Two people break 10,000 species, and on the same day? Can it be? (3 Viewers)

[Steve Babbs]

Four of us were standing in a row in a Venezuelan forest listening to the very loud and distinctive calls of a Rufous-winged Ground-cuckoo. The bird came closer and closer. The two on the right saw the bird but the two on the left (which included me) didn't. I definitely felt short-changed.

'Short-changed!' I'd be on the edge of tears! It'd be nothing to do with numbers though.

 

[Mysticete]

Tell that to all the people that add their lists to public platforms.

My only comments on this are in relation to those who publish their lists for varying reasons, if you want to be competitive, you need to have the same rules for all.

I personally, have never heard anyone, say 'wow, we heard it so well', in circumstances like that, most would be livid that they hadn't been able to see it. If there's a strawman argument, it's not this one. 99.9% of birders, get off by having a wondeful view of a species, that is the reality of it, anyone else is in a very small minority but I'm not judging them for that - unless they publish a list for comparison that is.

Eh, there are birds where vocals are more important than sight

Empidonax flycatchers all look the same to me, especially since I have partial red-green colorblindness, which means subtle shades of green all look the same to me. While I would PREFER to see and hear a Empidonax that was a lifer, I'd probably consider counting a heard only if I felt comfortable on the id. You could extend this same analogy to a lot of Tapaculos and other species just as easily.

At any rate, people really seem to only care about raw numbers at the very "top" of the "rankings". And at that point, does it really matter much? If your hovering around 10,000 species does a thousand heard onlys really make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? I am much more concerned if someone is claiming ultra rare/potentially extinct birds without documentation, since those have real world ramifications that whether you heard or saw a known bird doesn't.

 

[Lerxst]

Four of us were standing in a row in a Venezuelan forest listening to the very loud and distinctive calls of a Rufous-winged Ground-cuckoo. The bird came closer and closer. The two on the right saw the bird but the two on the left (which included me) didn't. I definitely felt short-changed.

I hear you. Now imagine that happening on every (expensive) trip you make.

As I recount here (Okarito Kiwi: A Most Unorthodox Birding Strategy - Michael Hurben, PhD) I went to New Zealand and invested additional time and money desperately hoping to actually see a Kiwi. Everyone else in the group saw it, including nonbirders and their spouses, people who didn't even want to be there and didn't give a fig about seeing it. I never saw it although it was right in front of me.

Luckily it called shortly after that. When you have a visual disability like I do, you learn to be grateful for Heard Only birds, if you can get even that.

 

[Jim M.]

Tell that to all the people that add their lists to public platforms.

My only comments on this are in relation to those who publish their lists for varying reasons, if you want to be competitive, you need to have the same rules for all.

I personally, have never heard anyone, say 'wow, we heard it so well', in circumstances like that, most would be livid that they hadn't been able to see it. If there's a strawman argument, it's not this one. 99.9% of birders, get off by having a wondeful view of a species, that is the reality of it, anyone else is in a very small minority but I'm not judging them for that - unless they publish a list for comparison that is.

You don't need to all follow the same rules to compare. You just need to disclose what rules you are following--then you can compare with an understanding of what you are comparing and/or just compare with those who are following similar rules.

But if someone were to suggest a standard rule, the worst one for the birds would be that you have to see every bird to count it. That leads to, and has lead in the past to, unnecessary harassment of nocturnal birds (playback and blinding them with lights), and destruction of sensitive habitat of marsh birds. The guideline I grew up with almost 60 years ago is that you don't need to see rails or nocturnal birds to count them as life birds. And I personally see no problem extending that to all birds, given appropriate assurances of accuracy.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I hear you. Now imagine that happening on every (expensive) trip you make.

As I recount here (Okarito Kiwi: A Most Unorthodox Birding Strategy - Michael Hurben, PhD) I went to New Zealand and invested additional time and money desperately hoping to actually see a Kiwi. Everyone else in the group saw it, including nonbirders and their spouses, people who didn't even want to be there and didn't give a fig about seeing it. I never saw it although it was right in front of me.

