-
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.
Slender-billed Curlew. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Hudson & BBRC 2012. Report on rare birds in GB in 2011.
BOURC 2013. BOURC: 41st Report (Oct 2012).
Last edited:
Don Draper
Well-known member
Can. Of. Worms.
rollingthunder
Well-known member
A can of worms might have lured the bugger closer in order to extract a feather
Laurie:t:
Laurie:t:
keith
Well-known member
Thanks Richard.
Hi Keith
As you saw the bird, I'd be far more interested to hear what you (rather than two committees who mostly did not see it) believe it was?
cheers
Richard
Jan-Paul Charteris
Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
You may as well take a look through THIS thread - page upon page of comments and opinions from people who saw the bird and loads who didn't. Nothing has happened since to make any difference to what has already been covered in that thread
keith
Well-known member
Well Richard, I must admit I hadn't seen one before, it certainly seemed to tick all the right boxes though and my fellow birders from Teesside all came to the same conclusion. I just wish that we could have had the cameras then that we have now, still, there was a lot of old-fashioned note taking going on. I've happily ticked it on what I saw and I believe everyone who observed the bird feels the same. It does seem that the sceptics are the ones who weren't there, but that's always been the way in birding.
Er, 'richardm' sits on both BOURC and BBRC so may be able to contribute something.....
But not much, I'm afraid! Yes, I am on both committees, but of course I cannot be expected to speak for the 20 or more people involved in the review process. It is no secret that, like Keith, I saw the bird (after experiencing a couple previously in Morocco), and that I believe it was one. I can also confirm that the record is being thoroughly examined. R
Jan-Paul Charteris
Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
He may well, and yet the other thread where so many others have given their views would give 'Richardm' a good platform on which to do so within a comfortable context, and give the OP a good source of information to answer his question...no?
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Its no secret that dear old Richard also runs a news organisation that made a significant failure in its use of nuance during the week, which contributed to some of us hoarding our scarce pennies instead of dropping everything and legging it north.
Not very sore over it despite still thinking it was one...
HNY
John
Not very sore over it despite still thinking it was one...
HNY
John
Would it be unreasonable to ask that this discussion be tabled until the relevant committees have concluded their deliberations?
I recognize that may not be for another decade or two, but it seems feelings are still very raw about this case and absent some substantial incremental information, no good can come of rehashing the events yet again.
I recognize that may not be for another decade or two, but it seems feelings are still very raw about this case and absent some substantial incremental information, no good can come of rehashing the events yet again.
Brian J Small
Well-known member
Hi Keith
I am not sure that this statement is true. I know of a number of observers of the bird that no longer support the record.
Good luck to Richard and the two committees.
Brian S
Frenchy
Well-known member
I think it can be described thus:
I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
- Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
- Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
- Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!
I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had
I think it can be described thus:
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
- Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
- Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
- Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!
I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had
Question is, can all people involved in deciding be trusted to assess the evidence objectively, without personal agendas 'numbers on lists' becoming an issue (either pro or contra)? If the process is supposed to be scientific then at what point do they reject the new null hypothesis? Where are the confidence limits set? Apologies if that sounds combative! Would it not have been useful to have an independent* team assess the record too?
*With no vested listing interests.
I think it can be described thus:
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
- Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
- Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
- Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!
I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had
Not the last record in the world ever...
http://www.sakertour.com/slender-billed_curlew.php
Frenchy
Well-known member
Many questions!
I cannot imagine any member of BBRC or BOU putting their own listing objectives above reaching their own correct decision (whatever they feel that is). If they do, then they really have no place on either committee. Besides, most members are not dedicated enough to their list to care about this!
Who said the process was scientific? Its the same as any other record assessment. Does the evidence make for a certain identification? Thats it.
Confidence limit has to be, in my opinion, 100%. Its often said to be 95% in most other records, but this has always been a more important record. Unless you're suggesting a statistical analysis of this somehow?
I don't see the point in getting an "independant" committee to assess the record. Who would be on it? Perhaps all the well respected European birders who have already stated they don't think it was one...
Frenchy
Well-known member
My mistake. Its the last but one record. Ever.
Its listed as being accepted here http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/projects/details.aspx?id=198450 , so I guess the working group and/or the Hungarian records committee saw the video.
There are a host of possible later records from the Ukraine too, but doesn't look as if they have been accepted by the working group.
Similar threads
