Hobby in UK March - quality assurance news

[mick cunningham]

Hi

yes, I know hobby isn't a rare bird. But it is here in inland Yorkshire, England in March - yet one's reported at nearby reservoir for today on one of major news services. now never say never, especially with global warming (and i look forward to the photo, description or being proved wrong) but it reminds me of another news service posting from inland yorks Humming bird (right in midst of hawkmoth season). so who is quality-controlling the news that's put out - and, does the fact that people phoning in the news are, often, paying customers of the same news services create a dilemma = if news service declines to put the news out does it lose a subscription? so it puts news out. Yet it'll do nothing for credibility of news services if rubbish is put out? any news provider care to say how these claims are assessed?

even better can someone post a pic or description of the hobby seen at ingbirchworth res yorks today?!

cheers

Mick

[Adey Baker]

I've no connection with any of the services other then as a subscriber to one, but I know that a lot of the info they put out is gleaned from various sources, such as county birding websites, so I suppose they take it in good faith.

Presumably, taking time to check each individual report would mean all the news would be 'old' by the time it was put out! I think we have to accept the situation as it is and use our own experience to decide whether we act on any reports (at least then we can either confirm or 'correct' the original report if we find the bird in question)

[Ben Miller]

Unfortunately, there is much less "quality assurance" in news provision at the moment than previously, and a considerable amount of duff gen makes it onto the various bird information services. Technology has a big part to play in this; new routes for people to quickly spread info, and new ways for people to find things out.

There have been many high profiles cases recently where due dilligence has just not been applied; the recent Welsh Nutcracker is a great examples, and there are many more. But that's just the high profiles stuff; news on a local level is of even worse quality.

More than ever, I always find out more about a record before doing anything. But then I'm a natural sceptic; Hobby in inland Yorks in early March? Rubbish!

[mick cunningham]

Hi all

been off line a few days. i note no news provider has commented. come on folks, you put it out so you must have a view!

[Josh Jones]

Mick - spare a thought for those that are in the position of putting news out.

If someone phones/texts/emails a sighting in, you can't just turn round the them and reply with "what a load of rubbish". This is both dismissive and offensive to the person who has gone to the effort (often at cost with e.g. phone bills) to report the bird in the first place, whether genuine or not.

You will notice that most of the news services put so-called "unlikely" records out (prime example being very early migrants!) as either unconfirmed or reported, to suggest some caution when considering the record. Very few people will want to twitch an early fly-through Hobby/hirundine/swift anyway as they will inevitable see plenty over the summer months, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Also perhaps do a bit more reading on global warming, its not quite as simple as ensuring birds arrive earlier!! ;)

Cheers
Josh

[mick cunningham]

Hi Josh

I am sure the news providers can look after themselves, indeed I am a good friend of one key provider and know this is so! But they are offering a service, usually at some expense (often a lot). As with all services, we can expect reasonable quality assurance. Given the purpose of these, a key task is filtering out dubious sightings where this can be done. Nowhere did I say this should be achieved by being dismissive or rude. But the news of the hobby sighting should not have been put out in the absence of photos or other evidence. A professional news provider is one capable of declining to do so without giving offence, tho that doesn't mean none will be taken.

As the effort and cost of the person reporting the bird 'genuine or not' - what of the effort and not inconsiderable cost to the 100s (1000s) paying premium rates, pager subs etc for information that is, by any reasonable judgement, worthless?

I am fully aware of the various cryptic codes used to signal probably unreliable information. I might argue this adds insult to injury as people are being charged for accessing 'information' that the provider also believes is dubious - maybe worthless. Would you pay for a pint the landlord thought undrinkable?

Also, it is patronising and dishonest to put out news you think, on balance, unreliable. Maybe some people don't mind being patronised.

