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

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

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

....which simply shows how preposterous list comparisons are.

We all use the phrase "untickable views" - but where are the List Police when we need them to say that a 0.4" view is inadmissible but a 0.5" fly-by is fine? Or that a wing and a tail is denied but UTCs and a rump is hunky dory?

Lists are simply incomparable.

I know a guy who went for the Old Muriel on Lundy. For the entire time he was there, the murrelet was a long way out at sea, visible - but only as a distant dot. When asked about the status of this waif on his list, his response was "I didn't come all this way not to see the bird. Of course I've ticked it".

Peter

 

[Andy Adcock]

....which simply shows how preposterous list comparisons are.

We all use the phrase "untickable views" - but where are the List Police when we need them to say that a 0.4" view is inadmissible but a 0.5" fly-by is fine? Or that a wing and a tail is denied but UTCs and a rump is hunky dory?

Lists are simply incomparable.

I know a guy who went for the Old Muriel on Lundy. For the entire time he was there, the murrelet was a long way out at sea, visible - but only as a distant dot. When asked about the status of this waif on his list, his response was "I didn't come all this way not to see the bird. Of course I've ticked it".

Peter

Lists are not preposterous or incomparable at all if the same criteria are attached by each 'lister'.

The only variable is the individual and their own listing morals and the only thing that makes lists preposterous and non comparable are people that bend or simply ignore the rules for whatever reason.

You talk of the 'list police', if you don't want to accept the rules as most do, don't compare you list to theirs, simple, apples and oranges.


A

 

[Xenospiza]

You can put a heard-only bird on your Dutch list (three heard-only birds left for me – one of which I have not seen anywhere and therefore is still a lifer). This at least saves some birds from harassment.

For a heard-only record to be accepted, you'd probably need to provide a recording. Many Dutch people make recordings nowadays, especially if they are watching migration where taking a photo may be impossible. This has led to a huge increase in Olive-backed Pipits being submitted (and accepted). However, the sound needs to be unequivocal, so it is not that easy.

I believe there are people who count sight records + heard-only rails and owls on their life list, but this is just silly. I have heard 101 taxa I haven't seen (or seen so badly that I cannot count them)...

 

[Andy Adcock]

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.

And that's the way it should be but the actual listing is the issue or more accurately any list that you want to compare to someone elses. Surely for such purposes we should all stick to the same rules or there's very little point in having published lists of any kind?

The World rankings may be altered if the guy at number 1 was to not count e.g 300 HO's on his 9000+ list, he may be 4th or 5th? This example is not intended as a reflection on or criticism of any individual.

Count whatever you want but let us all play by the same rules.

A

 

[Andy Adcock]

I believe there are people who count sight records + heard-only rails and owls on their life list, but this is just silly. I have heard 101 taxa I haven't seen (or seen so badly that I cannot count them)...

On this basis I'd have another 50 or so life birds, some of them very rare indeed but I get a much bigger kick from seeing a bird having utilised patience and field craft in doing so.

Shchneider's Pitta eluded me for nine days on a volcano in Sumatra, I heard it once but haven't ticked it and won't until I go back and see it. The same with Giant and Blue-naped Pitta's plus numerous night birds that have given me the runaround over the years.


A

 

[Xenospiza]

We all use the phrase "untickable views" - but where are the List Police when we need them to say that a 0.4" view is inadmissible but a 0.5" fly-by is fine? Or that a wing and a tail is denied but UTCs and a rump is hunky dory?

It almost sounds like you've discussed the subject with Alan, haha!

@Andy: allegedly most of the top world listers, including the guy you think plays the game correctly, count shapes, movements and figments of their all-too-vivid imagination.

 

[Farnboro John]

I have encountered blind and partially sighted birders who use parabolic dishes with microphones as their primary instruments. I am not going to be the one to tell them what is being said on here about ticking heard birds: nor to tell them that they are not part of the mainstream birding community but a little offshoot.

It seems to me that the chief unspoken but real objection to people ticking birds on call is not that a mistake might be made, but that they are somehow taking the easy way out. A bit like going to a known stakeout for a species rather than finding your own by picking likely-looking habitat and searching it: there is a whiff of sour grapes. Personally I like to see birds I tick, but as I tried to point out with my Thrush Nightingale tick story, when the main ID criterion you have used is song and not visible features, that frankly isn't rational.

