-
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.
Uk400club 'list Of Lists' Etc Etc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Johnny Allan
- Start date
- Status
Last edited:
Jane
We can go round and round in circles like this all day. Do you not realise that when rare bird news is phoned in of such magnitude it is thoroughly investigated. The Bird News Services talk about such sightings and want to know if claims are genuine before they are broadcast to the nation - these ensuing discussions now meaning that more and more unconfirmed information now just being released before it's checked out - potentially costing people money if they travel on such news. I cannot help it if local birders 'write off' a particular record when I contact them. The analogy of the Little Swift report is explained within the context of the linked email - the two birds being phoned in at 2pm were both House Martins even though at least two people were declaring they were the Little Swifts. It was very annoying therefore for others that left home on the 2pm news to find out they were twitching House Martins and that Colin and Julian's Little Swifts were long gone. This comes back to Alan's comments - should we really accept records of such magnitude without photographic evidence of some sort. I am not going to discuss Rare Birds with the relevant people just because others don't like their records being investigated - if I am investing £90 or more in fuel in travelling for something then I would really like to know if it is real or not before I jump in the car.
We can go round and round in circles like this all day. Do you not realise that when rare bird news is phoned in of such magnitude it is thoroughly investigated. The Bird News Services talk about such sightings and want to know if claims are genuine before they are broadcast to the nation - these ensuing discussions now meaning that more and more unconfirmed information now just being released before it's checked out - potentially costing people money if they travel on such news. I cannot help it if local birders 'write off' a particular record when I contact them. The analogy of the Little Swift report is explained within the context of the linked email - the two birds being phoned in at 2pm were both House Martins even though at least two people were declaring they were the Little Swifts. It was very annoying therefore for others that left home on the 2pm news to find out they were twitching House Martins and that Colin and Julian's Little Swifts were long gone. This comes back to Alan's comments - should we really accept records of such magnitude without photographic evidence of some sort. I am not going to discuss Rare Birds with the relevant people just because others don't like their records being investigated - if I am investing £90 or more in fuel in travelling for something then I would really like to know if it is real or not before I jump in the car.
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Great, then you won't have a problem removing my name from your 'List of lists'.
I'd appreciate a reply.
Kind regards
Johnny Allan
And Mark, Martin just wants to stay out of it now as you would expect, but his comments regarding the Pallid Swift report were witnessed by four individuals that I know of - but who cares, we'll see if BBRC think its good enough for acceptance - and I can return to the subject of it then. As Jeff suggested, there's no point in us continuing any sort of conversation so the best ploy is to ignore each other completely and save each other time in writing pointless emails. You have done the right thing in resigning - good on ya.
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Any chance of a response Lee ?
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Do you not even begin realise just how offensive it is to basically accuse somebody of stringing in public, then use the..well someone told me that they were House Matins as the excuse, rather than just biting the bullet and apologising.
In the past people have told me that you arrived late for the Cley Pacific Swift, but I've not been crass enough to accuse you of fabrication - nor would I.
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
Lee, I should imagine that a lot of all this pettiness and stupidity could be avoided by simply removing the names/totals of those who have politely asked you to do this.
Allowing this to drag on and on is not doing your personal reputation or that of the 400 club any good. I'm not having a go and I'm certainly not taking sides...I'm as bored of the unwarranted 'lee bashing' as most others, and having never met you have no personal axe to grind...I just think that a lot more people would ignore you if they thought that you were ignoring them.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
I should add, I'm struggling to see how a completely unsolicited casting of doubt on the record 2 months after the birds had gone has anything to do with saving petrol.
Jane
No one's accused anyone of anything other than the fact that when others arrived on the scene to see the two Little Swifts they were faced with people watching them from the car park - and the two birds on view at that time were House Martins. The two Little Swifts had been reported earlier on in the morning, so the two sightings were unrelated, but becaue some individuals had been insistent that these were the two birds in question is why the subsequent confusion arose.
No one's accused anyone of anything other than the fact that when others arrived on the scene to see the two Little Swifts they were faced with people watching them from the car park - and the two birds on view at that time were House Martins. The two Little Swifts had been reported earlier on in the morning, so the two sightings were unrelated, but becaue some individuals had been insistent that these were the two birds in question is why the subsequent confusion arose.
