Date: 8/24/26 11:09 am From: Alvaro Jaramillo via groups.io <chucao...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] San Diego pelagic Aug 22: Wilson's & 25 Least & 5+ Townsend's,; Guadalupe & 16 Craveri's; Laysan & 14+ Black-footeds; Nazca; Fulmar
Paul et al.
A couple of points: 1) Wilson’s Storm-Petrel – the status of this species is confusing to me. I think up in the Half Moon Bay – Bodega latitudes they are super regular. Sometimes we see numbers. Yet, they are not consistent. It seems to me that this year they are being seen more consistently in a broader latitudinal range than the norm? I am not sure, but the question is why? If it is warm water, it suggests that birds from farther south are moving north. I doubt this is the case, as the core region of occurrence seems to be central California. In any case, this bird always puzzles me. Also, all evidence thus far suggests that we see exasperatus the Antarctic breeding population (likely a species) we have termed Antarctic Storm-Petrel.
2) Laysan Albatross. Individuals are usually easily identified as individuals by underwing patterns. We use this all the time up here. The presence of a band means little, unless you can see the number of course, as nearly all of the birds we see up here are banded and are of the increasing Guadalupe Island population. That population is increasing exponentially.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 12:51 PM
To: <calbirds...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] San Diego pelagic Aug 22: Wilson's & 25 Least & 5+ Townsend's,; Guadalupe & 16 Craveri's; Laysan & 14+ Black-footeds; Nazca; Fulmar
The San Diego pelagic trip on Saturday, August 22, aboard "Legacy" out of Seaforth Landing and sponsored by Buena Vista Audubon Society was quite good. Highlights of the trip included a fairly cooperative Wilson's Storm-Petrel at the 30-Mile Bank (31 mi WSW of Point Loma), initially found roosting in a Black Storm-Petrel raft, a total of 25 Least Storm-Petrels (scattered, but mostly at 30-Mile Bank), plus a small number of Townsend's (5+) and moderate numbers of Leach's (30+). A cooperative Guadalupe Murrelet was closer to shore than normal at the outer edge of the Nine-Mile Bank (13-1/4 mi SW of Point Loma), and a puzzling intermediate Guadalupe-type (probably a "San Benito Murrelet") was photographed earlier in the day in the San Diego Trough (photos will be analyzed). Also 16 Craveri's. A fine Laysan Albatross (30-Mile Bank) was likely the same banded bird seen on our trip in the same area two weeks earlier, and as many as ca. 14+ Black-footed Albatrosses were seen. An unseasonal Northern Fulmar was 5-3/4 mi W of Point Loma. An adult Nazca Booby flew over the boat in the San Diego Trough, and 3 immature Masked/Nazca Boobies were at two sets of buoys: 2 birds in the mid- San Diego Trough and 1 on the inside of the Nine-Mile Bank. We shall see if the many photos obtained might elevate one or more of these young birds to full species rank. A total of 7 Cocos Boobies included one pale-headed adult male. A Forster's Tern 9-3/4 mi W of Point Loma was farther offshore than normal. Water temperatures continue to run a bit warm, with readings mostly between 71.5 and 73.5 degrees.
Lots of photos from the trip are and will be posted with the shared eBird lists that came out earlier today.
Totals for the trip once we were over a mile offshore were as follows:
Least Sandpiper 1
Red-necked Phalarope 1600
Red Phalarope 7
Guadalupe Murrelet 1.5 (see above)
Craveri's Murrelet 16
Cassin's Auklet 35
Sabine's Gull 14
Heermann's Gull 10
Western Gull 250
Common Tern 5
Forster's Tern 1
Elegant Tern 12
Laysan Albatross 1
Black-footed Albatross 14+
Wilson's Storm-Petrel 1
Leach's Storm-Petrel 30
Townsend's Storm-Petrel 5+
Leach's/Townsend's Storm-Petrel 15
Black Storm-Petrel 1200
Least Storm-Petrel 25
Northern Fulmar 1
Sooty Shearwater 5
Pink-footed Shearwater 70
Black-vented Shearwater 80
Nazca Booby 1
Masked/Nazca Booby 3
Cocos Booby 7
Brandt's Cormorant 10
Brown Pelican 55
For information on future trips this year in September (3) and mid-October, see sandiegopelagics.com
--Paul Lehman, Bruce Rideout, Alex Abela, Dan King, Jimmy McMorran, Paul Mulholland, Nick Thorpe, San Diego
Date: 8/24/26 10:05 am From: Tim Bray via groups.io <tbray...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Noyo Pelagic Aug 30
From Peter Pyle (with some additions by me):
We still have some room on our pelagic trip on Sunday, August 30th, from Noyo Harbor in Fort Bragg (Mendocino County). Northwest winds continue and are predicted for some days between now and then, but they are generally not big blows, in the range of 10-15 knots, as typically occurs in late August. Upwelling produced by these winds has kept water temperatures off the Mendocino coast in the 56-58 degree range, with warmer water associated with El Niño moving up from the south. This sometimes creates "edge" currents where two bodies of water collide, concentrating food and the birds, as we found on the August 3 trip.