It is reasonable to publish some news where confirmation is needed, and not all wrong info can be screened out. but these are different points. And I am not worried about who ticks early fly-thru whatevers except in certain regards. Firstly, a growing number of birders - including many who are custodians of local records - come from the newer generation which grew up with birdnews services. I have seen several unlikely records formally published in club reports which have been culled from bird news agencies with no evidence. No big deal except it is unscientific and, possibly, damaging to conservation as planners, funders, councils etc use this info. It also contributes to - what I perceive to be - a growing trend where people expect to be believed however unlikely their claims and regardless of their inability to provide convincing descriptions or evidence of these. something that infects claims of even very rare birds.it also helps foster the already too prevalent notion that identifyng birds is, basically, easy. it isn't.

failing to openly query unlikely records is bad enough, publicising them is worse. it begets even more dubious sightings costing more money and time to read - witness the annual surge of unlikely HB records, which follow on from the first dubious one.

Obviously, I can choose not to use the news services. Is that what they want? it's not what I want - unless I get to the point where I can't trust them - in effect a giant virtual stringer.

I am overstating my point - but that doesn't make it invalid and it it bothers me that no provider has publicly enlightened us about their QA process. and, where I live it is not inevitable that I will see plenty of Hobbys over the summer months - despite what news providers put out.

Lastly thanks for the tip on global warning. if only I'd known it was more complicated:-).

anyway, keep posting your excellent pics. at least i know those birds existed.

Cheers

Mick

[Josh Jones]

I am sure the news providers can look after themselves, indeed I am a good friend of one key provider and know this is so! But they are offering a service, usually at some expense (often a lot). As with all services, we can expect reasonable quality assurance. Given the purpose of these, a key task is filtering out dubious sightings where this can be done. Nowhere did I say this should be achieved by being dismissive or rude. But the news of the hobby sighting should not have been put out in the absence of photos or other evidence. A professional news provider is one capable of declining to do so without giving offence, tho that doesn't mean none will be taken.

You are using one (particularly unlikely) example to attempt to make a point that news is unfiltered, or at least not filtered well enough. Say what you may, but there is a fine balance between satisfying both customer and news provider. I know at BirdGuides there is an option so that some reports may not be sent out to mobiles etc. With unlikely records, this is often used, so paying customers will not be losing any money/credit. Pager messages are irrelevent, as you don't pay per pager message. Therefore I am struggling to appreciate your intense frustration at the proposed economic loss?


I am fully aware of the various cryptic codes used to signal probably unreliable information. I might argue this adds insult to injury as people are being charged for accessing 'information' that the provider also believes is dubious - maybe worthless.

I shall reiterate the point that I made before - both pager-based services do not charge per message, and BG has the option for news not to be released to mobiles (which would cost next to nothing anyway).


Also, it is patronising and dishonest to put out news you think, on balance, unreliable. Maybe some people don't mind being patronised.

I disagree. The news services have a duty to put out news, regardless of their own opinion. For all we know, early records of migrants could well be genuine in some cases. Rather than patronising and dishonest, I think it shows open-mindedness and acceptance rather than narrow-minded dismissal.

It also contributes to - what I perceive to be - a growing trend where people expect to be believed however unlikely their claims and regardless of their inability to provide convincing descriptions or evidence of these. something that infects claims of even very rare birds.it also helps foster the already too prevalent notion that identifyng birds is, basically, easy. it isn't.

This is getting a bit heavy; how can you blame the bird news services for this?


failing to openly query unlikely records is bad enough, publicising them is worse. it begets even more dubious sightings costing more money and time to read - witness the annual surge of unlikely HB records, which follow on from the first dubious one.

How are you sure that all dubious Honey Buzzard records are just that? Again we link back to this idea of open-mindedness. News services often do ask questions or ask for details. They can't be expected to judge which records are genuine and which are not without being in the field; much is based around the trust in the observer, which I can't see a problem with! Sightings can't be questioned openly as this can be insulting to the observer and is unprofessional.


unless I get to the point where I can't trust them - in effect a giant virtual stringer.

I think this is a bit unrealistic..!


it bothers me that no provider has publicly enlightened us about their QA process.