Luckily it called shortly after that. When you have a visual disability like I do, you learn to be grateful for Heard Only birds, if you can get even that.

Michael, for the record, I certainly don't begrudge you or anyone who has no other options, from doing what they can do in order to 'bird'. On the contrary, I would think any reasonable person would commend you for it ;-)

In a comparatively very minor way, I'm limited by my hearing. I have typical age-related high end loss and often bird with others that are constantly calling out birds - which I can't hear :-( If alone, I'll use Merlin, but only to alert me to presence of such a bird. Typically, with perseverance, I'll find it (visually). But of course I'm losing out where others are often ticking off species by sound alone. And I'm ok with that ;-)

 

[Lerxst]

Michael, for the record, I certainly don't begrudge you or anyone who has no other options, from doing what they can do in order to 'bird'. On the contrary, I would think any reasonable person would commend you for it ;-)

In a comparatively very minor way, I'm limited by my hearing. I have typical age-related high end loss and often bird with others that are constantly calling out birds - which I can't hear :-( If alone, I'll use Merlin, but only to alert me to presence of such a bird. Typically, with perseverance, I'll find it (visually). But of course I'm losing out where others are often ticking off species by sound alone. And I'm ok with that ;-)

Thank you.

I often wonder, if I had normal vision, if I would be in the "must see it" camp. Perhaps.

 

[opisska]

I have a pretty good vision, that still doesn't help when the bird is hiding or it's dark... or is an Empidonax

 

[Mysticete]

I mostly have crap hearing, so unless its a cryptic species I intentionally spend a lot of time learning the vocal for, I'm usually in the "I have to see it camp".

As someone with bad hearing, I have to say Merlin has been a life changer for me.

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

My vision is terrible - the beginning of cataracts combined with a degenerative corneal disease. Fortunately, my hearing is great. When I go birding here in the States most of my birding is by ear.

But outside the US, where I'm not fully conversant in the calls and songs of what I'm seeing, I really do prefer on seeing the bird, if not perfectly, at least partially. It's my way of confirming that the bird is what I thought it was.

 

[Andy Adcock]

You don't need to all follow the same rules to compare. You just need to disclose what rules you are following--then you can compare with an understanding of what you are comparing and/or just compare with those who are following similar rules.

But if someone were to suggest a standard rule, the worst one for the birds would be that you have to see every bird to count it. That leads to, and has lead in the past to, unnecessary harassment of nocturnal birds (playback and blinding them with lights), and destruction of sensitive habitat of marsh birds. The guideline I grew up with almost 60 years ago is that you don't need to see rails or nocturnal birds to count them as life birds. And I personally see no problem extending that to all birds, given appropriate assurances of accuracy.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is the standard that most people apply as I've already said. Do the Surfbirds lists or others in the public domain, state HO's in anyone's lists, if they don't, they should.

 

[Andy Adcock]

My vision is terrible - the beginning of cataracts combined with a degenerative corneal disease. Fortunately, my hearing is great. When I go birding here in the States most of my birding is by ear.

But outside the US, where I'm not fully conversant in the calls and songs of what I'm seeing, I really do prefer on seeing the bird, if not perfectly, at least partially. It's my way of confirming that the bird is what I thought it was.

I'll raise you, almost deaf in one ear, blind in one eye and my knees are f*****

My first wife summed me up, bad hearing, bad eyes, bad knees and a bad attitude

 

[Jim M.]

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is the standard that most people apply as I've already said.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are making things up. The American Birding Association, the top U.S. bird listing association, allows heard only birds on their life lists. (ABA Recording Rules and Interpretations - American Birding Association--"For a first encounter with a species, no matter which list is involved, identification may be by sight or sound"). That has been their policy for years. (Though I know you will just think this supports your view that American birders, and others who count heard-onlies, are "lazy."😆)

In any event, I wasn't making an empirical claim about what people do. Only way to know that is via a poll. I was referencing establishing a principle that seeing the bird is required--such as via the ABA--which would encourage people to take extraordinary steps even if they don't want to.

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

I don't think that was what Andy was saying. I'm sure he knows that the ABA "allows" heard-only birds (I certainly did).

