BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alan Tilmouth" data-source="post: 3284511" data-attributes="member: 63821">It's interesting how individuals with an axe to grind can twist the facts. So let's take this slowly..A photograph was posted on Facebook, the photographer did not post the location. I was tagged and asked to offer an opinion on the identification. On the basis of the image posted I suggested that it had the feel of a Monty and highlighted why I thought that. This was qualified because of limited personal experience with juvenile Pallids. As the location was unknown and, in the words of the ex-RSPB conservation manager that immediately and independently contacted me, "Monties can breed quite late, we've had juvs still on their breeding sites at this time of year as they can hang around up to a month post fledging, perhaps direct the finders to the county recorder just in case its a breeding site.."That advice was noted and passed on to the finders in the thread. Following that other individuals became embroiled in attempts to get the two photographers to release the location, something they took issue with and the thread deteriorated into a row.As there was no location published there was no decision to make as regards publishing a sighting on any news service. The sighting was submitted to the county recorder including the location and further images some days later, by the finders. Those images are in circulation with the CRC, having seen the additional images one of them shows a much better profile and my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the bird looks more Pallid-like in that image.The advice provided to the finders was expanded upon (publicly in the original thread) along the lines of " if this bird was on a reserve such as Druridge Pools or a place with good viewing and parking facilities then there is little point to suppressing the location but on inaccessible private land with no public viewing may be a different matter"  As the two finders were the only individuals at the time who knew the location they were the only people who could make an informed decision.As for the report of the bird being present for a 2nd day that is based on a single post by a rather smug non-birder who claimed to have seen the bird the following day after being given the location privately by the finders. The same individual published the name of a location some 15 miles south of the correct location as now revealed. Had that information been used to publish a report of either Monties or Pallid it would have been erroneous and no doubt caused many birders to spend time searching a site that the bird was never at. It is my opinion that the claim of the bird on the 2nd day was made solely to antagonise those individuals seeking the bird's location and that in fact no one saw the bird other than the two finders. Can I prove that? No, but after six years and over 100,000 published news reports you get a feel for the stringers.</blockquote>

Verification