Well, instead of sitting on a forum demanding answers, why don't you take the initiative and contact each of the bird news providers directly if the issue worries you to the degree it appears to?


anyway, keep posting your excellent pics. at least i know those birds existed.

Thanks for your words of praise. Do I sense you are just a tiny bit sceptical..?

All the best,
Josh

[MichaelF]

Therefore I am struggling to appreciate your intense frustration at the proposed economic loss?
The cost (in time, CO2 production, etc.) of going on a long journey to see a Starling that you could see much closer to home, just because it had been reported as a Nutcracker (no I didn't do this disaster twitch, but some people did!).

[Josh Jones]

The cost (in time, CO2 production, etc.) of going on a long journey to see a Starling that you could see much closer to home, just because it had been reported as a Nutcracker (no I didn't do this disaster twitch, but some people did!).

Travelling to see birds was never part of this debate, was it?! Mick has referred to pager/bird news costs rather than travelling for a bird.

Anyway, if you are going to open another can of worms, the story behind the Nutcracker was that the bird was reported, the operative on at the time at BirdGuides made it very clear about potential confusion with Starling, and asked if the observer was 100% positive that it was not that species.

Lo and behold it was, but in this case how can anyone possibly blame the news services? Surely this is more the product of an unfortunate misidentification.

Josh

[Harry Hussey]

Hi all,
Surely it was ever thus, however: how many birds reported via the 'Grapevine' in the old days turned out to be duff once birders actually went to look at them? True, in the smaller scene that prevailed at the time, it would have been possible to at least form some kind of idea as to the likelihood of the report being genuine, due to knowing who found it, but, until one saw the actual bird, there was always the risk of a misidentification having been made.
Even today, with digital photography meaning that we can now see images of the latest rarity while people are still looking at it, many birds must move through quickly, and, in the absence of any 'concrete' evidence to go on, the would-be twitcher has no choice but to take a sighting at face value. He/she can always decide, after all, not to travel should they suspect that a July Nutcracker in someone's back garden is, in fact, more likely to be a Starling: nobody is holding a gun to people's heads and making them twitch anything.
Given the inherent fallibility of the process of dissemination of bird news, regardless of whether we consider word of mouth, birdlines or pagers here, it is surely the responsibility of a county recorder, in cases such as a claim of Hobby in early March, to seek some form of documentation to support said claim, rather than rely completely on what may or may not have been a reliable report (apologies if the finder of this recent bird reads this and thinks that I am questioning the record...it could well have been genuine, but, based on the available evidence, we cannot tell). True rarities, as ever, are dealt with adequately by the various rarities committees anyway, of course.

[forktail]

Several duff records of minor rares/scarce that are not description birds (LT Skua, BT Diver, Honey Buzzard etc) do get forwarded to county recorders / compilers for inclusion in county avifauna with no 'checking at all'. This can't be a good thing.

Getting info on rare birds is a priviledge and not a right. Both observers and news services should perhaps realise this. Putting birds on pagers after having been asked not to because sites are private or there is no public access is irresponsible as is not following site instructions or putting sensitive species on the pager without due thought or care (birders not pager operatives who may not realise the delicate situation). This will result in negative conseqeunces. I can already sense a return to quiet patching and a move away from putting minor rares/scarce onto the pagers for these, and other reasons. There's a lot to be said for local grapevines - I certainly make sure my local co-observers have seen birds before I even think about reporting them. And they repay the favour. Fair reward for hard work in my book.

[Colin Key]

This thread is both interesting and depressing - I could possibly write half a book in reply, but won't.

I have been birding/birdwatching since I was eight years old (52 years ago) and pursued it because it gave me enjoyment (my first book was "I Spy Birds" followed by "The Observer's Guide to Birds"). So, why now all the aggression and competition? It IS NOT IMPORTANT!

I have been out of "U.K. birding" for 12 years now, but realised back them that it was going down-hill.