New and interesting birds continue to be seen on our trips. Following positive comments from outside reviewers, we have accepted records of 6 Townsend's Storm-Petrels observed and photographed on our trip of August 3rd. Summaries of these and other recent records, representing the first documented occurrences of this species in northern California, are in the eBird Checklists, for example here:
Late August is a great time for a variety of all the regular species (albatrosses, shearwaters, jaegers, skuas, Sabine's Gulls, Arctic Terns, phalaropes, etc.) and we anticipate finding good numbers of storm-petrels as we did on our August 3rd trip (five species including Wilson's). Nazca Boobies seem to be having an incursion year, with 2 in SF, 3-4 off Mendocino, and one off Humboldt yesterday, so far. Other southern or warmer-water species such as Cocos Boobies and Guadalupe Murrelets have also been seen in relatively good numbers off the central and northern coasts of late, and we anticipate that these and other unusual species will be attracted to the cooler waters of higher marine productivity off Mendocino, surrounded by warm-water "oceanic desert" moving in. Finally, you never know, there's always the chance for a 'mega-rarity' on any pelagic trip.
We still have scholarships available for high school and college students, sponsored by Mendocino Coast Audubon, for free tickets. If interested in one of these, contact Tim Bray ( <audubon...> ). MCAS has also reserved a campsite at MacKerricher State Park for the night of the 29th-30th. If interested in taking advantage of this, contact Roger Adamson ( <radamson...> ).
Date: 8/24/26 9:51 am From: <lehman.paul...> via groups.io <lehman.paul...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] San Diego pelagic Aug 22: Wilson's & 25 Least & 5+ Townsend's,; Guadalupe & 16 Craveri's; Laysan & 14+ Black-footeds; Nazca; Fulmar
The San Diego pelagic trip on Saturday, August 22, aboard "Legacy" out of Seaforth Landing and sponsored by Buena Vista Audubon Society was quite good. Highlights of the trip included a fairly cooperative Wilson's Storm-Petrel at the 30-Mile Bank (31 mi WSW of Point Loma), initially found roosting in a Black Storm-Petrel raft, a total of 25 Least Storm-Petrels (scattered, but mostly at 30-Mile Bank), plus a small number of Townsend's (5+) and moderate numbers of Leach's (30+). A cooperative Guadalupe Murrelet was closer to shore than normal at the outer edge of the Nine-Mile Bank (13-1/4 mi SW of Point Loma), and a puzzling intermediate Guadalupe-type (probably a "San Benito Murrelet") was photographed earlier in the day in the San Diego Trough (photos will be analyzed). Also 16 Craveri's. A fine Laysan Albatross (30-Mile Bank) was likely the same banded bird seen on our trip in the same area two weeks earlier, and as many as ca. 14+ Black-footed Albatrosses were seen. An unseasonal Northern Fulmar was 5-3/4 mi W of Point Loma. An adult Nazca Booby flew over the boat in the San Diego Trough, and 3 immature Masked/Nazca Boobies were at two sets of buoys: 2 birds in the mid- San Diego Trough and 1 on the inside of the Nine-Mile Bank. We shall see if the many photos obtained might elevate one or more of these young birds to full species rank. A total of 7 Cocos Boobies included one pale-headed adult male. A Forster's Tern 9-3/4 mi W of Point Loma was farther offshore than normal. Water temperatures continue to run a bit warm, with readings mostly between 71.5 and 73.5 degrees.
Lots of photos from the trip are and will be posted with the shared eBird lists that came out earlier today.
Totals for the trip once we were over a mile offshore were as follows:
Date: 8/13/26 9:41 pm From: Aidan Sinha via groups.io <aidansinha...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Purple Gallinule - Orange County
All,
A Purple Gallinule was photographed earlier today at the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary at the northeast corner of Pond C and later reported to a local RBA group (see this site for maps: https://seaandsageaudubon.org/visit/ ). If accepted, this would be a first for Orange County and the 8th for California. Good luck to all who chase!
Date: 8/13/26 1:40 pm From: Van Pierszalowski via groups.io <van...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] California Bird Atlas - Updates and Newsletter Link
Hi Birders,
I'm excited to report we've recently crossed two exciting milestones:
* *Over 5,000 birders* have now contributed at least one checklist to the eBird Atlas project - currently 5,385 atlasers
* *Over 50% of blocks* have data - currently 8,533 blocks, or 51.63%
By the end of July, this brings the total number of species with confirmed breeding codes to *311*. That is a remarkable number for the first year of the Atlas.
