skill
2. Time
3. Place

Skilled birders (like David Sibley or Jon Dunn) find rarities almost every where they go. They have physically seen most of the birds in that have been recorded in America, thus they are able to recognize rarities easier.

I think many rarities (especially in the passerine category) are missed because the person viewing them does not recognize them as a rare species.
Say your average birder sees an Ash-throated Flycatcher in Massachusetts, they might very well think that it is Great Crested Flycatcher, especially if they do not get a good view. Some birders automatically assume the bird is the common one instead of the rare one (and some assume it is the rare one instead of the common one!). Many birders do not spend any time familiarizing themselves with the birds and their calls that are not found in their area.

Perhaps more rarities are missed because no one was birding where the rarity was. Even in well birded places such as Cape May, many rarities are missed. However a huge amount of the rarities are found in such locations.
But in areas such as mine there are few birders and some great birding locations. Some of these locations are not even visited every week by any birders. In areas like this more rarities are missed. Out west there are many great migrant traps that have never had a birder visit them.
There are places that are very good locations that are off limits to birders as well.

I agree that the physical characteristics of the area have a great deal to do with how many rarities are found. Some places are far better than others.
But rarities can be found anywhere!

It is impossible to tell for sure but I think perhaps 1% of the rarities in the US are found. If all of these rarities were found some would not be rarities anymore.

In order to find more rarities:
Study the Avian Records Committee reports for your state. This way you know where and what species have been recorded in your state.
Study the birds and calls of most US birds, especially if they have been found in your area before.
Study the differences between rare birds and their common counterparts, such as Little Stint and other peeps.
Find other good birding locations that no one has found before.
Go birding more often, especially to locations in your area.

I look forward to hearing what others think.

 

[dantheman]

There is a whole thread running on this related topic in the rare bird information section;
(Finding rarities)

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=59295

(Admittedly it's uk based )

I would think that whether birds are found or not is down to a whole complex of factors, including observer coverage, observer skill, bird habits (including migration strategy and habitat preferences), weather patterns, habitat distribution etc etc.

How the above factors come into play depends on whether you are talking about a normally sedentry species, eastern or western US species out of range, total intercontinental vagrant (eg from europe) or rare but regular migrant of course . . .

The other thing is if we could find all the rarities out there, paradoxically they wouldn't be rarities any more! (Or at least less so, in many cases).

 

[Birdbrainjwc]

I totally agree on the fact that if there was more birders, we would find more rarities.
I live in the northwestern part of Montana, and there are about 7 really active birders in the area. This is a big area we are talking about. The local hotspots have obviously produced more rarities(Sabine's Gull, Snowy Plover, Tufted Duck)

Habitat and food abundance has a great roll in it too. There are several people with good skill and active feeders, that (obviously) find more rarities at there feeders (Purple Finch, BRAMBLING!! twice!!!!)

I have a really nice piece of land, and bird in constantly, and of course, have found really great birds (White-winged Crossbill, Gyrfalcon, Nashville Warbler, Lincoln's Sparrow)

I think the 2 biggest things you can do to find more rarities (besides learning the possible rare birds by voice and looks) is :

1. Pick a close spot and bird it OFTEN! twice a week is good, I'm in favor of 3-4 times though. There are spots right next to a local birders house and he birds them often and (as we have learned) has found rarities there. Also you can scout and look for more local spots to bird.

2. Get more people involved. Call people up and go out birding. Talk to local birders and ask if they are willing to bird the local area more often. No matter what, anybody will want to go birding more often.

Some Chimney Swifts(with the common Vaux's Swifts) were seen by a really good birder, and most birders wouldn't be able to tell the difference. So, learn the possible rare birds(as cnybirder said)

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

I think many rarities (especially in the passerine category) are missed because the person viewing them does not recognize them as a rare species.

Say your average birder sees an Ash-throated Flycatcher in Massachusetts, they might very well think that it is Great Crested Flycatcher, especially if they do not get a good view. Some birders automatically assume the bird is the common one instead of the rare one

This is so true. I know I have (potentially) done this a thousand times. In fact, it never even occurred to me until I read your post.