A lot of birders are actually failed human beings who are looking for something in which to excel (everyone likes to be "good" at something). The hysteria, promotion of self-importance, and non-academic expertise of some of these people is beyond my comprehension.

I have friends in the U.K who are of the same opinion. It began with pagers and "BirdLine", then flowered into "BirdGuides" information service - heck, you don't just get to know in real time whether the bird is there or not, you can press the button and get a map print-out and directions (and if you get the grid co-ordinates which you put into your PND your vehicle will take you there effortlessly).

What a load of $HIT.

I have seen two male Sub-alpine Warblers, 40'ish Med Gulls, two Audouin's, seven Stone Curlews, and watched an Osprey catch a 2kg fish in the lagoon this afternoon - that is my main pleasure of the day, and I am anticipating what I might see tomorrow (Collared Pratincole?). I also have a pair of Lesser-spotted Woodpecker setting up home in a dead Agave on my land.

I really do not understand this aggressive bitchiness associated with "unidentified, possible rarities, birds in the U.K."

To repeat, "it is not important" in the general scheme of things.

Colin :puzzled:

[MichaelF]

Several duff records of minor rares/scarce that are not description birds (LT Skua, BT Diver, Honey Buzzard etc) do get forwarded to county recorders / compilers for inclusion in county avifauna with no 'checking at all'. This can't be a good thing.
Surely this is no different to duff records of non-description birds reported directly to the recorder, or those reported via e.g. BTO's Birdtrack?

One would hope that the number of records this applies to (in total, all sources) isn't enough to skew scientific data significantly, but it would be very hard to know.

Putting birds on pagers after having been asked not to because sites are private or there is no public access is irresponsible as is not following site instructions or putting sensitive species on the pager without due thought or care (birders not pager operatives who may not realise the delicate situation).
I get the impression the bird news companies are good about this - ask them not to post news of e.g. a rare breeding bird, and they won't post it. Ditto for site instructions, I recently sent in some amended directions about a scarce bird saying to keep to a particular right of way after hearing that the landowner where the bird was had been complaining about birders on his land; the info was added and there were no further problems.

[Josh Jones]

II have friends in the U.K who are of the same opinion. It began with pagers and "BirdLine", then flowered into "BirdGuides" information service - heck, you don't just get to know in real time whether the bird is there or not, you can press the button and get a map print-out and directions (and if you get the grid co-ordinates which you put into your PND your vehicle will take you there effortlessly).

Don't see anything wrong with that! Alot of people quite enjoy such facilities.

All your post is your own opinion, and thats fair enough, but I just don't understand how you can write off British birding. Sure enough there are plenty of low points (misidentified birds, stringings, hoaxes, arguments, bickering and so on) but I feel priveleged to be living in Britain, and being part of one of the healthiest birding scenes in Europe. Surely the number of misidentifications here compared to other places is due to the sheer number of people involved in the birding scene (many having little more than a passing interest), and thus the subsequent law of averages.

Not only are there thousands of people interested in birds and sharing my passion, but we are blessed to be in such a brilliant geographical position, ensuring a wealth of species from across the world will grace our shores annually. And I find that fantastic, regardless of who's there to 'spoil the party', so to speak.

Yes there are some unrealistic reports (e.g. todays Citrine Wagtail) but people have to start somewhere, and there are inevitably always going to be misidentifications as no one is perfect. People are naturally competitive (hence the huge hype/interest surrounding e.g. lists), and strong views (which leads to bitchiness) are always going to be prevelant as birders are passionate, and no person thinks the same. There are always going to be opinions.

Congratulations on some excellent sightings, but not everyone is fortunate enough to live in Portugal as you do, where there are so few birders for the country's birding scene to experience such 'problems' with doubters, bickering and so on. Having said that, I would get just as much satisfaction out of working my patch and turfing up something like a Scaup, or the first migrants of the year. To write off the British birding scene as "...." (as you so eloquently describe it) is very sad, and perhaps a bit strong for someone who hasn't been involved with it for 12 years!

