Do you count heard only birds on your life list? (4 Viewers)

[Larry Sweetland]

Blimey, I've just worked out that whether or not I count heard only birds on my life list currently determines whether I've made it to half way or not! At the current rate of splitting things I've not seen (or heard) I'll soon be well less than half way though!

 

[YuShan]

Today I didn't tick off a Chiffchaff, Skylark and Cetti's Warbler because I couldn't see them in the rain/ fog
Also not ticking the Tawny Owl that I just heard in my garden.

 

[Steve Babbs]

As I said, everyone to their own.

Today I didn't tick off a Chiffchaff, Skylark and Cetti's Warbler because I couldn't see them in the rain/ fog
Also not ticking the Tawny Owl that I just heard in my garden.

Pretty impressive that there were so many lifers available to you in one day. Somewhat surprised that you haven't seen these common species though to count of your life list.

I'm pretty sure that we're all in - rare - agreement about recording birds that you hear.

 

[Oregonian]

There's an ethical component. People have been so keen on seeing a bird that they have harassed them, when they might have happy to tick it on voice. We should encourage heard only listing.

 

[dantheman]

Oh dear. I've changed my vote from 2) to 1).

I remembered Iberian Green Woodpecker, which I heard but never saw in Spain, wasn't sure what I was going to do with that, but then I remembered hearing Eagle Owl in Spain one balmy evening on a family holiday when I was a teenager from some low cliffs near an orange grove and THEN I even remembered getting calling Scops Owl out of the toilet window one spring on the garden/house list in France. So given I experienced them all ... (and have yet to see any, terrible I know) ... oml I'm afraid. Maybe I'll make an effort to upgrade one day ...

(Never licked a bird, although I did kick a Blackbird once. Only one for the daylist. Full Sensory Birding ... )

 

[tonyfenn]

I think the only bird on my list that I haven't seen (or possibly did but can't be sure) is corncrake. They were audible on the Nene washes and saw movement in the grass but it could have been anything

 

[Steve Babbs]

Blimey, I've just worked out that whether or not I count heard only birds on my life list currently determines whether I've made it to half way or not! At the current rate of splitting things I've not seen (or heard) I'll soon be well less than half way though!

Half way to having ticked all the world's birds?

 

[qwerty5]

#1 for me. I began listing heard only's basically because I couldn't find a logical reason not to. I especially don't see the logic behind ticking heard only year birds but not heard only lifers. However, like Paul Chapman has commented, listing a heard only doesn't mean it's a satisfactory experience, or that I don't try to see the bird. I even try to see all new year birds most of the time, but I couldn't say which of the birds on my 2024 list are heard-only or seen.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

Half way to having ticked all the world's birds?

Yes if I tick heard only, no if I don't 😆

 

[Leafbringer]

I picked option 3, since I add heard only birds to my "heard only" list. I make a note of them, hoping that I'll be able to see those species in the future.

 

[Lisa W]

I picked #4, mainly because I am so tone deaf even when I know the bird and its song I don’t believe myself.

 

[Paul Chapman]

When In Uganda will you be happy to tick this?

Green-breasted Pitta (Pitta reichenowi) :: xeno-canto

xeno-canto.org

I certainly wouldn't have. I wanted this. But everyone to their own.

Yes, I would tick the Pitta on call. Obviously, I would want to see it and to photograph it but I doubt that you really see much connection between the elements of your post.

To be blunt, being happy one way or the other or obsessing about the outcomes is a way to ensure misery out of positive experiences and privileges. I'll certainly ensure that I am not unhappy if I only hear the Pitta. Even if I do not hear it or see it or photograph it, I'll take the positives.

And so it came to pass. After two hours' effort, I was delighted to hear it and "tick" it. After 15 mins or so, I was delighted to get it in my thermal imager. After a further 5 mins, I was delighted to get my bins on it & After a further 30 mins, I was delighted to get a few pics. 😀

All the best

Paul

 

[Tomeitsparadise]

I add very few “heard only” to my list. Recently I have heard of very dubious methods of seeing some African flufftails. If I’ve heard the species well, spent a good amount of time trying to locate the species ethically but not had success, I do occasionally put it on my lifelist. Using extreme methods to get visuals of difficult species is not for me.

