If you love something, set it free. Why bird records committees need to evolve.

 
Another (not) amusing situation - I wrote this as a commentary for the Ontario Birds journal (back in June) - to help explain the need for our BRC to adapt with the times. It wasn't published. 

----

The Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC) was established in 1981 to replace the Ontario Ornithological Records Committee (OORC), which at that time was no longer meeting the needs of the active field ornithologists of the era. 

At its inception, the OBRC was a cutting-edge way to collect, archive and disseminate knowledge. It provided a centralized system for the evaluation of notable bird observations, which in turn supported growth of community knowledge in identification criteria and patterns of occurrence. This happened before the internet, before mobile phones, digital photography, and before large searchable databases of peer reviewed data like eBird existed. This historical context is essential: the conditions that made the OBRC effective in 1981 have changed, while the operations of the OBRC have remained the same.  

Modern bird discoveries are now often supported by high-quality digital media, instantaneous communication, more extensive comparative material, and are soon entered into publicly accessible databases. While social media and online platforms have expanded access to information, they have also created an environment where sustained analysis or preservation of valuable material is challenging at best. Notable discussion often occurs rapidly and informally, then disappears into the digital abyss.

What is the purpose of a bird records committee? 

The answer to this question, in my opinion, should be the core guiding principle on how bird record committees could or should evolve. I believe that the collection, review, publication and archiving of bird records was not the purpose of the OBRC, they were the actions which supported the true purpose, to increase our knowledge of the status of birds in Ontario and to establish standards of observation and reporting. 

In 1981 our community knowledge grew thanks to the actions of the OBRC. The annual report was full of information about unusual bird occurrences that might have otherwise been inaccessible. In 2026, a keen and proactive (often amateur) field ornithologist may not learn anything new within the pages of an OBRC annual report. While at face value this may not seem like a significant concern, it is an unfortunate outcome of stagnation. These particularly keen individuals are the ones most likely to advance our collective community knowledge in the future, but are now doing so outside of the OBRC, and perhaps outside the umbrella of the Ontario Field Ornithologists itself. 

What could, or should, change? 

The voting structure of a bird records committee was generally designed to handle written accounts. An independent first round of voting would prevent external influence and also to stop “groupthink” with the initial evaluation. These concerns now rarely apply to a modern bird record, where hundreds of photos may be widely published within hours of initial discovery and identifications are discussed in real time. Another core goal of the OBRC, to provide a means by which sight records can gain acceptance as valuable scientific data, is often now accomplished within minutes through an eBird submission. While there are a multitude of ways the process could change, I believe considering how best to once again increase our knowledge of the status of birds in Ontario, and to establish standards of observation and reporting, provides clarity around what should change. 

The OBSG Proposal

I have been working with the support of others on how best to shift away from a traditional records committee model toward a structure better aligned with how bird study, documentation, and collaboration now occur. Responsibilities within the group would be separated by function and would not concentrated within a small group of individuals. Instead of strictly casting doubt or rendering judgement, expert review should focus primarily on adding value to a given record through analysis of plumage, molt, age, subspecies, movements, timing, awareness of similar taxa, and other analogous details. This positive evaluation will tease out potential concerns or inconsistencies within a report as they arise, but when they do arise, they would be documented with clear justification for the observer (and community) to learn from. An open, collaborative approach to data collection and review only increases the value that could be added to a report, rather than restricting input or collaboration, which was necessary in the era of written reports. This has another significant potential benefit; no individual or small group of individuals would be able to wield undue influence or control of the decisions of a bird records committee that prioritizes positive and defensible input. Anyone with relevant information to contribute would be able to participate

It should be noted that this can occur while maintaining the historical core actions of a bird records committee, such as the collection, publication and archival of material. Ideally, supporting the outcomes of competitive bird listing would be a positive side effect of our study, rather than the leading justification for the review of reports. 

Where do we go next?

