I've often heard of people just saying they saw a bird when they didn't, and I've occasionally heard of people getting tricky with photos. Recently I heard of someone creating fake witnesses, complete with dodgy photos taken by the witnesses. Is that taking stringing to a new level, or is that common?
-
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.
Stringing question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pshute
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Does sound a bit extreme!
I remember reading of one claim of a Kittlitz's Plover from the Netherlands, supported by a photo; rejected when the relevant rarities committee pointed out the bird was perched on an elephant turd.
I remember reading of one claim of a Kittlitz's Plover from the Netherlands, supported by a photo; rejected when the relevant rarities committee pointed out the bird was perched on an elephant turd.
I've heard of that case, but I'm not familiar with it. Was the photo claimed to be taken by the person claiming to have seen the bird? If so then it's not equivalent to this particular case.
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
It's deeply sad, that's what it is......
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Of course, one has to submit the facts of the explanation to a committee to have judgement passed on whether they meet the criteria for dissing records, or are just a ball of old string.....
I hear that if they are not accepted the verdict is a frayed knot.
John
I hear that if they are not accepted the verdict is a frayed knot.
John
Richard Prior
Halfway up an Alp
Frayed Knot? Is that another recent split I've not heard about?
Glad I saw some Splitting Hares the other day, surely ripe for full species status soon................
Last edited:
Xenospiza
Distracted
Good story, but the record was officially rejected because of "plants not occurring in the Netherlands", with an added note: "a curious slip by an otherwise reliable observer".
I've not heard of people stringing records with the help of made up witnesses. I'd have thought that clueless but real witnesses should do!
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
I'm afraid not.
No, nothing rare, just locally rare.I sincerely hope we're not talking Pezoporus occidentalis here ...
I sincerely hope we're not talking Pezoporus occidentalis here ...
Corvus splendens?
Tiraya
San Diego CA
Frayed Knot? Is that another recent split I've not heard about?
Glad I saw some Splitting Hares the other day, surely ripe for full species status soon................
It's that pink wader you only see after drinking Guinness B
JWN Andrewes
Poor Judge of Pasta.
I have heard of people providing names of those present at a bird to support their claim that they saw a genuine rarity, and then subsequently those named witnesses saying they never saw that individual there (or in some cases never even went to see the bird in question). Not quite the same thing, but in a similar vein.
James
James
ptickner
Well-known member
I was birding with a friend from England a few years ago, and we were discussing the top birders amongst listers. He referred to one well-known birder as being "downright ropy". After some questioning, he informed me that his use of "ropy" described someone who has taken stringing to an entirely new level, typically through sheer volume of questionable stringing.
I thought is was quite clever, given the obvious correlation of strings and ropes! I would think that fake witnesses would fall into the "ropy" category.
I thought is was quite clever, given the obvious correlation of strings and ropes! I would think that fake witnesses would fall into the "ropy" category.
Peter C.
...just zis guy, you know?
Not trying to put too much of a spanner in the works (of this discussion), but when this activity includes "dodgy photos taken by the witnesses," it sounds to me like outright fraud, not stringing. (Which, of course, brings up the whole question of what actually constitutes "stringing" - a subject probably best debated elsewhere, and which I've not doubt already has been...)
stuartvine
Well-known member
I find the idea of stringing fascinating, really worthy of study because it's such a strange thing to do. I mean, it must only be for bragging rights, there's no money involved. The odd thing to me is that the person concerned knows they're a liar and a fraud, but still wants to bask in the (hopefully temporary) adulation of their peers. I wonder if they eventually convince themselves that they've actually seen the bird(s) they lay claim to?
Peter C.
...just zis guy, you know?
Hmm... now I do have to get into that discussion of semantics. Stuartvine, I believe, is talking about something quite different, fraud. I think (although I may be wrong) that the OP was writing about stringing, albeit an extreme kind, which seems to me to be quite different.
