counting heard birds (1 Viewer)

[ovenbird43]

I bird as much by ear as I do with my eyes, and long ago I began treating "heard-only" species the same as "seen" species on many of my lists. Trips lists, state lists, and year lists, all except my life list... at least to this day, all the species that I count on my life list are those that I've actually seen.

Not surprisingly, this philosophy has resulted in a few conundrums. There are a couple birds that I've heard but never seen, so they're not on my life list, but by my own rules I should be able to put them on state, year, etc lists. So far I have not, and unless I'm forgetting any, this only applies to Boreal Chickadee and Western Screech-Owl.

To deal with this, I'm considering allowing "heard-only" birds onto my life list. This is "allowed" according to the ABA anyway. Looking just at the 2 species I would add, I have different feelings about each; Western Screech-Owl looks so much like the Eastern Screech-Owl that hearing it means a lot more; whereas Boreal Chickadee, while easily distinguishable by voice from Black-capped, also looks different from the other chickadees, and in this case I sort of feel like I missed out when I wasn't able to view it.

What do you all think about this? How many of you include "heard-only" birds on any of your lists (life or otherwise?). Why are we such sticklers to viewing a bird, when hearing it reveals its presence just as much, when the experience can be at least as rewarding as seeing it, and when it is sometimes more revealing of its identity than its morphology?

 

[Keith Dickinson]

I had bittern on my list for several years as a heard only record before I saw one for the first time, same with green woodpecker and cuckoo. Only bird I still have as a heard only record is quail, heard 2 or 3 calling away in a field of longish grass but could I heck as see the little swines. If you are sure what you heard is the correct then I see no reason not to count them. I do several surveys for the BTO and they want you to count birds that are seen and birds that are heard, without making any distinct between the two.

 

[Darren Pearce]

I have recently added Quail to my British List although I have only heard it. I jusified it by flushing one in France therefore I have seen one, although I have only heard them in the UK. My theory is that I know exactly what it was and chasing around crop fields trying to get a look at it would have done more harm than good

 

[Lichfield Birder]

Country lifers should be seen. Year ticks can be heard if its real obvious eg Quail, Tawny Owl etc

 

[Jan-Paul Charteris]

I fall into the camp of counting birds as heard only, although obviously I would prefer to see them too. Like others who have posted, the only bird I have only heard and not seen is Quail. Heard plenty but firstly the fields they were in were private, secondly it would have caused disturbance not just to Quail, but to many other species too if I had walked in there, and thirdly there's only so much staring at a field for hours I can take for something which has a call rather more remarkable than its looks. On the other hand I have Iberian Chiffchaff on list from one seen and heard. In the case of species such as the latter, a seen only one wouldn't do much good, whereas a heard only one might (with evidence anyway)

Jan

 

[Keith Dickinson]

I've got African collared dove on my heard list for Tenerife as that's the only way to tell them from European collared doves. They are almost exactly the same plumage(in hand you can tell them apart), but totally different vocalisation..... I went for 4 days on my holiday earlier this month seeing the birds but not hearing them so being unable to definitely id them! The first time one called...Bingo! Got it sussed LOL

 

[Doughnuteater]

I do, but if I were to only hear one, I would mark it differently then I would if I saw it.

 

[Xenospiza]

I agree it's sometimes better to leave the bird alone. Moreover for some birds, seeing is useless (I'm glad to have heard all my American Empidonax species!)
Quail is horrible... even though I can count it officially on my Dutch list, I was very annoyed to see that a few were showing really well in the Netherlands this year! (I've seen it in France, but still...)
I also have two owls as heard only on my Dutch list, among which Tengmalm's Owl (one of the rarest breeding birds) — seeing it (during a twitch) was denied by someone chasing it off by letting the pagers ring... grrrrr! They bred this year, but a daytime twitch would have been ill-received.

 

[John B (not the sloop)]

I don't do lists but who wouldn't include "heard only" birds? Cettis Warblers are invisible to the human eye but I've heard them hundreds of times.

 

[danehower]

I don't really do lists anymore . But when I used to do daily list I would often put an "A" for audio tick and "V" for visual. It is kind of an interesting question though - I think in some ways I would be more content with an audio tick of a Hermit thrush than a visual.

 

[jc122463]

I don't count heard birds on my life list at all. I understand counting them, but personally I just find it more rewarding to actually see them. This leaves a number of birds off my life list but.... For me hearing something just isn't as fulfilling. Skulkers like Tapaculos are more fun to see because they are difficult. It doesn't matter that the only way to actually ID them is hearing them (plus range and elevation).
Obviously it's a personal choice and as long as it works for you... enjoy!

Cheers,
Benji

PS - If doing a bird count or survey it's obviously important to count heards as well as for the scientific value.

 

[Dave B Smith]

I typically don't count heard only birds even on year lists but I would if I was doing a "big year". I don't have any heard only on my life list and the one that really griped me was a calling (for over an hour) Scaled Antpitta in Trinidad.

