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

[Jim M.]

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 agree that counting any bird that is heard only for your life list is uncommon--at least based on my personal experience. But every birder I know counts heard only birds for every other type of list--year, state, county, big day, big year, etc. And I expect a lot of birders, at least in the U.S., will count some birds that are heard only for their life lists, e.g. owls, nightjars, and/or rails.

But with the advent of eBird, I expect ticking any heard only bird for your life list will become more common. eBird is a citizen science platform, and how you personally encounter a bird is irrelevant to the science, so eBird doesn't distinguish heard only from visual ticks when it generates your life list. So the point of distinguishing the two is probably going to seem more and more quaint to birders who grow up with eBird. I know I no longer make the distinction for listing purposes (though I started birding many decades before eBird)--so you can now say you have "met" one such birder.

 

[Lerxst]

More than once I have had a guide insist "Oh you need to SEE it!" in regards to a secretive rail (or similar) that he wants to draw out into an open space by using a Bluetooth speaker and harassment. This is after I told them that hearing it (and recording it) was sufficient for my ID and for my experience of the bird. They do not believe me. They have a flow to their work, it seems. They will feel like they have failed if they have not brought the bird out into the open. Not all guides are like this but many are. Moreover, if there are other birders with us (a situation I have learned to avoid at all costs now), I know that the stage play will just have to proceed.

I'd much rather take my heard-only experience than have birds treated in that way just for a glimpse.

As for "not sure I've ever had a birder say to me that they 'count' birds heard only..." well this birder is saying it, loud and proud.

 

[Andy Adcock]

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

I've done both fortunately.

 

[Andy Adcock]

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.

You really are hard to debate with, I have not said anything is 'wrong' and certainly not, just because 'I' say so. I'm stating, as fact, that whether or not, HO birds can or cannot be counted, anywhere, most birders want to see them, that's it from me, take it as you will.

I have three, outstanding memories of hearing birds, all at night. In Russia, we would have a Thrush Nightingale, singing all night, just outside out bedroom window. Camping in the Russian Arctic, 0200hrs but still light when a Black-throated Diver flew on to the lake where we were sat around a camp fire, and started calling and in the desert in Morocco, under a full moon, in the desert with Stone Curlews, calling all around.

 

[Andy Adcock]

But with the advent of eBird, I expect ticking any heard only bird for your life list will become more common. eBird is a citizen science platform, and how you personally encounter a bird is irrelevant to the science, so eBird doesn't distinguish heard only from visual ticks when it generates your life list. So the point of distinguishing the two is probably going to seem more and more quaint to birders who grow up with eBird. I know I no longer make the distinction for listing purposes (though I started birding many decades before eBird)--so you can now say you have "met" one such birder.

Don't bank on it but I guess that depends on the type of birder you are.

If you play a tape to get a bird to respond, even if you don't see it, by your argument you've disturbed it.

 

[opisska]

If you play a tape to get a bird to respond, even if you don't see it, by your argument you've disturbed it.

Yes and that's why it is forbidden, or at least loudly discouraged, at an increasing number of sites. Maybe when enough places follow suit, then people will realize that it's nigh impossible to see some birds without this questionable method and that will be a strong motivation to start accepting HO records.

I would like to once again reiterate that it's just a game and it's upon us how we set the rules. Setting the rules to accept HO record is undoubtedly better for the birds. So why not do it, if we have the choice?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Yes and that's why it is forbidden, or at least loudly discouraged, at an increasing number of sites. Maybe when enough places follow suit, then people will realize that it's nigh impossible to see some birds without this questionable method and that will be a strong motivation to start accepting HO records.

I would like to once again reiterate that it's just a game and it's upon us how we set the rules. Setting the rules to accept HO record is undoubtedly better for the birds. So why not do it, if we have the choice?

Do people really have a choice though, when, as is normal in society now, if you don't toe a particular line, you're publicly shamed by those who want to get their own way by any means.

Most of the birds that get 'lured' by tape, may experience this two or three times a year in terms of target birds on expensive tours and I would argue that this is not a problem. I do agree however, that in particular places where some birds can be disturbed daily, this should be stopped but realistically, how and who would police it?

I can tell you now though, it won't happen in most places, people aren't paying thousands just to hear birds.

