birdmeister
Well-known member
Looks like Nicole picked up Barnacle Goose in New York.
-
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.
ABA Big Year 2018 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter trptjoe
- Start date
And then gone straight to Oregon for the Bean Goose.
Seems not to have picked up Smith's Longspur but the numbers are not adding up for me.
It's time for the updated sheets. Remember, eBird is off by one for the Deans (ABA) and for Nicole (AOU) because of Mexican Duck, which shows up on all three eBird lists. Nicole's is from Mexico and the Deans got it in Texas. Nicole still has the provisional House Crow.
Joe
Joe
One change to the 2016 Big Year: the Townsend's Storm-Petrel that John and Laura saw has now been accepted. Laura had already added it to her New ABA and Continental ABA lists, but John hadn't until now. It's on his Lower 48 list as we just put those together in the past few months. John's magic numbers are now 836 and 784. His Lower 48 list stays at 721. All the updated numbers are on the Wikipedia Big Year page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_year
Joe
Joe
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
I just realized that NK went for the Little Stint in San Diego for her US Lower 48 List.
She's back in southeast Arizona now.
Heard only, just the wheep call twice from some grove. How really diagnostic is this call?
lewis20126
Well-known member
crikey, that is thin - a Myiarchus shouldn't be that hard to see surely?
cheers, a
guy_incognito
Well-known member
That wheep call is actually pretty diagnostic. Looks like she was with an Arizona birder who would be very familiar with the call.
There is some pretty tough and impenetrable habitat out there, so not surprising it was heard only. It's not like the good old days when there was a Nutting's that would routinely show up for half an hour early in the morning and be seen next to the road. That bird would then disappear into the riparian habitat and not be seen for much or all of the day (sometimes would show again in the afternoon).
There is some pretty tough and impenetrable habitat out there, so not surprising it was heard only. It's not like the good old days when there was a Nutting's that would routinely show up for half an hour early in the morning and be seen next to the road. That bird would then disappear into the riparian habitat and not be seen for much or all of the day (sometimes would show again in the afternoon).
jmepler
It's just a flesh wound.
With many flycatchers, I would prefer "heard only" to "seen only".
Some flycatchers are difficult, or impossible, to positively identify unless they are heard. Willow and Alder Flycatcher for example can't be separated by sight alone.
She got the Hook-billed Kite this morning in Texas.
https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S50469918
Some flycatchers are difficult, or impossible, to positively identify unless they are heard. Willow and Alder Flycatcher for example can't be separated by sight alone.
She got the Hook-billed Kite this morning in Texas.
https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S50469918
dantheman
Bah humbug
Hmmm ... some can, essentially. (Cornwall anyone?
)The idea of not seeing it and having it on a list is a slightly odd one to many this side of the pond I'd venture ... seeing it AND having it confirmed by call would be the default for adding a rare bird as opposed to just a call - but may be just a cultural UK birding thing (N Europe birders also count 'heard-onlys' more readily I believe)
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Hmmm ... some can, essentially. (Cornwall anyone?
I doubt the Cornish bird would have been accepted without being trapped and/or DNA but certainly the Norfolk one as a second was accepted as a photographed sight record.
All the best
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Ask blind birders if heard only is acceptable.... I think you have to separate the listing thing from birding. It would be unsatisfactory to me to put a heard-only on a life list, essentially because I am a visually motivated animal. If I had no sight it would definitely be a different matter! I think using hearing as the primary sensor is as valid as sight. Given that, it ought to be as valid for a sighted birder as a blind one: it just doesn't quite work for me. That's not even about culture, its my personal values.
I have no compunction in putting a calling bird on a year list because for the most part (if the ID is rock-solid) it doesn't offend my sense of listing a confirmed bird, and in a few instances of rare breeding birds such as Corncrake it has the potential to be a more ethical way of listing the bird than insisting on seeing it with possible attendant disturbance.
So far as normal birding is concerned I use my ears to identify or discard individual birds as objects of interest all the time. If it sounds like a Blue Tit I most likely won't stop to look at/for it.
John
I have no compunction in putting a calling bird on a year list because for the most part (if the ID is rock-solid) it doesn't offend my sense of listing a confirmed bird, and in a few instances of rare breeding birds such as Corncrake it has the potential to be a more ethical way of listing the bird than insisting on seeing it with possible attendant disturbance.
So far as normal birding is concerned I use my ears to identify or discard individual birds as objects of interest all the time. If it sounds like a Blue Tit I most likely won't stop to look at/for it.
John
dantheman
Bah humbug
I was having it heading fairly well towards Alder myself on the day, going on my available field guides. Can't recall if the same concensus was being reached by proper birders at the time admittedly ... but I'm sure it was being mooted as an Alder as opposed to the others.
Part of the problem was we were also being told that American birders generally just lumped them as the one species as it was 'too difficult'. Maybe that sounds a bit of a cop-out, although perhaps easy to say, and depends on how well observed and what end of the range I guess - I'm sure the urge to spend a long time identifying one of two relatively common species not really there in the field in reality.
There would have been good photos too for that one, and well-observed.
Last edited:
dantheman
Bah humbug
Totally agree. In context though I would say if I was doing any kind of Big Year effort I would want to actually lay eyes on them for completeness. Others may differ of course. For day listing etc sound is equal to sight generally. Will almost always spend extra time trying to get the upgrade from sound to sight though.
Possibly back on topic a little, didn't one of the contestants last year (?) get a little bit of stick (on here?!) for getting Bicknell's Thrush on call only???
Similar threads