I am pretty sure that 99% of us fall into that category. The remaining 1% being split between:

• Experts that would be able to "feel" that the assumed species wasn't quite right and would begin a detailed analysis
• Obsessive perfectionists that always examine every bird they see with a fine-toothed comb and need to prove to themselves why the House Sparrow or European Starling they are looking at is, actually, a House Sparrow or European Starling
• Starry-eyed optimists that always think any bird they are observing might be a rarity and spend a lot of time trying to prove it to themselves

 

[Birdbrainjwc]

I fall just short of the first category in the 1%. I have found a number of odd birds for this area, including several odd gulls.

Besides the fact that there aren't enough birders to find the rarities, the biggest factor is that most people wouldn't be able to ID some of the rarities. (shorebirds, gulls, passerines)

This thread has inspired me, and hopefully some of you, to get out there and try to find a rarity. Have fun scrutinizing any odd song or odd shorebird, it might pay off.

 

[ColinD]

......The other thing is if we could find all the rarities out there, paradoxically they wouldn't be rarities any more! (Or at least less so, in many cases).

That's true, but they would probably be replaced as rarities by other species which have not yet been recorded as occuring, in otherwords, if we could find all of the rarities which occur, some would no longer be considered rarities, but some would be "firsts".

We had a similar experience here when a number of us began moth trapping a few years ago. Moths which we considered rarities in the first few years became little more than uncommon as more people began trapping and we covered more areas. However, as a result of the increase in trappers, the increase in coverage and our greater id skills, many new species were trapped which had not been previously recorded in the area, and they replaced the original rarities.

I guess that the status of rarities is evolving all of the time, for a variety of reasons. Birds which maybe were considered rare in the 1950s may not be rare now, simply because there are more birders, which means greater coverage. These birders also have better equipment, better guide books to refer to and they are better travelled and may have seen the species abroad. The bird itself may be no more common than it was, but it just seems commoner.

Of course other factors also come into play such as range expansion and Global Warming etc.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[chowchilla]

That's true, but they would probably be replaced as rarities by other species which have not yet been recorded as occuring, in otherwords, if we could find all of the rarities which occur, some would no longer be considered rarities, but some would be "firsts".

We had a similar experience here when a number of us began moth trapping a few years ago. Moths which we considered rarities in the first few years became little more than uncommon as more people began trapping and we covered more areas. However, as a result of the increase in trappers, the increase in coverage and our greater id skills, many new species were trapped which had not been previously recorded in the area, and they replaced the original rarities.

I guess that the status of rarities is evolving all of the time, for a variety of reasons. Birds which maybe were considered rare in the 1950s may not be rare now, simply because there are more birders, which means greater coverage. These birders also have better equipment, better guide books to refer to and they are better travelled and may have seen the species abroad. The bird itself may be no more common than it was, but it just seems commoner.

Of course other factors also come into play such as range expansion and Global Warming etc.

Hope that makes sense!

For some reason your post reminded me of 'The Observer's Book of Birds', my first ever bird book at about the age of 10.

It featured Britain's 'commoner' birds, which included Ortolan, Lesser White-Front, Spoonbill and Hoopoe (as well as Red-backed and Great Grey Shrikes and Wryneck, sign of the times...) but not some of the Sibes and European 'vagrants' that may now be considered 'regular' passage migrants or winter visitors. I guess the latter is most likely due to increased coverage: discerning watchers picking out Phylloscs and Hippos, scarcer waders, gulls etc....

In contrast, I can't begin to imagine what gets missed in the vastness of my adopted country...

 

[dantheman]

In contrast, I can't begin to imagine what gets missed in the vastness of my adopted country...

If millions of Oriental Pratincoles nearly got missed, who knows!!

 

[chowchilla]

If millions of Oriental Pratincoles nearly got missed, who knows!!

Put it this way....

If you break down in Aus anywhere well off a main highway there's a very real chance you will die before anyone finds you, let alone someone who just happens to be a birder...:eek!:

 

[cnybirder]

Just thought I'd mention that David Sibley has had a few posts on his blog about this:
How many rare birds did we miss before the internet?

How many rare birds do we find?

How many rare birds do we miss?

He says:
"The same observation that might set a Cape May birder running after a "possible Smith's Longspur" is more likely to be dismissed as "not worth the effort" by a birder in farm fields in upstate New York. And as soon as a historical pattern develops at a location - like Cave Swallows at Cape May in November - the tables turn and birders start actively looking for a specific rare bird."

