Everything that has been said in the recent threads is true and I support the
sentiments of Nikolas, Martin, David et al.
All ID's are there to be scrutinised...but some attract more attention, i.e.
those that are posed as a question (re: Denise's friend) and 'rare birds' (re:
Great Shearwater). But if they aren't drawn to our attention then that is a
loss.
On pelagic trips I always tell people, no matter how inexperienced they are, to
shout "anything" if they see a bird they don't recognise....attempt an ID if
you want, but as a minimum draw attention to the bird..."what's this!??!" is a
good one. I'm sure many birds in these situations get away because people don't
pipe up about it.
Pipe up, I say.
Mick
________________________________
From: David James <>
To: martin cachard <>; ""
<>; "" <>; jeff davies
<>
Cc: birding-aus threads <>; ""
<>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:24 AM
Subject: Birdline Western Australia Weekly Update GREAT SHEARWATER
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is generally attributed to
Mark Twain. It's a fine sentiment when you're telling a ripping yarn after
dinner or propping up the front bar. However, it just doesn't translate into
birding.
Everyone makes mistakes. Anybody can misidentify a bird and everybody who tries
to identify them will get them wrong sometimes. I've made plenty of bad calls
on birds. I've seen better birders than me stuff it up completely. And I've
seen plenty of feisty debates, often never to be resolved. Some birders are
more prone than others to making up their mind on the spot and refusing to
consider alternatives. Some are pleased to be corrected when appropriate. What
matters is getting the record straight so that everyone knows what is fact,
what is fiction, and what is unresolved. Sometimes egos get bruised, which is
not the best part of what we do. Fora like Birding-Aus and Eremea are excellent
for getting information out quickly and helping birders see lots of good birds
that they never would have heard about in days gone by. So thank you to the
moderators all over Australia for all the volunteer work that you do for the
birding community. But the reports
circulated in these fora are not vetted and not confirmed. Most are correct,
but a percentage are wrong. That is how it works. In this case the record has
been vetted publicly and the record has been set straight. There are other ways
of vetting records. However, this is an example of the birding community
working together to document birds, help the observer know they likely saw, and
keep the literature that little bit cleaner of errors. We learn and move on.
Good stuff.
Andrew, you did the right thing, gave your honest opinion and made it available
to all of us. I hope this conversation has not given you any regrets, because
you need have none. Welcome to the Australian birding community!
David James,
Sydney
==============================
________________________________
From: martin cachard <>
To: ; ; jeff davies
<>
Cc: birding-aus threads <>;
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:25 AM
Subject: Birdline Western Australia Weekly Update GREAT SHEARWATER CLEARLY NOT
Hi Nikolas, Andrew & all No Nik, you weren't the smart arse on this one - maybe
it was me. I was very quick to say the Speckled Warbler wasn't one, but that
it was a young Rufous Whistler. I was also quickly agreeing with you & Mike
Carter that the Great Shearwater that Andrew saw & thought was a Great
Shearwater, was indeed a young Aust Gannet. I left the tern ID alone - but yes
I do agree, 1st yr Common Tern... So maybe it is me that should apologise for
being so fast to question these sightings... rightly or wrongly... But I feel
the bigger evil is when one takes a veiled swipe, & that wasn't me or yourself,
Nik, so that person is the one who should apologise, not you or me... Cheers
for now, Martin Cachard Cairns 0428 782 808
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:15:31 -0700
> From:
> To: ;
> CC: ;
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Birdline Western Australia Weekly Update GREAT
> SHEARWATER CLEARLY NOT
>
> Hi Andrew and Philip,
>
> Andrew, first I would like to apologize to you that I opened this can of
> worms with my first e-mail questioning your sighting. Since you mentioned
> that you were familiar with Manx Shearwater, I am sure that you were familiar
> with Northern Gannets, too. On the other hand your description fits best an
> immature gannet - on this side of the world most likely an Australasian
> Gannet. In this case (until proven otherwise) it was important to have the
> note removed from Eremaea to not confuse future searches for Great
> Shearwater. I definitely don't want to scare you off. Please continue to
> report your sightings, Andrew.
>
>
> Philip, I strongly disagree with your small leaps. They happen all too often
> and are wrong. I have been member of a number of rare bird committees on
> various continents. I often noticed that submitters don't consider the
> unusual. E.g. to me a report of a Bridled Tern clearly ruling out a Sooty
> Tern, doesn't mean that the bird was a Bridled Tern unless you also rule out
> a Spectacled/Grey-backed Tern (even though it is not [yet] on the Australian
> list). Another story is that of an adult male Lark Bunting reported to us
> when I was part of the New Jersey Rare Birds Committee. Lark Bunting is the
> only black finch-like bird in North American field guides but still highly
> unlikely in New Jersey. The photos proved it to be one of the African widow
> finches - obviously an escapee. Therefore in order to prove the small leap
> you have to make a big leap.