*CBA Town Hall:* To watch a recording of the latest CBA Town Hall, which features an overview of species that breed in the second half of the year, click *HERE ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEM1QqwVgFI&t )*.
*Reminder:* Now that we’re in the second half of our first Atlas year, it's important to remember that continuing to atlas year-round is incredibly important. Knowing when and where birds aren’t breeding is often just as valuable as knowing where they are , and documenting the absence of breeding evidence helps paint a much more complete picture.
Date: 8/11/26 10:27 am From: Ethan Monk via groups.io <z.querula...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] [northbaybirds] Marine Madness 8/10 San Francisco county STREAKED SHEARWATER etc
In the selection box select the state you’re interested in, when the hotspots load hover over a spot to see the name then click a source spot, then click a target spot a popup will show you the differences.
to see counties, black dots, check the show counties box, so for example you can compare LA to San Diego, or Monterey to Santa Cruz.
You can load additional states by using the dropdown then you could compare Yuma county to Imperial (if you select Calif and Arizona)
if you’re really crazy you could compare counties in the west say Calif to Florida or Massachusetts
Try it you might like it 😊
The site actually does some other cool stuff, but you’ll have to poke around.
Date: 8/5/26 3:12 pm From: Alvaro Jaramillo via groups.io <chucao...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] boobies, boobies, and more boobies (and other warm-water species)
Paul et al.
Some thoughts from farther south. I was just leading a tour in the Galapagos, the epicenter of the El Niño of course. It is hard to make a really exact report of what is going on down there, given that some colonies are large and it is often impossible to detect a sizeable decrease in birds when the numbers are big. Our brains just do not do that well. However, it looked to me that seabirds such as boobies, Waved Albatross etc were late in their breeding, maybe a month later than standard? There were some dead birds noted, skinny sea lion pups etc. But overall a lot down there still looks “normal.” I do think that there were fewer Red-billed Tropicbirds than usual, and birds offshore (between islands) seemed to be much less than the norm, in particular Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrels and Galapagos Shearwaters. Our only oddities were two Cocos Boobies, they are actually quite rare there, so two within an hour was quite a find. The first Peruvian Booby for the islands was reported in July.
In any case, I would expect that a lot of the breeding will fail in the coming months and there will be more birds escaping very warm water areas without food. I would be on the lookout for Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel in particular, and it would not be insane if a Galapagos Shearwater got to southern California.
Maybe my loose observations will be of interest even though they are from well south of California
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 1:37 PM
To: <calbirds...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] boobies, boobies, and more boobies (and other warm-water species)
Likely related to the warm water currently wafting off the coast (mid-70s!) from Mexico/Central America to Southern California, there has been a clear influx of Masked/Nazca Boobies, with most birds being either Nazca or unidentified. Scheduled pelagic trips and whale-watch trips off San Diego, and to a lesser extent at least off Los Angeles, have now reported a fair number over the past two months, a young Masked/Nazca has been roosting on the tip of Zuniga Jetty at San Diego Bay mouth for over the past two weeks, and for the past several days there have been two young Masked/Nazca's off La Jolla around 7:00-7:30 AM. Nazcas and sp.'s have been reported the past several months north all the way to off Northern California.
Cocos Boobies are in reasonable numbers off San Diego on a daily basis in the AM off Imperial Beach (especially) and off La Jolla.
So far there have been "just" several Red-footed Boobies in San Diego County waters the past few months, and about half of those have been dead birds found on the beach.
A Blue-footed Booby was photographed just off the coast in s. Orange County a few days ago.
In contrast, there have only been several young Magnificent Frigatebirds seen this summer in Southern California waters, so nothing special there.
A Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel was photographed off northern Baja (between Tijuana and Ensenada) a few days ago.
Date: 8/5/26 10:37 am From: <lehman.paul...> via groups.io <lehman.paul...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] boobies, boobies, and more boobies (and other warm-water species)
Likely related to the warm water currently wafting off the coast (mid-70s!) from Mexico/Central America to Southern California, there has been a clear influx of Masked/Nazca Boobies, with most birds being either Nazca or unidentified. Scheduled pelagic trips and whale-watch trips off San Diego, and to a lesser extent at least off Los Angeles, have now reported a fair number over the past two months, a young Masked/Nazca has been roosting on the tip of Zuniga Jetty at San Diego Bay mouth for over the past two weeks, and for the past several days there have been two young Masked/Nazca's off La Jolla around 7:00-7:30 AM. Nazcas and sp.'s have been reported the past several months north all the way to off Northern California.
Cocos Boobies are in reasonable numbers off San Diego on a daily basis in the AM off Imperial Beach (especially) and off La Jolla.
So far there have been "just" several Red-footed Boobies in San Diego County waters the past few months, and about half of those have been dead birds found on the beach.
A Blue-footed Booby was photographed just off the coast in s. Orange County a few days ago.