Given the scattershot approach to bird study in the modern era, I believe it is time to reprioritize the production of durable and citable outputs, which add value to our collective knowledge. The success of any significant changes will still rely on volunteer support. Bird study and durable outputs are often not inherently suited to modern social media algorithms, and it may not ultimately be wise to compete for attention or engagement in that space. 

While data shows a steady decline in support from both the general birding community and among past OBRC members, presenting this data would not alter the fact that change in long-standing institutions is often difficult, particularly when existing systems were built and maintained by committed volunteers. Offering personal examples of concerns may appear selfish in nature. Highlighting impersonal issues may also be viewed as criticism of specific individuals who were involved in a given event. 

The OBRC is considered the raison d'être of the Ontario Field Ornithologists by many founding members. Ultimately, this conversation needs to shift from if change is necessary, to how change can be implemented, should proactive, amateur field ornithology will continue to be a part of the Ontario Field Ornithologists in the future. 

---

Figure 1. Black Swift. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. May 17, 2009. This observation was reviewed and accepted by the Ontario Bird Records Committee and appears in eBird outputs. Neither approach addresses the question if this bird hails from the western North American population or the Caribbean population. 

---

Figure 2. Carolina Chickadee. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. May 13, 2013. An account of this record was published in Ontario Birds (Holden and Bell 2016), not through any initiative of the OBRC, but through an independent effort to share the identification process with Ontario birders, with the hope that future records may materialize.

Holden, B.R. and D.M. Bell. 2016. Carolina Chickadee: Second record for Ontario and Canada. Ontario Birds, 34(1): 2–11

---

Figure 3. Possible Chihuahuan Meadowlark. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. April 25, 2016. When observers no longer see tangible value in supporting a bird records committee, they may stop submitting material or supporting the process. Despite this bird receiving strong  support from noted experts as a potential first record for Canada, it has not been submitted to the OBRC or published in Ontario Birds.

How it could be. Plegadis Ibis edition.

 

One of the more surprising things that arose when trying to encourage my local BRC to modernize (along with the parent org), was how forcefully the Status Quo Preservation Society proclaimed  "that everything is actually fine, and that there is no evidence to suggest that everything isn't already perfect". 

In reality, I didn't think it would be fun (or nice) to highlight specific issues. At the time. 

May 2005. Point Pelee Birding Area. 

Thankfully there was a group of seven experts, who in the winter of 2005-2006, each independently voted to confirm that the above bird was, in fact, a Glossy Ibis. Wait, it wasn't reviewed in time for the 2005 report (published in late August 2006). It was actually reviewed in the winter of 2006-2007 so it took ~28 months before it was finally memorialized in print by the OBRC. 

Fast forward to October 17, 2026. Quinten Wiegersma posts in the Great Lakes Bird Study Group discord... 

First winter Glossy/White-faced Ibis Identification ?

To shorten as much as possible. He notes that publications often note young plegadis ibis are unidentifiable in their first fall. Several recent records in Ontario are noted (or eBird accepted) as Glossy Ibis. Birders DO note features they use to separate some individuals at this time of year, but he's unaware of instances where these ID criteria have been published. He also notes how the status of White-faced Ibis has been changing over the last 20 years, and that hybrids may be increasing. 

--- 

Wouldn't it be interesting if the Ontario birding community, or dare I say, the OBRC - had provided some valuable insights on this identification question over the past ~45 years? 

Glossy Ibis is no longer a review species - given the prevailing sentiment that the OBRC might become relevant again, if only there were less records to review. We now have an eBird database with apparent Glossy Ibis accepted as White-faced and apparent White-faced Ibis accepted as Glossy. Interestingly that second example was actually rejected as Glossy Ibis by the OBRC (but accepted as "plegadis" ibis... I guess that's the value of being an Ontario-wide ebird reviewer...). I won't get into the handful of accepted Glossy/White-faced Ibis records that can be identified to species... 