All the best,
Josh

[forktail]

Surely this is no different to duff records of non-description birds reported directly to the recorder, or those reported via e.g. BTO's Birdtrack?

One would hope that the number of records this applies to (in total, all sources) isn't enough to skew scientific data significantly, but it would be very hard to know.


I get the impression the bird news companies are good about this - ask them not to post news of e.g. a rare breeding bird, and they won't post it. Ditto for site instructions, I recently sent in some amended directions about a scarce bird saying to keep to a particular right of way after hearing that the landowner where the bird was had been complaining about birders on his land; the info was added and there were no further problems.


Hi Michael

in respect of species like Honey B, LTS and BT Diver, it may well be enough to skew data, but like you say, it's so difficult to tell. Let's hope not. Or maybe those species should be description birds in counties where they aren't? I suspect that it only applies to a very few species though so maybe it's no big deal.

Regarding sensitive sites/species I guess that part of the problem may be with birders ringing things in or posting things on the net that maybe they should think twice about. Certainly in my neck of the woods there have been problems with bird news outlets reporting things that if they were being responsible they wouldn't have. But then again they have a duty to their customers who get upset about missing things so maybe local considerations are inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Perhaps here is not the place for that discussion though.

[Colin Key]

Don't see anything wrong with that! Alot of people quite enjoy such facilities.

All your post is your own opinion, and thats fair enough, but I just don't understand how you can write off British birding. Sure enough there are plenty of low points (misidentified birds, stringings, hoaxes, arguments, bickering and so on) but I feel priveleged to be living in Britain, and being part of one of the healthiest birding scenes in Europe. Surely the number of misidentifications here compared to other places is due to the sheer number of people involved in the birding scene (many having little more than a passing interest), and thus the subsequent law of averages.

Not only are there thousands of people interested in birds and sharing my passion, but we are blessed to be in such a brilliant geographical position, ensuring a wealth of species from across the world will grace our shores annually. And I find that fantastic, regardless of who's there to 'spoil the party', so to speak.

Yes there are some unrealistic reports (e.g. todays Citrine Wagtail) but people have to start somewhere, and there are inevitably always going to be misidentifications as no one is perfect. People are naturally competitive (hence the huge hype/interest surrounding e.g. lists), and strong views (which leads to bitchiness) are always going to be prevelant as birders are passionate, and no person thinks the same. There are always going to be opinions.

Congratulations on some excellent sightings, but not everyone is fortunate enough to live in Portugal as you do, where there are so few birders for the country's birding scene to experience such 'problems' with doubters, bickering and so on. Having said that, I would get just as much satisfaction out of working my patch and turfing up something like a Scaup, or the first migrants of the year. To write off the British birding scene as "...." (as you so eloquently describe it) is very sad, and perhaps a bit strong for someone who hasn't been involved with it for 12 years!

All the best,
Josh

I am not having a "dig" at any individual Josh, but I and many others feel that the "simple" enjoyment of birds and birding has gone for a great many people - it seems to have developed into a high-tech field sport rather than a passion or pastime.

I meet a lot of people of very wide-ranging abilities and experience because of where I live (I look out of my study window now onto a marsh and lagoon which is a Ramsar Site and part of the Nature 2000 Network, and my neighbours are a field study centre and ringing station), and the vast majority are very pleasant people who enjoy being here as visitors and enjoy the birds (there are, as I have said elsewhere, some right bloody weirdos amongst them though, but they are a minority). But then I also meet the few maniacal birders who are on some sort of mission, they talk about "working the ground", "much sought-after species", species "needed for their Iberia list", etc. They are so serious about the whole business that I really do feel pity for them. It is like they are doing a job rather than pursuing a hobby. These are the ones which I referred to in my previous post as people "needing to be good at something".

I personally think (and yes, it is a personal viewpoint, but supported by many others) that these people are destroying the whole essence of what "birdwatching" is all about.

