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

[dantheman]

For me, the title of the thread and the content of the original post are two different things.

For me, in almost all respects, to identify an unseen bird by voice is every bit as valid for recording purposes. But for me the word 'tick' (which only appears in the title) implies a completely different concept: the moment at which you can metaphorically blissfully lie back and roll back your eyes with the needle hanging out your arm. For me that moment doesn't come until, for the first time ever, you've seen the bird. Even if, eg an incredibly easy to identify by voice nightjar, that I've never seen before, is blasting my ear off in the dark, I just don't get that rush until glimpsing it. I'm not saying that's right, all I'm saying is that for me, that's just how it is.

Delving into the why's and wherefore's of JSB's mind here ...

I think the original use of the word tick in the title is qualified in the ensuing first post - not as a life tick but a tick for the day list/trip list whatever. Not quite how it's normally used though nowadays, agreed.

 

[KenM]

A cryptically observed daytime Nightjar, resting on branch, or ground, is every bit an aesthete experience, however a "churring" silhouetted bird disturbed into flight, buoyantly dancing on slender wings is a totally different affair. Almost qualifying as a "different" bird! Having observed the latter, but never the former, as crepuscular avians go...surely one would need both experiences in order to "fully" tick?

 

[Ian Lewis]

For my take on 'heard only' birds see my blog entry at

https://gryllosblog.com/2014/10/24/the-computer-says-8000-but-im-not-celebrating-yet/

 

[Andy Adcock]

For my take on 'heard only' birds see my blog entry at

https://gryllosblog.com/2014/10/24/the-computer-says-8000-but-im-not-celebrating-yet/

Sums it up well, I enjoy bird song too, I often lay awake at night listening to the beautiful song of the Thrush Nightingale outside our home but would not tick it unless seen for my World list.

Not ticking does not mean not enjoying.


A

 

[Britseye]

Thank goodness for Birdforum! It was MY idea for me and my girlfriend to watch Gone With the Wind tonight but after just five minutes, I thought 'this one's not for me!' So I've come here and stumbled across this treasure of a thread on one of the age-old conundrums of birding. I think Bay Owl sums it up for me: the bittersweet experience of hearing an extraordinary, otherworldly melancholic call in the middle of the night deep within a Tropical rainforest but without being able to see the bleeding thing despite two hours trudging through leech-infested ravines in flip-flops and short trousers. Tahan Hide, Taman Negara, three summers ago. Still haunts me to this day. Same with Swallow-tailed Nightjar and several others I can think about.

Yet on other occasions, in different moods, different settings, just hearing a call of a never-yet-seen bird can be hugely evocative and complete in itself. I remember on the Manu Road in Peru ending my trek at 500m, gazing out on the Amazonian basin that I intended to return to one day, but have never done yet and probably never will. In the distance, several Tinamou sp calling at dusk, an unknown Screech Owl (I knew it at the time but can't remember its name now)... I don't list so it's not just a matter of whether they are lifers are not. It's just, as I say, different times, different moods...I've seen tens of thousands of Myrtle Warblers in my time, but if one flies over me calling on St Agnes tomorrow, I'll be seriously p***ed if I can't see it. Yet I often let the first couple of Yellow-broweds of the year pass as 'heard only' until I actually bump into one.

In short, I don't think there's an easy answer. Anyone fancy popping down the pub for a pint so we can discuss this further. I see the movie I abandoned goes on for 224 minutes so it's gonna be a long time before I'm allowed back in the living room.

 

[dantheman]

Thank goodness for Birdforum! It was MY idea for me and my girlfriend to watch Gone With the Wind tonight but after just five minutes, I thought 'this one's not for me!' So I've come here and stumbled across this treasure of a thread on one of the age-old conundrums of birding. I think Bay Owl sums it up for me: the bittersweet experience of hearing an extraordinary,

In short, I don't think there's an easy answer. Anyone fancy popping down the pub for a pint so we can discuss this further. I see the movie I abandoned goes on for 224 minutes so it's gonna be a long time before I'm allowed back in the living room.