During my time on the OBRC, we had a Glossy Ibis report that seemed like a possible hybrid, but the current chair of the SQPS pushed a rather interesting take. Just accept it as a "plegadis ibis" which, technically, would include a hybrid. Therefore we could just ignore the question and move on. Field ornithology at its finest. 

---

At the time of writing, Quinten's excellent question has solicited a grand total of three "fire" emoticons and no written responses. I'm no ibis expert, but I could respond with my impressions, in the hopes that the conversation actually kicks off - or even that someone else might jump at the opportunity to highlight if something I said was incorrect. While the GLBSG has received some solid praise, I really thought it was the lowest rung of a ladder our community could climb. Responses on discord are eventually lost to the bowels of the internet.

Unfortunately OFO and the OBRC continue to party like it's 1999, and our provincial "birding" community is using an alternate discord server (OBA) that only cares about listing. I'll get into those more in the future, but for now, I just wish there was some organized institutional effort to actually promote field ornithology and the sharing of experience & expertise. 

Advanced knowledge becomes general knowledge when given the time to grow. In the modern world, we have lost meaningful learning for quick hits of random trivia to distract our brains. I really don't mind if other people aren't interested in these topics. The issue is the swaths of the community (the SQPS, half of the OFO board, the OBA moderators, etc.) are going out of their way to squash our interest in field ornithology. Our, as in, the small subset of us who enjoy the learning & study parts of birding. 

Kirtland’s Warbler Consuming Ants at Point Pelee (2018 Note)

RIP Michigan Birds & Natural History News...  I wrote this short note for the journal, that was published in 2018: 

Holden, B.R. 2018. Kirtland’s warbler consuming ants during migration in Ontario. Michigan Birds and Natural History. 25(3): 172–174

--- 

Figure 1. Female Kirtland's Warbler actively foraging on ants

At 0900 on 18 May 2013 my Father and I were birding along the west beach footpath of Point Pelee National Park (Ontario, Canada) when an alternate (Humphrey and Parkes 1959) female Kirtland’s Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) caught our eyes. We secured record photographs and subsequently reported the sighting to the Ontbirds listserv, which allowed many other observers to enjoy the sighting. The habitat was that of a westerly facing beach dune community, notable with scattered Juniperus species. The bird was present in the same general area for the remainder of the day allowing us to return in the evening to obtain additional photographs. Known for their accommodating nature (Bocetti et al.), I was able to obtain a number of detailed images with a Canon 1DM4 DSLR and 600mm lens. Review of these images, both in the field and afterwards, showed that the bird was catching and consuming ants (Order: Hymenpotera) (Figures 1,2).

While the order is known to account for a sizeable portion of the species diet on the breeding grounds (Deloria-Scheffield et al. 2001) seemingly little has been published on migrant individuals at stopover locations; presumably due to the general scarcity of observations and subsequent inability to complete any detailed study.

The Kirtland’s Warbler is a rare but regular migrant in Ontario with 75 records accepted by the Ontario Bird Records Committee through 2016 (Burrell et al. 2016), with this individual representing the 58th (Holden 2014). The majority of observations have occurred in the extreme south-west portion of the province during spring migration, presumably on route to the species stronghold in the lower peninsula of Michigan (Probst 1991). Recent records well east in Ontario may be attributed to isolated breeding populations in Ontario, such as Renfrew County first discovered in 2006 (Richard 2008); which has been active every year thereafter (Richard 2013), as well as other unpublished occurrences. It is hoped that this note and associated images will shed a small amount of light on the species diet during at a stopover site during migration, a poorly known period of its life cycle.

Figure 2. Kirtland's Warbler eyeing up ants on a small trunk

Literature Cited

Bocetti, C.I., Donner D.M. and H.F. Mayfield. Kirtland’s Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ED.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/019doi:10.2173/bna.19

Burrell M.V.A., Charlton B.N. and K.G.D. Burrell. 2017. Ontario Bird Records Committee Report for 2016. Ontario Birds 34(2):58-85.

