This webpage can be downloaded in word (rtf) by clicking on Les Holliwell Email.rtf

The following was sent by Les Holliwell to the UKBirdnet email group on 30th July, 2002:

After reading this email you will no doubt be wondering about the author's motives. They are in fact very simple - To clean up twitching. I am perhaps old fashioned to believe that twitching in an activity where the competition should be fun and the rivalry good natured. Cheating is a disgrace and dishonourable, a betrayal of the trust which friends and associates have vested in the individuals concerned. This dishonesty is often accompanied by mean spirited and churlish behaviour, which I also find socially unacceptable.

In the grand scheme of things, it matters not a jot, if someone claims to have seen a bird, which they have not seen. Few things in life could be of less importance. Cheating is, of course, very easy. The weakness of character and lack of moral fibre, which tempts people to cheat, is very sad and disappointing. These people need psychiatric help rather than censure. Unfortunately, the birding establishment has turned a "blind eye" to well known persistent dishonesty.

Most importantly, I am aware of people who deserve to be credited with legitimate records and have been denied their rights. The effort involved in intensive year-listing is huge, a total commitment. The costs are also considerable, approaching £10,000 in some cases. And, for those who are still wondering: I have never had a record year-list, nor even come second, despite several attempts. I did it for the intrinsic fun and the challenge.

Examples of how to cheat in this email are sadly all based on real events involving the same person.

Twitching is governed and regulated in a robust and efficient manner; using personnel of the highest integrity, intellect and repute; sophisticated surveillance techniques; skilful verification and the closest scrutiny of all claims........ Now back in the real world, things are rather different.

From the perspective of serious listers, a critical threat arises from the calculating, knowledgeable and ingenious fraud, who uses cunning and deceit with discretion and care. This is no fool in the ordinary sense. These people mean business and may occupy prominent positions among committed twitchers. They may be courting notoriety, but their primary satisfaction is achieving an undetectable fraudulent "tick". There is of course the wider motive of enhancing their reputation and standing. Promoting and maintaining a reputation among the big listers, where the competition is most intense and littered with a whole history of contentious events, is difficult. Even having a reputation for virtually never missing a twitchable bird, raises expectations, which have to be met. Failing to go for an extreme rarity or "dipping" the bird will lead to embarrassment if not ignominy. So, the incentives are both positive and negative. In these terms the stakes are indeed high, especially for the publicity seekers and adrenaline junkies. However, modern communications and many watchful eyes, make cheating in this environment a difficult and dangerous strategy, especially with high profile targets. There are far easier pickings with lesser rarities and scarce migrants, so crucial to the year-lister.

For those who genuinely wish to promote high standards of honesty and probity, it is notoriously difficult to prove that someone has not seen a bird, whatever the suspicions. Proving a negative is always fraught with problems. The deceitful twitcher is well aware of this.

Vetting and Adjudication of Records:
One of the most extraordinary aspects of UK twitching is the vetting, gate-keeping and scrutinising functions. These are uniquely vested in the trust of one self-appointed individual, who single handedly, performs some quite remarkable feats of record keeping, competence assessment, detective work and surveillance for over 3,000 active listers. The entire credibility of the current regime depends upon the honesty and integrity of this adjudicator, who just happens to lay claim to every twitching record, save the all time life list. There can be no other competitive human activity where such a dubious, untenable state of affairs is tolerated. It is ad hoc at best; peppered with arbitrary decisions; lacks even a passing acquaintance with the basic tenets of democracy and justice and have no official recognition or authorisation. There is no peer group review or appeals procedure; no external influence worth the name.

Even if the adjudicator were very close to being a saint, this would seem a strange arrangement, analogous to a player in a football game doubling up as the referee. If we were to concede that vested interests may, even occasionally, influence decisions, surely confidence is undermined? If, heaven forbid, the self-appointed adjudicator was to prove corrupt or dishonest, what a disastrous situation that would be. The whole sorry business would be exposed as a worthless sham, even a confidence trick. Akin to having Dracula as head of the blood transfusion service, perhaps?

Lessons in How to Cheat and Other Dirty Tricks:
Discreet observation and covert surveillance have revealed the secret methods of the deluded twitcher-junkie, addicted to obtaining the next adulterated "tick". You have the exclusive opportunity to share the highs and excitement of this ego-boosted life-style, with this free course of instruction.

