| The Lincolnshire Bird Club http://lbcarchive.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| Fiskerton Scrapes http://lbcarchive.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23905 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fiskerton Scrapes |
13.3.16: Little Egret, Whimbrel(2), Oystercatcher(2), Greylag Geese(18+), Mallard(12+), Crow. |
|
| Author: | Russell Hayes [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Early for Whimbrel especially inland, have you ruled out Curlew? |
|
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Fairly confident.Although a binocular view from the gate, the beak was noticeable for a slight curve and not a long one. Whimbrels have been recorded at this location before. |
|
| Author: | Russell Hayes [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Young and male curlews have shorter bills than adult females and can be similar in length to Whimbrel. Without some other notable features of Whimbrel seen I would not be confident, especially given the early date. |
|
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
I would just add that l noted these birds were the same size as the Oystercatchers present. I can see from the Lincs Bird reports 2012 and 2013 there are no records of Whimbrels at any location in the month of March. However Climate change is sending Nature quite crazy! I saw a Hobby here late Autumn last year. These are exceptional times. |
|
| Author: | Andy Sims [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Was the head pattern not noted or any calls heard? |
|
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Head markings difficult to discern at that distance and as they were feeding they were not calling. Anyway I think others will have to make up their own minds. Perhaps a visit? |
|
| Author: | Andy Sims [ Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Mick Welbourne reports Jack Snipe & 2 Curlew this afternoon. |
|
| Author: | Jim Wright [ Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Hats off to Aidan for the robust defence of his identification? Based on this thread, it's easy to see why some members might be tentative about posting sightings - everyone who does so lays himself/ herself open to potentially embarrassing challenge. And if members don't submit posts , what future the forum? Granted that the quizzing from Russell and Andy re the whimbrel duo was thoughtful and polite, but why risk causing discomfort to a fellow-member? I know I'd be well gutted if I submitted a post about a firecrest and someone responded by claiming the bird was, in fact, a cormorant. I sincerely hope Aidan's feelings have not been hurt, and he will carry on posting reports of his sightings. (Incidentally, can we all be sure the Fiskerton birds aren't Hudsonian whimbrel?) |
|
| Author: | Graham Catley [ Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
You learn by your mistakes but if you don't know you have made a mistake you don't learn. We have all done it but the public nature of Internet discussion / scrutiny is a more public way of learning. And yes we can be 100% sure they were not Hudsonian Whimbrels or Slender billed Curlews or Cormorants. If no one had questioned the identity of the Dawlish little auk or the Durham Yellow browed Warbler to save the photographer's embarrassment there would have been a lot of disappointed birders in Britain. Records placed on the forum are used in the Annual reports and as such need to be accepted as accurate so making sure a record has veracity it to be expected: an annual report is a scientific record and should be as accurate as possible. |
|
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
I would just like to add:- 1. I said that I was "fairly confident" of the identification. This did allow for 20-30% doubt. However, this forum does not decree that sightings have to be "beyond reasonable doubt", and therefore I take it that one posts according to what I witnessed with my eyes. 2. I did not know about the fact that the Lincolnshire Bird Reports I have consulted have no Whimbrel reports for the Month of March. 3. However, on the "too far Inland " point, I would take issue. According to the Record Book in the Scrapes hide, there were the following Whimbrel reports:- 21.4.14 2 Whimbrels. 28.4.14 4 Whimbrels. 3.5.14 7 Whimbrels. 4.5.14 4 Whimbrels. 5.5.14 7 Whimbrels. 9.5.14 2 Whimbrels. 7.5.15 1 Whimbrel. |
|
| Author: | Russell Hayes [ Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
No-one said it was "too far inland" as you qoute. My comment said "early for Whimbrel, especially inland" meaning early reports are normally from the coast not that Whimbrel are never seen inland. At no time did anyone say you have not seen a Whimbrel. All that was asked was clarification of an early record put to you politely with no mallice intended. Luckily I don't decide what goes in the record books as that job would be a nightmare but there must be a level of certainty by the county recorders. Keep on posting. |
|
| Author: | Aidan Turner [ Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fiskerton Scrapes |
Russell, No offence taken. I used to work in Civil Litigation so am used to arguing a case, even if it turns out to have deficiencies. Regards, Aidan. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|