In contrast, there have only been several young Magnificent Frigatebirds seen this summer in Southern California waters, so nothing special there.
A Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel was photographed off northern Baja (between Tijuana and Ensenada) a few days ago.
Date: 8/2/26 11:12 pm From: maertzr via groups.io <galah2153...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] birding nw cal
Hi I will be birding at the end of the month at Arcata and Crescent City. Other than ebird, is there any source that lists the unusual birds in the area? Are there any birding spots that shouldn't be missed that time of year? Thanks ron maertz oregon
Date: 8/1/26 7:40 am From: Kimball Garrett via groups.io <cyanolyca818...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Soliciting North American Birds summer season reports (June-July) for Southern California
North American Birds Contributors:
The Summer Season (1 June to 31 July 2026) has ended, and we solicit
reports for inclusion in the Southern California Region report for *North
American Birds*. Reports should be arranged in the taxonomic order followed
by the American Ornithological Society’s Check-List of North American Birds
and all supplements [available at:
https://checklist.americanornithology.org/ ] or the similar American
Birding Association checklist of ABA area birds [available at:
https://www.aba.org/aba-checklist/ ]. Reports of species on the California
Bird Records Committee’s Review List [see:
https://www.californiabirds.org/checklist.asp ] must be accompanied by
documentation. Similar documentation should also accompany reports of
species unusual for the location or season. Full names, including middle
initials when available, should be used for observers cited in the reports.
Although most of the data for the seasonal reports are gleaned from eBird,
County Compilers (listed below) also solicit additional records and
documentation in whatever ways make the most sense for their region and
pool of observers. Please help them by sending reports to them, especially
if they amplify or add to information already in eBird. County compilers
should receive your reports by 15 August 2026, or reports can be sent
directly to Kimball Garrett at the email address below. The *North American
Birds* regional reports cannot exist without your input.
Tom M. Edell (San Luis Obispo Co.)
<tedell...>
David Compton (Santa Barbara Co.)
<davcompton60...>
David Pereksta (Ventura Co.)
<pereksta...>
Kimball L. Garrett (Los Angeles Co.)
<cyanolyca818...>
Samuel Bressler (Orange Co.)
<pacificgoldenplover...>
Paul Lehman (San Diego Co.)
<Lehman.paul...>
Note: Seasonal reports will be gleaned from Paul’s thorough monthly bird
sighting columns in The Skimmer (San Diego Field Ornithologists).
Chris and Rosie Howard (Inyo Co.)
<chris93514...>
Kelli Heindel (Kern County)
<kkheindel...>
Alexander E. Koonce (San Bernardino Co.)
<sandy_koonce...>
David Rankin (Riverside Co.)
<david.rankin...>
Chris Dean (Imperial Co.)
<chrisdeanbirder...>
It’s difficult to send out this reminder without Guy McCaskie’s involvement
(after all he served as the Southern California regional editor for over 60
years!), but we need to move on, and I thank you in advance for your time
and effort.
Date: 7/27/26 9:17 pm From: Alvaro Jaramillo via groups.io <chucao...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] Tristram´s Storm-Petrel off Humboldt
HI Tristan
Nice analysis, I want to add that Markham’s in my opinion does not fly like a nighthawk. It flies in straight lines and has a relatively smooth and not all that deep of a wingbeat. It reminds one of the flight style of a Black/Brown Noddy. I down south right now, and hoping to see a Markham’s, hopefully I can confirm that in the coming days.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Tristan McKee via groups.io
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:02 PM
To: calbirds <calbirds...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tristram´s Storm-Petrel off Humboldt
This Saturday, 25 July 2026, Sean McAllister, Lucas Stephenson, Aidan Brubaker and I photographed a Tristram's Storm-Petrel northwest of the Eel River Canyon at 40.757332 N, -124.81674 W, about 28 miles offshore from the Humboldt Bay. The bird flew straight at the side of the boat and wheeled around almost overhead, circled a little more with somewhat bowed wings and mothy wingbeats, and then headed off far to the east in a low, direct style with rapid, fairly shallow wingbeats.
Identification criteria between this species and the Markham's Storm-Petrel are poorly developed, since the two taxa normally are found nowhere near one another geographically. This bird was somewhat worn in plumage and likely a subadult; it was less extensively gray and with a darker rump than in my experience with Tristram's in northwestern Hawaii or the Tristram's that Lucas and others documented off Marin last July, and this led us to seriously consider Markham's in the field. It was rather slender-bodied and very long-tailed. However, after review of the photos and videos and consultation with Todd McGrath, Logan Kahle, Ryan Terrill, Steve Howell, Peter Pyle, Rob Fowler, and others, we have a strong consensus that it was a Tristram's Storm-Petrel.