Deloria-Sheffield C.M., Millenbah, K.F., Bocetti, C.I., Sykes Jr., P.W. and C.B. Kepler. 2001. Kirtland’s Warbler Diet as Determined Through Fecal Analysis. Wilson Bulletin

Holden, B.R. 2014. Ontario Bird Records Committee Report for 2014. Ontario Birds 32(2):54-81.

Humphrey, P.S. and K.C. Parkes. 1959. An approach to the study of moots and plumages. Auk 76:1-31.

Probstm J.R. 1991. Kirtland’s Warbler. In: The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan (R. Brewer, G. McPeek, and R. Adams Jr., Eds.), Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. pp. 414-417.

Richard, T. 2013. Seven Years Later: Kirtland’s Warbler at Garrison Petawawa, 2006-2013. Ontario Birds 31(3):148-159.

Richard, T. 2008. Confirmed Occurrence and Nesting of the Kirtland’s Warbler at CFP Petawawa, Ontario: A First for Canada. Ontario Birds 26(1)2-15.

A funny thing happened on the way to ... Michigan Birds and Natural History News

 

Another fun thing that I wrote... That wasn't published... But not due to any bizarre internal politics (this time)...  Here is what followed; a "letter to the editors" or "commentary" to Michigan Birds and Natural History News: 

-------------


Regarding a reported Slaty-backed Gull from Whitefish Point, Chippewa, Michigan from May 19-20, 2017 and the role of Bird Records Committees 

Figure 1. Slaty-backed Gull at Whitefish Point, May 19, 2026. Photo by Skye Haas. 

This note pertains to a reported adult Slaty-backed Gull (Larus schistisagus) from Whitefish Point, Chippewa, Michigan from May 19-20, 2017. While conducting a review of available media of Slaty-backed Gull from the Great Lakes region, I was surprised that photos of this individual were unavailable for retrieval on the eBird.org website (eBird). Further investigation revealed that the record had been “rejected” by the Michigan Bird Records Committee (MBRC) which was the trigger for their suppression from the public output of eBird. 

This discovery led to a slight detour in my undertaking. I then sought out the original photos as well as the rationale provided for why the record was rejected. This ultimately led to further reflection on the role and intent of bird record committees, including my limited experience with the MBRC and my extensive experience with the Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC) of my home province.

 

Observer notes from the initial date of observation are as follows: 

Adult bird. Observed in small flock of gulls bathing and loafing in pools at tip of Whitefish Point. Immediately stood out as being intermediate in size between LBBG &GBBG. Structure was readily apparent with SBGU displaying a projecting "goose-like" breast, rounded head and thin THGU-like bill structure. Legs a deep bubblegum pink, a stronger color than the GBBG and HERG it was observed with. Substantially wide white tertial skirt, and in flight the white trailing edge of the wing was noticeably wider than the other gull spp present. Subterminal white spots were not the boldest marked I've seen on the species, but still present and observed in photos. Observed in both photos and through scope looks was the reduced black on the upper outer primaries, with the black restricted to the outer webs of the primaries creating a Venetian blind look ala THGU. Also noticed in both the field and from photos was the reduced black on underwing as compared to LBBG or GBBG.

Figure 2. Photo by Skye Haas. 

 

The reasoning provided to the observers regarding the rejection of the May 19-20, 2017 Slaty-backed Gull is as follows: 

Slaty-backed Gull 2017-0480-02 (initial vote: 5-2)

Those voting to reject based their concerns on traits viewed in the photographs, namely that they thought the underwing pattern was too pale, the tongues were too narrow, and that the secondary trailing edge was not thick enough and appeared uniform with the primary trailing edge. Their thinking was that maybe one of these features is ok for a pure Slaty-backed but certainly not all of them. One member thought that the legs seemed long for this species. Those present who had voted to accept recognized these concerns but were undecided as to how they would vote the next time.

Figure 3. Photo: Steve Kolbe. 

