Nightranger
Senior Moment
I think it can be described thus:
- Some people who saw the bird think it was one based on a "positive identification".
- 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).
- 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.
- Some people who saw the bird think it definitely wasn't one, based on its appearance.
- Some people who did not see the bird think it was one.
- 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.
- 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
This is fairly meaningless in the light of what happened around the Minsmere bird when a number of experienced Dutch birders (not to mention a few optimistic people from the UK who saw the Northumberland bird) proclaimed it to be a genuine slender-billed curlew. We all know what happened with the DNA sample and it has always made me think about those self-appointed experts (no offense intended) who were so certain of what they saw. I never went for the Minsmere bird even though I was positioned to go for it because I saw the photographs and I was not convinced. Despite a conversation I had in a pub in Potton a few years ago, slender-billed curlew are gone and 'we should just let them go' [with apologies to a paraphrased Top Gun quote].
