Eyebrowed Thrush in Norolk (2 Viewers)

[phil baber]

Saw this for the first time last night. Tremendous!:t:

http://youtu.be/TLEo7H9tqSM

It reminded me of this thread!:-O

 

[Garry Bagnell]

I'm not putting anyone down, I think all human beings are equal. I like people that are interesting in Birding regardless on upbringing, colour, wealth etc. Anybody that knows me, can confirm these qualities in me.

I believe using Football leagues to group people on life lists is a bit of fun. Pure and simple, not elitism at all.

Crawley F.C. have now made significant investment and are now playing football in League 2.

Twitchers who make significant investment in their hobby will move up whatever listing mechanism they use.

If Crawley don't loose a football match for the next 2-3 years they go into the Premier League.

If a Twitcher gets the majority of new birds over say a 12 year period, they will have 500 birds and be a Premiership Lister.

I started Nationwide Twitching in '99 (Age 32). I went crazy then because I had just spent 18 years pursuing another hobby with a significant cash investment and I was playing catch up with a hobby that was my first love way back in '77 (Age 10).

Garry,
good luck with your venture. Any idea who you are going to choose to be Sepp Blatter :-O

No I haven't.

 

[Twite]

This coming from the poster who elected Mr Lethbridge as '***ker of the year'. The mods must have not even been at home that day.

It was w*****.

I don't need someone like you stalking me between threads. I have as much time on my hands as you.

Twite.

 

[CornishExile]

It was w*****.

I don't need someone like you stalking me between threads. I have as much time on my hands as you.

Twite.

Presumably you meant 'writer'? He's amusing, refreshingly honest about his journey as a birder, and doesn't come across as a complete tw#t online or in person. I've not met you, so don't yet feel qualified to pass comment.

ce

 

[Twite]

Presumably you meant 'writer'? He's amusing, refreshingly honest about his journey as a birder, and doesn't come across as a complete tw#t online or in person. I've not met you, so don't yet feel qualified to pass comment.

ce

I've not met the man either. I just reacted to the what I felt was him being a bit unfair to someone else. It's our (my) nature to take sides against who we (I) perceive as the bad guy. Of course humans developed reading facial expressions to gauge mood. Winkies and smilies will never replace that. So it's sometimes too easy to read it wrong if said winkies and smilies are omitted.
Yeah I've read his stuff and I've enjoyed it too. So I admit I was too quick off the mark with my comment.

Maybe not 'writer' of the year eh?

Twite.

 

[Gavin Haig]

While the gentle BF banter and word use/spelling nit-pickery is (as always) a fun read, I must take issue with a fallacy that keeps cropping up: this notion that big listers spend all their birding time rushing about all over the country, squandering the planet's precious resources.

This is patently nonsense. In the vast majority of cases those who have a really big list do not need to twitch that much (due to paucity of ticks) and in my experience they generally don't! Consequently most of them employ their frequently excellent bird ID skills in bashing a patch until some rare/scarce comes out.

There are exceptions to this rule of course...

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

While the gentle BF banter and word use/spelling nit-pickery is (as always) a fun read, I must take issue with a fallacy that keeps cropping up: this notion that big listers spend all their birding time rushing about all over the country, squandering the planet's precious resources.

This is patently nonsense. In the vast majority of cases those who have a really big list do not need to twitch that much (due to paucity of ticks) and in my experience they generally don't! Consequently most of them employ their frequently excellent bird ID skills in bashing a patch until some rare/scarce comes out.

There are exceptions to this rule of course...

I'm not sure your analysis is right, Gavin. It's true that those with big lists no longer need to rush up and down the country but, to get to where they are, they must've travelled all over the place on a regular basis.


Peter

 

[Gavin Haig]

I'm not sure your analysis is right, Gavin. It's true that those with big lists no longer need to rush up and down the country but, to get to where they are, they must've travelled all over the place on a regular basis.


Peter

Well, obviously! But in terms of what they're doing now, it's right isn't it? And they are therefore contributing to the finding of birds (that others can twitch if they choose) rather than being mindless parasites for the whole of their birding lives as some seem to suggest...

 

[Paul Chapman]

Well, obviously! But in terms of what they're doing now, it's right isn't it? And they are therefore contributing to the finding of birds (that others can twitch if they choose) rather than being mindless parasites for the whole of their birding lives as some seem to suggest...

I think that I found more in my mindless parasite years! (Despite an appropriate attitude this morning of checking every Cormorant for DC, Teal for GW, BH Gull for Bonies, Little Grebe for PB, Dunlin for more interesting Calidrid, etc, usual waders and wildfowl on my patch.)

