StuartReeves
Local rarity
This is a pretty essential reference on the topic: http://www.britishbirds.co.uk/recordingareas.pdf
Stuart
Stuart
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Watsonian Vice Counties (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Johnny Allan
- Start date
ColinD
Well-known member
That's a relief! So I can still keep all of my Hilbre records on my Merseyside list
Thanks for the clarification. I must admit, I was under the impression that North Wirral was now back in Cheshire.
Mark Newsome
Born to seawatch...
Things in the north-east are a little jumbled too. Durham Bird Club record to the old Watsonian boundaries (with a very slight deviation when we pinched Startforth from Yorkshire!), but the recording area of Cleveland still exists by way of the Cleveland Bird Report published by the Teesmouth Bird Club. The county of Cleveland actually only existed between 1974 and 1996, the Cleveland part of old Durham county now exists as Unitary Authorities of Hartlepool and Stockton.
Despite this overlap, both clubs get on very amicabley and there is full sharing of data between the two clubs to ensure that there are no contradictions between annual bird reports/record decisions. Both areas have their own County Recorder and Records Committees and everything seems to work fine.
Part of the Durham area also fell into the new county of 'Tyne and Wear'. This area existed only between 1974 and 1986 and never really took off as a bird recording area. Although records were frequently referred to as being in Tyne and Wear, there was never a Tyne and Wear bird club or bird report.
When named areas have been in print for a long time, it's difficult to change to anything else and there would be great resistance from any counties affected. It's only natural that each relevant recording area would not want to lose their bird club, county recorder, bird report etc by way of a 'merger'. The best way to follow from a purely scientific point of view may be a different matter.
Despite this overlap, both clubs get on very amicabley and there is full sharing of data between the two clubs to ensure that there are no contradictions between annual bird reports/record decisions. Both areas have their own County Recorder and Records Committees and everything seems to work fine.
Part of the Durham area also fell into the new county of 'Tyne and Wear'. This area existed only between 1974 and 1986 and never really took off as a bird recording area. Although records were frequently referred to as being in Tyne and Wear, there was never a Tyne and Wear bird club or bird report.
When named areas have been in print for a long time, it's difficult to change to anything else and there would be great resistance from any counties affected. It's only natural that each relevant recording area would not want to lose their bird club, county recorder, bird report etc by way of a 'merger'. The best way to follow from a purely scientific point of view may be a different matter.
Brian Stretch
Well-known member
The West Midland Bird Club recording area is currently based on the four counties of Warwickshire, West Midlands County, Worcestershire and Staffordshire. All published records are categorised under one of these four counties. The above recording area is based on the following vice-counties:
Worcestershire VC37
Warwickshire VC38
Staffordshire VC39
The area covered by West Midlands County was largely taken from Staffordshire and Warwickshire. A small area was taken from Worcestershire, including Frankley Reservoir and a fair chunk of Bartley Reservoir.
A number of WMBC based listers still recognise the vice-county boundaries, but on the whole Worcestershire birders seem to prefer to stick to the current boundaries. However, if Bartley or Frankley produced a mega, it may be a different story!
Brian
______________________________
www.worcesterbirding.co.uk
www.westmidlandsbirding.co.uk
Worcestershire VC37
Warwickshire VC38
Staffordshire VC39
The area covered by West Midlands County was largely taken from Staffordshire and Warwickshire. A small area was taken from Worcestershire, including Frankley Reservoir and a fair chunk of Bartley Reservoir.
A number of WMBC based listers still recognise the vice-county boundaries, but on the whole Worcestershire birders seem to prefer to stick to the current boundaries. However, if Bartley or Frankley produced a mega, it may be a different story!
Brian
______________________________
www.worcesterbirding.co.uk
www.westmidlandsbirding.co.uk
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
As someone who as been using bird report records to derive the official UK & GB population estimates for some waterbird species (for other species WeBS etc is used), I would highly condone the VC method to avoid overlap & gaps. Good luck with pushing it through!
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
As someone who as recently been using bird report records to derive the official UK & GB population estimates for some waterbird species (for other species WeBS etc is used), I would highly condone this method. It would have made my life a lot easier! Good luck with pushing it through!
RoyW
Well-known member
Although it does give some idea of which recording bodies use vice counties, this paper specifically avoids making any suggestion as to whether using vice counties would be best for bird recording (and seems to concentrate more on the potential problems of 'double recording').
IMO, double recording is not at issue - as long as the recording bodies freely share records, data for either area will be as complete as is possible and comparable with data previously collected by either body.
