Possible Ancient Muurelet, Dawlish Warren, Devon

[Hotspur]

A possible ancient murrelet was found yesterday afternoon off Dawlish Warren with news emerging late last night. The finders account is on 'the other channel' and describes a Little Auk sized bird with a black tipped yellow bill. Not refound yet but a potential 2nd for the WP as well as Devon!

[Ben Miller]

A possible ancient murrelet was found yesterday afternoon off Dawlish Warren with news emerging late last night. The finders account is on 'the other channel' and describes a Little Auk sized bird with a black tipped yellow bill. Not refound yet but a potential 2nd for the WP as well as Devon!

There is enough in the finders' account to mean many won't be expecting anything more to come of this report

Still, you pays your money and takes your choice. Nothing wrong with reporting a possible if that's what you think; at least this one doesn't appear to be a hoax!

[MichaelF]

at least this one doesn't appear to be a hoax!
I was wondering if it might be another Steller's Eider!

[Colin Key]

I was wondering if it might be another Steller's Eider!

Was the "finder" a golfer? :laugh::ohdear:

[Joe stockwell]

they could see the black tip but not actually fully ID the bird

was it in fancy dress?

[forktail]

As the bird has not reappeared people are now getting brave and having a pop at the chap and his description, often in a none-too-nice manner. I'd expect that on the other site but not here really. He's been totally honest and to be fair the report sounds half-decent at least. The pale bill with a black tip and Little Auk size are worth the locals pursuing at any rate.

If he hadn't reported it, can you imagine the amount of whinging and whining there'd be after the event? I don't consider the sniping as a reflection on birders per se, it's just some people's attitude in general these days.

Anyway, how many birders who think of themselves as 'competent' would consider they might get the id of a murrelet wrong and pass it off as a commoner auk? That'd never happen, especially not with photos...

[Dave Hawkins]

As the bird has not reappeared people are now getting brave and having a pop at the chap and his description, often in a none-too-nice manner. I'd expect that on the other site but not here really. He's been totally honest and to be fair the report sounds half-decent at least. The pale bill with a black tip and Little Auk size are worth the locals pursuing at any rate.

If he hadn't reported it, can you imagine the amount of whinging and whining there'd be after the event? I don't consider the sniping as a reflection on birders per se, it's just some people's attitude in general these days.

Anyway, how many birders who think of themselves as 'competent' would consider they might get the id of a murrelet wrong and pass it off as a commoner auk? That'd never happen, especially not with photos...

Got to say I fully agree with everything Forktail says. Why the cynicsm and false superiority?

It's so small minded to 'rubbish' someone else's sighting...let's hope the same thing doesn't happen to you the next time you have to make a difficult ID call.

Or maybe you would have kept your mouths shut in case you lost your percieved 'reputations'?

The finders needs congratulating for being honest, open and inclusive not brickbats.

[Colin Key]

I took the trouble to read the thread on the "other channel". The finder's account was honest and plausible and he has to be congratulated on that (after all, it is what "you" see and the thought processes which go in "your" mind which are being reported, especially in the absence of photos).

There are a number of flaws however, and as one respondent stated "having to check Collins to confirm it was not a Little Auk" is maybe significant.

Pity the bird was not relocated; the finder would have been hailed as a hero if is was an Ancient Murrelet, and a t**t is it wasn't, so it was a gamble. He who dares....? (or should that be "He who cares....?").

Colin :smile:

[Ben Miller]

Interesting comments, to which I agree to an extent. As I wrote; "you pays your money and takes your choice. Nothing wrong with reporting a possible".

The tone of some replies, though, does lead me to ask a question, and I hope it is interpreted in a measured way, unlike the conversations on "the other channel" that many of us have chosen to leave..

... when did it become a cardinal sin to question the accuracy of reported birds?

Of course there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, however I don't think I'm alone in thinking the balance has swung too far. At a time when more and more inaccurate reports (of species from common right through to mega) are being broadcast, is it not responsible to have some constructive questioning?