The thread has moved from people expressing opinions and sharing experiences to people trying to lay down the law to others. Ask yourselves if that is what you wanted from it. Peace and love....

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

It almost sounds like you've discussed the subject with Alan, haha!

@Andy: allegedly most of the top world listers, including the guy you think plays the game correctly, count shapes, movements and figments of their all-too-vivid imagination.

That's a morals issue, a personal thing and some have loser morals than others.

If you look at the top and I know Jon personally, he notes alongside his list that this is seen only records but a couple of his rivals are known to count HO's. It should be made clearer what the rules are really or as has been said before, there's no point at all comparing. It's like standing next to someone to compare height but one is stood on a box, are they the same height or not?

The big criticism of Jon's list is that he has a lot of birds on there that were trapped and ringed so as such not actually seen in the field. It was always explained to me however that for the purposes of the Britsih list, if you saw a bird released you could tick it?

A

 

[wolfbirder]

Some great points made here, all valid.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I have encountered blind and partially sighted birders who use parabolic dishes with microphones as their primary instruments. I am not going to be the one to tell them what is being said on here about ticking heard birds: nor to tell them that they are not part of the mainstream birding community but a little offshoot.

It seems to me that the chief unspoken but real objection to people ticking birds on call is not that a mistake might be made, but that they are somehow taking the easy way out. A bit like going to a known stakeout for a species rather than finding your own by picking likely-looking habitat and searching it: there is a whiff of sour grapes. Personally I like to see birds I tick, but as I tried to point out with my Thrush Nightingale tick story, when the main ID criterion you have used is song and not visible features, that frankly isn't rational.

The thread has moved from people expressing opinions and sharing experiences to people trying to lay down the law to others. Ask yourselves if that is what you wanted from it. Peace and love....

John

There are certainly no sour grapes from me, people can tick whatever they want, I'm just highlighting the absurdity of comparison lists with different rules, pointless.

The OP asked if it was OK to tick HO's, my answer remains the same, if everyone does then no problem but they don't.

It is undoubtedly the case though John that hearing a bird is lot less of a challenge than seeing it!


A

 

[ovenbird43]

And that's the way it should be but the actual listing is the issue or more accurately any list that you want to compare to someone elses. Surely for such purposes we should all stick to the same rules or there's very little point in having published lists of any kind?

The World rankings may be altered if the guy at number 1 was to not count e.g 300 HO's on his 9000+ list, he may be 4th or 5th? This example is not intended as a reflection on or criticism of any individual.

Count whatever you want but let us all play by the same rules.

A

Sure - I'm not familiar with norms or rules outside North America, but the ABA rules allow for heard-onlys. I suppose if one wanted to compare an ABA list to another in which HOs were not allowed, the former birder would have to modify their list. Speaking again for myself only, I have my HO lifers in a separate section from my main, "seen" list.

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

That's a morals issue, a personal thing and some have loser morals than others.

If you look at the top and I know Jon personally, he notes alongside his list that this is seen only records but a couple of his rivals are known to count HO's. It should be made clearer what the rules are really or as has been said before, there's no point at all comparing. It's like standing next to someone to compare height but one is stood on a box, are they the same height or not?

The big criticism of Jon's list is that he has a lot of birds on there that were trapped and ringed so as such not actually seen in the field. It was always explained to me however that for the purposes of the Britsih list, if you saw a bird released you could tick it?

A

An interesting typo in your first line, Andy. Freudian?

Anyway, I can't get hung up on rules - and John's example of blind and partially sighted birders is one reason why.

As I said earlier, comparative listing would only work if the rules were laid down to cover every fleeting view, every obscured glimpse or every distantly heard record. I don't fancy another LaRGE ego getting involved in the hobby, telling me what I can and can't tick.

Peter :t:

 

[Andy Adcock]

An interesting typo in your first line, Andy. Freudian?

Anyway, I can't get hung up on rules - and John's example of blind and partially sighted birders is one reason why.

