Presuming most of you watched Autumnwatch, I wonder who else picked up on these next points.
Firstly...Michaela Strachan was amazed that Arctic Terns travelled 22,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and Chris Packham agreed with her. I always understood it that talking in rough figures to ease calculations, the circumference of the earth is approx 25,000 miles thereabouts, so half that, ie. Pole to Pole is going to be approx 12,500 miles. Even the equatorial circumference is only a few miles wider than the Polar circumference due to the equatorial bulge, so even half of that would be just a little bit more than 12,500 miles.
Where's the extra 10,000 or so miles come from?
Secondly...in the same article, she said that predators are always on the lookout for vulnerable Tern chicks and youngsters, such as 'Greater Black-backed Gulls'. Fair enough we all get things wrong time to time, but on a well established programme such as this, and being in their position of informing us of these things, surely they should get it right! 'Great Black-backed Gulls'
Lastly, there was an article about Whooper Swans and Michaela said after it that they are the largest flying bird in the world. Obviously I know that that question could be interpreted different ways such as mass, body length and wingspan, in which case you could mention Condors, Cranes, Storks, Albatross etc
I could be wrong, but surely the Whooper Swan is (on average) surpassed ever so slightly by the Mute Swan, both of which are surpassed by the Trumpeter Swan. So basically a Whooper Swan isn't the largest as she said. The Kori Bustard would be up there at the top somewhere wouldn't it?
...and just to clarify my post, I wasn't having a go at Michaela Strachan, I was merely pointing out if you are going to present a programme that teaches people about a particular interest, you've got to get it right haven't you!
RE the distance I think Chris said KM not miles (could be wrong) but that would convert correctly within a few hundred I think.
RE the Whoopers I thought they said one of the heaviest. Again could be wrong and maybe its my brain filling in the blanks/amending mistakes.
It was bugging me so I had to find it on IPlayer. Michaela Strachan does say 22,000 Miles but from the prior and subsequent conversation they are talking about a round trip - although CP does state 'then they go back again' just to try to make it clear, which it isn't really.
Couldn't find the Whooper bit.
gary lilley said
Mon Nov 9 8:34 PM, 2015
A camera team on top of winter hill would have made some interesting viewing !
Rob Creek said
Mon Nov 9 5:47 PM, 2015
David Shallcross wrote:
The use of Greater Spotted Woodpecker and a new one this series :Greater Black-backed gull always get me. Why can't theres so called great naturalists get the basics right. (Ian must be cringing)
Thanks David, someone agrees with me at last!!! I know we are not all perfect but they are the chosen ones to teach viewers about Natural History and in my view should get it right, the researchers behind the production of the show should go through it before they are on air, and I'm surprised the length of time they have been presenting as wildlife experts they still haven't got it right!
And I bet Ian is cringing! With good reason in my view!
David Shallcross said
Mon Nov 9 4:08 PM, 2015
The use of Greater Spotted Woodpecker and a new one this series :Greater Black-backed gull always get me. Why can't theres so called great naturalists get the basics right. (Ian must be cringing)
Shannon Llewellyn said
Mon Nov 9 2:44 PM, 2015
No, we don't know, but looking at their social media pages, I'd say that it's probably a quite even mix, with most people being somewhere in the middle (which is I suppose what you'd expect). Presumably they study their feedback, so try to cater to everybody (which will include footage of species most of us will know well).
On a similar note, I remember overhearing a couple of people in early summer talking about Springwatch, and complaining that they were featuring a stickleback; a species they considered 'boring'. So I guess they're never going to please everybody!
Simon Gough said
Mon Nov 9 11:52 AM, 2015
I was being a bit flippant of course. I just had a quick look at the viewing figures for Springwatch, it's a couple of million plus, so you're absolutely right about that need to keep engaging more casual enthusiasts. It would be really interesting to understand the composition of the audience. I think a large number of those viewers are quite likely to be fairly clued up to be honest, in which case the show would be preaching to the converted somewhat and my point stands up more. We don't know either way.
Shannon Llewellyn said
Mon Nov 9 10:52 AM, 2015
Oh, and to add, in my opinion, one the best things about Autumn/Springwatch is Brett Westwood, and his daytime programmes on line. A man that's always worth listening to.
Shannon Llewellyn said
Mon Nov 9 10:50 AM, 2015
Rob Creek wrote:
Fair enough we all get things wrong time to time, but on a well established programme such as this, and being in their position of informing us of these things, surely they should get it right! 'Great Black-backed Gulls'
It's fair enough, but also it's a live programme, so the odd slip of the tongue should be allowed.
