Sorry, I also meant to say that I always count "heard" bird calls in the field,
so long as there is no doubt of the species - to me, it's the same as counting
a "seen" bird in the field when there's no doubt about what it is.
Cheers
Martin Cachard
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:44:16 -0700
> From:
> To:
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Year List Ethics (Poll) NZSPs
>
> 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
> >>
|
