Great! Congrats!
Let's see what the decision will be on the other two birds.
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Allan Richardson <>
To: Nikolas Haass <>
Cc: Birding-Aus <>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Year List Ethics (Poll) NZSPs
The Port Stephens' bird has been accepted.
Regards
Allan
On 12/06/2011, at 3:53 PM, Nikolas Haass wrote:
Hi all,
>
>
>Actually the three NZSPs seen last year off NSW neither called nor sang ;-)
>
>
>Just want to mention that all three sightings have been reported to BARC, but
>to my knowledge the decision on all three is still pending.
>
>
>Port Stephens (Richard Baxter)
>Ulladulla (Dan Mantle, Rob
Hynson, Nikolas Haass, Raja Stephenson)
>
>Wollongong (Nikolas Haass)
>
>
>There was a long discussion especially with regards to underwing pattern and
>head shape of the Ulladulla bird.
>
>
>Raja's photos of the Ulladulla and the Wollongong bird plus some from Hauraki
>are here:
>
>http://www.adarman.com/Birds/Stormpetrels/Storm-petrels/11535968_9o4mC#851894001_bsSXn
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Nikolas
>
>----------------
>Nikolas Haass
>
>Sydney, NSW
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Allan Richardson <>
>To: Tony Keene <>
>Cc: Birding-Aus <>
>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 2:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Year List Ethics (Poll)
>
>Interesting you mention the 'seen with your own eyes' category Tim.
>
>Last year we had a rarity on a pelagic trip. The bird passed the boat on about
>3 or 4 occasions out at about 50m and no closer, so no one could have
>identified it with naked eye. As the general call "light bellied stormie" went
>up , everyone's binoculars (and cameras) swung around to get onto the bird.
>The outcome was, that a very few of the 14 folk on board got a number of clear
>images of the bird that were sufficient to allow us (I talk collectively as a
>team), together with the jizz of the bird, to identify it as a NZSP. Now by
>the strict codes that some folk use for their life list, maybe none of us
>really ticked the bird up on the day? It isn't a view I hold, but I know at
>least one of the group who saw the bird early on and continued to 'see' it did
>not put it down on their list, because they felt they didn't get a good enough
>picture to ID it personally. However, some
others in the same situation did tick it up. I guess it's the - what you can
live with on your own list rule??
>
>I tend to take the view Nikolas is suggesting, that although we all have a
>personal list, the greater good here is that when ever we go out we are
>contributing to science, which in the end benefits birds. I guess that's why
>there are those times when we can be absolutely certain of the identity of a
>bird, by what ever means, and not necessarily nked sight verified, when it is
>our duty to report it for the greater good. If a bird I personally see is
>absolutely certain enough (without string) to be reported (due to perhaps
>other identification means) then who am I to go against the science?
>
>I'm perhaps playing devil's advocate here, as I do have limits on my own list,
>but if the criteria is: 1. did you see it? and 2. could you identify it (or
>perhaps as in the case of the NZSP) was it conclusively identified
>collectively on
the day), then shouldn't we 'all' have taken it? The NZSP is a good case here,
because it really was a team effort that identified it, particularly since much
of the evidence needed to be evaluated after the bird was no longer before us
to put it to bed. More importantly it could never have been id'd without
cameras, which goes somewhat against the 'with your own eyes' philosophy that
Tim mentioned.
>
>A number of you guys must run into this situation on pelagics from time to
>time, but it can happen with any bird we might only get a good view of without
>seeing diagnostic features in a team setting. How many of us walk away from
>such team settings with terrestrial birds without ticking the bird that we saw
>but couldn't identify (but our three mates did)???
>
>Allan Richardson
>Morisset
>
>
>
>
>On 12/06/2011, at 1:16 PM, Tony Keene wrote:
>
>> I usually only tick a bird if I'm sure of the species, so if it's
questionable on sight alone, I like to hear the call too. However, I don't
tick solely on call (or I'd have Marsh Warbler, Golden Oriole and Noisy Pitta
on the life list). However, that's just for my list. If it was for a trip
report where the information could be useful to someone, I'd mention birds that
were only heard as long as I was reasonably sure of the ID. But then, I've
attracted various levels of ire for not ticking introduced birds (I've got a
separate 'C' list for those), which meant that the Little Corella I saw last
week in Hattah-Kulkyne NP was a lifer for me.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tony
>>
|