As for otters, badgers and red deer, yeah, there's saturation coverage, but also these are the species that those without a specialised interest in wildlife can relate to (as a case in point, I tend to babble about wildlife and what I've seen on Facebook a lot - unsurprisingly - and I get lots of likes for posts on otters and owls, but everything else generally gets ignored; who cares that you've seen a Sabine's gull in Leigh, gulls are dull, yeah?), and I guess this is the whole point of this programme, to get more and more people engaged with the natural world. If more films on badgers are the way towards that, then I can live with it (also, of course, at the moment, I think it's necessary to keep badgers in the public's consciousness). The deer footage this year was particularly stunning, too, it has to be said.
Dunno, I'm a huge fan of the Watches programmes; I understand the complaints sometimes, but as a rule, I think that the balance of appealing to nature geeks like me and to people who may only have a passing interest is pretty good. For every shot of a badger lumbering over a field, we also get something like a triops, or a video about spiders likely to be found in your home.
The sparrowhawk was a stunner; I've never seen one that looked quite so vibrant in its colouration, I have to say. That film made me think, too, what was the best* bird I've seen this year. Perhaps there's a thread in that... :D
*Obviously meaning the the I got the most pleasure from observing!
-- Edited by Shannon Llewellyn on Monday 9th of November 2015 10:58:08 AM
Simon Gough said
Sun Nov 8 7:19 PM, 2015
I was out with Steve and Rob this afternoon dipping a Crag Martin, but we managed to amuse ourselves in a number of ways. I added well to my 'Unusual churches' and 'A roads with a 6 in' lists and we also discussed Autumnwatch. I personally think expecting a TV presenter to know what they are talking about seems a bit demanding, and it would break with tradition in many ways. Isn't it enough that 1 out of the 3 is a bit of a boffin?
My beef with Autumnwatch and the other shows in the year is the obsession with Otters, Badgers and Red Deer. We get an unrelenting diet of these 3 species. I have to say I think the saturation point has been reached; if I hear them say 'what incredible footage' one more time after an otter has swum around a bit I will flip. Some species get totally overlooked. I'd be interested in them filming Rats personally, we all have a stake in finding out more about what those are up to, especially when some would have us believe they are now the size of Bengal Tigers. What about some footage of marauding Rats bringing down a Yorkshire Terrier? Come on BBC!
Seriously though, I wonder how many viewers are demanding yet more stuff on Badgers and Otters. I think the producers might be in a sort of arms race to get the best/most difficult footage and have lost sight of things a little bit. They should do more on the bird migrations, flocks of geese don't really do it justice in my opinion. Also some small mammals would be nice, Weasels, Bats, there are lots of things we'd love to see more of.
Don't get me wrong though, I really enjoy the programme and of course they have to cater to more than just committed wildlife enthusiasts, and we all have to recognise that there are still millions of people out there with no idea about the countryside and wildlife. In any case, I really enjoyed some of the stuff this year, the Red Kites in Reading were cool for instance. Also, on the Sparrowhawk, I don't think you see such a thoroughly orange male bird that often, coming to a set of feeders and showing off like that. A slightly odd sequence but I do enjoy the two guys going out birding nonetheless.
pete berry said
Sun Nov 8 6:23 PM, 2015
An interesting part of one of the programmes(for me anyway) was the guy who had designed and made some Swift nestboxes that were being occupied.Swifts are declining due to the lack of suitable nestings sites so I'll definitely be making a couple this winter and fixing them under eaves of my house.Apparently his design is on the Autumnwatch website.
sid ashton said
Sun Nov 8 4:59 PM, 2015
Rob Creek wrote:
Presuming most of you watched Autumnwatch, I wonder who else picked up on these next points.
Firstly...Michaela Strachan was amazed that Arctic Terns travelled 22,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and Chris Packham agreed with her. I always understood it that talking in rough figures to ease calculations, the circumference of the earth is approx 25,000 miles thereabouts, so half that, ie. Pole to Pole is going to be approx 12,500 miles. Even the equatorial circumference is only a few miles wider than the Polar circumference due to the equatorial bulge, so even half of that would be just a little bit more than 12,500 miles.
Where's the extra 10,000 or so miles come from?...........
Rob if you Google "Arctic Tern Migration" there are several articles showing that their round-trip is recorded as c44,000 miles. So it appears that Michaela wasn't far off.
The thing that puzzled me about the programme, as I said in the Birds on Television thread was, why was Mr Packham getting so excited about the Sparrowhawk at the end of Thursday's programme? OK it's a bit unusual to get such good views of a Sparrowhawk, but I couldn't understand why he got so ecstatic.
Craig Higson said
Sun Nov 8 1:07 PM, 2015
Rob Creek wrote:
Presuming most of you watched Autumnwatch, I wonder who else picked up on these next points.