Stringing: The observer gets a poor view of bird, makes a decision to "call" the bird anyway, and (usually) chooses the rarer/more spectacular possibility. (Ex. #1- I'm on Lake Ontario, and get a fly-by view of a distant, small merganser, which I identify as a female Smew; after all, one was reported by competent observers in the area last week.) Wishful thinking is involved, and maybe some incompetence, but not fraud - the observer sincerely believe in his/her I.D.
This kind of thing happens all the time; knew a perfectly honest fellow who once claimed a flock of 22 Am. Wigeons on the local Christmas bird count, despite the fact that (a)he couldn't document the plumage and (b) our yearly average for the species, over 65 years of annual counts, is right round about zero.
Fraud: The observer sees something common (or perhaps nothing at all), and decides to grab some attention to his- or herself by claiming something rare/spectacular. (Ex. #2- I'm doing a bird race, and want to fluff up my total a bit; I tick Smew, because I know one has been sighted in the area recently. If pressed, I produce a photo of one I took on vacation in Europe last year.) This is truly odd behaviour, which I have read about, but can't think of single case of I've come across myself.
I've always thought that the difference between the concepts is quite clear-cut. Reading this thread, I'm now starting to think there might be a bit of bleeding from one into the other. As in: a stringer could conceivably cross over into fraud to support a sincerely-held belief. An example might be an observer who strings a rare bird, but produces an image as evidence an image that is not the actual bird in question, and lies about the origin of same. The intention, in the mind, is what makes this different from case #2 above; the birder in this case is still stringing, according to my definition of the word, but committing fraud only with regard to the evidence.
TTFN,
Peter
Stringing: The observer gets a poor view of bird, makes a decision to "call" the bird anyway, and (usually) chooses the rarer/more spectacular possibility. (Ex. #1- I'm on Lake Ontario, and get a fly-by view of a distant, small merganser, which I identify as a female Smew; after all, one was reported by competent observers in the area last week.) Wishful thinking is involved, and maybe some incompetence, but not fraud - the observer sincerely believe in his/her I.D.
This kind of thing happens all the time; knew a perfectly honest fellow who once claimed a flock of 22 Am. Wigeons on the local Christmas bird count, despite the fact that (a)he couldn't document the plumage and (b) our yearly average for the species, over 65 years of annual counts, is right round about zero.
Fraud: The observer sees something common (or perhaps nothing at all), and decides to grab some attention to his- or herself by claiming something rare/spectacular. (Ex. #2- I'm doing a bird race, and want to fluff up my total a bit; I tick Smew, because I know one has been sighted in the area recently. If pressed, I produce a photo of one I took on vacation in Europe last year.) This is truly odd behaviour, which I have read about, but can't think of single case of I've come across myself.
I've always thought that the difference between the concepts is quite clear-cut. Reading this thread, I'm now starting to think there might be a bit of bleeding from one into the other. As in: a stringer could conceivably cross over into fraud to support a sincerely-held belief. An example might be an observer who strings a rare bird, but produces an image as evidence an image that is not the actual bird in question, and lies about the origin of same. The intention, in the mind, is what makes this different from case #2 above; the birder in this case is still stringing, according to my definition of the word, but committing fraud only with regard to the evidence.
TTFN,
Peter
I think the derivation is likely to be the other way round. 'Ropey' in British usage seems to go back a long way to mean 'of inferior quality' and according to some sources became particularly prevalent in the RAF during and after WW2, possibly because older aircraft, particularly biplanes (e.g. the Fairey Swordfish carrier-borne torpedo bomber nicknamed 'Stringbag') frequently featured bracing wires which appeared rather rope-like. AFAIR my dad, who was in the RAF between the wars and was called up again for the duration, used it.
I think that Bill Oddie, in his 'Little Black Bird Book', suggested that 'stringy' as applied to a doubtfully identified bird originated in the 50s, 60s or early 70s as a jokey diminutive of 'ropey'.