>
>
> Often, once you are on the wrong track, you may get lost. So I guess, if you
> misidentify a gannet for a shearwater and you still notice its huge size, why
> not think of a Great [sic!] Shearwater or another large shearwater species?
> Therefore, I totally understand this thought - even without wishful thinking
> involved. Funny things do happen: I know someone whose name begins with "N"
> and ends with "ikolas" (no, it wasn't David James!) who screamed "Streaked
> Shearwater". This bird turned out to be the most gigantic shearwater I've
> ever seen with a wing span of 3.5 metres! It turned out to be a Wandering
> Albatross! Sh.. happens.
>
>
> And yes, most - if not all - shearwaters dive, but to my knowledge and
> experience not in the way Andrew described it.
>
> Finally, yes (1) the mystery tern was a Common Tern moulting from first
> winter to first summer plumage (note the seasons refer to the northern
> hemisphere) and (2) the mystery little speckled bird was a juv Rufous
> Whistler. I just didn't want to be the smart arse again - but I guess I am ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Philip Veerman <>
> To: 'Jeff Davies' <>
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:37 PM
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Birdline Western Australia Weekly Update GREAT
> SHEARWATER CLEARLY NOT
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Sorry if you or others think so, I wasn't intending
> "way overkill". I am curious at the general phenomenon (not just this case)
> of people making big leaps of identification, rather than small leaps and
> wondering why this sort of thing happens somewhat often. A very long time
> ago (20 to 30 years) when I was seasick on a pelagic trip, I looked up at
> something, probably not very clearly, and thought I had seen a distant
> Wandering Albatross, because it was mainly white above, but that thought
> only lasted a few minutes. No doubt it was an adult Gannet. So why did I
> want it to be a Wandering Albatross, simply because I wanted it! But that is
> a species you could reasonably expect to have encountered at that place and
> date.
>
> It is interesting why would an identification go to that particular species
> (Great Shearwater) which is unlikely just on status. I understand a new
> birder to our shores learning the ropes thinking what a great bird. But
> curious as to the thought process. Could it be because it has been mentioned
> recently? As in my question is about the role of wishful thinking in bird
> identification over the whole range of people and experiences. I don't see
> this as rubbing it in.
>
> And yes you are right that Great Shearwater is not ONLY "on the other side
> of the world" (but usually is).
>
> Lastly the question remains: Do any shearwaters feed by diving behaviour as
> described?
>
> Philip
>
> -----Original Message-----From: Jeff Davies
> Sent: Monday, 19 March 2012 2:35 PM
> To: 'Philip Veerman'; Cc:
> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Birdline Western Australia Weekly Update GREAT
> SHEARWATER CLEARLY NOT
>
>
> This is way overkill Philip,
>
> it was an honest mistake by Andrew McKey a new birder to our shores learning
> the ropes, who was brave enough to put up a report for scrutiny.
> Should have been picked up by the forum administrators before going to air,
> but has now been corrected by a couple of observant forum readers as a
> perfect description for a young Gannet. Reports of late demonstrate clearly
> that Great Shearwater is not only "on the other side of the world" and this
> probably resonated with Andrew.
>
> So why rub it in, cheers Jeff.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----From:
> On Behalf Of Philip Veerman
> Sent: Monday, 19 March 2012 2:08 PM To: Cc:
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Birdline Western Australia
> Weekly Update GREAT SHEARWATER CLEARLY NOT
>
> Sure we can make mistakes on confusing difficult species but I am amused by
> this one, not at the making a mistake. I can understand someone saying I
> don't know what it is but why come up with an idea of Great Shearwater? I
> don't find it in my Aussie field guides, so why would that be in the mix of
> ideas? Indeed Peter Harrison's Seabirds book shows Great Shearwater on the
> opposite side of the world. Looking at the pictures of Great Shearwater in
> that book does not raise images to me of similarity to a gannet. Gannet do
> occur in UK. I think Michael Palin said he didn't like a British bird book
> because it had the Gannet in it.
>
> Lastly, now I am curious. Do any shearwaters feed by diving behaviour as
> described? I have not seen it.
>
> Philip
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