By the way, I got the phrase "Modern Birding is $hit" from a BF member who seemed to be a mature and knowledgeable birder with many posts but who now seems to have disappeared from that forum - wise man!

All the best,

Colin :smile:

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Colin,
I hope you will understand that it is possible for one to be very interested in ID minutae, to legitimately question (not in a disparaging way) unlikely sightings, to want to 'clean up' when on a holiday, yet still to be pleased with some simple events, such as the first migrants of the year, good views of something like a Sparrowhawk and so on?
It seems to me that you are in danger of idealising one form of birding, the non-competitive pottering around that you mention, while dismissing those who seek to pursue their hobby in what could be perceived to be a more 'serious' manner. I include serious conservation-minded studies in this, as scepticism over sightings is not confined to twitching/birding, despite it being more obvious in these areas. Birding is a broad church, and if people want to keep a county/national/Western Pal/world list, tear around doing a year list, eschew twitching but spend their time looking for their own rare birds, take part in BTO-type studies, take photos, sketch and paint birds, or just look at the birds that they come across, then does any of it really matter so long as the people aren't disturbing the birds? Very few people are just one thing or other, and I think that all but the most anal twitcher has an appreciation of common birds, even if it is well buried in some!

[Colin Key]

I do agree with you Harry, but there is a faction of the birding community which is "not in tune" with the normal "genre" of birdwatching/birding - I cannot believe that you have not come into contact with them at some time (and been irritated by their attitude). :puzzled:

Best wishes,

Colin :smile:

[Morg]

I don't know about you but...

I hate seeing someone birding ahead of me on a trail ... but I like chatting to them when I meet them.

I can't be bothered with crowds of twitchers ... but I like reading people's tales of twitching.

I like watching treecreepers up close ... but really I am checking in case they have short-toes (would be a first for Scotland!)

Hmm... not sure what fraction of the genre this puts me in:puzzled:

Geoff

[Colin Key]

I like watching treecreepers up close ... but really I am checking in case they have short-toes (would be a first for Scotland!)
Geoff


Sounds like a fairly normal pastime (especially in Scotland) to me Geoff :cool:.

Colin :biggrin:

[mick cunningham]

well, as the one who started this here's a few final words from me

re references to aggressive/competitive birders - i know this is a generalism used to make a point, but it cuts both ways. it is not unusual for a birder who queries an ID in the most civil way poss to be treated as a 'know all'/resented/demonised etc. how do we know the 'general birder' isn't spoiling the 'field sport' birder's birding - it's their hobby too.

i hope too that colin wasn't discomfited by mine and Josh's exchange. i took J's responses for what they were - robust arguments with some points well-made and some I'm not persuaded by (eg i doubt folk aren't paying for the 'free' pager messages somehow - and fair enough too) btw - re J's pics: no i harbour no doubts. it was a compliment!

also, re the brit scene - brit ornithological science is, in large part, based on the work of amateur ie general birders who were scrupulous re their records.

yes, records committees can adjudicate but it is more difficult than ever to get folk to sub records. sad, cos good claims are lost too. and, i do think the instantaneous internet age - which is fab - does create its own probs. plus we have been thru a period where rarities cmtees are traduced for doing what they were set up to do - see last 2 month's birdwatch mag letters page for example.

as ever, it takes someone like harry h blessed with the eloquence of the land of my father to put my views best. i too love tertial fringes but sprwk is poss my fave bird. sadly, i take after my yorkshire mother. which probably explains my less articulate ways and obsession with money! fanx tara.

[forktail]

Six months on and I find myself agreeing with pretty much all that Mick has written.