Baywatch was quite entertaining tho... as I vaguely recall.

The idea of BF is to go and cause trouble on rare bird threads tbh when you've too much time on your hands ... :t:

B - this'll have to do I'm afraid. Good luck. I'm off to dream of Scarlett Tanagers ...

 

[Farnboro John]

Sums it up well, I enjoy bird song too, I often lay awake at night listening to the beautiful song of the Thrush Nightingale outside our home but would not tick it unless seen for my World list.

Not ticking does not mean not enjoying.


A

You've just brought back my first Thrush Nightingale to me: I watched its silhouette against the deepening blue and stars of an early summer evening while listening entranced to its song at a range of about eight feet. I was sitting on the ground under bushes at Walsey Hills. I probably wouldn't have ticked it if I hadn't seen it but I got no detail at all and was absolutely content.

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

You've just brought back my first Thrush Nightingale to me: I watched its silhouette against the deepening blue and stars of an early summer evening while listening entranced to its song at a range of about eight feet. I was sitting on the ground under bushes at Walsey Hills. I probably wouldn't have ticked it if I hadn't seen it but I got no detail at all and was absolutely content.

John

It's a wonderful song and from mid May to early June, we usually have 3 that we can hear as we lay in bed, one of them just 30m away.

A great way to fall asleep.

A

 

[wolfbirder]

Best bird I've ever found in the UK was a singing Thrush Nightingale at Spurn.

But despite watching for 45 minutes I couldn't see it, and only saw it held in the hand at the Obs after being netted an hour or so later. That opens up an entirely new discussion -should I have ticket that bird? Well I have.

 

[dantheman]

Best bird I've ever found in the UK was a singing Thrush Nightingale at Spurn.

But despite watching for 45 minutes I couldn't see it, and only saw it held in the hand at the Obs after being netted an hour or so later. That opens up an entirely new discussion -should I have ticket that bird? Well I have.

You can have it for your self-found life list, it can go on the Spurn list (even if it hadn't been caught), and it can go on your day list.

But it can't go on your Life List or UK List, obviously ...

8-P

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

Answering my own question, I initially ticked Quail and Corncrake on call only.

For me, the true essence of a bird lies in a combination of many things, including sight, sound, habitat and behaviour.

The corncrake was on a beautiful Scottish island on a warm, late-spring evening. It was in a small field, "crexing" away like mad on its breeding site. The crop was knee-high and there was no way I was going into that field. I felt I'd experienced enough of that (somewhat dull-looking) bird's "true essence", so ticking it was valid for me.

As others have said, the sounds of birds can produce truly memorable moments. I recall a cold, dismal and misty morning at Farlington, when I was wringing wet, doubting my own sanity when a large flock of Brent geese flew in. The combination of their orchestrated honking calls and whistling wing noise was deeply compelling. It was as satisfying as a Russian symphony - and no less dramatic.

Peter

 

[wolfbirder]

You can have it for your self-found life list, it can go on the Spurn list (even if it hadn't been caught), and it can go on your day list.

But it can't go on your Life List or UK List, obviously ...

8-P

I know some who wouldn't Dan, but I've never been obvious:-O

 

[Andy Adcock]

Answering my own question, I initially ticked Quail and Corncrake on call only.

I felt I'd experienced enough of that (somewhat dull-looking) bird's "true essence", so ticking it was valid for me.


Peter

Valid in you own mind doesn't mean it's valid for comparison with other lists where people as a matter of course, expect that all claimed species have been seen?

Bottom line, most people assume that a persons list is seen birds.


A

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

I think I'm pretty much in line with a lot of people here. For a lifer I need to see it (not really sure why) but after that I'll tick on heard only - but only if I'm 100% sure.

My first Nightingale was a couple of years ago on the Somerset Levels. I obviously heard it long before I'd seen it. I wouldn't have ticked it without seeing it. However, having seen and heard, hearing it was a far more satisfactory experience.

Rich

 

[Mark Harper]

My approach is to record everything in a database, if a species heard goes unseen it is recorded as such. I can then always produce whatever list I am interested in seeing within 30 seconds, from a patch list to a world list, including or excluding species only heard. I also note whether a species recorded is introduced at the location and can then produce a list with or without introductions included.

