Though we have already covered the addition of the Nutmeg Mannikin to the official California state checklist we neglected to let you know that the ABA Checklist Committee quickly followed suit.
This had bad results for Adolf Hitler, as the video above proves.
Corey is a New Yorker who lived most of his life in upstate New York but has lived in Queens since 2008. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy and Desmond Shearwater. His bird photographs have appeared on the Today Show, in Birding, Living Bird Magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest, and many other fine publications. He is also the author of the American Birding Association Field Guide to the Birds of New York.
So, can you count them if you’ve seen them before the date of their addition to the ABA list?
@Jochen – It’s unclear. That’s about all anyone can say.
Aside from the slightly funny comment, “Why else would anyone go to St. Louis?” this is in such bad taste that I’m sorry I watched it. Yes, the subject of the discussion is relevant and certainly eligible for strenuous debate. Using a clip from a film with Hitler to posit a theory was not the way to engage the general birding community in that debate. Overall, about as funny as a truck load of dead babies being unloaded with pitch forks on Mother’s Day.
@David: I think using a widely recognized meme is a great way to engage with an audience. I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be.
I find this hilarious! Thank you Corey for the funniest thing I’ve seen in a month!
Don’t know Nate, but he evidently doesn’t know ABA rules. IF an introduced bird is added to the ABA list, then your previous sightings do NOT count. You must go and see it again for it to be counted on your list.
But, then, it’s your list, so you can count any way you wish. The ABA rules however are clear.
Best Birding Video for Listers ever. If there’s a better one would luv to see it.
Brilliant!
I don’t see that in the rules, Monte. I believe this is something that the current RSEC is looking to clarify.
This very clearly states “only where and when” for introduced species in the ABA listing rules:
B. currently accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee means:
(i) the species must be (a) included in the current published ABA Checklist, as modified by subsequent Supplements, or (b) formally accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee for inclusion in the next published ABA Checklist or Supplement. Species listed as “species of hypothetical origin” and species that have been deleted from the main ABA Checklist are NOT considered to be accepted;
(ii) an indigenous species currently accepted by the Checklist Committee but observed in the past when it was not considered a valid full species may be counted;
(iii) an introduced species may be counted only where and when it meets the ABA Checklist’s definition for being an established population. An introduced species observed well away from the accepted geographic area is not counted if it is more likely to be a local escape or release rather than an individual straying from the distant population;
BTW, I’m not trying to detract whatsoever on the video or its message – I watch it over and over, and as a heavy lister (#1 photo Birds and #7 ABA seen species) crack up each and every time I watch it! It’s just that technically the ABA rules are quite clear.
I don’t see anywhere in the text you quoted where it clearly says what you claim it does, Monte. Could you please explain?
“[W]here and when it meets the ABA Checklist’s definition” does not mean the same thing as “where and when it is on the ABA Checklist”. The ABA Checklist’s definition of an established introduced population does not include “already on the Checklist” as one of the criteria, or nothing could ever her added.
*be added.
Another person on this comment thread, believes (at least his name is the same as a member of the board of the ABA!!) he doesn’t have to go re – see the bird (introduced species) after it has been added to count it. He disagrees with what I said that the ABA rules are clear and that you must go back and see the bird again prior to adding it to ones list. And that goes for “Photographed Species” too BTW.
Well, I’ll put it this way. First, I personally know each of the top 20 birders in the world on the ABA list of top birders (and I’m one of them) for the ABA area. Nearly all of them have advanced degrees, are in professions such as CEO, COO, Doctors, Lawyers, Company owners / operators, and highly technical fields which would elude to the inference that they are fairly well educated (as am I) and understand the English language (grammar).
Stay with me here. I’m not sure if this one person that stated they don’t see the rule as I and others do, seems to appear to have spent their English grammar class time all the way thru high school doing nothing but possibly texting their friends rather than listening to the teacher as their comments show.
Those top 20 birders know English, and ALL (including myself) have interpreted the rule (which frankly is completely clear), and have all either already gone and re-seen these introduced added birds, or plan to prior to placing them on our lists.
Why? Because they all understand clearly that if a bird is an introduced bird in the ABA, and it is then added to the ABA checklist (therefore countable), you MUST go re – see that bird to then count it on your list.
You can go and read the ABA listing rules for yourself. If you don’t get it, then I truly suggest contacting your high school English teacher and ask for help.
Sadly, if there are that many people that can’t understand the English language better than that, there may very well be a lot of folks out there adding species to their lists and touting to the rest that they have such or such number of species seen when in fact their species list is INVALID and frankly, not credible.
It’s that simple and that clear. PERIOD!!!!!
Monte, you were asked to point to the exact language upon which you are basing your interpretation of the rules. Instead of answering, you engaged in a rather pitiful ad hominem attack and avoided the question entirely. I can only assume that’s because you know you cannot prove your case. And I suspect everyone else reading will assume the same. Just because 20 dudes you know have one interpretation does not mean it’s correct. Everyone is infallible, and group-think is real thing.
HA! That should be “no one is infallible”, of course!
Another example of group-think: Everyone knows that you can’t count something on an ABA list until a state/provincial records committee accepts it. Ask 20 birders; they’ll probably tell you that’s correct. The term “records committee” appears not once in the ABA’s listing rules. Yet for 20 years or more, everyone “knew” that’s just how it was. Only it wasn’t then and isn’t now. It only was/is correct in their heads.
Absolutely hilarious and brilliant!! Will watch this many times. I’m at ABA #399 as of today just found out Egyptian Goose was added to the “list” as of July. I have seen them at least a hundred times in Miami – last sighting in May, 2014 right before I left for NY where I have been since then. Really?!?! For me technically of course I am at #400 but it does take the fun out of it. Hoping to find a Black-Billed Cuckoo tomorrow in Prospect Park!!!