Through 1988 to 1994, I averaged around 300 species a year and year-listed in 1994 ending in the high 330's. For the last decade, I anticipate that I've twitched about 10 times a year. This year is busier than recently with 13 twitches (including two within Somerset) - two attempts (one successful) at Rufous Turtle Dove, two attempts (one successful) at 'Slaty-backed Gull', Eastern Black Redstart, a storm-petrel sp. search, Rufous-tailed Robin dip, Scarlet Tanager dip, 'Yellow-breasted Tit', two different White-winged Scoters, White-throated Robin and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. So I estimate that I spend ten times as much time birding on my patch than twitching. I also estimate that I spend ten times as much time moth-trapping and in the last couple of years, more days birding abroad than days spent twitching. Apart from the moth-trapping, I anticipate that is probably a typical ratio for the group to which Peter and Gavin are referring.

All the best

Paul Chapman

 

[Paul Chapman]

I do find the Premiership analogy a bit odd. As I go to more Premiership football matches in a year than twitches, I can say that the Premiership is not what it used to be. The atmosphere is changing and it gets more expensive every year .....

In any event, my experience is that Premiership birding has a limited species list. There is a small Pied Wagtail roost at The Emirates for nightime games and I did have a flock of Waxwings alight in nearby trees when queuing for Arsenal tube last year. (Damn - I now remember being surprised by a group of Waxwings and in a posting when I ask for consistency!) Champions League birding tends to be better. Alpine Swifts and Monk Parakeets at the Nou Camp spring to mind.

But in any event, I always thought that the number of teams in the Premiership did not increase. I wonder where Garry would have set the threshold in 1987. I started twitching when I was at University and people doubted that 500 on a BOU basis in Britain was possible. Every year, lists increase and every year, the spread of lists narrows. If you choose for your own enjoyment to carry on twitching, that is inevitable. You need to carry on because you enjoy it - not for numbers or comparisons!

All the best

Paul Chapman

PS On the subject of being harsh on Garry, I have to say that in the past he has drawn attention to the stance taken by some on my Royal Tern sighting and my recollection is that he has been instrumental in doubting other people's sightings. I quote one of the Royal Tern comments below:-

“I just spoke to LGRE, he is not crediting anyone with Royal Tern on their UK400 British & Irish Lifelist rankings after the 18:09 sighting on Saturday. The unmoderated websites will be twitchers only outlet advertising their spoils.”

In those circumstances, it is difficult for me to feel any sympathy for him when others may take the opportunity to make a harsh comment upon him. However, every walk of life is full of individuals who somehow feel that they should be treated differently to how they treat others. The reality is that we should probably all think a bit more about how we treat our fellow birders and others generally. I wish him well for his birding.

 

[HughPulsford]

Can't see any reason why moderators should close threads because they're a bit annoying. It would be a very dangerous precedent and shrink BF enormously...

A previous (photographic) hoax, not very long ago, was exposed as such by some some brilliant detective work by BFers. That was by a chap called Joe Pell. I imagine he was very annoyed to be found out. Oh, and he lives in Lincolnshire...

Sean

this thread has been very informative. No bird existed yet folks wasted hours posting comments and follow up, some clearly even getting out in the field to check this useless sighting. If there was a real Eyebrowed Thrush in Norfolk do you not think a whole raft of quality observers from the county would have sought it out immediately. This posting of hoaxes, like Joe Pell above, is an increasing behaviour as people post sighings on web based forums to increase their own ego and perceived status in the "birding fraternity". its a patholoigical condition linked to munchausen syndrome where individuals are despaerate to draw attention to their self and find status in theoir birding peers. Perhaps harmless enough, but this actually is the tip of the iceberg. As a county recorder there are too many folks who post rubbish sighings of "quality" local birds, either unusual numbers, odd inland place sightings, or just a scace county record. The key issues it causes for those of us involved in the county databases and their relevance to biodiversity, environmental impact survey opposite planning appllications, national databases and their implications opposite national policy on birds and their welfare, habitat loss and conservation overall, is to dilute the real database. We now have a situation where Bird Lies ( sorry Guides) records feed directly into Bird Track and the BTO Atlas. Validation is at best minimal, yet many rubbish record will end up in the database, there is no way the regional folks have any idea what is real at the local county level. Yet the hunger for these organisations for the data means they are willing to ignore the validation and reality check issue. Okay so 1 Eye Browed Thrush is hardly likley to cause a real issue ( I dont need it, I have seen 4 in the UK) but spurious records of Turtle Dove, or Ring Ouzel, or Nightingale are actually a REAL issue.
Think about it!
Regards
Hugh

 

[cheshirebirder]

this thread has been very informative. No bird existed yet folks wasted hours posting comments and follow up, some clearly even getting out in the field to check this useless sighting. If there was a real Eyebrowed Thrush in Norfolk do you not think a whole raft of quality observers from the county would have sought it out immediately. This posting of hoaxes, like Joe Pell above, is an increasing behaviour as people post sighings on web based forums to increase their own ego and perceived status in the "birding fraternity". its a patholoigical condition linked to munchausen syndrome where individuals are despaerate to draw attention to their self and find status in theoir birding peers. Perhaps harmless enough, but this actually is the tip of the iceberg. As a county recorder there are too many folks who post rubbish sighings of "quality" local birds, either unusual numbers, odd inland place sightings, or just a scace county record. The key issues it causes for those of us involved in the county databases and their relevance to biodiversity, environmental impact survey opposite planning appllications, national databases and their implications opposite national policy on birds and their welfare, habitat loss and conservation overall, is to dilute the real database. We now have a situation where Bird Lies ( sorry Guides) records feed directly into Bird Track and the BTO Atlas. Validation is at best minimal, yet many rubbish record will end up in the database, there is no way the regional folks have any idea what is real at the local county level. Yet the hunger for these organisations for the data means they are willing to ignore the validation and reality check issue. Okay so 1 Eye Browed Thrush is hardly likley to cause a real issue ( I dont need it, I have seen 4 in the UK) but spurious records of Turtle Dove, or Ring Ouzel, or Nightingale are actually a REAL issue.
Think about it!
Regards:
Hugh

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Mike Crawley]

well said that County Recorder :t:

 

[metcow333]

Yes, but the likelihood of gaining glory or an ego-boost from finding(hoaxing) a turtle dove or nightingale or pretty diminished compared to an eyebrowed thrush or st eagle. To me, that suggests that they would be deliberately strung a lot less often, certainly not to the same extent as the megas. As you say, the odd mega that gets through has very little conservation impact, and quite often the huge interest results in them getting caught anyway.

The information services do what they can to block news from known stringers and unreliable observers, but there is a limit to what a company can do without upsetting customers. Furthermore, as has been pointed out before, it's a lose-lose scenario, don't put it out and if it comes good, you get berated as being your own rarities committee, put it out, and people end up labelling an (innocent) company as lying.

What would you prefer, that all the data entered to Birdguides was lost to BTO, or that it got used, presumably with some provisos in place. I'm sure the BTO are aware of the quality of data they recieve from Birdguides, but whilst data submission to county recorders is low, and diminishing further, is there a better solution?

 

[Perry Smale]

Yes you probably did Garry but I think it should be changed to Premiership Lister or Ticker to be more accurate.

Regards

John

I think premiereship tosser would be more appropriate actually. Does being on 500 plus make someone a better birder? Yeah right, quite the opposite in my opinion. All they care about is numbers on a list, not the birds they are looking at. The only comparison existing between 500 plus twitchers (I won't say birders) and football teams like Manchester United (especially them) is extreme arrogance! I'm hanging up my British twitching hat from this point on. I hope never to reach 500 on my British list (I'm nowhere near it by the way). If anyone out there wants to suppress something then they have my blessing. If what I've said upsets anyone, jolly good.

 

[JoanT]

I think premiereship tosser would be more appropriate actually. Does being on 500 plus make someone a better birder? Yeah right, quite the opposite in my opinion. All they care about is numbers on a list, not the birds they are looking at.

That comment shows how little you know about some uk birders who have seen 500 plus (not me). Some of the ones I know have found national rarities in inland counties.

 

[Xenospiza]

The only comparison existing between 500 plus twitchers (I won't say birders) and football teams like Manchester United (especially them) is extreme arrogance!

The amount of patience to wait for a rarity (no, not even a tick!), knowledge about sites throughout the country (also for other stuff like plants or grasshoppers) and stubborn dedication to the local patch that I have seen displayed by the 500+ listers I know is nothing less than commendable. And not all of them have the resources to fly to Shetland at the drop of a hat either.
But don't get me started on low listers, hahaha.

 

[Farnboro John]

It has taken me nearly thirty years to get my list to its current 529 in the British Isles. I've enjoyed nearly every day of it. Most of the duff days involved long-distance dips and/or bad weather, although even seeing the Slaty-backed Gull (at the second attempt) involved my three least favourite things, gulls, landfill and Essex in a peculiarly hideous combination.

