SB or not SB...

In May 1998, in the days when petrol was somewhat cheaper than it is now, I spent most of my birthday standing around looking at an empty field in Northumberland. A pretty pointless thing to do on the face of it, when I could have been at home eating jelly and ice cream, but in common with several hundred other people I had made the long journey to Druridge Bay hoping to see a Slender-billed Curlew. The bird had in fact been there for several days, but we had previously resisted going on the grounds that it was considered to be ‘bollocks’ by several eminent birders. But on the 7th, this changed to ‘[insert name of eminent birder – I can’t actually remember who it was] says it is one’, so early on the 8th we were there.

I have two recollections of that day, other than the disappointment of not seeing one of the rarest birds in the world. One is of myself, Jeff Higgott and several other birders from Suffolk entertaining ourselves by doing bird impressions (both vocal and physical) for the others to guess, whilst the rest of the crowd gradually edged further and further away from us. The other is of Jeff saying to LGRE, after it had become apparent that the bird had gone, “So, Lee, what now?”, to which he replied, looking as if he meant it, “Dunno. Kill ourselves?”.

But of course he didn’t, he just convinced himself that it wasn’t one. And now it looks like he’s going to have the last laugh. Accepted in 2002 by the BBRC and BOURC as the first for Britain, it now looks certain to be rejected (sorry, considered ‘not proven’) after ten years of rumbling discontent with the record and a long review process. The cat was let at least partially out of the bag yesterday when the latest BBRC ‘work in progress’ file listed the record as ‘NP’ (not proven). This was quickly pronounced to be a ‘genuine error’ after it was pounced on by eagle-eyed BirdForum members, but what exactly was the error? Somehow typing the letters NP into the relevant cell on the spreadsheet instead of IC (in circulation)? Or the timing and method of release of such important news?

At the time of writing it is still listed as NP on the WIP file on the BBRC website (saying ‘last updated 14-Apr-12’). But I don’t think there’s any doubt now that it will be chucked out, and I for one have removed it with great ceremony from my dip list, on the grounds that if it wasn’t one, then I didn’t dip on it (I haven’t really. I don’t even keep a dip list).

Further reading, if you’re really bored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Druridge_Bay_curlew

One Down, Ten To Go

It seems I only had to ask – after my last post listing 11 species I’d like to see in the county this spring, one has turned up already – a splendid Black-winged Stilt at Rutland Water this afternoon! To begin with it looked like we were going to be firmly in ‘World’s Worst Rarity Photo’ territory...

 

...but fortunately it soon came closer to Dunlin hide and provided some reasonable photo opportunities:

Right, what’s next?

Spring wishlist

Whoah there. What’s going on? I’m sure it was December a minute ago. And now the sun’s out and birds are singing, and there’s migrants turning up all over the place. Hmm, must be spring – perhaps I’d better write something just in case people think I didn’t make it through the winter.

So, yes, spring. Every year around this time, I start thinking about my county list, and what might turn up this spring. The trouble with spring, of course, is that migrating birds are in a hurry and so often don’t hang around for long. In recent years I’ve missed a few birds that just didn’t stay long enough, including the Stone Curlew at North Luffenham last year and the Broad-billed Sandpiper at Rutland Water the year before. And then there are the inevitable single observer flyovers like last year’s Black Kite.

But of course there have been some that have stayed long enough for me to see, such as last year’s long-awaited Hoopoe and Glossy Ibis, and the Buff-breasted Sandpiper in 2010.

 THE Glossy Ibis. Eat my record shot.

But there are still loads of potential spring county ticks that could turn up. Here are a few of them, with an indication of their likelihood. Just one of these would be good, please:

Golden Oriole. Statistically the most likely, with around 20 accepted Leics records... and about a thousand stringy claims that were actually Green Woodpeckers. Or discarded banana skins.

Stone Curlew. More of these must pass through the county, especially out in the east of Rutland. Just need one to turn up on a day when I haven’t got a family gathering to attend, or to hang around for a bit longer than one evening.

That’s it for the at all likely ones; everything else is even less likely!

Squacco Heron – 1 county record in 1971.
Black Stork – 1 county record (2 birds) in 1991.
Black Kite – only 1 accepted record (2011) but several other claims that didn’t quite make it.
Black-winged Stilt – 2 county records (4 birds) in 1945 and 1987.
Collared Pratincole – 1 county record in 1977 (plus a dodgy one from 18-something)
Broad-billed Sandpiper – probably too much to hope for another one so soon?
Alpine Swift – 3 county records, last one in 2008.
Bee-eater – 3 county records, last one in 1992.
Savi’s Warbler – 4 records – just remembered this is another one from last year that didn’t hang around! Maybe it will come back this year...

Un-American Activities

In case anyone was wondering what was behind the statement on the LROS Bird News page yesterday regarding a reported American Golden Plover at Cossington Meadows, here is a short version of the story.