I was reminded this morning by a close friend of the section in "the other bible", BOLBBB, where he writes about listening to laymen;

# 1; "I've had a pink bird in my garden"
# 2: "It's a Jay"
# 1: "No it's not, I've looked in my book and it's a Sinai Rosefinch"
# 2: "No it's not, you don't get them here, it will have been a Jay"
# 1: "No, I know Jay's, they are black and this was pink"
# 2: "Jay's are black, and pink" etc...........

I can't help but think it this happened today, the discussion might go something like this;

# 1; "I've had a pink bird in my garden"
# 2: "It's a Jay"
# 1: "No it's not, I've looked in my book and it's a Sinai Rosefinch"
# 2: "No it's not, you don't get them here, it will have been a Jay"
# 3 (probably typing on the internet) "OMG!!! I can't believe you just said that!!! Who do you think you are to question him! If he say's it's a Rosefinch, it's a Rosefinch. Why were you being so aggressive, you're clearly an idiot who is insecure. Have you never got an ID wrong in your life?? I bet you're a filthy twitcher who is killing the planet and gets thrills from kicking Snowy Owls" etc etc

OK, hopefully that might have raised a smile, but I do wonder if others seriously feel the pendulum has swung too far?

Good birding to all,

Ben

[Dave Hawkins]

............I took the trouble to read the thread on the "other channel". ..............

...........There are a number of flaws however, and as one respondent stated "having to check Collins to confirm it was not a Little Auk" is maybe significant........

Colin :smile:

Hi Colin

I think you raise an interesting point there.

If I find a bird and I am not sure of the ID...say a funny looking pipit at Thornham Point:wideeyed:; the first bird I would look up in the field guide would be the potential confusion species... not jump straight to the plate of Pechora.

For my part, if it helps increase a birder's ID skills, I have no problem with birders using field guides in the field or at home. I think if more birder's used field guides outdoors then it would make them better birders..after all almost no one uses a note book anymore!

I certainly can't remember the key ID 'features' of all the 'rares' and having a field guide handy more often (sadly!!) than not a field guide can aid the ID process and confirm the common species:cry:

Better to get it right in the field and know what to look for...it's too late learning it was a Pechora Pipit when you get home or is just a Meadow Pipit :err:after you've rang Birdline!

Good birding

Dave

[Colin Key]

Hi Dave et al,

I do not know anything about this chap who reported the "possible" sighting, or the level of expertise of him and his friends who saw this bird. The comment which I quoted from someone else on the BF thread was, I presume, meant to say that if these people didn't know the I.D. features of Little Auk (not exactly a rarity) without checking a field guide then maybe their credentials were not "up to scratch" (for want of a better term), which I think is a fair comment.

What the progression of events does illustrate (in my opinion) is the importance of making as many detailed notes as possible, with sketches (easier said than done for most!) in the absence of photos, before delving into a field guide. If I were submitting a rarity report I would at least draft it from original observations before seeking clarification from published guides/photos; do it the other way round and your judgment is inevitably "tainted".

It is a pity that these guys (I can't remember how many of them were involved) hadn't sat down and thrashed out a consensus view of the bird's features based solely on what they saw.

Just my two centimos worth.

Colin :smile:

[Johnny X]

Ha ha, apparently a lot of refugees from Bird Forum on this thread!

I agree with Ben. It is reasonable to question records if they are put in the public domain. As long as it doesn't become personal or abusive...and that's the tricky part of course.

Unless I missed something the BF discussion wasn't really too harsh?

[Colin Key]

.....It is reasonable to question records if they are put in the public domain.

But isn't that "The Name of the Game" Johnny?

Colin :beer:

[Joe stockwell]

now im hoping that people didnt read too far into my previous comment, it was meant to be a joke :err:

Surely the better thing to do would have been to phone this through while they were watching, due to the fact the guys at (the news company) would have been able to help with their id at the time?

I will admit that once i have looked at a field guide my judgement is a little on the drunk side, especialy if i don't have photo's or field notes (heaven forbid) , as that picture in the guide does turn ito what you saw very quickly if you look at it for long enough.

IF this is found again either at dawlish, or one of the other seawatching venues along that coastline those guys deserve a few pints:beer:

Joe

[Johnny X]

But isn't that "The Name of the Game" Johnny?


I don't know Col, I'm not a big Abba fan.

[Colin Key]

I don't know Col, I'm not a big Abba fan.

"Never Mind the Music" - just think of Agnetha's luverly bum. :biggrin:

Bet you didn't know her full name is Agnetha Åse Fältskog. :ohdear:

Colin

[Harry Hussey]

OK, hopefully that might have raised a smile, but I do wonder if others seriously feel the pendulum has swung too far?

Hi Ben,
Well, I have started to think that things may have swung too far the other way alright. Sure, there's no denying that it could be seen as patronising (at best) if someone were to question an ID in a particularly insensitive fashion, and, I suppose, anyone who contemplates questioning an identification in public (especially) or private should always strive to do so in as impersonal and reasoned a manner as possible, but, just lately, it seems that to even so much as suggest that the claimed ID might be in error (even if one backs their doubts up with quoted features that may seem to be at variance with the proposed identification), a given bird may be more likely to be an escape (c.f. the thread on 'the other side' about that tame Canvasback in Yorks) or such risks letting one in for the height of scorn and abuse.
Speaking for myself, I have more or less stopped commenting on birds on the 'Rare Birds' sub-forum there, as, despite remaining impartial and detached in the main, even I have attracted some snide comments, questioning what I had to gain from raising my doubts of, say, a certain observer's pics purported to be of a certain migratory raptor species in NE England, and that's just one example. Accordingly, I now almost exclusively keep any ID-based comments on there to the ID Q+A forum, as people at least want to know what something is on there, and are open to feedback, by and large.
As you allude to, the main problem is usually NOT with the people who actually SAW a possible rarity: it's usually people who haven't even seen the bird, but who may have their own agenda against honest criticism (in the most benign sense of the word)/peer review/rarities committees, who are the most vocal in terms of what often amounts to downright abuse. (I must add that not everyone who doesn't submit records carries on like this...I would guess that the majority just do their own thing...but, it seems to me, there is a vocal minority from the 'tick everything' school who can't seem to bear the thought that any sighting may be questioned)
If someone is still convinced of the veracity of their ID in spite of questioning, good for them: it is up to each birder to 'count' what they like, nobody is under any compulsion to submit records, and, sometimes, even committees make mistakes. However, such people should also be prepared for some questioning, from time to time, and, unless this was done in an inappropriate way, there should be no shame or hurt on the part of the person being questioned...it's usually not personal. Why, even last November, I found a Richard's Pipit at Ballycotton, and, despite having seen 2 previously in Ireland, lots in China last spring, and also 3 Blyth's Pipits in China, I received 1-2 texts asking if I had ruled out Blyth's. Did I throw my dummy out of the pram? Did I get offended, seeing as how I am reasonably experienced? No...because I would likely have asked the same question at that time of year had I heard that another birder had a flyover Richard's! I know that the question was only meant to ask if I had even considered Blyth's, and, no matter how experienced one is, mistakes can, and will, be made, so the question was a valid one...had I been unable to answer in complete confidence that it was 'just' a Richard's, then it would have led to me shelving the record.
So, sorry for getting some things off my chest there, and writing in almost a 'stream of consciousness' style at times!
Regards,
Harry

[forktail]

Good points Ben and Harry et al

I think we all basically agree that it's down to the manner of the questioning. Polite enquiry from experienced observers is very useful and can gently let down people from making errors. Every weekend birder sticking their oar in doesn't help much.

I don't see it as much of a problem though; the vast majority of rare birds are identified correctly and seen again. This isn't the case, however, with a different subset of birds which are often misidentified by a larger amount of birders. I'm thinking particularly of skuas, shearwaters, Great White Egrets, (Black-throated) divers, Jack Snipe, Hunnies, terns at sea etc. These reports are totally unchallenged and often get in county avifauna via the pager services' comprehensive reporting of info that comes their way. Arguably more of an issue...

[Alex Lees]

I don't see it as much of a problem though; the vast majority of rare birds are identified correctly and seen again. This isn't the case, however, with a different subset of birds which are often misidentified by a larger amount of birders. I'm thinking particularly of skuas, shearwaters, Great White Egrets, (Black-throated) divers, Jack Snipe, Hunnies, terns at sea etc. These reports are totally unchallenged and often get in county avifauna via the pager services' comprehensive reporting of info that comes their way. Arguably more of an issue...

Surreal Cambs experience in a similar vein (http://www.freewebs.com/punkbirder/latestsightings.htm)today. Hoping that my scepticism is unfounded. Maybe automatic news-feed to county-recorders isn't such a great idea?

[Harry Hussey]

Agree entirely that it is 'difficult' common species that perhaps are a bigger cause for concern, especially as there is no way of knowing, for example, what criteria an observer is using to ID Pomarine Skuas, how far away the birds they are claiming etc are. I suppose we all just have to accept that there will be erroneous records in any county bird reports, unfortunately.
Alex, bad skills (as the owner of a dearly departed website would say) on the RLB alright: would like to say that it wouldn't happen here, given the extreme rarity of the species in Ireland (I've not seen one, ever), but there have been 1-2 recent claims that were probably just pale Common Buzzards. Given the increase of the latter species here, we may now be overlooking the scant few that turn up in the first place, due to people not bothering to look too hard at any Buteo in some areas...

[admin]

And what do we do with the following email we got yesterday, especially after the most recent Welsh hoax?

"Sighted in SW Wales - member of tit family - black head with white side bands and white band over head similar to badger markings. Definately not coal tit or marsh tit. What is it please?"
________
3 Series (E36) (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E36))

[Alex Lees]

And what do we do with the following email we got yesterday, especially after the most recent Welsh hoax?

"Sighted in SW Wales - member of tit family - black head with white side bands and white band over head similar to badger markings. Definately not coal tit or marsh tit. What is it please?"

have they ruled out Badger?

[MichaelF]

Sounds like a Long-tailed Tit to me.

[john c]

Sounds like a Long-tailed Tit to me.

I tend to agree - I have seen a Long-tailed Tit without most of its tail and without this salient feature it would tend to confuse the inexperienced!

John

[AndyB]

OK all, it gets better...here's the response to whether it could be a Long-tailed Tit:

"Seen near Carmarthen, this little bird has intrigued me. First thought - it was coal tit - but definitely not. I'll try to describe features more clearly - member of tit family, smaller than bluetit, 9cm white crown like long-tail tit, white cheeks with black underneath, underside off-white back bluey grey. Only saw bird on ground or in flight. Regular visitor to feeding site - has been suggested from Russia."

[MichaelF]

smaller than bluetit, .... has been suggested from Russia
At least "smaller than bluetit" counts out any possibility of Azure Tit

[forktail]

Good ones from last year in a very small corner of Norfolk:

an ad. skua was a Pom "cos it had a breastband".
Greenshank for Marsh Sand
Ruff for Buff-brested
Reed for Marsh
Marsh Harrier for Hunny, (went down into a reedbed even)
Little Egret for GWE.
Golden Plover for AGP (several days running)
and many more

multiply that over the UK and it might get interesting.

[Alex Lees]

OK all, it gets better...here's the response to whether it could be a Long-tailed Tit:

"smaller than bluetit, 9cm

I guess we can rule out Badger with this extra information......

[Bobolink44]

I guess we can rule out Badger with this extra information...... :laugh::laugh:

sounds like a wind-up - if they say "...has been suggested from Russia" who's doing the suggesting and if they know what it is eg Azure Tit then why are they writing asking for ID help.

[Red-eyed Video]

Only saw bird on ground or in flight.

I guess we can rule out Badger with this extra information...... :laugh:

You'll all be eating your Surfbirds baseball caps if it turns out to be one of these! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_Warbler)

Something tells me I won't be needing the chili sauce just yet...