If county recorders work together then the fact that vice county boundaries are not marked on maps becomes less of an issue. As long as the county recorders themselves know where the borders are, they can transfer records between them as required (and surely space can be found in the annual bird reports, and on web sites, to print a map showing the recording areas - perhaps with larger scale maps of sections that no longer follow the modern boundaries?). In many cases deciding whether a bird is in one vice county or another would be no more difficult than deciding whether the bird has crossed a modern county boundary.
Roy.
GiG
Well-known member
In Suffolk, as Cortonbirds above has referred to, Suffolk goes by the Watsonian system for recording all flora and fauna including birds. There was a recent request in the Suffok Ornithologists' Group bulletin, The Harrier, about this, so I added a map - VC25/26 county recorders map - to the SOG web site showing the administrative and Watsonian boundaries courtesy of Martin of the Suffolk Biological Records Centre.
Gi
RoyW
Well-known member
An example of why bird recording needs fixed boundaries;
Joan has already mentioned the situation where two Savi's Warbler records from the same site will now appear as records for different counties. Bittern records from the same gravel pit make an even more ridiculous situation (quotes shown in bold). Note that both counties are referring to the same site under two different names;
1995 Herts Bird Report - 'with a max of four at this site[Seventy Acres Lake] during Dec.'
1995 Essex Bird Report - 'Unusually there were no reports of this species during 1995, although birds were present in both winters at the regular site at Fishers Green, marginally into Hertfordshire.'
1996 HBR - 'In the first winter period up to four birds at the regular Seventy Acres Lake site, now in Essex'
1996 EBR - 'The best year since 1993, when there were seven.' Five records quoted + presence of birds just over the Hertfordshire border again mentioned.
1997 HBR - Quotes records of up to three at Seventy Acres lake in the first part of the year.
1997 EBR - Quotes 3 records of single birds from Fishers Green (the Essex side of the 'old' border) + one record from elsewhere, but also mentions that birds were again present 'on other occasions in the small reed bed at Fishers Green, on the Essex/Hertfordshire border.'
1998 HBR - No longer gives records from Seventy Acres Lake.
1998 EBR - Records up to 2 at Fishers Green, during both winter periods with these given as Essex records (this was a relatively poor year for the site).
1999 EBR - Reports a peak of four at Fishers Green with the comment 'With the possible exception of the sole Essex confirmed breeding record back in 1944, four individuals at a single site is unprecedented in the county.'
Four individuals may have been unprecedented in Essex, but as the Hertfordshire reports show it wasn't unprecedented for the site! Anyone who was only looking at the Essex Bird Reports could easily have come to the conclusion that Bitterns had become more regular in Essex after moving their wintering area across the border - although the only change was the area being recorded.
If modern county borders (and any future changes in these) continue to be used how many more cases like this will there be!
Roy.
Joan has already mentioned the situation where two Savi's Warbler records from the same site will now appear as records for different counties. Bittern records from the same gravel pit make an even more ridiculous situation (quotes shown in bold). Note that both counties are referring to the same site under two different names;
1995 Herts Bird Report - 'with a max of four at this site[Seventy Acres Lake] during Dec.'
1995 Essex Bird Report - 'Unusually there were no reports of this species during 1995, although birds were present in both winters at the regular site at Fishers Green, marginally into Hertfordshire.'
1996 HBR - 'In the first winter period up to four birds at the regular Seventy Acres Lake site, now in Essex'
1996 EBR - 'The best year since 1993, when there were seven.' Five records quoted + presence of birds just over the Hertfordshire border again mentioned.
1997 HBR - Quotes records of up to three at Seventy Acres lake in the first part of the year.
1997 EBR - Quotes 3 records of single birds from Fishers Green (the Essex side of the 'old' border) + one record from elsewhere, but also mentions that birds were again present 'on other occasions in the small reed bed at Fishers Green, on the Essex/Hertfordshire border.'
1998 HBR - No longer gives records from Seventy Acres Lake.
1998 EBR - Records up to 2 at Fishers Green, during both winter periods with these given as Essex records (this was a relatively poor year for the site).
1999 EBR - Reports a peak of four at Fishers Green with the comment 'With the possible exception of the sole Essex confirmed breeding record back in 1944, four individuals at a single site is unprecedented in the county.'
Four individuals may have been unprecedented in Essex, but as the Hertfordshire reports show it wasn't unprecedented for the site! Anyone who was only looking at the Essex Bird Reports could easily have come to the conclusion that Bitterns had become more regular in Essex after moving their wintering area across the border - although the only change was the area being recorded.