Key features indicating Tristram's rather than Markham's include a small amount of pale mottling on the sides of the rump (easily visible in Sean's photos but not mine), a short bill, and an exceptionally deep tail fork. The leg length and foot size may be important as well, but I haven't yet assessed how well this can be determined from photos (there is always the problem that seabirds hold the hidden knee joint in variable positions, altering field impressions). The flight style difference between the two species in calm conditions like ours seems to be quite striking and can be judged from videos; to my eye, Tristram's is reminiscent of a Lesser Nighthawk, while Markham's recalls a Common Nighthawk. Howell also pointed out that the lighter wing-loading of Markham's is characteristic of many Eastern Tropical Pacific species when compared to North Pacific species like Tristram's and Fork-tailed.
Compared to a Black Storm-Petrel, the short neck, thin bill, squarish head, grayish back, carpal bars extending out to the forward edge of the wings, thin body, and long, swallow-like tail made for a very striking bird. The legs and feet in the photos also appear considerably smaller.
Tristram's Storm-Petrel is a central and western North Pacific bird that was first documented in Calfornia at Southeast Farallon Island in 2006, and since then, accepted records are comprised of another there in 2015, one near San Nicholas Island in 2018, and one last year off Point Reyes. July seems to be a good time for it. Markham's is a species of western South America and the eastern tropical Pacific that has been recorded off western Mexico.
Eel River Canyon is proving itself to be one of one of the best locations on the west coast, for storm-petrels with flocks numbering in the thousands, recalling the old days at Soquel Canyon. Saturday´s bird was a bit further offshore, in the Leach´s zone, however.
Date: 7/27/26 11:01 am From: Tristan McKee via groups.io <atmckee...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tristram´s Storm-Petrel off Humboldt
This Saturday, 25 July 2026, Sean McAllister, Lucas Stephenson, Aidan
Brubaker and I photographed a Tristram's Storm-Petrel northwest of the Eel
River Canyon at 40.757332 N, -124.81674 W, about 28 miles offshore from the
Humboldt Bay. The bird flew straight at the side of the boat and wheeled
around almost overhead, circled a little more with somewhat bowed wings and
mothy wingbeats, and then headed off far to the east in a low, direct style
with rapid, fairly shallow wingbeats.
Identification criteria between this species and the Markham's Storm-Petrel
are poorly developed, since the two taxa normally are found nowhere near
one another geographically. This bird was somewhat worn in plumage and
likely a subadult; it was less extensively gray and with a darker rump than
in my experience with Tristram's in northwestern Hawaii or the Tristram's
that Lucas and others documented off Marin last July, and this led us to
seriously consider Markham's in the field. It was rather slender-bodied and
very long-tailed. However, after review of the photos and videos and
consultation with Todd McGrath, Logan Kahle, Ryan Terrill, Steve Howell,
Peter Pyle, Rob Fowler, and others, we have a strong consensus that it was
a Tristram's Storm-Petrel.
Key features indicating Tristram's rather than Markham's include a small
amount of pale mottling on the sides of the rump (easily visible in Sean's
photos but not mine), a short bill, and an exceptionally deep tail fork.
The leg length and foot size may be important as well, but I haven't yet
assessed how well this can be determined from photos (there is always the
problem that seabirds hold the hidden knee joint in variable positions,
altering field impressions). The flight style difference between the two
species in calm conditions like ours seems to be quite striking and can be
judged from videos; to my eye, Tristram's is reminiscent of a Lesser
Nighthawk, while Markham's recalls a Common Nighthawk. Howell also pointed
out that the lighter wing-loading of Markham's is characteristic of many
Eastern Tropical Pacific species when compared to North Pacific species
like Tristram's and Fork-tailed.
Compared to a Black Storm-Petrel, the short neck, thin bill, squarish head,
grayish back, carpal bars extending out to the forward edge of the wings,
thin body, and long, swallow-like tail made for a very striking bird. The
legs and feet in the photos also appear considerably smaller.
Tristram's Storm-Petrel is a central and western North Pacific bird that
was first documented in Calfornia at Southeast Farallon Island in 2006, and
since then, accepted records are comprised of another there in 2015, one
near San Nicholas Island in 2018, and one last year off Point Reyes. July
seems to be a good time for it. Markham's is a species of western South
America and the eastern tropical Pacific that has been recorded off western
Mexico.
Eel River Canyon is proving itself to be one of one of the best locations
on the west coast, for storm-petrels with flocks numbering in the
thousands, recalling the old days at Soquel Canyon. Saturday´s bird was a
bit further offshore, in the Leach´s zone, however.
Date: 7/27/26 9:00 am From: Kurt Radamaker via groups.io <kurtradamaker...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Frowning on back of the camera shots has zero to do with fraudulent documentation of a sighting, it is all about Macaulay.
Macaulay uses the images to build their AI engines. I’m not against using your best and brightest images in eBird so Macaulay has a better AI engine, but let’s not user shame. Even with AI enhanced images, I don’t think folks are intending to deceive, they are just trying to get better photo ratings, not realizing that the AI enhancements can change field marks and in some cases identity.