The recent 'probable Veery' in Norfolk being a case in point. How a poorly seen bird can go through Wood Thrush, Swainson's and Veery (and I've also heard Rufous-tailed Robin mentioned) and end up on the pager as a 'probable Veery' defies belief. If the underwing was seen you might have a starter with 'possible/probable Catharus thrush sp'. How Bicknell's and Gray-cheeked thrush are ruled out baffles me, as does why a Siberian Blue Robin isn't ruled out. Or any number of commoner species. I'm not blaming companies for the messages that go out and I can't think how people can be persuaded not to report Little Auks repeatedly in early September etc. I just think there's a lack of appreciation of what is actually 'rare', a lack of understanding of occurence patterns of scarcer birds and plenty of misidentification of commoner ones. I know of plenty of records of scarcer seabirds from out here seen by people in short and very infrequent visits to the coast when regular daily watchers struggle to find more than a couple annually and the 'problem' is just as widespread this side of the seawall too. I'm sure keen field birders are familiar with the increasing frequency of this type of report. The solution? Beats me.

[Colin Key]

Am I correct in having read somewhere (must be the BBC News website, since that is the only news I get!) that there is a plan to "re-do" that classic "Twitchers" programme which went out on BBC2 many years ago?

Could be interesting if the right people are involved:ohdear:.

Colin

[forktail]

Could be interesting if the right people are involved:ohdear:.

Colin

They aren't.

F.

[Colin Key]

They aren't.

F.

In which case, it might be even more "interesting/entertaining" :laugh:.

Colin

[Johnny X]

I've heard it features Garry Bagnell. Oh dear...!

[Harry Hussey]

They aren't.

F.

Well, I was interviewed briefly, so, if that footage is used, some will be... ;)

[Ben Miller]

Me too :smile:

[Colin Key]

Does anyone know when this programme is due to be broadcast? If someone would be prepared to record this onto a DVD for me I would be extremely grateful (an autographed copy from one of the participants would make me "go all weak at the knees" :laugh:).

I still watch the video I have of the original BBC2 "Twitchers" (went out as the first in a series about "Fanatics" - should have been "Certifiable Maniacs" :biggrin:) - great programme.

Colin

[mafting]

I still watch the video I have of the original BBC2 "Twitchers" (went out as the first in a series about "Fanatics" - should have been "Certifiable Maniacs" :biggrin:) - great programme.

Colin

Please upload that to Youtube. It should be used as a warning to anyone considering buying a pager!

[mafting]

also, re the brit scene - brit ornithological science is, in large part, based on the work of amateur ie general birders who were scrupulous re their records.


Aside from BTO and RSPB surveys, I'm not sure of that if you're talking about post 1950. British ornithological science is based, in the most part, on the work of universities, public sector research councils and the paid scientists of charities and trusts. The output of British ornithological science can mainly be found in journals such as Bird Study, Ibis, Ornis Fennica, Journal of Animal Ecology etc. Not many "amateur general birders" (not affiliated to a professional or academic institution) publish there. The only publications where amateurs and professionals commonly share a platform is Ringing & Migration and British Birds. This is reflected in their non ISI rating.

The records of "amateur general birders", while they may be scrupulous, are not usually appropriate for ornithological scientific research as they are not systematic and standardised (hence the BTO Atlas wants a timed tetrad visit, not just incidental records as submitted to BirdTrack). Virtually all of the fieldwork that feeds into the studies that are published in the scientific journals is undertaken by qualified or training scientists (usually of post-graduate qualification level). So there is quite a gulf in training between general birders and ornithological scientists in Britain. But that's not to say that some scientists are also general birders, just that birding isn't the same as scientific fieldwork.

[MichaelF]

Please upload that to Youtube. It should be used as a warning to anyone considering buying a pager!
Hmmmm . . . can't encourage breach of copyright! Best not to do so, the Beeb will be very alert to copyright issues.

[Colin Key]

Please upload that to Youtube. It should be used as a warning to anyone considering buying a pager!

It wasn't the pagers which I found intrusive but the two-way ("talkie-talkie") radios - whenever Dick Filby was being interviewed his walkie-talkie screeched into action with news of a new "mega" in the next field; I do not for one second think that it was contrived - "read you, over and out".

Still great entertainment, though.

Colin :laugh: