Thanks Ken and Paul for advocating for better data quality in eBird! I
agree with everything y'all have said here.
In my view, one of the greatest benefits of the new birdinghotspots.org
website is that it allows folks with local knowledge of eBird hotspots to
provide 'official' guidelines on what the 'intended' boundaries of hotspots
are. When we write descriptions for hotspots here in Santa Barbara County,
we try to include a few sentences on this (e.g. "only use this hotspot for
birds observed between X and Y street"). If you have several related
hotspots you can also create a 'group' on birdinghotspots.org including a
map of the boundaries of each, hosted in one place for comparison.
I think it would be great if one day this were incorporated by default in
eBird, as with all the other information archived on this fantastic online
resource. Realistically, I'm not very hopeful that this will happen,
because it would require a lot of programming legwork which is currently
outside eBird's scope. But fingers crossed!
-Conor
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:33 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
> Well, I'm surely not the authority on this, and others may disagree, but I
> would say that if there is a hotspot that encompasses the entirety of your
> birding route, use it unless there's a compelling reason not to (and I
> can't think of one; if you're doing a stationary count, you can put the
> location in the comments and if you have the track turned on, it will be
> recorded). If the hotspots are nested or overlapping, use the most precise
> one without compromising accuracy (accuracy pretty much always trumps
> precision).
>
> Someday - in my dreams, at least - hotspots will have actual boundaries
> and the app will notify you when you're crossing them or tell you you're
> outside them!
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:14 PM Teresa Thome <thomeplay...> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ken. As someone who tries to give the most accurate information
>> possible, I struggle when I think I shouldn’t use the standard hotspot but
>> the app says “recommended.” What is a good rule of thumb?
>>
>> Birding is Fun!
>> www.Teresa-Thome.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot
>>> statistics, I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal
>>> location rather than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what
>>> the hotspot name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be
>>> delineated). Far too many people casually assign their checklists to the
>>> hotspot nearest their starting point and then bird well outside its
>>> "boundaries," rendering hotspot statistics meaningless at best and
>>> misleading at worst.
>>>
>>> Ken Burton
>>> McKinleyville
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:27 PM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
>>> <lehman.paul...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by
>>>> observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively
>>>> affecting the data by under-counting birds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity,
>>>> see it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds
>>>> while waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species
>>>> but on a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a
>>>> COMPLETE LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one
>>>> was not really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of
>>>> species reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more
>>>> often so that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a
>>>> woefully low number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time,
>>>> appreciably lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list
>>>> actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is
>>>> formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near
>>>> the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come
>>>> and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the
>>>> shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but
>>>> typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and
>>>> almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of
>>>> us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but
>>>> it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy.
>>>> The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved
>>>> three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and
>>>> especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would
>>>> need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts
>>>> of many birds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Thanks Ken. As someone who tries to give the most accurate information
possible, I struggle when I think I shouldn’t use the standard hotspot but
the app says “recommended.” What is a good rule of thumb?
Birding is Fun!
www.Teresa-Thome.com
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
> Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot statistics,
> I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal location rather
> than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what the hotspot
> name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be delineated). Far too
> many people casually assign their checklists to the hotspot nearest their
> starting point and then bird well outside its "boundaries," rendering
> hotspot statistics meaningless at best and misleading at worst.
>
> Ken Burton
> McKinleyville
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:27 PM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
> <lehman.paul...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by
>> observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively
>> affecting the data by under-counting birds.
>>
>>
>> The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity, see
>> it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds while
>> waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species but on
>> a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a COMPLETE
>> LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one was not
>> really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of species
>> reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more often so
>> that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a woefully low
>> number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time, appreciably
>> lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
>>
>>
>> Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list
>> actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is
>> formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near
>> the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come
>> and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the
>> shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but
>> typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and
>> almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of
>> us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but
>> it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy.
>> The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved
>> three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and
>> especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
>>
>>
>> Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would
>> need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts
>> of many birds.
>>
>>
>> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>>
>>
>
>
I applaud the efforts of https://birdinghotspots.org/ trying to define boundaries for hotspots. I do think the only way folks are ever going to be comfortable with boundaries is if they are polygons on the map and only if they are in ebird. I have chatted with Marshall about this and ebird agrees, a polygon is an great option, however the effort to draw a polygon for every hotspot in the U.S. is daunting. As a gis professional I can tell you getting folks to draw polygons is a uphill battle. I do have a suggested solution, but it costs money. Several companies have spent thousands of dollars to draw polygons around every single piece of property (parcels) in the united states. Most ebird hotspots whether private, state or federal have a parcel to show property boundaries. So I look at this challenge the same way I look at counties, counties are an arbitrary political border, but birders happily conform to them. So having legal parcel boundaries defining hotspots would not be foreign to birders. In the little research I have done, most parcels nicely surround a park, wildlife area, or open space. The effort to connect a parcel to a hotspot is baked into every GIS professional out there and is part of our toolset. How this works is, you take all of the coordinate points for every hotspot in eBird and do a GIS operation called an intersect. What the intersect does is determine which polygon a given point falls into. At my company we use a 3rd party Parcel database for many operations. I can give one example of how the parcel database is used by the company I work for. We sub contract Waste pick up to several cities and counties, some of you may have city or county trash service. Our bill goes to the city or county not to any individual home owner or business. So when a customer calls our support center, we don't have that individual as a customer, because their trash is covered by the city. If we have a contract with a city, we take the polygon of the city and any parcel contained in the city, and parcel information, like owner and resident is written to our customer database. The next time a resident of the city calls we have them in our customer database, and we know their disposal is handled by the city.
The big stumbling block here is finding an affordable parcel database. It is entirely possible one of these companies may be willing to offer the parcel database to Cornell as a one time use, in exchange for goodwill. Never hurts to ask. I realize this is not a panacea, but it would get eBird much closer to having polygons for each hotspot and reduce the amount of work refining or creating new hotspot polygons. It would be great if ebird had polygons for every hotspot, then if you entered a checklist and your GPS coordinates where inside of a hotspot bada bing.
I can assure you, every ebird hotspot is inside of a parcel 😊
The actual technical effort to do this is minor. Most GIS professionals, given they had all the data could easily have the hotspot polygons in a couple of days.
Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Don Roberson
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Ken Burton <shrikethree...>; Teresa Thome <thomeplay...>
Cc: <calbirds...>; <lehman.paul...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] eBird submission issues
As to Ken Burt's comment about Hotspots
> (currently the only way a hotspot can be delineated).
That is not true for a fair bit of California now. One of the purposes of https://birdinghotspots.org/ is to delineate the borders of Hotspots. Some subset of the counties in California have been very active in creating text and maps, and posting photos, to this invaluable website
I am among the 3 eBird editors for Monterey County. Rita Carratello and I have managed to get up text and photos about 60% of the Hotspots in Monterey County, and particularly the heavily birded ones on the Monterey Peninsula. A fair number of those have maps with the explicit boundaries that we want eBirders to use. In fact, we loathe personal locations which gum up the maps and undermine the value of the bar graphs associated with Hotspots. We have been very active to let local birders know the boundaries (sometimes the borders are even in the Hotspot name) and active in enforcing boundaries. This also includes the very few "nested" sublocations within Hotspots. With the website now available, there is no longer an excuse to have eBird lists that cross Hotspot boundaries**
** before setting Hotspot boundaries, we got a lot of input from locals as to how they bird the sites. This effort ending up merging some "hotspots" that were too small for reasonable use, and to divide a couple that were used as if they were two hotspots.
This is an on-going project, but since I don't see eBird doing this project in the near future, the website should be very useful in counties that are offering this on-line, published information.
Date: 11/27/23 5:07 pm From: Bruce Barrett <coddler...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] Ebird Hotspots - First Understand the Customer.
😀
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:59 PM Don Roberson <creagrus...>
wrote:
> Good news, Bruce —
>
> > Point Joe, the pond at Point Joe
>
> Those two prior “hotspots” have been merged together in the project
> outlined at
> https://birdinghotspots.org/ > as have the old “China Rock”, the old “Seal Beach,” “Beach House” and some
> inland ones into larger Hotspots. These were all created by eBirders who
> thought they wanted those to be Hotspots, but turned out to be too tiny. We
> did “listen to the customers.”
>
> Not all of the remaining 3-4 Hotspots in your CBC territory have maps yet
> (Pacific Grove and Monterey, though, have border maps for most Hotspots),
> but those without maps yet often have the borders mentioned in text.
>
> Most county Hotspots are much bigger than the stretch of 17-Mile Drive you
> are surveying, but that is a heavily birded location. It is fair to say,
> though, that those mile or so stretches of 17-Mile Drive are about the
> smallest Hotspots in the entire county (the other smaller ones are on the
> coast in Monterey and Pacific Grove, and very heavily birded with much
> “local demand” to have them).
>
> Thanks, Don
Date: 11/27/23 4:59 pm From: Don Roberson <creagrus...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] Ebird Hotspots - First Understand the Customer.
Good news, Bruce —
> Point Joe, the pond at Point Joe
Those two prior “hotspots” have been merged together in the project outlined at
https://birdinghotspots.org/ as have the old “China Rock”, the old “Seal Beach,” “Beach House” and some inland ones into larger Hotspots. These were all created by eBirders who thought they wanted those to be Hotspots, but turned out to be too tiny. We did “listen to the customers.”
Not all of the remaining 3-4 Hotspots in your CBC territory have maps yet (Pacific Grove and Monterey, though, have border maps for most Hotspots), but those without maps yet often have the borders mentioned in text.
Most county Hotspots are much bigger than the stretch of 17-Mile Drive you are surveying, but that is a heavily birded location. It is fair to say, though, that those mile or so stretches of 17-Mile Drive are about the smallest Hotspots in the entire county (the other smaller ones are on the coast in Monterey and Pacific Grove, and very heavily birded with much “local demand” to have them).
Date: 11/27/23 4:36 pm From: Bruce Barrett <coddler...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Ebird Hotspots - First Understand the Customer.
Bruce Barrett <coddler...>
4:27 PM (2 minutes ago)
to CALBIRDS
I suggest that there is a built-in contradiction in allowing anyone to post
checklists to ebird, whether they are trained in hotspot/checklist use or
not, whether they care about hotspot boundaries or not, whether they care
about the resultant data or not, whether their purpose is to help us better
understand trends or not, or whether they just want someone to keep their
lists for them, etc., etc.
There are two choices - restrict checklist submissions to those who can
demonstrate that they will follow the rules or, far more practical,
accommodate all of ebird's customers, including the casual user who does
not wish to change their hotspot, and thus their checklist ,every fifty
feet. We need to understand what ebird's customers - all of them - want out
of the system, not just the dedicated hardcore subset.
We already have the options of a per-checklist route map.. Perhaps a
warning message, "you are approaching the hotlist boundary"? Perhaps an
automatic reset of the hotspot as the boundary is crossed. Perhaps do away
with the user saying where they are and use GPS to determine the hotspot.
Of course, this might work for users who use dynamic data entry, but there
would be problems with building checklists after the fact. However, I
suspect there is better use that we can make of the technologies available.
I also suggest that we need (at least) one more level of rolling-up.
Currently, all checklists roll-up the county list, and then to the
country list, and perhaps the regional list. Pushing back on Don's message
- My Pebble Beach CBC area involves about six different micro-hotspots -
too many, I suggest. I understand that folk would like to know the exact
profile of Spanish Bay, Point Joe, the pond at Point Joe, the shoreline
between Point Joe and Bird Rock, etc, etc., but expecting rigorous and
rigid "close this checklist and open a new one", every quarter mile, is
over the top. If we had one more layer of rolling-up - say "Monterey
Peninsular", to which about fifty different micro-hotspots roll-up, it
would help.
(Worry not Don. I promise to generate the umpteen micro-checklists on the
30th!)
Or, we could survey all ebird users and ask them what they want out of the
system - or, survey the numerous hardcore birders who still don't use ebird
- what would sell you on the system , and make it useful for you?
> (currently the only way a hotspot can be delineated). That is not true for a fair bit of California now. One of the purposes of https://birdinghotspots.org/ is to delineate the borders of Hotspots. Some subset of the counties in California have been very active in creating text and maps, and posting photos, to this invaluable website
I am among the 3 eBird editors for Monterey County. Rita Carratello and I have managed to get up text and photos about 60% of the Hotspots in Monterey County, and particularly the heavily birded ones on the Monterey Peninsula. A fair number of those have maps with the explicit boundaries that we want eBirders to use. In fact, we loathe personal locations which gum up the maps and undermine the value of the bar graphs associated with Hotspots. We have been very active to let local birders know the boundaries (sometimes the borders are even in the Hotspot name) and active in enforcing boundaries. This also includes the very few "nested" sublocations within Hotspots. With the website now available, there is no longer an excuse to have eBird lists that cross Hotspot boundaries**
** before setting Hotspot boundaries, we got a lot of input from locals as to how they bird the sites. This effort ending up merging some "hotspots" that were too small for reasonable use, and to divide a couple that were used as if they were two hotspots.
This is an on-going project, but since I don't see eBird doing this project in the near future, the website should be very useful in counties that are offering this on-line, published information.
I just looked up eBird's recommendations and they are initially pretty much
exactly what I just said:
*"Should I choose a personal location or a Hotspot? *
Whether on the app or the website, it’s always important to choose a
location that accurately represents where you went birding. eBird hotspots
are designated locations frequently visited by your fellow eBirders. Only
use eBird Hotspots when your *entire* checklist occurred within that
hotspot's area."
But it then goes on to say:
"Some areas have many hotspots, so choose the most specific location that
accurately describes your birding - even if it is a personal location."
This last sentence is nonsensical to me. The two things (number of
hotspots and need for accuracy) have nothing to do with each other. This
also seems to suggest that you should almost *never *use hotspots because
you can nearly always describe your coverage area more precisely with a
personal location than with a hotspot. <sigh>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:33 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
> Well, I'm surely not the authority on this, and others may disagree, but I
> would say that if there is a hotspot that encompasses the entirety of your
> birding route, use it unless there's a compelling reason not to (and I
> can't think of one; if you're doing a stationary count, you can put the
> location in the comments and if you have the track turned on, it will be
> recorded). If the hotspots are nested or overlapping, use the most precise
> one without compromising accuracy (accuracy pretty much always trumps
> precision).
>
> Someday - in my dreams, at least - hotspots will have actual boundaries
> and the app will notify you when you're crossing them or tell you you're
> outside them!
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:14 PM Teresa Thome <thomeplay...> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ken. As someone who tries to give the most accurate information
>> possible, I struggle when I think I shouldn’t use the standard hotspot but
>> the app says “recommended.” What is a good rule of thumb?
>>
>> Birding is Fun!
>> www.Teresa-Thome.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot
>>> statistics, I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal
>>> location rather than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what
>>> the hotspot name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be
>>> delineated). Far too many people casually assign their checklists to the
>>> hotspot nearest their starting point and then bird well outside its
>>> "boundaries," rendering hotspot statistics meaningless at best and
>>> misleading at worst.
>>>
>>> Ken Burton
>>> McKinleyville
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:27 PM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
>>> <lehman.paul...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by
>>>> observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively
>>>> affecting the data by under-counting birds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity,
>>>> see it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds
>>>> while waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species
>>>> but on a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a
>>>> COMPLETE LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one
>>>> was not really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of
>>>> species reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more
>>>> often so that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a
>>>> woefully low number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time,
>>>> appreciably lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list
>>>> actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is
>>>> formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near
>>>> the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come
>>>> and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the
>>>> shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but
>>>> typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and
>>>> almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of
>>>> us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but
>>>> it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy.
>>>> The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved
>>>> three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and
>>>> especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would
>>>> need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts
>>>> of many birds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
“To decide if a nearby Hotspot is appropriate for your checklist, answer this simple question: Was my entire eBird checklist restricted to the area described by the Hotspot name?
If the Hotspot's name accurately and precisely describes your location for the entire checklist, then it's OK to use that Hotspot for your checklist. However, if any part of your checklist occurred somewhere not adequately described by the chosen Hotspot, please use either a personal location or select a more appropriate Hotspot.”
A few lines down sums it up. “The goal is to reduce uncertainty about your birding location as much as possible.”
Thanks,
Jim
James F. Holmes, MD, MPH
Professor and Executive Vice Chair
Department of Emergency Medicine
UC Davis School of Medicine
Office (916) 734-1533
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Ken Burton via groups.io
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 2:33 PM
To: Teresa Thome <thomeplay...>
Cc: <calbirds...>; <lehman.paul...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] eBird submission issues
Well, I'm surely not the authority on this, and others may disagree, but I would say that if there is a hotspot that encompasses the entirety of your birding route, use it unless there's a compelling reason not to (and I can't think of one; if you're doing a stationary count, you can put the location in the comments and if you have the track turned on, it will be recorded). If the hotspots are nested or overlapping, use the most precise one without compromising accuracy (accuracy pretty much always trumps precision).
Someday - in my dreams, at least - hotspots will have actual boundaries and the app will notify you when you're crossing them or tell you you're outside them!
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:14 PM Teresa Thome <thomeplay...><mailto:<thomeplay...>> wrote:
Thanks Ken. As someone who tries to give the most accurate information possible, I struggle when I think I shouldn’t use the standard hotspot but the app says “recommended.” What is a good rule of thumb?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...><mailto:<shrikethree...>> wrote:
Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot statistics, I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal location rather than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what the hotspot name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be delineated). Far too many people casually assign their checklists to the hotspot nearest their starting point and then bird well outside its "boundaries," rendering hotspot statistics meaningless at best and misleading at worst.
As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively affecting the data by under-counting birds.
The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity, see it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds while waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species but on a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a COMPLETE LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one was not really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of species reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more often so that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a woefully low number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time, appreciably lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy. The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts of many birds.
--Paul Lehman, San Diego
**CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE** This e-mail communication and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is confidential and privileged under state and federal privacy laws. If you received this e-mail in error, be aware that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy/delete all copies of this message.
Well, I'm surely not the authority on this, and others may disagree, but I
would say that if there is a hotspot that encompasses the entirety of your
birding route, use it unless there's a compelling reason not to (and I
can't think of one; if you're doing a stationary count, you can put the
location in the comments and if you have the track turned on, it will be
recorded). If the hotspots are nested or overlapping, use the most precise
one without compromising accuracy (accuracy pretty much always trumps
precision).
Someday - in my dreams, at least - hotspots will have actual boundaries and
the app will notify you when you're crossing them or tell you you're
outside them!
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:14 PM Teresa Thome <thomeplay...> wrote:
> Thanks Ken. As someone who tries to give the most accurate information
> possible, I struggle when I think I shouldn’t use the standard hotspot but
> the app says “recommended.” What is a good rule of thumb?
>
> Birding is Fun!
> www.Teresa-Thome.com
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ken Burton <shrikethree...> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot
>> statistics, I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal
>> location rather than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what
>> the hotspot name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be
>> delineated). Far too many people casually assign their checklists to the
>> hotspot nearest their starting point and then bird well outside its
>> "boundaries," rendering hotspot statistics meaningless at best and
>> misleading at worst.
>>
>> Ken Burton
>> McKinleyville
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:27 PM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
>> <lehman.paul...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by
>>> observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively
>>> affecting the data by under-counting birds.
>>>
>>>
>>> The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity,
>>> see it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds
>>> while waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species
>>> but on a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a
>>> COMPLETE LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one
>>> was not really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of
>>> species reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more
>>> often so that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a
>>> woefully low number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time,
>>> appreciably lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list
>>> actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is
>>> formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near
>>> the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come
>>> and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the
>>> shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but
>>> typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and
>>> almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of
>>> us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but
>>> it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy.
>>> The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved
>>> three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and
>>> especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would
>>> need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts
>>> of many birds.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Thank you, Paul. And as someone who analyzes and uses hotspot statistics,
I would like to add a plea for people to use a personal location rather
than a hotspot when their birding route extends beyond what the hotspot
name covers (currently the only way a hotspot can be delineated). Far too
many people casually assign their checklists to the hotspot nearest their
starting point and then bird well outside its "boundaries," rendering
hotspot statistics meaningless at best and misleading at worst.
Ken Burton
McKinleyville
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:27 PM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
<lehman.paul...> wrote:
>
>
> As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by
> observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively
> affecting the data by under-counting birds.
>
>
> The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity, see
> it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds while
> waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species but on
> a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a COMPLETE
> LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one was not
> really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of species
> reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more often so
> that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a woefully low
> number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time, appreciably
> lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
>
>
> Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list
> actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is
> formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near
> the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come
> and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the
> shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but
> typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and
> almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of
> us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but
> it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy.
> The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved
> three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and
> especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
>
>
> Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would
> need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts
> of many birds.
>
>
> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>
>
>
>
As an eBird reviewer, I have noted a couple rather common practices by observers re: eBird list submissions which I believe are negatively affecting the data by under-counting birds.
The first is to go to a site to primarily chase some stakeout rarity, see it and perhaps subconsciously note just a small number of other birds while waiting around, and then submit a list of just a handful of species but on a list that lasted almost an hour or even longer, and done so as a COMPLETE LIST. But this really is an incomplete/incidental list, where one was not really birding for birding's sake, and the variety and totals of species reflect that! Please use the incomplete/incidental option more often so that the data are not skewed to show a complete list with a woefully low number of birds detected over a reasonable length of time, appreciably lower than the observer's abilities would normally produce.
Another common practice is to submit a group list but which was a list actually noted only by the ONE person who created the list. If a group is formed, then really all members of the group should pool their numbers near the end of the period. Sure, sometimes this is tough because members come and go at different times. And yes, some folks then, once they accept the shared list, then add additional missing species they alone saw--but typically this is done just for a very few uncommon/scarce species, and almost never does the observer "up" the totals already on the list. Lots of us are busy, and any such time-saving, "group" methods are appreciated, but it seems like a good percent of time that folks are being just a tad lazy. The problem of course is that now a list has been submitted that involved three, five, or seven, or however many observers, but the species seen and especially the number of individuals seen are those of only ONE observer.
Somebody else more in tune with the statistical side of such data would need to address how large an issue this could be in generating under-counts of many birds.
With only one report, that of two White-winged Crossbills in northern Oregon so far this winter, I very much doubt any will get to California.
Guy McCaskie
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Chuck Dresel
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 6:19 AM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] Crossbill Question
Friends,
I was wondering about the chances of White-winged Crossbills showing up this winter in extreme Northern California. With the recent high numbers of Red Crossbills and the amazing discovery of Cassia's in San Mateo it's got me thinking. I have seen reports on ebird the last few years of White-winged being seen in the mountains of central Oregon. Have they occured here in CA. in places like the Warner Mtns? Is there any chance they might get this far south?
