Date: 2/6/26 7:58 pm From: Nathan Pieplow <npieplow...> Subject: Re: [cobirds] Appropriate use of tools, including "technology", when identifying birds?
Hi Kevin,
This is an excellent question, and I'm happy to weigh in. I wrote the book
on bird sounds (well, one of the books), and I use Merlin Sound ID all the
time.
I used to do bird surveys for Bird Conservancy of the Rockies, but had to
quit a number of years ago when I realized my high-pitched hearing was much
worse than other surveyors'. During training, everybody else could hear the
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher at 100 yards and I still couldn't hear it at 50. I
feared my bad ears would skew the data.
But nobody has exactly the same abilities, either physical or mental.
Differences between observers are an inevitable confounding factor in all
big-data citizen science initiatives, including the Christmas Bird Count,
eBird checklists, and Breeding Bird Survey routes. The idea is that these
differences mostly wash out across the huge number of repeated surveys over
time.
Merlin helps me be more accurate. It can hear things I can't. But it also
makes lots of mistakes. In some situations it performs better than the
average human, in some situations worse. It helps to know what it does well
and what it does poorly.
I don't think we should be too afraid of assistive technology -- after all,
eyeglasses and binoculars and scope are assistive technologies that greatly
change detection rates of birds. But we shouldn't let technology operate
unsupervised by human judgment. If Merlin detects a bird I haven't
detected, I pay attention to context. It's got a great track record of
detecting real Bushtits and Cedar Waxwings before I do. If it's detecting
those species repeatedly during an observation, in decent habitat, I might
put them on my list. I usually like to be able to see the shape of the call
on the spectrogram, though, if I can't spot the birds.
If it's telling me there's an Indigo Bunting around, I'm going to be
skeptical. Merlin can't tell Indigo from Lazuli in Colorado. Neither can
humans. Neither can buntings. (That's why we have a lot of hybrids here --
the two species learn elements of each other's songs in the overlap zone.)
With experience and study, you can learn when to place more trust in
technology and when to place less. It's not a matter of using it or not
using it, it's a matter of using it carefully.
Nathan Pieplow
Boulder, Colorado
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:09 PM Kevin Schutz <kschutz...> wrote:
> Hello CoBirds Community,
>
> Today's post by Bill Kosar and subsequent responses prompted me to start
> the following discussion.
>
> First, some background. We all hear and read of the risks and appeals of
> not relying upon common technology in popular use today - Merlin, etc. In
> the past, I've been forthright in admitting some of my identification
> limitations when inquiring about participation with various surveys and
> describing how I use multiple tools to (personally) learn and narrow on any
> reported identifications I may make. As such, I have been declined for
> participation - no technology allowed, etc. That's fine as I know the
> intent is to provide (reasonably) accurate data for various scientific
> purposes. What I've found curious is reading subsequent posts from other
> participants for the same surveys indicating their use of technology.
> Argh!! - so some routes potentially went uncovered. We know of examples of
> published experts/authors of books covering their "big year" efforts and
> garnering numerous speaking engagements afterwards that use technology such
> as frequency shifting headphones to assist them with identification while
> birding.
>
> I admit confusion, especially in the context of mixed inputs pleading for
> more data reporting juxtaposed against pleas and warnings that at times
> feel more like one is receiving a "thou shalt not" style sermon. When is
> technology use appropriate when recording an identification? Does use of
> technology depend on specific surveys/records/databases? What constitutes
> "technology" and how is technology defined? Does technology include sound
> amplification headphones, recordings that can be compared post observation
> at a later time against vetted libraries, optics, photography, electronic
> or printed guide books? Even consultation to more experienced birders
> relies upon some form of technology (vocalizations, photographic
> confirmation, etc.). All of the examples listed above could be
> characterized as "technology" in the context of humankind, and in some
> cases would seem to be dismissed out-of-hand.
>
> Today, within eBird, when one submit a checklist, one is asked "Are you
> submitting a complete checklist of the birds you were able to identify?"
> I think eBIrd used to ask something along the lines of "... to the best of
> your ability", but I can't attest to that with certainty. I've always
> adopted the philosophy that I would record identifications to the best of
> my ability, which includes the use of various forms of technology to assist
> me with a confident identification.
>
> What are the current, best practices deemed acceptable today for bird
> identification? Should technology use be context specific (eBird database,
> bird surveys, other...)? While database corruption is and always will be a
> concern, are we artificially limiting community science resources over such
> concerns? Humans will always be fallible. When technology limitations are
> appropriate, how much cheating is likely occurring? Are we at a point
> where we are past being able to use an honor system, of relying upon one's
> best abilities? When some form of technology has been used to assist with
> an identification, is it incumbent to disclose all forms of technology used
> (optics, photography, recordings, various forms of guidebooks, applications
> such as Merlin, various AI applications)?
>
> I am sincerely interested in understanding the breadth of views present.
> I may find myself having to reconsider my philosophy of using "my best
> ability" as no longer being appropriate.
>
> I hope this post results in a respectful, thoughtful discussion.
>
> KS
> El Paso County
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Colorado Birds" group.
> To post to this group, send email to <cobirds...>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds > * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include
> bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate.
> * Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/membership/ > ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Colorado Birds" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to cobirds+<unsubscribe...>
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/<e7168f62-d4fa-4ae9-a246-23797720569cn...> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/<e7168f62-d4fa-4ae9-a246-23797720569cn...>?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > .
>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to <cobirds...>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate.
* Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/membership/ ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cobirds+<unsubscribe...>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CAFhaDVJ-0pRZjJveTBKk_GaUurh8L0Ak_Npqak-7-wk%<3DH7jrLQ...>