Firstly...Michaela Strachan was amazed that Arctic Terns travelled 22,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and Chris Packham agreed with her. I always understood it that talking in rough figures to ease calculations, the circumference of the earth is approx 25,000 miles thereabouts, so half that, ie. Pole to Pole is going to be approx 12,500 miles. Even the equatorial circumference is only a few miles wider than the Polar circumference due to the equatorial bulge, so even half of that would be just a little bit more than 12,500 miles.
Where's the extra 10,000 or so miles come from?
Secondly...in the same article, she said that predators are always on the lookout for vulnerable Tern chicks and youngsters, such as 'Greater Black-backed Gulls'. Fair enough we all get things wrong time to time, but on a well established programme such as this, and being in their position of informing us of these things, surely they should get it right! 'Great Black-backed Gulls'
Lastly, there was an article about Whooper Swans and Michaela said after it that they are the largest flying bird in the world. Obviously I know that that question could be interpreted different ways such as mass, body length and wingspan, in which case you could mention Condors, Cranes, Storks, Albatross etc
I could be wrong, but surely the Whooper Swan is (on average) surpassed ever so slightly by the Mute Swan, both of which are surpassed by the Trumpeter Swan. So basically a Whooper Swan isn't the largest as she said. The Kori Bustard would be up there at the top somewhere wouldn't it?
...and just to clarify my post, I wasn't having a go at Michaela Strachan, I was merely pointing out if you are going to present a programme that teaches people about a particular interest, you've got to get it right haven't you!
RE the distance I think Chris said KM not miles (could be wrong) but that would convert correctly within a few hundred I think.
RE the Whoopers I thought they said one of the heaviest. Again could be wrong and maybe its my brain filling in the blanks/amending mistakes.
Rob Creek said
Sun Nov 8 12:30 PM, 2015
Presuming most of you watched Autumnwatch, I wonder who else picked up on these next points.
Firstly...Michaela Strachan was amazed that Arctic Terns travelled 22,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and Chris Packham agreed with her. I always understood it that talking in rough figures to ease calculations, the circumference of the earth is approx 25,000 miles thereabouts, so half that, ie. Pole to Pole is going to be approx 12,500 miles. Even the equatorial circumference is only a few miles wider than the Polar circumference due to the equatorial bulge, so even half of that would be just a little bit more than 12,500 miles.
Where's the extra 10,000 or so miles come from?
Secondly...in the same article, she said that predators are always on the lookout for vulnerable Tern chicks and youngsters, such as 'Greater Black-backed Gulls'. Fair enough we all get things wrong time to time, but on a well established programme such as this, and being in their position of informing us of these things, surely they should get it right! 'Great Black-backed Gulls'
Lastly, there was an article about Whooper Swans and Michaela said after it that they are the largest flying bird in the world. Obviously I know that that question could be interpreted different ways such as mass, body length and wingspan, in which case you could mention Condors, Cranes, Storks, Albatross etc
I could be wrong, but surely the Whooper Swan is (on average) surpassed ever so slightly by the Mute Swan, both of which are surpassed by the Trumpeter Swan. So basically a Whooper Swan isn't the largest as she said. The Kori Bustard would be up there at the top somewhere wouldn't it?
...and just to clarify my post, I wasn't having a go at Michaela Strachan, I was merely pointing out if you are going to present a programme that teaches people about a particular interest, you've got to get it right haven't you!
It was bugging me so I had to find it on IPlayer. Michaela Strachan does say 22,000 Miles but from the prior and subsequent conversation they are talking about a round trip - although CP does state 'then they go back again' just to try to make it clear, which it isn't really.
Couldn't find the Whooper bit.
A camera team on top of winter hill would have made some interesting viewing !
Thanks David, someone agrees with me at last!!!
I know we are not all perfect but they are the chosen ones to teach viewers about Natural History and in my view should get it right, the researchers behind the production of the show should go through it before they are on air, and I'm surprised the length of time they have been presenting as wildlife experts they still haven't got it right!
And I bet Ian is cringing! With good reason in my view!
The use of Greater Spotted Woodpecker and a new one this series :Greater Black-backed gull always get me. Why can't theres so called great naturalists get the basics right. (Ian must be cringing)
On a similar note, I remember overhearing a couple of people in early summer talking about Springwatch, and complaining that they were featuring a stickleback; a species they considered 'boring'. So I guess they're never going to please everybody!
It's fair enough, but also it's a live programme, so the odd slip of the tongue should be allowed.