My mid level rarity e.g. (Summer Tanager in Baja) back of the camera shot is merely to assist the reviewer with quickly confirming the sighting. I understand the value of posting detailed photos of mega rarities or very difficult to id Empidonax etc.
99% of the time I’m just too busy, lazy, or unmotivated to submit my glossy jpeg of the tanager. If I don’t do it at the time, it may never get done. I might get to uploading my camera photos weeks or even months later.
I get it, I have been wowed by some fantastic photos in eBird, but hopefully toning down the competition for higher ratings may help reduce the desire to submit photographic art rather than photographic documentation.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of John Garrett via groups.io
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:07 AM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Kurt wrote:
I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has some culpability hear.
Just to clarify: the reason back-of-camera photos are discouraged isn't that they won't win photography contests. While they're generally less problematic than AI-"enhanced" images, they're still a poorer record of the bird than the original photo the observer already has.
More importantly, the Macaulay Library has many purposes beyond documenting an individual rarity. It is a long-term scientific archive used by researchers, Merlin, and birders around the world. For nearly all of those uses, the original image is substantially more valuable than a photo of a camera screen. Back-of-camera photos are perfectly fine for e.g., Discord or other platforms for quickly alerting other birders.
It's also worth noting that, while the vast majority of observers are undoubtedly honest, back-of-camera photos lack the original metadata (EXIF). In certain cases (such as where a record's authenticity is questioned), that metadata can be important and helps deter fabricated records.
Date: 7/27/26 7:41 am From: Chris Dean via groups.io <chrisdeanbirder...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] passing of Guy McCaskie
Hi,
My heart is aching with the loss of such a generous and knowledgeable
mentor and dedicated Salton Sea birding friend. To honor Guy's legacy, I'm
working on adding his field notes and observations to ebird. If any of you
shared time in the field with Guy, please consider sharing your ebird lists
with him by using his ebird username: McCaskie.
Thank you,
Chris Dean
Silver Lake, Los Angeles
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:30 AM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
<lehman.paul...> wrote:
> Guy McCaskie passed away from natural causes on July 22, just 11 days
> short of his 90th birthday. Truly the end of an era. Guy was the leader in
> moving birding into the modern era. He made countless advances in field
> identification and in our knowledge of West Coast vagrancy patterns and he
> discovered a plethora of migrant and vagrant traps. First moving from
> Scotland to Lake Tahoe, he soon settled in San Diego in the early 1960s,
> where he would remain to the present. He quickly turned California birding
> on its ear. He was extremely active statewide, with a particular passion
> for the San Diego area and for the desert from the Salton Sea north to the
> Death Valley region. He found more California state firsts than anyone. He
> has the highest California bird list. But far more important were his
> myriad of contributions to Western birding and field ornithology through
> his many publications, teaching fellow birders in the field, and in setting
> high standards for careful observation and documentation. His influence
> especially during the latter 1900s extended far beyond California to all of
> North America. There are not enough superlatives that can be said.
>
>
> Many more tributes, including those with more details of Guy's life and
> contributions, will undoubtedly follow in the days and weeks ahead.
>
>
> Plans will be made to spread Guy's ashes at the Salton Sea on a date later
> in fall when temperatures have cooled, followed by an informal get-together
> that same day, probably at Cattle Call Park in Brawley. Further details
> will be posted in the future when plans are firm. Per Guy's wishes, there
> will not be a formal funeral or celebration of life.
>
>
> The family welcomes cards and letters, but please no phone calls.
>
>
> All birders in California and the West should go outside today and tip
> your binoculars to Guy. He showed us the way.
>
>
> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>
>
>
>
Date: 7/27/26 7:17 am From: John Garrett via groups.io <curvirostra9...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Kurt wrote:
>
> I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my
> id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer
> that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown
> on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that
> clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has
> some culpability hear.
>
Just to clarify: the reason back-of-camera photos are discouraged isn't that they won't win photography contests. While they're generally less problematic than AI-"enhanced" images, they're still a poorer record of the bird than the original photo the observer already has.
More importantly, the Macaulay Library has many purposes beyond documenting an individual rarity. It is a long-term scientific archive used by researchers, Merlin, and birders around the world. For nearly all of those uses, the original image is substantially more valuable than a photo of a camera screen. Back-of-camera photos are perfectly fine for e.g., Discord or other platforms for quickly alerting other birders.
It's also worth noting that, while the vast majority of observers are undoubtedly honest, back-of-camera photos lack the original metadata (EXIF). In certain cases (such as where a record's authenticity is questioned), that metadata can be important and helps deter fabricated records.
