Slender-billed Curlew. (1 Viewer)

keith

Well-known member
As one of the people who saw the Northumberland bird, I am curious as to what its status is now regarding its standing on the official British list, I'm obviously aware it was being looked into, but I don't know of any conclusions, if any?.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Hudson & BBRC 2012. Report on rare birds in GB in 2011.
The resolution of some long-standing reviews and difficult records remains an ongoing challenge, notably those involving ...the Druridge Bay Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris.
BOURC 2013. BOURC: 41st Report (Oct 2012).
Files under consideration
Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris
A review of the record from Druridge Bay, Northumberland, 4–7 May 1998 (photographed). The file is still in active circulation, but many lines of evidence are being assessed, which has led to the review taking longer than expected.
 
Last edited:

richardm

Well-known member
As one of the people who saw the Northumberland bird, I am curious as to what its status is now regarding its standing on the official British list, I'm obviously aware it was being looked into, but I don't know of any conclusions, if any?.

Hi Keith
As you saw the bird, I'd be far more interested to hear what you (rather than two committees who mostly did not see it) believe it was?
cheers
Richard
 

Jan-Paul Charteris

Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
Hi Keith
As you saw the bird, I'd be far more interested to hear what you (rather than two committees who mostly did not see it) believe it was?
cheers
Richard

You may as well take a look through THIS thread - page upon page of comments and opinions from people who saw the bird and loads who didn't. Nothing has happened since to make any difference to what has already been covered in that thread
 

keith

Well-known member
Hi Keith
As you saw the bird, I'd be far more interested to hear what you (rather than two committees who mostly did not see it) believe it was?
cheers
Richard

Well Richard, I must admit I hadn't seen one before, it certainly seemed to tick all the right boxes though and my fellow birders from Teesside all came to the same conclusion. I just wish that we could have had the cameras then that we have now, still, there was a lot of old-fashioned note taking going on. I've happily ticked it on what I saw and I believe everyone who observed the bird feels the same. It does seem that the sceptics are the ones who weren't there, but that's always been the way in birding.
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
You may as well take a look through THIS thread - page upon page of comments and opinions from people who saw the bird and loads who didn't. Nothing has happened since to make any difference to what has already been covered in that thread

Er, 'richardm' sits on both BOURC and BBRC so may be able to contribute something.....
 

richardm

Well-known member
But not much, I'm afraid! Yes, I am on both committees, but of course I cannot be expected to speak for the 20 or more people involved in the review process. It is no secret that, like Keith, I saw the bird (after experiencing a couple previously in Morocco), and that I believe it was one. I can also confirm that the record is being thoroughly examined. R
 

Jan-Paul Charteris

Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
Er, 'richardm' sits on both BOURC and BBRC so may be able to contribute something.....

He may well, and yet the other thread where so many others have given their views would give 'Richardm' a good platform on which to do so within a comfortable context, and give the OP a good source of information to answer his question...no? ;)
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Its no secret that dear old Richard also runs a news organisation that made a significant failure in its use of nuance during the week, which contributed to some of us hoarding our scarce pennies instead of dropping everything and legging it north.

Not very sore over it despite still thinking it was one...

HNY

John
 

etudiant

Well-known member
Would it be unreasonable to ask that this discussion be tabled until the relevant committees have concluded their deliberations?
I recognize that may not be for another decade or two, but it seems feelings are still very raw about this case and absent some substantial incremental information, no good can come of rehashing the events yet again.
 

Brian J Small

Well-known member
I've happily ticked it on what I saw and I believe everyone who observed the bird feels the same.

Hi Keith

I am not sure that this statement is true. I know of a number of observers of the bird that no longer support the record.

Good luck to Richard and the two committees.

Brian S
 

Frenchy

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I think it can be described thus:

  1. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
  2. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
  3. Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
  4. Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
  5. Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
  6. Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
  7. Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!

I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had ;)
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
I think it can be described thus:

  1. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
  2. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
  3. Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
  4. Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
  5. Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
  6. Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
  7. Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!

I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had ;)

Question is, can all people involved in deciding be trusted to assess the evidence objectively, without personal agendas 'numbers on lists' becoming an issue (either pro or contra)? If the process is supposed to be scientific then at what point do they reject the new null hypothesis? Where are the confidence limits set? Apologies if that sounds combative! Would it not have been useful to have an independent* team assess the record too?

*With no vested listing interests.
 

FOOON

Well-known member
I think it can be described thus:

  1. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
  2. Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on their stance that it couldn't be a Eurasian Curlew (a "negative identification", if you will).
  3. Some people who saw the bird think it may have been one, but think that views were not quite conclusive or that there are a couple of inconsistencies with it being a S-b C.
  4. Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
  5. Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
  6. Some people who did not see the bird think it may have been one, but that there are a couple of inconsistencies with its appearance that mean it should be Not Proven as a first for Britain.
  7. Some people who did not see the bird think there are enough problems with its appearence to render the identification as S-b C completely unsafe, especially considering that it is also the last record of this species in the World. Ever!

I think its fair to say that most people now fit into points 6 & 7. I must admit, i wish i could put myself into points 1-4, but at the time i was a cash strapped student and was relying on a mate for bird news. Guess what pager company he had ;)

Not the last record in the world ever...

http://www.sakertour.com/slender-billed_curlew.php
 

Frenchy

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Question is, can all people involved in deciding be trusted to assess the evidence objectively, without personal agendas 'numbers on lists' becoming an issue (either pro or contra)? If the process is supposed to be scientific then at what point do they reject the new null hypothesis? Where are the confidence limits set? Apologies if that sounds combative! Would it not have been useful to have an independent* team assess the record too?

*With no vested listing interests.

Many questions!

I cannot imagine any member of BBRC or BOU putting their own listing objectives above reaching their own correct decision (whatever they feel that is). If they do, then they really have no place on either committee. Besides, most members are not dedicated enough to their list to care about this!

Who said the process was scientific? Its the same as any other record assessment. Does the evidence make for a certain identification? Thats it.

Confidence limit has to be, in my opinion, 100%. Its often said to be 95% in most other records, but this has always been a more important record. Unless you're suggesting a statistical analysis of this somehow?

I don't see the point in getting an "independant" committee to assess the record. Who would be on it? Perhaps all the well respected European birders who have already stated they don't think it was one...;)
 

Frenchy

Well-known member
United Kingdom

Users who are viewing this thread

Top