 

[TomSmith]

I heard water rail long before I saw it and added it to my list. On the other hand the London patch-listing competition allows you to count heard-but-not-seen birds. Like most of these things it basically comes down to what you're happy with. Like "Lichfield Birder" above I will generally apply stricter standards to "bigger" lists.

 

[Jan-Paul Charteris]

I believe Quail, Corncrake and Spotted Crake are among those deemed countable as heard-onlys on bird races, due to disturbance issues, so surely are officially countable in as far as it goes. Personally I don't care whats official any more than I know what it is...I don't have a clue what my British or Life List is anymore, but Quail was on both before I stopped counting Now I just enjoy birding and obviously still get more of a thrill from seeing, or especially finding rare birds (locally or nationally rare). I am also partly obsessed with putting a name to everything I see, as I guess are most birders (hence no doubt why many birders have lepidoptera and odonata as side projects in summer), and identifying a calling bird is as valid as identifying a seen one. Either way it's just using different senses to identify it. Walking along the river in Bedford I can smell geese (well, their crap anyway)...luckily they're easily seen coz I'd hate to have to start a smelt only list.

Jan

 

[TomSmith]

Walking along the river in Bedford I can smell geese (well, their crap anyway)...luckily they're easily seen coz I'd hate to have to start a smelt only list.

You can identify geese by their smell...? Wow.

 

[Jan-Paul Charteris]

You can identify geese by their smell...? Wow.

Nah I was kidding If you see a nut-job walking along the bank sniffing the air and tracking geese from their droppings it aint me Can think of one or two characters in Bedford it might be though... Now, a sea-bird nesting cliff...anyone who has smelt one of these will know what I mean...whiffs a bit. On a day with sea mist obscuring vision, can you put auk sp. on the list from smell?

I'm just making light of it. At the end of the day if everyone was uniform in their beliefs and no-one dared be different we'd still be pricking their eggs or shooting them. People can count what they like, and find satisfaction in the hobby however they like. Just as a Christian who likes a lay-in wouldn't take kindly to being told he has to get up and out early on Sunday, and a vegetarian wouldn't like being criticized by a vegan because they eat honey that exploits the poor bees, the same goes for birders...just because someone decides to be strict with themselves and only count seen birds doesn't mean another birder has to go around wishing they could count Quail (or Bittern, Cetti's, whatever) and wondering why they can't! o

Jan

 

[chris butterworth]

Of course "heard only" counts, the whole idea of birding is to identify birds and so knowing their vocalisations is just as important as the field marks. There are certain birds that can, for the most part, only be ID'd by voice, i.e. Gt Bittern, Common Quail etc. The only exceptions are local and national rarities, which is to be expected

 

[Jim M.]

To deal with this, I'm considering allowing "heard-only" birds onto my life list. This is "allowed" according to the ABA anyway. Looking just at the 2 species I would add, I have different feelings about each; Western Screech-Owl looks so much like the Eastern Screech-Owl that hearing it means a lot more; whereas Boreal Chickadee, while easily distinguishable by voice from Black-capped, also looks different from the other chickadees, and in this case I sort of feel like I missed out when I wasn't able to view it.

What do you all think about this? How many of you include "heard-only" birds on any of your lists (life or otherwise?). Why are we such sticklers to viewing a bird, when hearing it reveals its presence just as much, when the experience can be at least as rewarding as seeing it, and when it is sometimes more revealing of its identity than its morphology?

The tradition I grew up with (going back over 40 years), which I believe is the predominant one in the U.S., is birds must be seen to be included on a life list, except owls, night jars, and rails. So under that tradition, you would include the owl but not the chickadee. (But heard only is OK for a year list for any bird).

I think in general, that tradition has merit. A lot of things can go wrong with any identification, but I think there are more possibilities for error with aural only identifications, at least in many cases. With respect to chickadees for example, we know that Black-capped Chickadees and Carolina Chickadees sometimes sing each other's songs. It can also be easy to just mis-remember a song, and all you have to go on is a qualitative recollection. I think for most people the ability to remember sounds is much less reliable than the ability to remember visual images. Most field guides struggle mightily to describe a bird's song, but visual field marks are pretty straightforward in most cases. And think about what type of report you would submit to an avian records committee (or anyone for that matter) if you only heard the bird. Pretty much all you could say would be -- yeah it sounded like recordings I have heard.

The exception for nocturnal birds and rails also makes sense. Requiring sightings in all cases would probably lead to greater harassment of owls at roosts, for example. And trying to track down an elusive rail in a marsh would not only be exceedingly messy, but also destructive of the habitat. And in any case would be asking for a lot of extraordinary effort from birders that might better be expended on other matters.

My two cents,
Jim

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I think this is quite an interesting question, and maybe there are lots of reasons for it. I wrote a bit on my blog the other week, which partly addresses some of those reasons:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/birdsong/blog/2008/08/15/crakes-objects-and-sounds/

 

[bedfontbirder]

Similarly, for a bird to be on my life list I should see it first - there is one exception on my list and I'm umming and erring on that one at the moment. All other lists I have I will include on a 'heard only' record, so long as I am certain that what I have heard is that species.

Cheers,

Adam