The early days of AI bird photos on social media were absurd and easy to detect like that awful bald eagle regrowing its beak video or the snowy owls flying with owlets on their backs, or hummingbirds sheltering in flowers, but the new photos are much more insidious.
Personally I try to limit editing on any photo that I share on community science platforms- just minimal cropping or adjusting brightness. I do not use photoshop. These platforms are for capturing accurate accounts of the species- not showing off photography, though many photos are beautiful. I would recommend saving the editing for your own personal websites or non-science platforms.
Nurit
Encino, CA
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Larry Jordan via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 2:58 PM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
I agree with Kurt. I'm sorry but I think if you have to use AI to enhance your bird photos, get a better camera or a better binocular or scope to ID your quarry. I like the idea of having a tag imbedded in all AI images so folks can appreciate the real world, not some computer image of what we think the perfect animal looks like, but what the real world looks like. [cid:<attach_0_18C5F5C5EBAA918B_1064739...>]
Date: 7/26/26 2:57 pm From: Larry Jordan via groups.io <thelarryjordan...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
I agree with Kurt. I'm sorry but I think if you have to use AI to enhance your bird photos, get a better camera or a better binocular or scope to ID your quarry. I like the idea of having a tag imbedded in all AI images so folks can appreciate the real world, not some computer image of what we think the perfect animal looks like, but what the real world looks like.
Date: 7/26/26 2:03 pm From: Kurt Radamaker via groups.io <kurtradamaker...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Very interesting email and the article link is probably interesting, at least the intro was, but it requires a subscription to read the entire article.
It is not surprising encouraging birders to submit their best and brightest photos to ebird could have repercussions. Photos were meant to be supplemental for identification purposes and not a competition for ratings. The emphasis should be on documentation. I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has some culpability hear.
This is a fascinating conundrum and one we all wrestle with as we try to sort through social media and understand what is real and not real.
Maybe some legislation to begin with that when AI creates an image, a tag is embedded in the image.
Ethan thanks for posting this, it uncovers for me an interesting area of research. If it doesn’t violate any copyright laws a link to the full Nature Article would be great.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Ethan Monk via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 10:23 AM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Dear Birders,
Over the past year, several birders in California and further abroad have used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to edit photographs of birds and have uploaded those altered photos to eBird and iNaturalist. Even though most of these instances have probably been innocuous attempts to make a poor photo look a bit better, this practice is highly damaging regardless of a user's intended purpose. Unfortunately, most birders still do not understand how many of these programs work and why they are so negative. Below I have attempted to explain this issue.
There are several types of artificial intelligence, but the variety used by the most popular platforms (Google Gemini, Claude, etc.) is called generative AI. These programs have immense databases which they use to generate responses to user prompts. To put it simply, if you have a photo of a California Scrub-Jay, and you use a generative artificial intelligence program to edit the photo, the program is going outside of the data contained in the photo, searching its database for what it knows California Scrub-Jays look like, and then uses that external knowledge to “touch up” the photo to meet its expectations. This is not much different than printing a photo out onto paper and asking an artist to touch up the photo by painting onto it. The human artist will use their knowledge of what scrub-jays are supposed to look like to improve the image. So does AI.
To further clarify, I asked Google Gemini to explain how it edits photos. Here is what it told me: “Gemini is a Generator: It doesn’t actually “edit” your photo. Instead, it looks at your image, reads your instructions, and draws a brand-new picture from scratch based on patterns it knows. Because it rebuilds the entire image every time, it struggles to keep the original details—like the exact shape of a face, text, or background textures—identical.”
So, if you upload that Scrub-Jay, the generative AI can use its knowledge of scrub-jays to fill in missing details, and make that blurry photo sharp, or that dark spot visible, etc. But what if you upload a subpar photo of an Empidonax flycatcher? Or a seagull (yeah, I said it)? The AI still goes into its database and uses that external knowledge to touch up the photo… can the blurry Western Flycatcher be mistakenly touched up into a Willow? A Yellow-footed Gull into a Western Gull? Even if you upload a good photo, can the Sooty Fox Sparrow be made to look a bit more like a Slate-colored? Might a hatch-year state of molt return looking a bit more adult like? (If the number of remiges can change on a bird when run through AI, as I've seen a few times, it seems anything is possible.) How about a perfectly decent photo of an Epaulet Oriole, which when “touched up” with AI came out looking like the first-for-Brazil record of Red-winged Blackbird? More on that last scenario, and a further explanation of AI’s problems as they pertain to citizen science databases, here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03141-y
In short, generative AI should absolutely not be used when editing photos. These programs rely on pre-existing knowledge to edit photos, and in doing so, inevitably hallucinate details that were not actually there. At best, uploading these photos pollutes scientific databases with photos not representative of reality. (It is crazy that that is the "at best."]) And, I hate to say it, but with companies shoving AI down our collective throats, the onus is now on the user to verify that new photo editing apps and tools do not use generative artificial intelligence.