These comments revived feelings of my own experiences with the OBRC on unrelated observations. I provide my thoughts not as a direct critique of the MBRC or the members of the 2017 committee, but as a representative example on how these decisions may affect the reporting observer(s) of a rare bird, the birding community and the ability for a records committee to achieve their stated objectives. 

To start, the first sentence raises concern. “Those voting to reject based their concerns on traits viewed in the photographs…”. There is a growing trend for validators of bird records to formulate their opinions strictly on available media, rejecting the field notes and particularly field experience of those taking the time to submit a report. While I cannot provide any basis on the potential for photographs to be misleading, observers to make mistakes, and/or the greater likelihood of either scenario unfolding – this approach ultimately does work to discredit the observer. This may lead to a reluctance from observers to take field notes or to provide text with their submissions to a records committee at all. 

Items regarding observed field marks raise further concern, specifically the “concerning traits” noticed by dissenting MBRC members, that the: 

- “the underwing pattern was too pale”; 

- “the secondary trailing edge was not thick enough”; and, 

- “the secondary trailing edge … appeared uniform with the primary trailing edge”. 

These comments are representative of a growing problem where validators of bird records may be searching for justification around the rejection of a record which leads to a subsequent explanation that is not necessarily rooted in fact or reality. I am of the opinion that each one of these traits, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively, are comfortably within the expected appearance of an adult Slaty-backed Gull. The underwing pattern shows the expected darker colouration on the underside of the primaries and secondaries (Figure 3), the secondary trailing edge is notably thick (Figures 2 and 3), and the trailing edge of the secondaries and primaries is not uniform (Figure 3). Using proper fieldmarks as justification for the rejection of a record surely leads to dissatisfaction and would lead to a reluctance from observers to make future submissions to a records committee. 

Finally, I was intrigued by this last perceived issue with the identification:

- “One member thought that the legs seemed long for this species”.

This brings forward another growing concern that I have with the validation of bird records, the notion that an observer must somehow be cognizant of, or dare I say omnipotent, in order to predict the potential concerns a reviewer may have with a bird record. I will boast that there may be few other observers in the Great Lakes region that enjoy gull study as I do, yet I would not have considered discussing the length of the legs for a potential SBAG. In hindsight, an observer might note that the apparent length of the legs may be affected by warmer weather conditions in May. Or perhaps the belly of the bird was slim due to illness or the pressures of long northward flights in spring migration? Alas, this feedback is only received following the initial rejection of a record – which as noted, is likely to have had a detrimental effect on the desire for an observer to bother supporting a records committee in the future. 

Many committees are adequately serving community members who are focused on competitive bird-listing endeavors, capturing records that are well observed and widely documented. Yet I would note that modern websites such as eBird would be similarly capable of similar undertakings if allowed to conduct their own validations outside of committee decisions. I would therefore like to encourage records committees and their members to consider how these decisions may be working against their goals to turn these records into valuable scientific data. Suppression of this Slaty-backed Gull observation, and similar records, would only reduce our ability to know the limits of occurrence of this species within the Great Lakes region. This effect is compounded when the most proactive members of the bird watching community, those who push to make new discoveries regarding bird identification and distribution, become disenfranchised with the process and have subsequent documentation that never reaches a records committee in the first place. 

In their foundations, these committees provided some of the best possible means to compile and disseminate information about vagrant bird identification and distribution given the technology available at the time. If the MBRC or other committees viewed their modern undertakings through this lens, how to best enhance the scientific value of our hobby through the sharing of knowledge, I suspect there would be improvements that can arise to the betterment of our community as a whole. 

(Submitted Aug 2025)

-------------

Maybe a bit sassy or self-centered on my part... But I sent it in anyways... And then I never heard back! 

I figured it was the standard issue regarding the fear of critique or potential change/improvement... Instead, it was because the journal had folded! At the time, the website was still up and the email for submissions as still posted - but the journal had gone under a few years previously. Ouch. 