However, I believe he was saying that while it's allowed, most listers - American or elsewhere - base their lists on seen birds. I don't have data to prove it, but I'd tend to agree with him.

 

[Birderdave1]

It is the marginal differences that produce 8,000+, 9,000+, etc. Those are big totals. The clean up trips. The effort for marginal returns. The less salubrious places. The less safe experiences. That is why there are so few people with such numbers. Many would like to have done the same.

I will not denigrate your efforts but I remain of my view that believing that with time and money, you can achieve something is the game of pretenders. I am honest in believing that I do not believe that I am capable of it. Maybe you are cut of different cloth....

As these totals increase, then the additional species get more difficult. The Brits that I know well personally who have achieved such feats work full time. Their differences are not time and money but dedication, effort, determination, longevity, obsession, etc.

My world birding is limited but I have done a little in the last year or so.

All the best

Paul

Well said mate.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are making things up. The American Birding Association, the top U.S. bird listing association, allows heard only birds on their life lists. (ABA Recording Rules and Interpretations - American Birding Association--"For a first encounter with a species, no matter which list is involved, identification may be by sight or sound"). That has been their policy for years. (Though I know you will just think this supports your view that American birders, and others who count heard-onlies, are "lazy."😆)

In any event, I wasn't making an empirical claim about what people do. Only way to know that is via a poll. I was referencing establishing a principle that seeing the bird is required--such as via the ABA--which would encourage people to take extraordinary steps even if they don't want to.

What is 'allowed' is not what the idealist birder, actually practices, as I already said, a HO record is a second grade encounter to most.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I'm not sure I've ever had a birder say to me that they 'count' birds heard only. I know a lot of birders including two of the top ten world listers. Now I have to admit it's not a conversation I've had often, and I've never had it with the two birders in question, so maybe people do but, if so, they don't seem to broadcast the fact.

I would point out that none of the cats or pangolins on my list were heard only. Although I guess you could tick some cats on 'call' if you were so inclined.

 

[Farnboro John]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are making things up. The American Birding Association, the top U.S. bird listing association, allows heard only birds on their life lists. (ABA Recording Rules and Interpretations - American Birding Association--"For a first encounter with a species, no matter which list is involved, identification may be by sight or sound"). That has been their policy for years. (Though I know you will just think this supports your view that American birders, and others who count heard-onlies, are "lazy."😆)

In any event, I wasn't making an empirical claim about what people do. Only way to know that is via a poll. I was referencing establishing a principle that seeing the bird is required--such as via the ABA--which would encourage people to take extraordinary steps even if they don't want to.

That doesn't actually say birders don't have to see the bird for it to count. It just says identification may be by sight or sound. I've seen plenty of Phylloscs that I've positively identified by song or call but only seen a blip hopping through thick twiggage.

Off your list, boys and girls......

John

 

[wheatearlp]

I agree, heard only is a contentious thing for some(many?).
Personally, there is nothing on my life list that is heard only, more 'cos I rarely bird outside GB than because I've been extremely fortunate. I don't count heard only on my British year-list, although do add them to BirdTrack to cover the 'citizen-science' angle.
Even for our annual local patch All-Dayers in spring and autumn I spend some time trying to 'upgrade' any heard only records to a sight record.
Heard only is, as others have said for themselves, tricky for me with species such as Treecreeper & Goldcrest, or fly-over Mipits, as my hearing has gradually 'filtered out' such things over the years.

 

[Jim M.]

I don't think that was what Andy was saying. I'm sure he knows that the ABA "allows" heard-only birds (I certainly did).

However, I believe he was saying that while it's allowed, most listers - American or elsewhere - base their lists on seen birds. I don't have data to prove it, but I'd tend to agree with him.

You are not following the exchange. Andy was misinterpreting what I was saying--and saying it was wrong just because he said so. Best to stay out of other people's discussions--Andy can speak for himself after all. And assuming a British birder knows what the ABA rules say is a baseless assumption.

 

[Lerxst]

To see, but not hear, a Capuchinbird, would be a third-rate experience. IMO.