Thanks.
--
Chuck Dresel
Napa, CA.
Friends,
I was wondering about the chances of White-winged Crossbills showing up this winter in extreme Northern California. With the recent high numbers of Red Crossbills and the amazing discovery of Cassia's in San Mateo it's got me thinking. I have seen reports on ebird the last few years of White-winged being seen in the mountains of central Oregon. Have they occured here in CA. in places like the Warner Mtns? Is there any chance they might get this far south?
Thanks.
--
Chuck Dresel
Napa, CA.
Date: 11/26/23 4:25 pm From: Steve Summers <summers...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tulare Co. Greater Pewee still here
This afternoon a little
before 3:30p I saw the Greater Pewee again below Success Dam at Success Lake. I had
finished birding the Big Sycamore Trail and was driving out of the parking lot when I stopped
to look at a large flock of feeding juncos on the ground under a tree
between the parking lot and the residence building. I noticed a larger
bird fly into the tree and was a little shocked to see it was the
Greater Pewee. Here’s the GPS of the tree it was in 36.05966,
-118.917937. This location is a quarter of a mile from where it was most
often seen along the trail, last sighting was Nov. 13. It now looks like this bird is ranging over
an area of at least 32 acres where perhaps half of which isn’t easily accessible. It's proving to be a tough bird to find!
Steve SummersPorterville
Date: 11/24/23 9:33 pm From: Ken Burton <shrikethree...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Purple Gallinule in Humboldt
This morning, Nicole King and Yana Valachovic found a PUGA at the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary (40.863389, -124.095252). It was subsequently seen and photographed by dozens.
Date: 11/21/23 12:35 pm From: <lehman.paul...> via groups.io <lehman.paul...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] On birding the road less traveled
Here in San Diego County, this morning I tried a change of pace by visiting some rarely birded sites farther inland including both nice and somewhat sketchy parks on the east side of town between Colina del Sol and Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. Highlights were a Plumbeous Vireo at Colina del Sol Park and a couple east-of-usual Swinhoe's White-eyes in an apartment complex in s. La Mesa. Also a couple B-t Gray Warblers. While birding in that area it got me thinking about birding along the road less traveled, which reminded me......
I'd like to give a shout out to Steven Lima for definitely birding along the road less traveled in 2023. Steve spends a lot of his time in parts of San Diego County that are well east of where most of us go birding (mountains and desert excepted). Steve also does a lot of walking. Because he is much farther inland a lot of the time, often in areas that have barely any "concentrating effect" that many of our more coastal (or desert) sites have, it is more difficult to turn up rarities. But he seems to manage. Granted, I won't see any rare-bird listserv posts or rarity-alert eBird reports from Steve for many days on end--and I know that he is out birding. But by doing this exploration in 2023, all he's done is find a spring Hudsonian Godwit at upper Lake Hodges that everyone got to see, found a summer Yellow-billed Cuckoo in a non-exceptional drainage in Poway that almost everyone got to see, found a late-fall Louisiana Waterthrush at a mountain site that nobody ever checks and which a bunch of folks got to see later that day, and saw a fly-by Sandhill Crane near Lakeside that thank goodness had the good manners to then set up shop in the Tijuana River Valley soon thereafter so everyone could see it. (He also had a Chestnut-sided Warbler farther inland than usual at 4S Ranch.)
And so what have all the rest of us FOUND in 2023??? Something to think about for 2024.
Date: 11/21/23 10:57 am From: Susan Steele via groups.io <steele7...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Prothonotary warbler Mono
Nancy found the prothonotary warbler at Mono County Park. She was near death. She will either go to a rehabber or a collection depending on the outcome. Susan
Date: 11/20/23 7:55 am From: George Chrisman via groups.io <geodani55...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Cassia CrossBILL and Type 2,3,4,5,+ Red Crossbills at Skylawn Cemetery, San Mateo County, CA
Greeting Birders,
On Tuesday November 14, I birded Skylawn Cemetery along Highway 92 between San Mateo & Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County hoping to photograph and record Crossbills. There have been Cassia Crossbills reported here over the past 2 weeks. I parked near the Bodhisattva statue at the top of the cemetery. After waiting for about an hour with virtually no activity, I started my car to leave and as I was pulling away, I heard a huge flock of 35 Crossbills circling above me and eventually landed on the statue and fountain. My first instinct was to get some pictures of the birds on the statue that was only about 50-75 feet away from where I was parked. After taking about a dozen photos, I activated my Merlin sound app on my iPhone and made a recording of the chattering birds from the front seat of my car. After about one minute, the flock took off and scattered. About one minute later, presumably another flock of Crossbills circled from above and landed on the fountain. Again I recorded them as they moved in and landed on the statue and in the fountain below. Not sure what types of Crossbills they were, I sent my eBird checklist https://ebird.org/checklist/S154451675 ( https://ebird.org/checklist/S154451675 ) to Matt Young and Tim Spahr at the FinchNewtwork.org Here is their response:
"Hi George, this is one of the most incredible crossbill checklists I've ever seen. You have Type 2, 3, 4, 5, and Cassia. And you have one bird we can't place between Type 7 and Type 12.
The loudest calls in ML611129085 are Type 3.
In ML611129086 you have:
Type 5 best viewed around 5.2-5.4 seconds
Cassia at 22.6 seconds
Type 4 starts up around 24 seconds
Type 2 around 37 seconds.
There is a bird calling around 38 seconds (spectra look like an upside-down check mark) that Matt and I can't place between Type 12 and Type 7. It has been there for several weeks.
Amazing stuff, congrats!!
Tim"
I will be revising my eBird Checklists to reflect their analysis. I'm not sure how to document or separate my photos with all of the different types, but I'll give it my best shot. I can separate the two sound recording and reference the time locations from their notes. Very Cool Experience!