As for otters, badgers and red deer, yeah, there's saturation coverage, but also these are the species that those without a specialised interest in wildlife can relate to (as a case in point, I tend to babble about wildlife and what I've seen on Facebook a lot - unsurprisingly - and I get lots of likes for posts on otters and owls, but everything else generally gets ignored; who cares that you've seen a Sabine's gull in Leigh, gulls are dull, yeah?), and I guess this is the whole point of this programme, to get more and more people engaged with the natural world. If more films on badgers are the way towards that, then I can live with it (also, of course, at the moment, I think it's necessary to keep badgers in the public's consciousness). The deer footage this year was particularly stunning, too, it has to be said.
Dunno, I'm a huge fan of the Watches programmes; I understand the complaints sometimes, but as a rule, I think that the balance of appealing to nature geeks like me and to people who may only have a passing interest is pretty good. For every shot of a badger lumbering over a field, we also get something like a triops, or a video about spiders likely to be found in your home.
The sparrowhawk was a stunner; I've never seen one that looked quite so vibrant in its colouration, I have to say. That film made me think, too, what was the best* bird I've seen this year. Perhaps there's a thread in that... :D
*Obviously meaning the the I got the most pleasure from observing!
-- Edited by Shannon Llewellyn on Monday 9th of November 2015 10:58:08 AM
My beef with Autumnwatch and the other shows in the year is the obsession with Otters, Badgers and Red Deer. We get an unrelenting diet of these 3 species. I have to say I think the saturation point has been reached; if I hear them say 'what incredible footage' one more time after an otter has swum around a bit I will flip. Some species get totally overlooked. I'd be interested in them filming Rats personally, we all have a stake in finding out more about what those are up to, especially when some would have us believe they are now the size of Bengal Tigers. What about some footage of marauding Rats bringing down a Yorkshire Terrier? Come on BBC!
Seriously though, I wonder how many viewers are demanding yet more stuff on Badgers and Otters. I think the producers might be in a sort of arms race to get the best/most difficult footage and have lost sight of things a little bit. They should do more on the bird migrations, flocks of geese don't really do it justice in my opinion. Also some small mammals would be nice, Weasels, Bats, there are lots of things we'd love to see more of.
Don't get me wrong though, I really enjoy the programme and of course they have to cater to more than just committed wildlife enthusiasts, and we all have to recognise that there are still millions of people out there with no idea about the countryside and wildlife. In any case, I really enjoyed some of the stuff this year, the Red Kites in Reading were cool for instance. Also, on the Sparrowhawk, I don't think you see such a thoroughly orange male bird that often, coming to a set of feeders and showing off like that. A slightly odd sequence but I do enjoy the two guys going out birding nonetheless.
Rob if you Google "Arctic Tern Migration" there are several articles showing that their round-trip is recorded as c44,000 miles. So it appears that Michaela wasn't far off.
The thing that puzzled me about the programme, as I said in the Birds on Television thread was, why was Mr Packham getting so excited about the Sparrowhawk at the end of Thursday's programme? OK it's a bit unusual to get such good views of a Sparrowhawk, but I couldn't understand why he got so ecstatic.
RE the distance I think Chris said KM not miles (could be wrong) but that would convert correctly within a few hundred I think.
RE the Whoopers I thought they said one of the heaviest. Again could be wrong and maybe its my brain filling in the blanks/amending mistakes.
Firstly...Michaela Strachan was amazed that Arctic Terns travelled 22,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and Chris Packham agreed with her.
I always understood it that talking in rough figures to ease calculations, the circumference of the earth is approx 25,000 miles thereabouts, so half that, ie. Pole to Pole is going to be approx 12,500 miles.
Even the equatorial circumference is only a few miles wider than the Polar circumference due to the equatorial bulge, so even half of that would be just a little bit more than 12,500 miles.
Where's the extra 10,000 or so miles come from?
Secondly...in the same article, she said that predators are always on the lookout for vulnerable Tern chicks and youngsters, such as 'Greater Black-backed Gulls'.
Fair enough we all get things wrong time to time, but on a well established programme such as this, and being in their position of informing us of these things, surely they should get it right!
'Great Black-backed Gulls'
Lastly, there was an article about Whooper Swans and Michaela said after it that they are the largest flying bird in the world.
Obviously I know that that question could be interpreted different ways such as mass, body length and wingspan, in which case you could mention Condors, Cranes, Storks, Albatross etc
I could be wrong, but surely the Whooper Swan is (on average) surpassed ever so slightly by the Mute Swan, both of which are surpassed by the Trumpeter Swan. So basically a Whooper Swan isn't the largest as she said.
The Kori Bustard would be up there at the top somewhere wouldn't it?
...and just to clarify my post, I wasn't having a go at Michaela Strachan, I was merely pointing out if you are going to present a programme that teaches people about a particular interest, you've got to get it right haven't you!