Basically, the ‘observer’ who reported the plover is known to have claimed a lot of highly unlikely birds in the county recently. I thought Birdguides at least were aware of him, but this one slipped through the net somehow. Unfortunately I didn’t find out who it was until after dark, by which time a lot of people had wasted an afternoon looking for a non-existent bird.

Although I’ve never met him, he has been described to me as a ‘very keen but over-enthusiastic young lad’. I’m not sure how young, but certainly old enough to be able to use a computer and report sightings to Birdguides and LROS. I would also suggest, particularly in view of the fact that he has been warned about reporting fictitious rare birds before, not least by his parents, that he ought to be old enough to realise the possible consequences of his actions.

Before anyone asks, given his previous claims I don't think there is any possibility that he simply ‘made a mistake’ with this bird. It’s not certain that he was even at Cossington Meadows yesterday as about ten later ‘updates’ on the bird in the afternoon all appeared to have been sent from a home computer, along with a later report of a White-billed Diver at the site and a Red-flanked Bluetail & 2 Black-necked Grebes at Priory Water around the same time. And that wasn’t his first Red-flanked Bluetail in the county this autumn.

Over-enthusiasm is one thing, but this seems to be crossing the line into out and out fabrication. All very unfortunate, and sadly symptomatic of our modern rarity-obsessed birding culture. As John Hague pointed out, when we were that age (whatever age he is) we wouldn’t have even heard of birds like Red-flanked Bluetail, let alone thought that we might see one. We can only hope that he will grow out of this and go on to become a proper birder, although I’m afraid it will be a long time before anyone believes anything he reports!

Hoax!

Yet again there’s a thread in progress on Birdforum about an apparent hoax – this time an anonymous Twitter report of an Eyebrowed Thrush in a private garden at Hunstanton last weekend. I have to say that on the evidence available so far this one is looking like a hoax, but some of the arguments regularly trotted out on BF on these threads are somewhat spurious, to say the least. In particular a lot of people seem to have become fixated on ‘EXIF data’ whenever a photo of a contentious bird appears. Look at the EXIF data – that proves it’s a hoax. Someone’s removed the EXIF data – must be a hoax. No, it’s gen – the EXIF data fits with the claimed time of the sighting. Etc, etc.

OK, if the bird was claimed to have been seen at a particular time and the EXIF data is completely at odds with this (weeks or months out), then yes, be suspicious, but it doesn’t prove anything on its own. Many cameras will have incorrect times and dates – I just checked mine for the first time since I first set it up nearly three years ago, and although the date was right, the time was an hour and fifteen minutes ahead! Doesn’t say much for the clock chips Canon use. EXIF data can also easily be edited using various free programs, so even if it does fit with the claimed time and date of a sighting it’s completely irrelevant as evidence to support a claim.

But what about a total lack of EXIF data, as is the case with the Eyebrowed Thrush photo? Anyone who knows even a little bit about web design should be aware that photos should ideally be ‘saved for web’ to minimise browser loading times. This is even more important these days with so many people using mobile devices to browse the Internet. Obviously the majority of people don’t know this, which is why you see so many HUGE photos around that take forever to download on a phone. And many photos saved at low jpeg settings, which consequently look a lot worse than they would if they were properly optimized. But people who do know what they’re doing save everything for web in Photoshop. As well as optimizing the image so you get the best possible quality whilst keeping the file size small, this also completely removes the EXIF data. There is absolutely nothing sinister or suspicious about this – in fact in an ideal world it would be normal practice for anyone uploading photos to the web.

If you look at any photo of mine anywhere on the Internet (flickr, LROS website, this blog etc) you will not see any EXIF data, and the date shown will be the date I saved the file (which could be months later), not when the photo was taken.* Does that mean I’m a hoaxer? Well, I was in Hunstanton on Sunday......

* - a perfect example of this is the first Humming-bird Hawk-moth photo on my flickr page - it says authoritatively: 'This photo was taken on November 6th 2011'. No, it wasn't - it was taken on September 27th 2011, but because there's no EXIF data, flickr gives this completely spurious date, which is just the date the file was created. As far as I know there's no way of turning this off - if I could, I would.

Facebook

This may come as a shock to some people, but I've finally given in and joined Facebook. It seems to be the thing to do these days. So if you know me, you may be getting/have already been sent an invitation to be my friend. This always sounds a bit pathetic and needy to me, but that's what they decided to call it, so who am I to argue. So pleeeease be my friend..... oh, go on....... I'm really not as objectionable as I seem...... I promise I won't keep ringing you up, or emailing you hundreds of amusing pictures of cats, honest......

At some stage, when I get my head round it all, I shall be creating pages on the aforementioned social networking site for my two art websites. I know most of the people who read this crap aren't likely to become customers for artwork, but the point is that friends of friends, or relatives of friends, or friends of relatives might. Sort of like viral, innit. In the modern parlance. I'm dead modern, me. I'm on Twitter as well, you know.