• 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.

Should you tick "heard only" birds? (1 Viewer)

Johann Sebastian Bach

Well-known member
A report on a local Bird Info Service read:

Tawny owl (heard only)

The word "only" implies that the observer may not have been sure of the i/d [but this species has an obvious call which sounds unlike any other common British bird].
I've seen the same (heard only) comment attached to records of several other instantly recognisable bird songs.

Do you (always) regard sight records as superior to hearing a bird?

There are some birds in the UK which are incredibly difficult to see (Corncrake and Quail spring to mind). Do you go to extreme lengths to see these types of bird or are you content with their song? To my mind, Corncrakes and Quails are not exactly interesting to look at but their songs are something different.

Peter
 
I typically do count heard-only birds. For some I may not be satisfied with that - I did make a great effort to go out into a marsh at night to see Black Rail for instance - but over the years I've become a bit more relaxed and am readily count heard-only nightjars and small owls. There's still a part of me though that regards sightings as generally superior - not because they're necessarily more reliable, and yeah for some birds their voice is more interesting than their appearance - I think it's just the basic human preference for and reliance on sight over sound.
 
Depends on context (see below).


Do you (always) regard sight records as superior to hearing a bird?
(Probably) yes, for two reasons:
One, seeing a bird is slightly more satisfying than hearing it, although ideally I'd have both (last year, I got several excellent views of Black-throated Divers, and decent views of Red-throated; I was slightly disappointed that I never heard either of them sing or call, though). Seeing a Great Bittern for the first time a few weeks ago felt like a lifer to me, although I'd heard them at least twice before, and in the same spot.
Two, seeing the bird gives you the absolute certainty that the call/song you heard wasn't a recording played for tape luring purposes (either by no-skill birders or by criminals). Of course, in some places, a tape recording is very unlikely, and an imitation by another species is out of the question, but still...


There are some birds in the UK which are incredibly difficult to see (Corncrake and Quail spring to mind). Do you go to extreme lengths to see these types of bird or are you content with their song? To my mind, Corncrakes and Quails are not exactly interesting to look at but their songs are something different.
As said above, I'd prefer to experience both sight and song. Corncrake, for example, is one of those species I've "only" heard; I just couldn't manage to see the bird without going off the path and flushing it, and since the welfare of the bird comes first, sometimes we have to make compromises.
 
Last edited:
As Mike says.

Bird sounds are often more - not less - reliable than sight, so maybe it's at least as good to hear a bird as to see it.
Personally I like to see a bird as well as hearing it - it seems more complete an experience.
 
The old adage applies....it's your list, so it's your rules

Hello all,

I think that it depends on the level of your certainty. If you are confident to identify with a call, put it on the list. It works with visual sightings, as well. If you are confident that an a partially obscured sighting was sufficient tick it off.
I have a great deal of confidence with rather few calls.

If the bird is a rarity in the location or at that time of the year, I would be cautious.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
To me, "heard only" means what it says on the tin: not seen. No indication of doubt.

I wouldn't life tick a bird on call (but respect the right of anyone to decide otherwise: who says one sense beats another?) but happy to year-tick on call. I regard this as ethical as it means there is no temptation to disturb calling birds in any way: perhaps that doesn't matter so much for common birds but its important for most crakes and rails among others.

John
 
Just to reiterate for me 'heard only' implies that the observer is confident of the identification, the 'only' just means they only heard the bird, did not see it.

As others have said, the rules of listing (except in competitive/record situations) are largely up to you. I only have one 'heard only' on my life list - Eastern Whip-poor-will. I would love to see one as well, but am totally confident in the ID (5am sat on my roof, most unlikely to be a recording!).
 
I'm rather acutely aware of birds that I've heard but not seen. I'd quite like to see them at stage, I guess.

A few years ago as a sort of 'thought experiment' I tried to work out which birds (at least within Britain) I'd seen but not heard. It's not something I'd ever thought about before, which maybe suggests how ingrained my concern to see as well as hear birds was. Lots of people will say they need to see things, some will say they will count things heard or seen but it's pretty unusual to count a bird that's been seen but not heard. I suppose the only exception is when you need to hear the bird to clinch the ID. Even then most people would want to see it as well as hear it.

There are a few quite common birds I've seen frequently but have never really heard. Red-breasted Merganser is remarkably silent most of the time, for example.
 
A report on a local Bird Info Service read:

Tawny owl (heard only)

The word "only" implies that the observer may not have been sure of the i/d [but this species has an obvious call which sounds unlike any other common British bird].
I've seen the same (heard only) comment attached to records of several other instantly recognisable bird songs.

Do you (always) regard sight records as superior to hearing a bird?

I kind of take 'heard only' as implying it's a lesser importance, rather than being that the id was in doubt, ie 'only' recorded using ears rather than enjoying the full visual spectacle.

Apparently in Europe (we can almost say that now) birders are much more keen to add birds to lists, yearlists etc on audible criteria without having to see them apparently.
 
I kind of take 'heard only' as implying it's a lesser importance, rather than being that the id was in doubt, ie 'only' recorded using ears rather than enjoying the full visual spectacle.

Apparently in Europe (we can almost say that now) birders are much more keen to add birds to lists, yearlists etc on audible criteria without having to see them apparently.

Given the prevalence of taping in the field, should people not be extra cautious about 'heard only' ticking?
 
Given the prevalence of taping in the field, should people not be extra cautious about 'heard only' ticking?

It's not that common (taping) in the UK, but yes, one caution which should be employed when out in the field I guess in certain circumstances ...

Personally I don't have great hearing, or the ability to distinguish similar sounds/songs, so I'm also wary/in awe of those who pick up birds on almost inaudible flight calls etc ...

But other things can make bird-like noises too, and the full range of bird vocalisations isn't as well known as their visual appearances generally are (eg a bird can sound like a different bird sometimes).
 
I think I only ever did that once when I heard a Blue Jay in Central Park in New York. It was a bird I was desperate to see but I only heard it.
 
Over the last couple of weeks I've heard what "sounded like" a Phyllosc."hweet", emanating from the garden. Of course they don't occur at this time of year, my suspicions were finally "banged to rights" when a Great Tit was seen "weeting" at the feeders!
 
The old adage applies....it's your list, so it's your rules

Perhaps I should add a caveat.
My UK life list (and world list) only contains birds I have seen.

My UK year lists are a little more flexible which allows me to swerve staking out some awkward ticks like Tawny Owl, Spotted Crake, Corncrake, and etc.
 
Some birds are simply better identifiable via Voice. Reed and Marsh Warbler and Tropical and Couch`s Kingbird just 2 pairs. That is the main argument for me to count heard only birds.
Of course it is usually more satisfying to see the bird as well. But luring birds out via tape just to get a sight tick is not for me, therefore Iam happy with my heard counts as well.
 
I count heard only birds but I have a higher certainty threshold for them (or maybe that would be better described as 'I trust my ears a little less than I trust my eyes').
 
There is also the issue of mimicking: the other day I thought I heard a Ring-necked Parakeet in the back garden but quickly determined it was a Starling mimicking. Unfortunately it may have learned the call from nearer to home than I would have said a while ago, so I may find the real thing in the garden sooner rather than later.

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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