Twite
Well-known member
I agree. Nobody comes close to the BBC when it comes to wildlife/natural history documentaries.
Twite.
ps. It's repeated BBC2 Sunday 5.55pm.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Natural World series (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alex_sk
- Start date
I agree. Nobody comes close to the BBC when it comes to wildlife/natural history documentaries.
Twite.
ps. It's repeated BBC2 Sunday 5.55pm.
On-Firecrest
Stuck in a Rutt
To put it simply just beautiful! I Players gonna get a load more hits after this
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I agree, it was an absolutely beautiful programme. I was stunned watching those young Gyrs launching themselves from the cliff for the first time and flying as if they had been doing it for years. Magnificent birds.
Ron
Ron
Iceberg slim
Fly by night
What a fantastic treat,the camera work was stunning,the female Gyr is huge compared to the male,also the snowy owls and Skua footage,makes a hard friday worth the wait
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
The short film afterwards about Arctic Terns was good as well. I didn't realise that the whole colony leaves at the same time. A nice hour's viewing for a snowy February evening.
Ron
Ron
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Yes, that was a nice short film. Was that Simon King narrating it? It sounded like him.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I recorded it, so I have just checked and it was produced and narrrated by Jerry Short, whoever he is. There were some excellent shots of the terns, showing their colours really well. The chicks were feisty little things too.
Ron
Hugh Addlesee
Well-known member
I disagree about Natural World tonight. Visually impressive perhaps, but not the standard of accuracy I expect of a BBC wildlife documentary. Long-tailed Skuas mis-id'd as Arctics, King Eider called as Eider (generically OK, but still a bit poor IMO). Also, the implication that the female Snowy Owl had laid more eggs because she expected a good lemming year, which I'm assuming is false - unless somebody knows otherwise?
Anybody know what the 2 passerines which flew low left, calling, at one point were?
Anybody know what the 2 passerines which flew low left, calling, at one point were?
a.dancy
Registered User
It was also indicated that falcons don't butcher prey before taking it to nest , which of course is untrue. However, I thought the film was excellent, great photography and logistics. I have heard before that snowy's lay more eggs in a good vole year but cannot comment on the accuracy of that information. I too saw the passerines but do not know what they were.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Exactly the points I picked up on and I was only watching during the advert breaks on the other programme I was following.
1) a long-tailed skua decribed as an Arctic skua.
2) a king eider described as an eider (with its tiny babies - how cute)
3) the prescentient snowy owl that can detect by mysterious means the future fecundity of the local rodent population.
and
4) the gratuitous insertion of an arctic fox looking down on the proceedings from on high (but filmed in long-shot and close-up from several angles) while the narrator told us what thoughts were going on in its vulpine brain.
If these were the errors in a couple of segments lasting a couple of minutes each, what else occurred while I was enjoying the other channel?
Poor show from the BBC who used to pride themselves on accuracy. They seem now to be more interested in turning natural history programmes into soap operas, with heroes, villians and a comic-book narrative. "What will happen next to our favourite female wolf? Will she overcome the adversities that fate has thrust upon her? Stay tuned to find out".
a.dancy
Registered User
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Flippin' 'eck they must have been long adverts
Not at all.:-O
I was watching one of the sky channels and when the ads came on I did what I usually did and muted the sound. Then, just for a change I started channel-hopping, starting at 101. I got as far as 102 and saw some wolves walking around a lake. This caught my attention and I remembered something about the programme that had been advertised. Then some musk-oxen appeared( the narrator told us how strong they were, bulls on speed plus, only lone old males and wayward calves need fear wolves). He forgot to add that they are quite small in comparison to other bovines - but I digress.
After a couple of minutes I flicked back to my programme and waited for the next ads. Each time I flicked back there was another source of annoyance.
It may well be that I was just (un)lucky and caught the nonsense in an otherwise excellent programme.
But I have my doubts.
Hugh Addlesee
Well-known member
It may well be that I was just (un)lucky and caught the nonsense in an otherwise excellent programme.
But I have my doubts.
I think that may be the case, but I do start becoming more suspicious of what I'm being told when I know some of it is plain wrong. Previously, I've not had that reaction to a BBC wildlife documentary. I think the editorial standards slipped this time.
Adey Baker
Member
'BWP Concise' states: 'Clutch: varies with food availability, usually 3-9 (2-14).'
Similar comments are made for several of the owl species but it doesn't state whether this is due to 'current' populations or 'expected' increases in population from a favourable breeding season.
a.dancy
Registered User
If you think the standards are slipping why not write to the BBC....you may even end up being a consultant till you fail to spot a mistake:eek!:
Despite the shortcomings indicated above I would still rather watch the programmes than not watch them. In any event, even the splendid programs from the glory days contained mistakes and often used supposition and/or speculation vailed as fact or science.
I always wonder why the most learned do not make the film themselves maybe some just enjoy having a nit-pick :-O:-O:-O
Despite the shortcomings indicated above I would still rather watch the programmes than not watch them. In any event, even the splendid programs from the glory days contained mistakes and often used supposition and/or speculation vailed as fact or science.
I always wonder why the most learned do not make the film themselves maybe some just enjoy having a nit-pick
:-O:-O:-O
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
I'm an amateur and just guessing, but I'd have though a clutch size would be dependent on the food available at that time to the female. If she is well-fed she'll lay more. It used to work on my mate's allotment with his hens.
As an extrapolation from this, if she's well fed there must be a good population of food to be had, so more available for breeding to produce more food.
Population cycles. Nowt to do with her laying more eggs because she thinks it's going to be a good year - the impression I got from the narration.
As an extrapolation from this, if she's well fed there must be a good population of food to be had, so more available for breeding to produce more food.
Population cycles. Nowt to do with her laying more eggs because she thinks it's going to be a good year - the impression I got from the narration.
a.dancy
Registered User
Yes , I have a problem with the use of the word 'prediction'. Having said that vole years, to my understanding, are cyclic and that being the case there may be a reason to think that there are factors which cause the laying of increased numbers of eggs. In poor vole years some owls simply do not lay eggs.
a.dancy
Registered User
I am with you on this one Alan. However, I won't dismiss the statement made in the film because I do not know enough about observations which have been made regarding the laying of eggs by snowy owls in good mole years. There are a number of factors which precipitate good vole years and I cannot rule out that snowy owls may be tuned to them. I simply do not know.
Hugh Addlesee
Well-known member
If you think the standards are slipping why not write to the BBC....you may even end up being a consultant till you fail to spot a mistake:eek!:
Despite the shortcomings indicated above I would still rather watch the programs than not watch them. In any event, even the splendid programs from the glory days contained mistakes and often used supposition and/or speculation vailed as fact or science.
I always wonder why the most learned do not make the film themselves maybe some just enjoy having a nit-pick
Perhaps it is nit-picking, but the BBC should & does generally AFAIA maintain a reasonable standard of accuracy, including from a very well respected natural history unit. I've learnt a lot from their programs over the years, & hope to carry on doing so - that relies on me having confidence that they're getting things right. Mildly-veiled speculation & anthropomorphising is one thing, factual errors are another. Having gone to the effort of getting some great footage, a bit of basic fact checking wouldn't seem to be too onerous to me. I'm sure some of the folk involved in making these programs must cringe when these errors appear in the broadcast program.
As to the owl's clutch size, I guess it's possible that, if the lemmings' population cycles are highly regular or otherwise predictable, they could alter their egg production in a predictive way, presumably without any conscious thought on the matter - or can birds decide how many eggs to lay?! - perhaps a subject for a separate thread.