Date: 11/16/23 9:51 am From: Braxton Landsman via groups.io <balbhl...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Quail hill preserve LeConte’s Sparrow
All,
The Le’Conte’s Sparrow supposedly continues this morning at Quail Hill preserve/trail in Orange County. However, the trails are locked and closed due to the muddy conditions. Cynthia Case reports,
“ Cynthia case reports “Police are here, taking IDs, etc…issuing tickets.”
I encourage everybody to NOT TRESPASS into the trails if it’s locked. Doing so my result in further closure and nobody will be able to see the bird.
Please do be considerate with this sort of stuff. If the trails are closed, they’re closed. The mud line will be “re-evaluated at 1pm today” so hopefully it’ll open back up later or at least for tomorrow.
The Greater Pewee along the Big Sycamore Trail below the Success Dam continued today. It was seen in the morning at 09:45 and I saw it in the
afternoon at 14:38. It was around the open area along the trail where there is an interpretive sign about this area being a "Pollinator Garden".
Since Nov. 8 it has been seen in several locations along the trail but this area seems to have the most sightings. Check out the lists on the eBird
Hotspot "Tule R. below Success Dam (Bartlett Park/Sycamore Trail)" for photos and lat/long numbers for some of the locations.
This area is accessed off of Hwy. 190. The turn off is before you get to the dam and goes downhill to the headquarters. There is a sign down at the
bottom directing to the trail parking lot. Park at the bathrooms and start walking the trail from there. The pollinator garden is after you cross
the second footbridge.
Date: 11/11/23 5:00 pm From: Chris Spurgeon <chris...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Bird research grants available from Pasadena Audubon
Of interest to folks in the California birding communities...
Pasadena Audubon is pleased to announce that we're now accepting grant applications for 2024. As always, we're most interested in grant proposals that are relevant to Southern California or the Pacific Flyway. This time we're particularly interested in proposals utilizing Motus technologies or data. In addition we fund scholarships for Young Birders to attend conferences and birding camps.
The grants are open to students (both undergraduate and graduate) and other researchers who are relatively early in their careers. Grants up to $3,000 will be awarded. For full details, and to apply, visit www.pasadenaaudubon.org/grants ( https://www.pasadenaaudubon.org/grants ). The application deadline is January 15, 2024. For more information or questions, please contact <grants...> .
Please share this announcement to any interested parties.
We were along the south side of Sanctuary Way near the large mausoleum.
When I posted the the first message to Calbirds I thought we were right at
the southern edge of the cemetery but it turns out that there were more
streets between our location and route 92 that I didn't know about. That
said, the birds moved around a lot, didn't stay in one place for very long,
and were moving between Sanctuary Way and route 92, moving east, west, and
north. Here are the coordinates where we stood most of the time:
37.496720, -122.372490
37.496720, -122.372490
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:21 PM <tgmiko...> <tgmiko...> wrote:
> Hi
> I apologize for this but I'm at the airport this morning on the way to
> Oakland to stop by and look for the cross bills. What are the correct GPS
> coordinates for that part of the cemetery where we should look for the
> crossbills?
>
> Thomas Geza Miko
> Claremont, LA County
> 909.241.3300
> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
> there is nothing left to take away.”
> ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>
>
Date: 11/11/23 3:21 pm From: <tgmiko...> <tgmiko...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] FW: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Hi
I apologize for this but I'm at the airport this morning on the way to
Oakland to stop by and look for the cross bills. What are the correct GPS
coordinates for that part of the cemetery where we should look for the
crossbills?
Thomas Geza Miko
Claremont, LA County
909.241.3300
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023, 15:19 Rishab Ghosh <rishab.ghosh...> wrote:
> Hi Lance,
>
> I and some other birders were at Skylawn yesterday for 3-4 hours and
> couldn’t find them; when we saw your email about the 1045 sighting we
> rushed to what we thought you meant by the “south edge of the cemetery” but
> couldn’t find them - would you be willing to share any coordinates or any
> more specific location / directions? I didn’t see that in your Ebird report.
>
> FYI after your email we were looking here
> (37.4952787, -122.3727705)
>
> Thank you!
>
> Rishab
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 19:12 Lance Benner <lbenner...> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> According to Tim Spahr at the Finch Research Network, My recordings this
>> morning confirm that at least one Cassia Crossbill continues at Skylawn
>> Cemetery.
>>
>> It was identified from a recording.
>>
>> Types 2 and 5 are also present.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lance
>>
>> Lance Benner
>> Altadena, CA
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:42, Lance Benner <lbenner...> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> As of 10:35 am on Nov. 4, there are still dozens of red crossbills at
>> Skylawn cemetery in San Mateo county. Definitely some type 2s and type
>> 5s. Not sure about Cassia crossbills: I need to load my recordings onto a
>> computer and generate sonograms to check.
>>
>> They’re flying around a lot among pines near the south edge of the
>> cemetery
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Lance
>>
>> Lance Benner
>> Altadena, CA
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2023, at 18:07, Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It
>> took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day
>> after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with
>> good equipment.
>>
>> Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings
>> to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A
>> flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be
>> still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to
>> record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of
>> mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of
>> Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings
>> to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually
>> resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to
>> understanding this population.
>>
>> This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands
>> right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about
>> this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and
>> crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing
>> unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time,
>> and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this
>> season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!!
>>
>>
>>
>> See the message below for more details.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alvaro Jaramillo
>>
>> <alvaro...>
>>
>> www.alvarosadventures.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tim Spahr <tspahr44...>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM
>> *To:* Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young <
>> <info...>
>> *Cc:* Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...>
>> *Subject:* confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the
>> clips you sent us. Congrats!
>>
>>
>>
>> In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and
>> Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always
>> lower-pitched.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from
>> Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is
>> included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls
>> together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the
>> complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features
>> in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all
>> the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry
>> "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and
>> they came down on Cassia immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area.
>> Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week.
>>
>>
>>
>> great work, everyone!
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Date: 11/10/23 1:28 pm From: Steve Summers <summers...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tulare Co. Greater Pewee no show this morning
Five birders searched for over 3 hours this morning for the Greater Pewee along the Big Sycamore Trail below Success Dam with no success. Bartlett Park across the river was also looked at for a short time with the same results. Us locals will keep trying over the next several days.
Date: 11/9/23 12:40 pm From: Steve Summers <summers...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tulare Co. Big Sycamore Trail Greater Pewee continues
Update on the Greater Pewee. It was extremely cooperative this morning as we watched it for one hour and walked away from it. Here is the Lat/Long for where it was today.
(36.0576086, -118.9220684)
Date: 11/5/23 10:22 am From: Lance Benner <lbenner...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] FW: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Hi Everyone, Sure, I'd to help. We were along the south side of Sanctuary Way near the large mausoleum. When I posted the the first message to Calbirds I thought we were right at the southern edge of the cemetery but it turns out that there were more streets between our location and route 92 that I didn't know about. That said, the birds moved around a lot, didn't stay in one place for very long, and were moving between Sanctuary Way and route 92, moving east, west, and north. Here are the coordinates where we stood most of the time: 37.496720, -122.372490 Nearly every time we heard the flight calls I tried to record them. I was using a Sennheiser ME67 long shotgun mic at first but afterward I switched to a 22 inch parabola equipped with a Sennheiser ME62 mic. I briefly used an iPhone with the SongMeter Touch app as well just to see how it would do (this app generates sonograms in real time and is more sensitive than the Merlin app). The best recordings were obtained with the parabola. Patience was key: After we found a spot where the birds kept vocalizing, we stayed there and let them come to us. They flew over frequently, disappeared, and soon another group would fly by. They tended to fly well above the tree tops but occasionally some perched relatively low in conifers, and a few even came down to the street to drink out of puddles along the side. All the birds I saw were adults. The type 2s and 5s sounded different while we were in the field but I didn't notice the Cassia crossbill until hours later when I was checking sonograms on a computer. I sent recordings to Tim Spahr and he identified the Cassia crossbill by comparing the flight calls visually and by listening to Cassia crossbill recordings obtained at the South Hills in Idaho by multiple observers. We were not able to identify the Cassia crossbill visually in the field. It's necessary to record them. You might get lucky by recording with a phone if the bird is really close (e.g., see Alvaro's recordings) but your chances will be better if you have dedicated recording equipment. Since last night I've added more type 2 and 5 recordings to the eBird list for comparison. Here's the link: https://ebird.org/checklist/S153754981 Good luck! Regards, Lance Lance BennerAltadena --------------------
From: "Rishab Ghosh" <rishab.ghosh...> To: "Lance Benner" <lbenner...> Cc: "Alvaro Jaramillo" <chucao...>, "Penbirds" <peninsula-birding...>, <calbirds...> Sent: Sun, Nov 05 2023 09:33 AM Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] FW: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California Hi Lance, I and some other birders were at Skylawn yesterday for 3-4 hours and couldn’t find them; when we saw your email about the 1045 sighting we rushed to what we thought you meant by the “south edge of the cemetery” but couldn’t find them - would you be willing to share any coordinates or any more specific location / directions? I didn’t see that in your Ebird report. FYI after your email we were looking here (37.4952787, -122.3727705) Thank you! Rishab On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 19:12 Lance Benner <lbenner...> wrote:
All, According to Tim Spahr at the Finch Research Network, My recordings this morning confirm that at least one Cassia Crossbill continues at Skylawn Cemetery. It was identified from a recording. Types 2 and 5 are also present. Regards, Lance Lance Benner Altadena, CA
On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:42, Lance Benner <lbenner...> wrote:
All, As of 10:35 am on Nov. 4, there are still dozens of red crossbills at Skylawn cemetery in San Mateo county. Definitely some type 2s and type 5s. Not sure about Cassia crossbills: I need to load my recordings onto a computer and generate sonograms to check. They’re flying around a lot among pines near the south edge of the cemetery Regards, Lance Lance Benner Altadena, CA
On Nov 3, 2023, at 18:07, Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> wrote:
Hello all,
Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with good equipment.
Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to understanding this population.
This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time, and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!!
See the message below for more details.
Alvaro Jaramillo
<alvaro...>
www.alvarosadventures.com
From: Tim Spahr <tspahr44...> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM To: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young <info...> Cc: Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...> Subject: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the clips you sent us. Congrats!
In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always lower-pitched.
I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5.
We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and they came down on Cassia immediately.
I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area. Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week.
View/Reply Online (#14677) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [<lists...>] _._,_._,_
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, 9:30 PM Kurt Radamaker via groups.io <kurtradamaker= <gmail.com...> wrote:
> > https://americanornithology.org/about/committees/nacc/current-prior-proposals/2022-proposals/comments-2022-b/ > > AOS Proposal to detract Cassia Crossbill > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 6:07 PM Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It >> took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day >> after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with >> good equipment. >> >> Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings >> to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A >> flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be >> still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to >> record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of >> mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of >> Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings >> to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually >> resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to >> understanding this population. >> >> This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands >> right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about >> this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and >> crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing >> unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time, >> and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this >> season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!! >> >> >> >> See the message below for more details. >> >> >> >> Alvaro Jaramillo >> >> <alvaro...> >> >> www.alvarosadventures.com >> >> >> >> *From:* Tim Spahr <tspahr44...> >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM >> *To:* Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young < >> <info...> >> *Cc:* Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...> >> *Subject:* confirming Cassia Crossbills in California >> >> >> >> Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the >> clips you sent us. Congrats! >> >> >> >> In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and >> Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always >> lower-pitched. >> >> >> >> I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from >> Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is >> included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls >> together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the >> complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features >> in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all >> the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry >> "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5. >> >> >> >> We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and >> they came down on Cassia immediately. >> >> >> >> I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area. >> Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week. >> >> >> >> great work, everyone! >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 6:07 PM Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> wrote:
> Hello all, > > > > Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It > took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day > after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with > good equipment. > > Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings > to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A > flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be > still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to > record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of > mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of > Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings > to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually > resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to > understanding this population. > > This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands > right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about > this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and > crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing > unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time, > and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this > season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!! > > > > See the message below for more details. > > > > Alvaro Jaramillo > > <alvaro...> > > www.alvarosadventures.com > > > > *From:* Tim Spahr <tspahr44...> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM > *To:* Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young < > <info...> > *Cc:* Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...> > *Subject:* confirming Cassia Crossbills in California > > > > Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the > clips you sent us. Congrats! > > > > In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and > Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always > lower-pitched. > > > > I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from > Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is > included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls > together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the > complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features > in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all > the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry > "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5. > > > > We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and they > came down on Cassia immediately. > > > > I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area. > Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week. > > > > great work, everyone! > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > >
And while I'm at it, https://finchnetwork.org/ has more details on Tim and
Matt's work and is worth a read if you're interested in the amazing
varieties and subtleties of our finches!