There were a few other events beyond this instance that eventually convinced me to try to support/improve the process at home (in Ontario)... I'll be randomly sharing them here as time allows. 

Hot-Sauce Hawk-Watch - Oct 5, 2026

 

I teamed up with the legend known only as J B - for some good olde Lake Erie hawkwatching on Oct 5.

https://ebird.org/checklist/S399784454

A late RTHU, ~120 AGPL, ~175 AWPE, ~2600 TUVU, 6 PEFA, 4 swallow species including Bank and ~30 Barn (!!) Swallows, ~165 PISI, ~300 warblers... 

Pretty spectacular. Perhaps the only thing keeping it from being an all-time great day would be to bump the TUVU numbers over 10k... Or 2-3 SWHA... or something like a COKI...... Alas, if those things happened all the time, they wouldn't be so special. 

One interesting bird is this Merlin (above). At the time, we were talking about cameras and autofocus ... A Merlin had zipped by close earlier in the day, but I didn't think about grabbing a picture until it was too late. I saw one coming, went for my camera, and managed a few images. It seemed dark, but I assumed it was just the backlighting. I saved the image because I thought it looked neat. I looked closer and boy it really was very dark & unusually marked...

A less artistic / better exposed view. I remembered Tom Johnson and Tim Lenz had a Black Merlin in New York several years ago... I pulled up the checklist for reference. They noted "the general lack of pale spotting/ barring on the remiges, which are very important to the subspecific identification" ... The reference link no longer works, but it's the Systematics and Evolution of the North American Merlins by S. A. Temple. Link here. 

Other features of Black Merlin are reduced tail bars, a darker head... Long story short, it very much has features of Black Merlin. My big question is - is it really? Or is there variation in other populations that has a bird that can look like this? I queried the Great Lakes Bird Study Group (on discord) and got a 10/10 response from Lucas Wilson who has looked into this question before. 

I went back and saved the 3 other pictures I had of the bird. While I wish I had "noticed" it more in the field, it will be something fun to revisit in the future! 

Rapid Fire Recent Birding - OFO Convention Edition

 

More recent birding! I'm really sharing these for a few small reasons: 

1. Birding is fun - and I feel like it's good to share what you can see when you spend time in the field (looking...) 

2. Some stuff I hope to post isn't as much fun (like talking about how the OBRC could really use an update... or some thoughts on eBird... or the ABA...) 

3. See point #1 .. 

Great Horned Owl

I wasn't registered for the OFO convention, but I was excited to see some friendly faces! Not to mention the night birding, as previously noted. 

I sauntered my way to Essex County, stopping first at some light sources in the dark, just to see what was happening in the rain. It wasn't much! I ended up along the Lake Erie shoreline for the morning hours: https://ebird.org/checklist/S398385684 

50 species, including 4 RHWO, 3 PEFA, ~1000 AGOL, 11 BOBO (late)... Not bad at all... While not a direct comparison on time/effort, it is neat to see the differences in numbers between you and someone birding the same way nearby!

Little to report after that. It is quite amusing that both American White Pelicans and Trumpeter Swans have now set up shop at Hillman Marsh. Times have changed. 

Song Sparrow

Soon it was tomato time (as previously and previously noted). The lights went off around 12:30 am - and everyone else sensibly went to bed. Not this guy. I really enjoy testing different locations on the same day - or night - just to get a handle on how each site compares. I moved to a backup location and was (once again) shocked at the differences between species & flight styles - even on the same night and over short distances. 

A big highlight was a Dickcissel calling very loudly around 1:40 am! ... A Longspur (presumably Lapland, right?!) called very loudly as well ... Ruddy Ducks continued their surprise appearances. Perhaps most interesting of all was some photos of a bird that looks like a White-eyed Vireo. I was able to get a Blue-headed Vireo in the same night, showing structural differences well. 

After an hour or so, I drove around to scout for other locations, ended up back at the initial location, and eventually went to bed around 4:30 am ....... 