 

[HnehpetS]

Life List - I see and understand why it is what it is (not just what somebody else tells me it is, I have to go through the identification rational)
Logs - I'm happy to count heard only birds, providing I am confident of the song - if I hear a Chiffchaff in a tree I don't feel I have to spend time getting eyes on it.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Well, I voted

Ethical reasons, I've heard many Quails in my birding life but in order to see one you have to enter the field. That's almost always forbidden in the Netherlands. And worse, I have to run around like a hunting dog to see them flying. Since I don't find that acceptable birds like that are on my list when I hear them.

The same applies to owls. When I was young and stupid it was normal to use recordings to see them. Did that with Little Owls and it immediately occurred to me that several males had left their territories, they were all around me. Even though it was allowed when counting breeding pairs I felt guilty and never did it again.

 

[pianoman]

An option that isn't exactly on the list is "Yes, but only if I'm absolutely certain about the distinctive song or call".

For me that means Corncrake, Quail and Cetti's, The only 3 Irish sound-only personal ticks I've made on my own life list. Seen Cetti's abroad of course.

 

[Kirk Roth]

An option that isn't exactly on the list is "Yes, but only if I'm absolutely certain about the distinctive song or call".

I would expect that someone would want to be absolutely certain whether it is a visual or auditory observation - that may go without saying.

It is interesting how much of our listing philosophy boils down to "feelings management"

I count heard-only birds on my life list, but I am also keenly aware of those birds that are "heard-only" and I'm willing to put in the travel and effort to put eyes on those species when I'm in a situation that is more ethical, convenient, unrushed, or whatever obstacle is there. This is probably a more palatable perspective for me because I'm not (yet, hopefully) much of a big world-traveler. If I hear only a rare bird on a once in a lifetime trip to the jungle of central Papua New Guinea I may have some re-evaluation to do.

But for other lists - states/counties/year/day lists etc. heard-only doesn't bother me, and in fact I sometimes relish in the skill-building involved in familiarizing myself with a bird's call and that can make it more special. I haven't done it, but I once considered creating a list of birds I have ID'd by sound alone on at least one occasion- really the thing that kept me from getting started was the idea of creating a backlog which seems like a lot of work. But on that topic, birding becomes more efficient when I don't force myself to chase down everything I hear.

I have many birds on state lists that I've heard only in a particular state. And Yellow-green Vireo and Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl are species that I've heard only in the United States but have had visuals in Central America - and that does not bother me. I think there is something important to me about having a visual experience but that isn't tied to geography or even check listing. When I got an extremely lucky glimpse at a Black Rail, I recognized that was very special and there was something uplifting and gift-like about that experience - that's when I realized that there really is something about seeing a bird that you just don't get while hearing it. But does that have anything to do with whether it goes on any of my lists? For me, the answer is no.

 

[la_ravachol]

I was delighted the first time I heard a nightingale. Later, when I eventually saw one, it wasn't all that exciting.

I'd heard quail on multiple occasions, but only saw one when others, much to my disapproval, intentionally flushed some from a field. Was it satisfying to me to see these little birds dart away briefly? Not in any way.

These experiences go some way to explain why I count heard only.

 

[Lerxst]

I was delighted the first time I heard a nightingale. Later, when I eventually saw one, it wasn't all that exciting.

I'd heard quail on multiple occasions, but only saw one when others, much to my disapproval, intentionally flushed some from a field. Was it satisfying to me to see these little birds dart away briefly? Not in any way.

These experiences go some way to explain why I count heard only.

Yes, well said. While I always wish to both hear and see every species, I don't let the lack of one of these categories ruin the experience.

But given the choice between hearing (and hence recording) a lifer while not seeing it, versus seeing but not hearing it, I will take the heard-only encounter 100% of the time. I find auditory beauty more compelling than visual beauty, and a good recording is far more valuable than a mere tick on a checklist.