The Lincolnshire Bird Club

I note that quite a few contributors comment on individual species being seen or heard - ie 1 Reed Warbler seen - 3 heard. My point is why differentiate? If they are not seen, don't they count??? I have taken part in loads of surveys such as BBS, CBC, Woodcock/Nightingale survey etc. etc. and I suspect the majority of my records are for birds heard rather than seen. I assume they are acceptable to the lister - perhaps not?

An interesting point Stuart.

In my case, I am pretty poor with songs & calls and therefore I don't rely on hearing alone for a lot of birds. As a result, I only class a bird as a definite record if I see it.

James

Stuart & James,

Seen or heard both are 100% listed, I also mention if I've taken pics/video main reason being that when I first returned to birding etc fourteen years ago certain members sometimes doubted my word and others said photographic evidence was needed to prove what I saw. At the time I didn't have a camera or anything capable of taking videos.

The last three weeks I've heard a Cuckoo but not seen them, hearing is as good as seeing in my book. [b]Out of curiosity I would be interested if the recorders do include both, I just assume they do.

Regards

John

_________________
GETTING OLD HAS IT'S ADVANTAGES BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY ARE lol

I think the answer is that it depends! On a survey like the BBS then heard only birds are counted - also on the Woodcock one. In woodland particularly you hear far more than you see so you'd underestimate if you only counted birds you'd seen. On the Winter Thrush then actual numbers were what was wanted - although usually you can hear and see them so there's no difference.

For purposes of recreational listing, the answer is again that it depends. For a life list then most people want to see the bird - not very satisfying only to hear a Pitta for example when they're so visually stunning, especially if you've spent a lot of money! For a year list or a county list, most people are happy to tick a heard only if they've seen the species in the UK - Corncrake is on the county list of many in Lincs who heard the bird many years ago in the Wolds.

As for the forum - records here are a mixture, following the different ways in which people enjoy their hobby - it depends!

However I suspect that you knew much of this, so perhaps I've not answered your question?

Robert

Like Stuart I record more birds heard than seen when surveying. Glad I don't have to see quail!

John

The LBC reporting spreadsheet has a facility for recording "H" against a record, not quite sure how this is handled when updating the database.

David

As someone who has recently had to come to terms with a substantial hearing loss (and hearing aids to be fitted some time before the year's end), I go for birds seen, rather than birds heard.

_________________
Follow Me on Twitter!

I have just read this discussion with interest, and agree with the general thrust that hearing is as good as seeing. In my case when out with my wife Di, I have learned to accept that hearing records are as good as sight. The reason," as I've commented in the past, Di is blind. Should her records be seen to be less than mine, I don't think so. Birding, and the natural world is a hobby, passion that is for everyone and all records should be acceptable.

The joke in our family is that if I want to see Willow Warblers, I need to go with Di as she can spot the call ages before I see them.

I know it can be frustrating not to get a glimpse, but for me I have learnt that both should be equally valued, it then becomes a passion we can both share.

Andrew

Andrew, I think your response says it all - I can no longer hear Grasshopper Warblers or Goldcrests because of their pitch and my hearing. It doesn't really matter whether a bird is seen or heard as long as records are as accurate as possible.

As noted on breeding bird surveys I probably only look at 5% of the birds I record with song/ calls being the key factors in locating and plotting bird's locations; as regards rare birds there are obvious differences as people may not be genned up on some of the song / calls of birds they do not see or hear regularly and thus to be sure you have identified a bird correctly then there are some species that you really need to see to confirm the ID -- birds of course mimic other species and a briefly heard bit of song or a call could be coming from a species like a Reed Warbler and not a Blue-cheeked Beeeater; the classic example though is a fly over Red-throated Pipit; the call is pretty distinctive IF you know it well but like other birds they vary their calls somewhat, as you can tell when you hear them on the breeding grounds, and there is an obvious confusion species the Tree Pipit that is much more common and much more likely in Britain -- Tree Pipits also have a variety of calls that most people never actually hear simply because most people only see or hear Tree Pipit a couple of times a year often as a year tick on a summer heath when the song is typical but they do not give a lot of their repertoire of calls -- so people claiming a fly over calling Red-throated Pipit actually A need to see the bird, it may not even be a pipit, and B preferably record the call if the record is to be accepted. This is not a hard and fast rule but experienced birders know that they hear quite a few birds flying over that they suspect or know to be certain rare species but never claim simply because it is difficult to convince someone else that you know it was that species without a recording.
As regards listing thats up to you some managing bodies allow call only birds others don't but if its just for your own benefit then do as you like -- imo if you cannot accept that you can identify a Quail from its call then you are missing a lot from your birding but try hard enough and you will get to see one -- nothing is impossible!

For the majority of common birds, seen or heard records from confident recorders are of equal value. This has to apply for much census and survey work, particularly when this is undertaken in woodland or thick scrub. However, as Graham states, much more extra care needs to be applied for scarcer and less familiar species, and regrettably some of those brief flyover records without any additional supporting details have to be disregarded.

Turning to Stuart's comments about species that have become inaudible to him, I am afraid that I possess limited understanding of the auditory qualities of pitch levels and cadence. I can appreciate the fact that high-pitched and relatively soft calls become difficult to hear properly, but I am surprised by the number of people who cannot hear the song of the Chiffchaff which, for the time being, seems loud enough and of a reasonably standard pitch to my own ears. I, too, have noticed over the past few years how the reeling of the Grasshopper Warbler is becoming more difficult to detect over longer distances and while I can still hear Goldcrests reasonably well, perhaps I may be hearing fewer distant birds. Unfortunately, years of sonic assault from chain-saws, hedge-trimmers and the like are now taking their toll. When I was younger, I was blessed with the hearing of a bat, but as with eyesight, field sharpness and stamina, suddenly all start to go into decline.

Until recently, I was not aware that I was beginning to miss the fight-calls of some species. Whilst in the company of young and competent observers, I was dismayed when they called out species such as Brambling and Lapland Bunting passing at moderate range and I could detect no sound whatsoever. It makes one wonder if some of the obvious declines in certain species appear even more pronounced because one cannot hear them.

In response to David Morison's question H, is entered in the status column of the recording template so that the record in the Wildlife Recorder database shows that the bird(s) were only heard. There are several such codes used in the database another being E, denoting an escape. This information is used by those writing up the species texts for the annual bird report.

Regards,

Colin and Sheila