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Paul Scholes has made an excellent point.
Lee. With respect, would you please be kind enough to respond to my request.
Thankyou
Lee. With respect, would you please be kind enough to respond to my request.
Thankyou
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Its a very narrow line between accusation and insinuation. Just put yourself in the observer's shoes and imagine someone posted these lines about a record you were claiming.
Lee Evans said:
Jane
Since you wish to drag this particular record into the limelight and perhaps widening the audience for it, I shall go into a slightly bit more detail which aroused suspicions on a local level.
The finder of the birds may be a victim of his own success. Since learning of additional details which I had not been privy to at the time - and following the 'off-the-cuff' remark I posted on another unrelated thread about Little Swift identification and its potential confusion with House Martin - further scepticism was made because the observer has a knack of photographing everything - even flyby shearwaters far out at sea, flyover Red Kites and a myriad of other good birds, often present only very briefly or distantly. Remarkably photographs appear of many of them.
Following up the record more recently, others became sceptical because it was reported that the birds were showing very well and had been photographed and subsequently nothing had been seen of the images. This is why the scepticism arose, knowing the impressive way the observer usually managed to get everything on film, even very odd-plumaged Balearic Shearwaters in summer Many birders are just naturally sceptical, especially of birds they don't get to see - happens all of the time - sometimes rightly but in other cases such as this, wrongly. It is impossible to keep abreast of every rare bird record all of the time and often full details cannot be appreciated until a later stage.
Since you wish to drag this particular record into the limelight and perhaps widening the audience for it, I shall go into a slightly bit more detail which aroused suspicions on a local level.
The finder of the birds may be a victim of his own success. Since learning of additional details which I had not been privy to at the time - and following the 'off-the-cuff' remark I posted on another unrelated thread about Little Swift identification and its potential confusion with House Martin - further scepticism was made because the observer has a knack of photographing everything - even flyby shearwaters far out at sea, flyover Red Kites and a myriad of other good birds, often present only very briefly or distantly. Remarkably photographs appear of many of them.
Following up the record more recently, others became sceptical because it was reported that the birds were showing very well and had been photographed and subsequently nothing had been seen of the images. This is why the scepticism arose, knowing the impressive way the observer usually managed to get everything on film, even very odd-plumaged Balearic Shearwaters in summer Many birders are just naturally sceptical, especially of birds they don't get to see - happens all of the time - sometimes rightly but in other cases such as this, wrongly. It is impossible to keep abreast of every rare bird record all of the time and often full details cannot be appreciated until a later stage.
Jane, I see you missed a point...
The petrol comment was made in relation to these Little Swifts in West Cornwall. At the time, a phone call was made to individuals on site when the birds were supposedly on view and being reported as present on the pager. The message received was of both birds were House Martins and to certainly not bother - seven observers were on site and the two claiming them were inexperienced. Consequently, a message went out to say the sighting was 'erroneous'. I certainly did not want to jump in the car for a couple of early House Martins to add to my Cornish List. This was happening at the time and not two months later. After all of this negativity, I never returned to the subject and hence why I made the comments that I did. What CS informed me then was all 'new information' as I hadn't bothered chasing it up again - the pagers lost all interest in it after the erroneous claim
The petrol comment was made in relation to these Little Swifts in West Cornwall. At the time, a phone call was made to individuals on site when the birds were supposedly on view and being reported as present on the pager. The message received was of both birds were House Martins and to certainly not bother - seven observers were on site and the two claiming them were inexperienced. Consequently, a message went out to say the sighting was 'erroneous'. I certainly did not want to jump in the car for a couple of early House Martins to add to my Cornish List. This was happening at the time and not two months later. After all of this negativity, I never returned to the subject and hence why I made the comments that I did. What CS informed me then was all 'new information' as I hadn't bothered chasing it up again - the pagers lost all interest in it after the erroneous claim
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Well I'm hoping that some can, at least, understand why I do not want to have anything to do with the UK400 Club and don't want to have an entry on any UK400 Club listing.
Some of you may submit lists to the UK400 Club.
Some of you may not submit a list but find yourself on this 'List of lists', and don't care.
Some of you may not submit a list but find yourself on the 'List' and don't want to be.