I think this is very true - it seems to me that if a birder does not expect a species they have a lot less chance of finding one.
In Kingbird Region 5 here in central New York we have not had a California Gull yet even though we have the Oswego River, which is widely regarded as a gull hotspot. I think this is mainly because no one spends much time looking for California Gulls and they spend most of their time there looking for Thayer's, Glaucous, Iceland and Lesser Black-backed.

It is also funny how random some rarities are found. A Northern Wheatear was found in October in Lewis County, which is about an 1 1/2" from where I live. It was found in yard of a birder. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there were less than 5 birders in that county that would have been able to identify the bird if it was found in their yard. If it had been almost any yard in the whole county it would not have been seen.

Another thing that really illustrates how few rarities we find is the Patagonia Picnic Table affect, which is when a rarity is reported, birders flock to the area, and end up finding other rarities (sometimes better than the first).

Recently a Pacific Loon was found on Cayuga Lake and while looking for it a couple of birders found a California Gull (first for the Cayuga area).

Also in Cayuga County a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher was found (and not reported until over a week after it was found) and while observing that a birder saw and photographed a Ross's Goose flying over with some Snow Geese. Scissor-tailed Flycatcher is a much better sighting with Ross's Goose being the lesser of the rarities but not bad at all.

One last thing I want to mention is that is is amazing that the UK can get a rarity like Glaucous-winged Gull and almost all eastern states have no record!

 

[jurek]

I guess I miss many rarities showing up and alerting me, because they are too far at sea, or hide in bushes and never show again. Sometimes, the weather is so nasty that I beg for them do not show again...

Gulls, terns, ducks and suchlike are easier... at least if you see them you can often identify them!

 

[Clive Watson]

I think finding rarities has to do with three things:
1. Skill
2. Time
3. Place

You missed off
4. Luck!!!

 

[Farnboro John]

Prepare to be further amazed then, because we've had both Ancient and Long-billed Murrelets as well! (Lucky me I saw all three: cracking birds they were too.)

John

 

[Mysticete]

There are giant swaths of the US that are just poorly birded. Here in Wyoming, I don't think we even have a grasp of regularly occurring bird distribution due to the low density of people and particulary birders. In fact, I would guess there are probably only 10 or less serious birders in the whole state, to cover and immense amount of habitat. The Wyoming listserve is so quiet it's pretty sad, and what traffic it gets is mostly backyard feeder stuff (and by that I mean "I SAW A GOLDFINCH TODAY"). Also alot of the good birding areas are quite a bit of a drive, and most are poorly developed and hard to access, or on public property.

That said, we still have managed to get Long-billed Murrelet and Streaked Shearwater on our state checklist...go figure.

When I lived in San Diego, there was a much higher population of serious birders. But even there, occasionally you would hear reports of rare birds that were more due to luck than anything else. There are tons of little parks scattered through the city that are attractive to migrants, but barely ever birded.

 

[canadagurl123]

Well 5 hours frive from Victoria there's a place called Pacific Rim National Park. Very few people live anywhere near it that are birders. But it has recorded tons of rarities. This place is amazing and we're probably missing loads of rarities since only a few thousand people live close by and only a few of those are birders. California has all these Asian rarities because there are more birders. Imagine if there were that many birders in Bc's coast. We would probably be getting some of these Asian migrant rarities. Look at the black tailed Gull that showed up this year in Comox or the Little Stint in Port Renfrew. In Port Renfrew that same day I had Pink footed Shearwater, Short tailed Shearwater and Sooty Shearwater all from land. Also there were Kittiwakes and Sabine's Gull. I was the only person birding the area so if I had not seen these( excluding Little Stint which several people saw) they could've been unnoticed. Also there were 40 Brown Pelican!!! They are rare in BC and only a few seen in Port Renfrew but there was over 40 of them. So imagine what rarities are lurking around that we totally miss in remote spots.

 

[jurek]

I think most places which get many rarities have not just intensive migration, but birds are somehow concentrated and in visible place.

I heard about some coastal village in Ireland which has only one tree - and several rarities were seen on that tree (because there is no other place to perch). Compare to the south Baltic coast which has a long belt of thick, impenetrable young pine plantations...