In between twitches I have paid a fair amount of attention to my local patch, although I cannot claim to be the kind of saddo who won't take a holiday for fear of missing something on the patch, and the moment I run out of fingers counting something I decide it doesn't need counting.

Like Paul I do some moth trapping. I photograph butterflies and dragonflies and have found rarities in each group. I do quite a lot of mammal watching, again often with a camera. I share the sightings and the fun on BF, as well as always being helpful to passing grockles and other birders.

If I am out and about I always phone updates to RBA of any birds of interest that I see (the sole exception being national rarities that have gone on in the last half hour) which benefits not only twitchers but patchers as the information invariably ends up not only on RBA but also Birdnet, Birdguides and the relevant local information line.

In short I try to treat other birders as a mutually supporting community.

On here, it seems fashionable among some to snipe at twitchers in general and the higher achievers in particular. If one takes the one-dimensional view of listing that the snipers seem to have, this is easy: but of course it is also applicable to county and local listers, and I have seen so many examples of the same sort of back-biting and dissing and suppression and cliquiness (is there such a word) among those groups that I think it is time for all holier than thou preachiness on here to stop. Come to that even the supposedly scientific ringers keep ringing lists. Glass houses.....

As for the idea that 500 plus listers must automatically be tossers, well, you've clearly never met Mr Johns. Not that he's unique in that respect, but all birders in Britain ought to have heard of him.

This is quite a mild rant for me but a sincere one. Get on better - there are people out there that deserve your disapprobation much more.

John

 

[metcow333]

On here, it seems fashionable among some to snipe at twitchers in general and the higher achievers in particular.

John

I agreed all the way up til here John. I think part of the problem is that many twitchers associate a high list with being the only source of high achievement in birding, which obviously it is not, only in twitching.

When these thoughts get expressed on forums aimed at those with all sorts of aspirations related to their interests in birds, like this one, it all gets a bit muddled. When expressions like yours are used it is easy to see why people often end up accusing twitchers (and self-found listers) of being arrogant and elitist, although I am equally sure that you had no intention of it coming across in that manner, and meant nothing of the sort.

All too often people seem to take a negative meaning away from ambigous, or only half thought out, phrasing and it results in negative stereotyping and bickering. I'm sure like myself, most people view these posts as casual, and give very little thought to how to phrase points, it would be nice if more people remembered it when reading them, and took a more positive stance to ambiguities.

 

[Garry Bagnell]

I wonder where Garry would have set the threshold in 1987. I started twitching when I was at University and people doubted that 500 on a BOU basis in Britain was possible.

Probably 400 in those days, if not less.

It is quite clear that 500 will have to increase as more and more people reach this number.

The last published life list ranking (this was put in a public domain) on 22nd June 2011 had the following achievements:-

Top 800 people had 438 species
Top 700 people had 449 species
Top 600 people had 459 species
Top 500 people had 472 species
Top 400 people had 482 species
Top 300 people had 493 species
Top 245 people had 500 species
Top 200 people had 506 species
Top 100 people had 527 species
Top 50 people had 540 species
Top 10 people had 566 species
Highest lister had 582

After looking at these statistics above and if they are available at the end of 2011, Premierhship shoud be moved up at least 6 species to 506. And for a bit of fun, why not have Europa League (Top 100) at 527 speices and Champions League (Top 50) at 540 species
Championship still at 400 species, other League takes off 100 species.

On the subject of being harsh on Garry, I have to say that in the past he has drawn attention to the stance taken by some on my Royal Tern sighting and my recollection is that he has been instrumental in doubting other people's sightings. I quote one of the Royal Tern comments below:-

“I just spoke to LGRE, he is not crediting anyone with Royal Tern on their UK400 British & Irish Lifelist rankings after the 18:09 sighting on Saturday. The unmoderated websites will be twitchers only outlet advertising their spoils.”

In those circumstances, it is difficult for me to feel any sympathy for him when others may comment upon him. However, every walk of life is full of individuals who somehow feel that they should be treated differently to how they treat others. The reality is that we should probably all think a bit more about how we treat our neighbours. I wish him well for his birding.

Paul I made this announcement because LGRE didn't use Birdforum at the time and many people were voicing this opinion to LGRE while I was there. I don't really want to discuss the Royal Tern, if people want to tick it on their BOU list they can, but LGRE will not recognise it like the Saturday Grey Catbird that I also saw.