I have to say though that I do like to "upgrade" a species from heard to seen, but get more enjoyment from upgrading a Pitta than I do from a scytalopus Tapaculo.

 

[dantheman]

Valid in you own mind doesn't mean it's valid for comparison with other lists where people as a matter of course, expect that all claimed species have been seen?

Bottom line, most people assume that a persons list is seen birds.

Think everyone gets your point ...

---


I think I've mentioned Scandinavian countries and the fact that there is much less rigorous need to having to see a bird ... it's a European thing, no??

Any evidence for this?

Getting the impression folk generally are relaxing their own rules and a gentle drift towards being less constrictive in their outlook in birding in many ways (cf the Patchwork Challenge, for example)

 

[Andy Adcock]

Think everyone gets your point ...

---


I think I've mentioned Scandinavian countries and the fact that there is much less rigorous need to having to see a bird ... it's a European thing, no??

Any evidence for this?

Getting the impression folk generally are relaxing their own rules and a gentle drift towards being less constrictive in their outlook in birding in many ways (cf the Patchwork Challenge, for example)

My experience is that it's come from America.

I personally don't see how the emphasis on actually seeing a bird is 'constrictive', it's certainly easier to tick a HO bird. With an emphasis on HO's, the skill of visibly identifying some birds which are found when not vocalising, will be diminished.

A

 

[ovenbird43]

My experience is that it's come from America.

I personally don't see how the emphasis on actually seeing a bird is 'constrictive', it's certainly easier to tick a HO bird. With an emphasis on HO's, the skill of visibly identifying some birds which are found when not vocalising, will be diminished.

A

Seems doubtful to me - yes, official ABA lists can include heard-only birds but I think most birders still prefer to see a species before it goes on their life list, or will provisionally tick it but not feel satisfied until they've seen it. One could just as well flip your argument and say that counting HOs will promote the advancement of identification by sound. But there are plenty of species groups without distinctive or regular vocalizations that still require good visual ID skills - e.g. migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, pretty much all fall migrant passerines etc. I bird by ear regularly but still spend a lot of time actually seeing birds and identifying by visual characteristics.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Seems doubtful to me - yes, official ABA lists can include heard-only birds but I think most birders still prefer to see a species before it goes on their life list, or will provisionally tick it but not feel satisfied until they've seen it. One could just as well flip your argument and say that counting HOs will promote the advancement of identification by sound. But there are plenty of species groups without distinctive or regular vocalizations that still require good visual ID skills - e.g. migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, pretty much all fall migrant passerines etc. I bird by ear regularly but still spend a lot of time actually seeing birds and identifying by visual characteristics.

The general principle of a holistic approach cannot be argued with but the OP was about 'ticking' birds based on a vocalisation only. Vocalisations are an undoubted part of any birders skill set but there is as much room for error as there is in sight records, arguably more so.

How many county recorders accept rarities from 'regular' birders based on HO claims?

Accepting HO's so readily, deters many from actually trying to see a bird and there have to be questions that arise from the less competent submitting HO records and I include me in that number! Apart from a few species whose vocalisations are so distinct e.g Corncrake, many more are less so. Can you tell a Nightingale from a Thrush Nightingale? Despite hearing the latter every summer, I can't but perhaps I shouldn't assume that others are as incompetent as me?


A

 

[ovenbird43]

I could be wrong but I don't think there's much precedent for submitting rarity reports based on voice only, or to such being regularly accepted. One just has to assume birders including HOs on their lists are confident in their IDs - I see this as no different from visual identification, we give birders the benefit of the doubt but plenty of mistakes can be made if one is hasty and makes a call based on brief/flyby views. I can't comment on Nightingale vs. Thrush Nightingale, not familiar with those species but in my own area, I find most calls and songs readily identifiable (I grew up with musical training so maybe it's easier for me), and those that are not - well, I track the bird down to figure it out if I have even a little doubt or I leave it off the list.