Apparent WEVI .. I think the huge head and short tail supports the ID? 

Instead of sleeping in, I set an alarm for 7am. I was fortunate to have a place to stay near the east beach of Hillman Marsh with the Burrell twins! I knew it wouldn't be an amazing location to bird, but I have always been interested to see what this location might be capable of. It was pretty boring so I ended up driving to Zion Rd:  https://ebird.org/checklist/S398781244

CHSW, PEFA, my fof PISI, some warblers ... Not bad ...  

I really needed to sleep, so I went back to my dig... I just wanted to do a quick check of the East Beach of Hillman Marsh again....... REKN, a flock of AGPL, more AWPE. Pretty good! Now off to slee-waaaaaittttttttt there's an adult Golden-Plover on the spit. Despite the flock of juv AGPL flying around, it didn't join them... Staying low, hiding in debris etc . Weird. It's legs are super long. The bill seemed really long too. The distribution of black below, while heavily in molt, sure isn't "wrong" for Pacific Golden-Plover... 

It was enough to keep me there for an extra hour... ahh! I'll share more about the plover in the future - but a key part of the story is that Max Segler and Liam Thorne went out and got some pictures of the beast (1000x better than mine)... 

I managed ~2 hrs of napping before one last hurrah of night birding. It was slow (as expected) but once again highlighted by some great company. I wanted to be home for Sunday - so I did a very sleepy drive back to London and I was back around 1:30 am. 

Tomatoes in Light

 

This past weekend was the OFO Conference at Point Pelee... While I was not keen on the conference itself, and I'm sometimes dismayed at the decline of actual "field ornithology" within the org... I cannot deny that it did facilitate an amazing birding experience. A chance to share greenhouse birding with some of Ontario's finest!

Long story short - in my recent night birding explorations, I've discovered some spots where the intense growing lights of local greenhouses shine up into the night sky. Check out this CBC news article for some context. It's pretty much a giant flashlight pointing up - and it's enough to very clearly see the birds flying overhead with your eyes / optics - at night. 

As always, I was a bit worried about crowds - or people who don't know how to park (and upsetting the locals) - trespassing - or appreciate potential disturbance to birds etc. etc.... but my concerns are always overridden with the chance to bird with (and "talk shop") with the newer generations of ON birders. It was really fun. 

(American Golden-Plover)

Thankfully it was a huge migration night, so there were birds to see. Birds were higher than some of my previous visits, so many warblers & sparrows went unidentified to species - but there were still some striking observations (Least Bitterns & Cuckoo's really stand out, for example). Ruddy Ducks were interesting too. Here's the tally (which isn't an exact tally - I didn't keep track & just guessed): 

Mallard  3
American Black Duck  1
Redhead  1
Ruddy Duck  5
duck sp.  30
Yellow-billed Cuckoo  3     
Virginia Rail  1
Sora  2
American Golden-Plover  1
American Woodcock  1
Wilson's Snipe  3
shorebird sp.  1
Bonaparte's Gull  3
Ring-billed Gull  1
Pied-billed Grebe  1
American Bittern  1
Least Bittern  2     
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker  1
Northern Flicker  2
Ruby-crowned Kinglet  1
Gray-cheeked Thrush  3
Swainson's Thrush  1
Hermit Thrush  3
White-throated Sparrow  10
Savannah Sparrow  10
Song Sparrow  1
new world sparrow sp.  15
Bay-breasted/Blackpoll Warbler  10
Yellow-rumped Warbler  3
new world warbler sp.  25     
passerine sp.  30

Ruddies!

Probably pretty low estimates on the "species" - and I'm probably forgetting some birds... 

The next night was much slower for migration, and the lights actually turned off early - leaving us in the dark! But it was once again great to catch up (and meet) some more super-talented youth. So much to do and learn with this crazy hobby!

Yellow-billed Cuckoo - strictly with the light of the greenhouse (i.e., no supplemental light)