One final sobering note: Most of these instances where eBird reviewers or other careful eyed observers have sniffed out AI-altered media have done so because, to the trained eye, most AI edited photos often have the wrong number of feathers, a mishmash of features from different (sub)species, or otherwise appear "strange" or "off." But AI is improving rapidly. Just last year, I was unable to generate a photo of a bird in Google Gemini that did not seemingly combine features of multiple species and that was not positioned at an unnatural angle. Last week, I generated a photo of a Mourning Warbler with AI--completely from scratch, no pre-existing photo to serve as a "canvas" to work off of--that was scarily convincing. (I sent the photo to a few friends to ask what they thought-- the first to reply wrote, “Ok f*** this.”) Soon, we will not be able to tell what is and is not altered.
Please, build good habits now, and encourage the same from those around you by strongly advocating against the use of generative artificial intelligence to edit photos and by educating other birders of its perils.
Date: 7/26/26 10:23 am From: Ethan Monk via groups.io <z.querula...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Dear Birders,
Over the past year, several birders in California and further abroad have
used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to edit photographs of birds and have
uploaded those altered photos to eBird and iNaturalist. Even though most of
these instances have probably been innocuous attempts to make a poor photo
look a bit better, this practice is highly damaging regardless of a user's
intended purpose. Unfortunately, most birders still do not understand how
many of these programs work and why they are so negative. Below I have
attempted to explain this issue.
There are several types of artificial intelligence, but the variety used by
the most popular platforms (Google Gemini, Claude, etc.) is called
generative AI. These programs have immense databases which they use to
generate responses to user prompts. To put it simply, if you have a photo
of a California Scrub-Jay, and you use a generative artificial intelligence
program to edit the photo, the program is going outside of the data
contained in the photo, searching its database for what it knows California
Scrub-Jays look like, and then uses that external knowledge to “touch up”
the photo to meet its expectations. This is not much different than
printing a photo out onto paper and asking an artist to touch up the photo
by painting onto it. The human artist will use their knowledge of what
scrub-jays are supposed to look like to improve the image. So does AI.
To further clarify, I asked Google Gemini to explain how it edits photos.
Here is what it told me: “Gemini is a Generator: It doesn’t actually “edit”
your photo. Instead, it looks at your image, reads your instructions, and
draws a brand-new picture from scratch based on patterns it knows. Because
it rebuilds the entire image every time, it struggles to keep the original
details—like the exact shape of a face, text, or background
textures—identical.”
So, if you upload that Scrub-Jay, the generative AI can use its knowledge
of scrub-jays to fill in missing details, and make that blurry photo sharp,
or that dark spot visible, etc. But what if you upload a subpar photo of an
Empidonax flycatcher? Or a seagull (yeah, I said it)? The AI still goes
into its database and uses that external knowledge to touch up the photo…
can the blurry Western Flycatcher be mistakenly touched up into a Willow? A
Yellow-footed Gull into a Western Gull? Even if you upload a good photo,
can the Sooty Fox Sparrow be made to look a bit more like a Slate-colored?
Might a hatch-year state of molt return looking a bit more adult like? (If
the number of remiges can change on a bird when run through AI, as I've
seen a few times, it seems anything is possible.) How about a perfectly
decent photo of an Epaulet Oriole, which when “touched up” with AI came out
looking like the first-for-Brazil record of Red-winged Blackbird? More on
that last scenario, and a further explanation of AI’s problems as they
pertain to citizen science databases, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03141-y
In short, generative AI should absolutely not be used when editing photos.
These programs rely on pre-existing knowledge to edit photos, and in doing
so, inevitably hallucinate details that were not actually there. At best,
uploading these photos pollutes scientific databases with photos not
representative of reality. (It is crazy that that is the "at best."]) And,
I hate to say it, but with companies shoving AI down our collective
throats, the onus is now on the user to verify that new photo editing apps
and tools do not use generative artificial intelligence.
One final sobering note: Most of these instances where eBird reviewers or
other careful eyed observers have sniffed out AI-altered media have done so
because, to the trained eye, most AI edited photos often have the wrong
number of feathers, a mishmash of features from different (sub)species, or
otherwise appear "strange" or "off." But AI is improving rapidly. Just last
year, I was unable to generate a photo of a bird in Google Gemini that did
not seemingly combine features of multiple species and that was not
positioned at an unnatural angle. Last week, I generated a photo of a
Mourning Warbler with AI--completely from scratch, no pre-existing photo to
serve as a "canvas" to work off of--that was scarily convincing. (I sent
the photo to a few friends to ask what they thought-- the first to reply
wrote, “Ok f*** this.”) Soon, we will not be able to tell what is and is
not altered.
Please, build good habits now, and encourage the same from those around you
by strongly advocating against the use of generative artificial
intelligence to edit photos and by educating other birders of its perils.