As I said earlier, comparative listing would only work if the rules were laid down to cover every fleeting view, every obscured glimpse or every distantly heard record. I don't fancy another LaRGE ego getting involved in the hobby, telling me what I can and can't tick.

Peter :t:

Not a Freudian, carelesness I'm afraid!

To bring blind people in to the argument is frankly silly, how could they submit sight records?

Any listing sites aren't worth looking at if we don't know the rules, not that I bother with them anyway.

The question most non birders will ask a birder is 'how many birds have you seen' not how many have you heard.

When enquiring of someones elses list if you do that kind of thing, you must now ask what taxonomy they apply and if they count HO's. I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of counting HO's at all, just that all those who feel the need to publish their lists for comparison or competition, use the same yardstick, surely that's common sense?

And getting back to John's 'sour grapes' comment, you won't find my list published anywhere. I only care what I've seen, I use the IOC strictly as I just can't be bothered with all the cross checking and count only sight records.

A

 

[Mysticete]

Again...within the ABA region which includes a substantial number of US birders, heard only birds count for your list. If you submit your list number to the ABA, you are allowed to include birds which you have only heard, although you can happily annotate them as including no Heard Only birds.

The idea that this amounts to a morality issue is just absurd. It's mere personal preference is all.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Again...within the ABA region which includes a substantial number of US birders, heard only birds count for your list. If you submit your list number to the ABA, you are allowed to include birds which you have only heard, although you can happily annotate them as including no Heard Only birds.

The idea that this amounts to a morality issue is just absurd. It's mere personal preference is all.

Where did anyone suggest that listing HO's was a 'morality' issue?

I stated that some birders have looser morals than others in deciding what is a 'tickable' view. This will obviously have it's roots in the competitive side to listing, not wanting to slip backwards against your rivals.

The ABA region is fine in that the rules are known and applied unfiormly by all, I have no issue at all with that.

I don't know how much clearer I can be, the guidelines fopr listing should be uniform whether they include HO's or not.


A

 

[Mysticete]

It's not a morality issue but then you talk about looser morals? Doesn't that mean you are equating it to a morality issue?

 

[Andy Adcock]

It's not a morality issue but then you talk about looser morals? Doesn't that mean you are equating it to a morality issue?

I made that comment in regard to someone else posting how some top listers have ticked birds on very questionable views, nothing to do with HO's.

' Originally Posted by Xenospiza
@Andy: allegedly most of the top world listers, including the guy you think plays the game correctly, count shapes, movements and figments of their all-too-vivid imagination.'

Maybe that's not how you have read it but that is what was intended, I should perhaps have deleted the first part of the post I was responding to but thought it was clear?


A

 

[cajanuma]

I personally count heard birds - if I can independently identify the bird by ear, not if someone merely tells me what it is - on all of my lists except my world life list, but as more and more species are split primarily on vocal evidence, I feel less motivated to see a species that looks just like one I've already seen but sounds different. I get much more of a kick out of hearing it.

Having just received the new HBW checklist, I went through my favorite family, the antbirds, to see how many I'd seen. It turns out it's 116 species seen plus 4 heard only. Of those four, one really hurts (Fulvous Antshrike), one I would love another shot at (Yellow-throated Antwren), one I can live with only hearing but would not mind seeing (Brownish-headed Antbird, split from Spot-winged), and one (Riparian Antbird) I could not care less about seeing. I've heard them numerous times, their song is distinctive, but I've never made the effort to track one down - they are essentially identical to Blackish Antbird which I've seen plenty of times, and I don't feel like I'd learn anything new about the species by seeing it. I love hearing them in their riverside habitat, I just don't expect I'll ever really bother to try and see one.

And let's not even talk about Scytalopus...

 

[Andy Adcock]

I personally count heard birds - if I can independently identify the bird by ear, not if someone merely tells me what it is - on all of my lists except my world life list, .

This is what most Brits do I think.

A

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

I made that comment in regard to someone else posting how some top listers have ticked birds on very questionable views, nothing to do with HO's.

Your abbreviation for Heard Only takes on a whole new meaning in the US
I guess this is also a moral question.

Peter