Fortunately Keith, it is easy to defend BARC's non-acceptance of a claimed
Franklin's Gull seen by a single observer in a brief fly-by. I quote here
just three of many examples of where there has been confusion between
Franklin's and the very similar Laughing Gull and all were sustained views
backed by photographs.
1. The first Victorian record of a Laughing Gull was at Lakes Entrance of a
bird which had joined Silver Gulls scavenging around picnic tables so was
easily photographed by the experienced observers. It was submitted as a
Franklin's Gull to BOCA (or its predecessor) as an unusual sighting.
Scrutineers pointed out that the photographic evidence showed that it was a
Laughing not a Franklin's Gull. This suggestion was greeted with total
objection and not a little hostility by the observers. 'How could they
possibly be wrong'. It matched perfectly the illustration of a Franklin's
Gull in their copy of Slater's Fieldguide. The fact that the Fieldguide (at
that time) didn't also have an illustration of a Laughing Gull didn't seem
to concern them. After much persuasion they came round. They're published
account gives no credit to those that provided the ID and reads as though
from the very start they never had any doubt that the bird they were
watching was a Franklin's Gull!
2. Conversely, the first Victorian record of a Franklin's Gull was claimed
as a Laughing Gull, again by experienced observers, that ID being suggested
by its laughing call. I was one of many that failed in an attempt to twitch
that bird and I partly blame that on the original false ID. You see we
concentrated our search along the coast, Laughing Gull habitat, rather than
on the lake at the river mouth, potential Franklin's Gull habitat. Some
excellent photographs were circulated among a number of the observer's
associates and an excellent submission was prepared and passed to a BARC
member for distribution to the committee. He passed it back to them
requesting that they resubmit it as a Franklin's Gull, the photographs
clearly revealing the diagnostic characters of that species. It was an easy
job as all they needed to do was change 'Laughing' to 'Franklin's'
throughout the document. Mind you there were a few red faces.
3. This bird was found, studied in detail and photographed by a very
experienced and respected observer at a famous birding site and reported as
a Laughing Gull. Other observers flocked to the site and the ID was
corrected to Franklin's Gull. In some photographs the bill of this bird did
appear 'drooped' suggesting Laughing but other characters were
diagnostically Franklin's.
So Keith, you cannot, well should not, argue that BARC should be more
sympathetic to observers claiming Franklin's Gull or any other species, nor
that we should be more lenient in our decisions. You see, unlike you, I do
give a damn what BARC thinks and want the respect and authority commanded by
that body to be maintained.
Whilst I hope I haven't made it too obvious just who was involved in the
above incidents (except in case 1 where I have taken this opportunity to
vent my spleen), those that were will recognise themselves. I apologise for
any embarrassment caused but consider it important to defend the workings of
BARC and its decisions.
Mike Carter
30 Canadian Bay Road
Mount Eliza VIC 3930
Tel (03) 9787 7136
|