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:07 PM Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It
> took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day
> after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with
> good equipment.
>
> Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings
> to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A
> flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be
> still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to
> record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of
> mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of
> Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings
> to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually
> resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to
> understanding this population.
>
> This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands
> right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about
> this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and
> crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing
> unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time,
> and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this
> season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!!
>
>
>
> See the message below for more details.
>
>
>
> Alvaro Jaramillo
>
> <alvaro...>
>
> www.alvarosadventures.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Tim Spahr <tspahr44...>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM
> *To:* Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young <
> <info...>
> *Cc:* Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...>
> *Subject:* confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
>
>
>
> Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the
> clips you sent us. Congrats!
>
>
>
> In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and
> Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always
> lower-pitched.
>
>
>
> I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from
> Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is
> included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls
> together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the
> complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features
> in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all
> the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry
> "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5.
>
>
>
> We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and they
> came down on Cassia immediately.
>
>
>
> I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area.
> Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week.
>
>
>
> great work, everyone!
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: 11/3/23 10:02 pm From: <tgmiko...> <tgmiko...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] FW: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Alvaro,
There has been speculation and talk on one of the bird information forums
that this species is going to be lumped back into red crossbill a few years
from now. If anybody has any specific or concrete information about this,
please share.
Thomas Geza Miko
Claremont, LA County
909.241.3300
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 18:07 Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It
> took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day
> after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with
> good equipment.
>
> Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings
> to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A
> flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be
> still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to
> record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of
> mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of
> Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings
> to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually
> resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to
> understanding this population.
>
> This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands
> right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about
> this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and
> crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing
> unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time,
> and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this
> season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!!
>
>
>
> See the message below for more details.
>
>
>
> Alvaro Jaramillo
>
> <alvaro...>
>
> www.alvarosadventures.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Tim Spahr <tspahr44...>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM
> *To:* Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young <
> <info...>
> *Cc:* Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...>
> *Subject:* confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
>
>
>
> Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the
> clips you sent us. Congrats!
>
>
>
> In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and
> Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always
> lower-pitched.
>
>
>
> I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from
> Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is
> included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls
> together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the
> complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features
> in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all
> the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry
> "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5.
>
>
>
> We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and they
> came down on Cassia immediately.
>
>
>
> I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area.
> Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week.
>
>
>
> great work, everyone!
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: 11/3/23 6:07 pm From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] FW: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Hello all,
Our apologies in the time delay from first sightings to this news. It took some diligent recording by Mike Ambrose, who was up there the next day after my initial announcement and was able to do a proper recording with good equipment.
Then Matt Young and Tim Spahr deliberated and passed on the recordings to other experts. The decision appears to be unanimous from the experts. A flock of Cassia Crossbills with some type 5 mixed in have been and may be still up at Skylawn Cemetery in San Mateo County. Key is for birders to record Red Crossbills now throughout California. There is a big push of mountain birds out of their regular range at this point, and the move of Cassia Crossbills out of their range could be wide, it will take recordings to find out. Understanding the movements of a species that is usually resident for long periods of time, is interesting and vital to understanding this population.
This is a difficult species to confirm out of range, but as it stands right now the experts on the sounds of Cassia Crossbill are excited about this find, and are clear that Cassia has been here. Totally unexpected, and crazy, but frustrating as you cannot know what you are seeing and hearing unless you are keyed in to these things. But hey, learning is a good time, and maybe we can do a bit of communal learning on Red Crossbills this season and others can confirm Cassia as they move through California!!
From: Tim Spahr <tspahr44...>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao...>; Matthew Young <info...>
Cc: Mike Ambrose <mikeambrose920...>
Subject: confirming Cassia Crossbills in California
Hey guys, Matt and I are confident there are Cassia Crossbills in the clips you sent us. Congrats!
In both Alvaro's and Mike's clips there are some Type 5s. Type 5 and Cassia can be similar, but Cassia usually has a drier sound and is always lower-pitched.
I've made a mashup of calls from Mike's recording, and three Cassias from Idaho (my recording, Andrew Spencer and Garrett MacDonald). That is included below, as is a spectrogram where you can see all four calls together. They are a very good match. A few key features are 1) the complexity of the Cassia call when well recorded; look at all the features in the spectrogram of Mike's clip! 2) The initial uptick visible in all the Cassia calls (even slightly visible in Mike's call) 3) the really dry "drip drip" sound as opposed to the twangy "clip clip" of Type 5.
We circulated this material to some other ear birding specialists and they came down on Cassia immediately.
I'll try to pay close attention to the other recordings from the area. Mike, I'll also take a listen to the longer clip you sent me last week.
