• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Has competitive year listing died a death? (1 Viewer)

johnraven

Well-known member
Bored, flicking through Surfbirds, I has a quick look at the 2006 British year list - top 50. Only about 16 entries were above 300. This is a high number, obviously, but hardly that special for the really obsessive yearlisters of yesteryear. Even Master Evans score was not that high (for him), and second place.

Not that I could care less, but just out of interest, is competitive yearlisting dead in the UK? Was it killed by the recent books on the subject?

John
 
johnraven said:
Bored, flicking through Surfbirds, I has a quick look at the 2006 British year list - top 50. Only about 16 entries were above 300. This is a high number, obviously, but hardly that special for the really obsessive yearlisters of yesteryear. Even Master Evans score was not that high (for him), and second place.

Not that I could care less, but just out of interest, is competitive yearlisting dead in the UK? Was it killed by the recent books on the subject?

John

No idea, but if your bored have a read through this thread in RF:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=49484
 
Competitive yearlisting is not dead. Several top listers have removed (or the mods removed) their totals from Surfbirds as a result of various disputes as to whether an individual saw a certain rarity or not. This led to abuse on Surfbirds of certain listers, and some with the highest totals no longer put up their totals.
 
I haven't played seriously ever, though I have cleared 300 eight times and 326 was my best. If I ever win the lottery I'll have a go in the good old fashioned American way - throwing money at the problem till something happens.

Incidentally after the last BBRC night of the long knives lopped 17 species off the rarity list it is now theoretically possible to see 300 in a year in Britain without needing a single BB rarity! Now there's a challenge, because the least I ever missed was 8.

John
 
johnraven said:
Bored, flicking through Surfbirds, I has a quick look at the 2006 British year list - top 50. Only about 16 entries were above 300. This is a high number, obviously, but hardly that special for the really obsessive yearlisters of yesteryear. Even Master Evans score was not that high (for him), and second place.

Not that I could care less, but just out of interest, is competitive yearlisting dead in the UK? Was it killed by the recent books on the subject?

John


Yes, Evans came second last year, but not to Ian Robinson. He came second on surfbirds due the admin failing to correct Ian Robinson's year list.

I don't think it is dead - many people still go for it and of course many do not post on surfbirds who achieve over 300 - the best way to get an idea of how many have passed 300 is by checking out the UK400 listings on their site....

I think one of the main factors for perhaps less people being interested though is due to the cost of petrol these days, and more of an awareness to combat polluting the environment.
 
johnraven said:
Bored, flicking through Surfbirds, I has a quick look at the 2006 British year list - top 50. Only about 16 entries were above 300. This is a high number, obviously, but hardly that special for the really obsessive yearlisters of yesteryear. Even Master Evans score was not that high (for him), and second place.

Not that I could care less, but just out of interest, is competitive yearlisting dead in the UK? Was it killed by the recent books on the subject?

John

One reason for the low entries above 300 was that 2006 was a stinker for year listing. Having reached 280 without much effort in 2005, i decided to add the final 20 for 2006. Also having reached 297 in 2002, it was something i wanted to attempt. Some years are easy, some ain't. 2006 was a difficult year. It didn't really warm up until August. Many short mid week stayers, the back up birds just weren't there. There are always squabbles and politics with year listing, but to be honest, 2006 was not the year to go for 300. Hope this answers your question

All the best, nick smith - No. 5, 6, 7 or 8th on the Surfbirds 2006 year list
 
You're absolutely right, Nick - last year was difficult. Birding at about the same (fairly relaxed) rate, my total dropped from 276 and 280 in the previous two years down to 260 in 2006. Good job I didn't 'go for it'... could've been quite frustrating.

And as Josh has said (and I think I've mentioned here before), there are plenty of birders that get fairly high year lists without wanting to publicise the fact on Surfbirds: they just get out birding a lot, have been doing so for years to build up knowledge, and end up seeing plenty of birds. With a pager, a few strategically taken holidays, and plenty of time, 300's not really the barrier it used to be. (But then, having never crossed it, maybe I would say that?!)
 
I agree with all the points here, particularly that more and more people are choosing not to post on Surfbirds as it often only causes dispute and accusations being thrown. As Josh says the UK400 site gives a more accurate representation, though even this is still missing some listers who saw over 300 last year. 06 was indeed a poor year, luckily I didn't decided to 'go for it' until August, but when you think of the number of good east coast falls, amount of Sabs Gulls seen, and even the almost non existent Grey Phal passage, it's hardly surprising numbers were so low. Yearlisting will always be present on a fairly large scale in the UK, as, unlike yearlisting it's a continuous challenge to some people, though I do wonder what will happen when Mr Evans eventually has to throw in the towell for what ever reason....
 
dan pointon said:
....though I do wonder what will happen when Mr Evans eventually has to throw in the towell for what ever reason....