If modern county borders (and any future changes in these) continue to be used how many more cases like this will there be!
Roy.
HarassedDad
Norfolk County Butterfly Recorder
As long as a record has an OS grid ref associated with it it shouldn't really matter. I'm the Norfolk county butterfly recorder, but the bit of Yarmouth I live in is claimed by Suffolk on the basis of the VC's. Since we use the county boundaries it means that my garden records go into my database and Suffolk's - but it's not a problem as the national software recognises that the records a duplicate cos it has the same grid ref.
We use the administrative boundaries because when I publish a county atlas for norfolk, people expect to see maps of the whole county, not for me to arbitarily exclude a couple of chunks because they weren't in Norfolk a hundred years ago.
We use the administrative boundaries because when I publish a county atlas for norfolk, people expect to see maps of the whole county, not for me to arbitarily exclude a couple of chunks because they weren't in Norfolk a hundred years ago.
Cortonbirds
Well-known member
yet you record wildlife that wasnt recorded there a hundred years ago.....
Heh I live in the same "grey area" as you...but you may guess that we share very different opinions on the subject...
Im guessing you live in Gorleston/Bradwell wheras I live in Hopton. There have been many heated debates on the subject especially when we visit the Great Yarmouth bird club meetings. Im a scientist however ill always take the logical approach.
Heh I live in the same "grey area" as you...but you may guess that we share very different opinions on the subject...
Im guessing you live in Gorleston/Bradwell wheras I live in Hopton. There have been many heated debates on the subject especially when we visit the Great Yarmouth bird club meetings. Im a scientist however ill always take the logical approach.
Last edited:
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Many thanks for the interesting comments and please keep them coming. I'd like to know how some counties came to "opt out" of using the Watsonian Vice system (assuming they all used it to start with), when and who made the decision, has it just been down to whoever the County Recorder was at the time or is there some other reason ?
Thanks for the links, I will try to make contact and ask the question to someone who may be able to clarify how this present situation came about.
Again I'd like to say that this is about accurately and consistantly recording historical and modern bird records and not about adding or subtracting birds from anyone's county list.
Johnny Allan
Thanks for the links, I will try to make contact and ask the question to someone who may be able to clarify how this present situation came about.
Again I'd like to say that this is about accurately and consistantly recording historical and modern bird records and not about adding or subtracting birds from anyone's county list.
Johnny Allan
Kev Rylands
Well-known member
As far as I am aware there have been few if any changes to the VC boundaries in Devon, although I'm not sure which VC South Devon or Cornwall covered Eddystone Rock (apparently in Devon).
When it comes to my own records BirdTrack however uses the political boundary system, I have to register sites in Torbay and Plymouth Unitary authorites not Devon. However if all records are accompanied by grid references future analysis should still be possible.
When it comes to my own records BirdTrack however uses the political boundary system, I have to register sites in Torbay and Plymouth Unitary authorites not Devon. However if all records are accompanied by grid references future analysis should still be possible.
Phil Bishop
Well-known member
As a Herts birder, the situation in the Lea Valley has always bugged me, and RoyW's summary of Bittern records really sums the farcical situation up. I have no doubt also that the other examples mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg.
There are other bits of the Herts boundaries that have changed over the years including of course the acquisition of parts of the now non-existent Middlesex (which as a native is another thing that has bugged me) and if Luton have their way and expand eastwards we may lose a bit of the north west to Beds.
Quite why the vice county system was abandoned by some ornithologists and birders is beyond me. Common sense implies that natural history recording requires stable and consistent boundaries otherwise the data becomes to some degree worthless.
There are other bits of the Herts boundaries that have changed over the years including of course the acquisition of parts of the now non-existent Middlesex (which as a native is another thing that has bugged me) and if Luton have their way and expand eastwards we may lose a bit of the north west to Beds.
Quite why the vice county system was abandoned by some ornithologists and birders is beyond me. Common sense implies that natural history recording requires stable and consistent boundaries otherwise the data becomes to some degree worthless.
Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
Thanks Phil,
I quite agree. I'm trying to find out how some Counties came to withdraw from the Watsonian system and why. Is it up to whoever the County Recorder happens to be at the time ? I personally would like to see the Watsonian system consistently used throughout Britain and have not yet found out why it's not.
Johnny Allan
I quite agree. I'm trying to find out how some Counties came to withdraw from the Watsonian system and why. Is it up to whoever the County Recorder happens to be at the time ? I personally would like to see the Watsonian system consistently used throughout Britain and have not yet found out why it's not.
Johnny Allan
Similar threads