 

[Farnboro John]

Do people really have a choice though, when, as is normal in society now, if you don't toe a particular line, you're publicly shamed by those who want to get their own way by any means.

Most of the birds that get 'lured' by tape, may experience this two or three times a year in terms of target birds on expensive tours and I would argue that this is not a problem. I do agree however, that in particular places where some birds can be disturbed daily, this should be stopped but realistically, how and who would polive it?

I can tell you now though, it won't happen in most places, people aren't paying thousands just to hear birds.

Realistically I agree with this, "ethical" guides will quickly find they have no work.

John

 

[Steve Babbs]

As for "not sure I've ever had a birder say to me that they 'count' birds heard only..." well this birder is saying it, loud and proud.

Yes and I have the greatest respect for you. Your situation is very different to most birders.

The disturbance with recordings is an issue and at some places a serious issue these days. I'd be lying if I said I never use recordings but I do so rarely. I almost never use guides for looking for birds so it is my choice.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Realistically I agree with this, "ethical" guides will quickly find they have no work.

John

Very true.

 

[mjh73]

I have a small number of heard only on my life list.
I log in the notes in the eBird sighting in the field and then select the tick box so I can filter in Scythebill where my 'real list.
Generally I admit it is less satisfying, and the birds involved remain on my mental "one day i will see it" list, but I don't see why it shouldn't count as a lifer - I was in the place, heard the bird sufficient to ID it, wasn't able to see it this time. C'est la vie.

 

[mjh73]

.....I also feel uncomfortable about guides tape luring the bloody hell out of stuff just so it can be eyeballed, although I am not fundamentally against sensible use.

 

[qwerty5]

My main reason for not using playback (or pishing) regularly is that I prefer to see birds acting naturally. It's much less fulfilling when a bird is only ticked because I agitated it. I do use it on occasion when I really want to see a particular bird, and I have no problems with anyone else using it responsibly.

 

[Lerxst]

When I do see a bird and it is silent, I will mark it in my notes as "Merely Seen." To not hear it vocalize is to miss much of the essence of the bird.

 

[Andy Adcock]

My main reason for not using playback (or pishing) regularly is that I prefer to see birds acting naturally. It's much less fulfilling when a bird is only ticked because I agitated it. I do use it on occasion when I really want to see a particular bird, and I have no problems with anyone else using it responsibly.

I agree but, acting 'agitated' is also natural behaviour, as I've said a few times, birds, as potential prey items, live in a permanent state of hyper awareness.

 

[Farnboro John]

I agree but, acting 'agitated' is also natural behaviour, as I've said a few times, birds, as potential prey items, live in a permanent state of hyper awareness.

Its not just as potential prey items: a bird reacting to playback is reacting as it would to a call it heard from an actual bird. That is the entire point!

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

Its not just as potential prey items: a bird reacting to playback is reacting as it would to a call it heard from an actual bird. That is the entire point!

John

I'm in complete agreement, I'm in favour of tape luring generally if it's the only way I'll see a bird, as long as no individual is getting unnecessary amounts of disturbance and of course, never near a nest.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I think one of my issues is that for a lot of people playback is a first resort to see a bird. Not a last resort.

 

[cajanuma]

I think one of my issues is that for a lot of people playback is a first resort to see a bird. Not a last resort.

In certain situations, though, isn't it also the least disruptive option? Is it really more of a disturbance to the bird that crashing through vegetation to track down a singing bird? Of course, in heavily birded places or for staked-out individuals the equation changes, but in many birding situations I think responsible playback can also reduce potential disturbance (that is, assuming you actually want to see the bird).

 

[Steve Babbs]

In certain situations, though, isn't it also the least disruptive option? Is it really more of a disturbance to the bird that crashing through vegetation to track down a singing bird? Of course, in heavily birded places or for staked-out individuals the equation changes, but in many birding situations I think responsible playback can also reduce potential disturbance (that is, assuming you actually want to see the bird).

I would agree that can be the case in some circumstances. My point was rather that irrespective of the situation some people will just start playing a recording so they can quickly move onto the enxt one. I will hold my hands up to sometimes using recordings. I have one good friend who will whip out the phone straight away and another who is totally against it. I am somewhere between the two. Needless to say, I've never tried to do a foreign birding trip with both of them together!