In the end, it doesn't matter wether you care or not because your going to be on there whether you like it or not. It was never your choice.
I'm still hoping that Lee responds favourably to my request and that any refusal will be given with a damn good explanation.
Some of you may submit lists to the UK400 Club.
Some of you may not submit a list but find yourself on this 'List of lists', and don't care.
Some of you may not submit a list but find yourself on the 'List' and don't want to be.
In the end, it doesn't matter wether you care or not because your going to be on there whether you like it or not. It was never your choice.
I'm still hoping that Lee responds favourably to my request and that any refusal will be given with a damn good explanation.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
er no... the point was you casting aspersions about the veracity of the record, then saying, oh well someone told me that was the case, as your defence... no one asked you so suggest that the only Little Swift record for this year were House Martins - you just came out and said it unsolicited.
And as I said.. it would be like me saying that you didn't see the Pacific swift, then instead of apologising when you said you did, just saying, well someone told me, so I repeated in public and I'm not apologising.
I think everyone else can see this, so if I were you I'd just let it lie.
Steve Webb
Well-known member
The RBA pager did not say it was erroneous. It said that there was no further sign.
I hope that the UK400 database does not say a birder is a stringer when they are not. Especially when this database has been described as “the most accurate one of its kind.”
Evans also stated in Birdwatch Nov. 2001 said of 8,640 keen birders are "all on my computer – everyone who’s recognised as some form of interested birder is on there. Say you find a SPP at Rainham Marshes, I want to know that a) you exist and are definitely in that area and b) you are capable of making that decision.”
Evans stated in Birdwatch Feb 2001 that "It is necessary to make notes and keep tabs on every birder in Britain … and each birder is coded by his abilities and strengths." Birdwatch went on to say that Lee’s computer database reportedly lists 1,360 observers as of above average ability, while 39 have "reached the top of their hobby."
Evans has also said: “ I have a Master Database that records each and every scarcity/rare bird recorded in Britain with details of species, date, location, age, sex, numbers and the original finders names, which I am able to quickly search and scan and filter etc. I also had a cross-referenced file that recorded the number of species an individual had seen in the Western P, Britain and Ireland and at a county level that I knew of.”
The Cumbrian
Well-known member
As I said earlier I have no interest in twitching but this thread is opening my eyes to the seedier side of birding.
I can't get my head round why any decent honest individual would not respond to a request (polite or otherwise) to remove a name from a database.
I find it totally beyond belief that any decent honest individual would not straight away give an explanation of why data is still on there after it has been requested to be removed.
However it seems no explanation is going to be forth coming as there has been plenty of opportunity.
Ashley beolens
Breeding the next generation of birders.
I haven't twitched in many years, and wasn't a particularly noteworthy twitcher when I was (I don't enjoy the competative nature of it all), but I have spent time in a car with yourself Lee, and met you many times in Buckinghamshire, and never really had too many issues with you. I have however noticed through many mails to the local groups and a personal incident, that you have a tendancy to make accusations based on assumptions rather than facts, and I firmly believe this is where your issues in the birding community come from (I believe Jane et al have summed it up quite well). Sometime it is best to avoid confruntation or at least be less agressive in your manner.
There comes a time in everymans life when they have to reliase if they keep coming up against the same issues over and over again, the problem must in part lie at their feet. When it comes to your list keeping of twitchers, if you are fed up with these constant discussions, as you say, remove the names of those who have requested it from your list/database, it really is that simple. My name is not on the list by the way, not sure if I should be hurt by that or not
I hope this doesn't fan the flames anymore as I am not really the sort to jump on the bandwagon of bashing one person, but sometimes it takes someone outside of the arguments to interject a note of sense?
There comes a time in everymans life when they have to reliase if they keep coming up against the same issues over and over again, the problem must in part lie at their feet. When it comes to your list keeping of twitchers, if you are fed up with these constant discussions, as you say, remove the names of those who have requested it from your list/database, it really is that simple. My name is not on the list by the way, not sure if I should be hurt by that or not
I hope this doesn't fan the flames anymore as I am not really the sort to jump on the bandwagon of bashing one person, but sometimes it takes someone outside of the arguments to interject a note of sense?
- Status