What will happen. It will become a much farer playing field and somebody will set an new British record - without LGRE deciding to declare their total as void.... From memory, most years LGRE doesn't actually set the highest yearlist total (how can he when he spends so much time abroad, and doesn't twitch using chartered planes that often, and works weekends), but he likes to claim he has, or fabricate figures to appear that he has...

...listing would be a better places without him. Also, many of the figures listed on the uk400club website are best-guess estimates by LGRE and are probably woefully inacurrate.

Oh, and out of interest - I don't really list (British life or year), these are just the clear observations as seen from the outside!
 
marklhawkes said:
It will become a much farer playing field and somebody will set an new British record - without LGRE deciding to declare their total as void.... From memory, most years LGRE doesn't actually set the highest yearlist total (how can he when he spends so much time abroad, and doesn't twitch using chartered planes that often, and works weekends), but he likes to claim he has, or fabricate figures to appear that he has...

Here is another reason for the decline. What’s the point of spending lots of money trying to get a high list when Evans is going to claim number one whatever happens. I know of birders who would like to do a high year-list but do not want to face the usual problems from Evans.
 
Interesting that so many are claiming last year was a poor year when Birding World says it was a record year for total species turning up in the British Isles. Was there a major issue with birds not sticking? I know I managed to miss the Canada Warbler but it had been there nearly a week when I went!

Perhaps we need a new authority to actively adjudicate year listing: two qualifications would have to be that there was a multi-person panel and they were not competing themselves. I'm sure everyone can think of a third relating to initials.

John
 
Last edited:
I notice that yet again an innocent thread has lead to slagging off named individuals. Don't get me wrong I haven't a clue who is honest and who is not but do we really want this forum to be a place for airing such feelings? What must our members outside the UK think who have never heard of these people?
I once got over 300 in a year but would not dream of posting it except in my records - I don't fancy the "Don't know him - must by lying" comments it would get.

James
 
James said:
I notice that yet again an innocent thread has lead to slagging off named individuals. Don't get me wrong I haven't a clue who is honest and who is not but do we really want this forum to be a place for airing such feelings? What must our members outside the UK think who have never heard of these people?
I once got over 300 in a year but would not dream of posting it except in my records - I don't fancy the "Don't know him - must by lying" comments it would get.

James


Seems to me the big problem is more along the lines of "do know him....." so you should be all right. But you are right - there is a need to take the personality business out of competitive year-listing, which is why I made the suggestions above. There are a number of authorities that could take it on: Birding World clearly has an interest as they have published articles such as Adrian thingy's year list of a couple of years ago: Birdwatch could similarly report progress.

BB could not only monitor and report but also adjudicate lists in respect of species allowable.

The pager services have the up-to-date info (and who knows, perhaps the next thing would be sponsored opposition: the RBA vs Birdnet Grand Prix!).

Perhaps the oddest thing of all is that nobody (well all right, one person does) seems to want the job. Perhaps it is as thankless as deciding what should be allowed onto the British List?

John
 
Surely it would be impossible to police? How do you know if someone has seen a bird or not? You would need a log of attendance at every twitch. And what about seawatching birds? No one else wants to police it because it is pointless, surely?
 
Farnboro John said:
There are a number of authorities that could take it on: Birding World clearly has an interest as they have published articles such as Adrian thingy's year list of a couple of years ago: Birdwatch could similarly report progress.

BB could not only monitor and report but also adjudicate lists in respect of species allowable.

The pager services have the up-to-date info (and who knows, perhaps the next thing would be sponsored opposition: the RBA vs Birdnet Grand Prix!).

John

Birding World is run by listers who have big British life lists which could create a conflict of interests. I would be in favour of Birdwatch taking on year-lists and life-lists especially when they have produced Birds of Britain: The Complete Checklist. This checklist is half way between UK400 list and BOURC list. The problem of the UK400 list is that it contains so much junk e.g. White Pelican, whereas the BOURC is too conservative (e.g. no Marbled Duck, Booted Eagle, White-headed Duck). Of course some Marbled Duck are escapes but I find it difficult to believe they all are escapes.
 
Robin Bird said:
The problem of the UK400 list is that it contains so much junk e.g. White Pelican

I thought it had transpired that this year's pelican was a wild bird, tracked through Europe to Holland and accepted there?

Graham
 
No respectable birdwatching magazine is going to waste birders subscriptions trying to control British tick obsessed stringers.
Extreme twitching is something that is accepted and is a minority past time. It isn't something in the more environmentally aware era that is encouraged or shouldn't be anyway.
 
Last edited:
bitterntwisted said:
I thought it had transpired that this year's pelican was a wild bird, tracked through Europe to Holland and accepted there?

Graham

The problem is Graham that lots of twitchers dispute it because they did not go and see it after the seperate Kent bird showed clipped wings.
 
Steven Astley said:
No respectable birdwatching magazine is going to waste birders subscriptions trying to control British tick obsessed stringers.

:clap::clap: this made me chuckle - an excellent description and statement Steven!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top