There are eight elements in the procedure for successfully claiming a bird that you have not actually seen:
a) Choosing the Target Bird.
b) Gathering Intelligence.
c) Fabricating a Good Cover Story.
d) Proficient Mendacity.
e) Rigging the Statistics.
f) Meeting a Challenge to the Claim.
g) Thwarting the Opposition.
h) "Winning" the Competition.

It is essential to master the basic skills and then use them selectively to meet the specific circumstances. Each of the following examples illustrates how the technique can be used and some of the pit-falls. Start with simple methods and work up to the more sophisticated dirty tricks. Build up your confidence, arrogance and conceit as you progress.

Most people mistakenly believe that cheating is exclusive to "megas", nothing could be further from the truth. The best opportunities for fraud are probably in year-listing. There are some 40 to 50 scarce migrants and minor rarities, which occur regularly and annually in the UK, occasionally in good numbers, but more often in ones and twos. They are the bed-rock of any good year-list and of no interest whatsoever to most serious life-listers. This is fertile territory for the bent twitcher. The experienced fraudster is cunning, careful and hardly ever chooses high profile birds. It is extremely difficult to connect with all the scarce migrants and lesser rarities. You may well be forced to travel further for a bluethroat or melodious warbler than any major rarity. While you are chasing a woodchat at one end of the country, something critical will turn up the opposite extremity. Unless you have experienced the intensity, relentlessness and stress involved in year-listing, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of the pressure. Even so, luck for good or ill will play its part. One individual never misses any of these birds, which is cause for celebration or doubt, depending upon your perspective.

Perhaps the most important skill for the aspirant fraudster to master is the art of lying with complete conviction. This is not easily accomplished and requires dedicated practice. However, there are some individuals who have a distinct advantage, by leading a substantial part of their lives in a kind of fantasy land, where they adopt different person as in various aspects of their existence. You can practice by pretending to be a millionaire or claiming to have won the lottery. Try this out on your mates down at the local or at work. Do not be too disappointed if you suffer set-backs, birders are in general an honest and forgiving lot, likely to accept any plausible story without subjecting it to scrutiny. After all, why would anyone want to lie about a bird? Always remember that nicely polished presentation is crucial in getting a good fabrication accepted. Getting the balance of credibility right is very important. Whereas most birders are trusting and naive, you should take care not to insult their intelligence with too many bare faced lies and unbelievable stories. Such tactics have raised suspicions and led to more people taking notice than is desirable.

The second issue which requires careful attention, is fabricating a good cover story. Gather as much intelligence as possible and pay particular care to the details. Choose your bird, its location and time to give the best chance of achieving the objective. For example, a minor rarity, at an obscure site, mid-week. This is unlikely to attract much interest, except from a few locals with the advantage of a good "grapevine", you can ring up the county recorder or some other well known local birder on site, with the pretext that you are already travelling to the bird. Ask pertinent questions to gather information. "It's a first summer male, eastern race, showing well in brambles near the toilet block". You have already got quite a few elements for your story. Try to ascertain how many people are watching the bird, who they are, what the weather is like and the geography of the site: "You go over the stile, along a muddy track for c. 100m. and through the hedge by the second gate". A few pictures off the Internet and you have got the makings of a really solid fabrication. The chances are that you will not need to use the story, just keep it in reserve. You do not even need to claim the bird, the phone call will already have conveyed the impression that you are on your way and rumours will soon circulate speculating that you have seen the subalpine warbler at Lower Bottom nature reserve. This can be enhanced later if necessary, by making comments like: "Nice bird, a bright individual. One of the earliest for Bogshire and the second for the site. Chitchat suggests that you are familiar both with the bird and the site. The job is done. It is on the list. All that time and fuel saved, and you have done your bit for the environment. Not bad.

If a bird disappears while you are on location, but you have missed it, there are one or two neat little devices for recovering the situation. Wander off to a secluded area of the site, wait until you are alone, and then shout very loudly that you have "got the Hume's". However, before anyone arrives, it has conveniently disappeared into a private garden, where it cannot be pursued. This technique is best used late in the day, so that you have the option of being able to suggest that "It's probably gone to roost and won't be seen again". Dead right it won't. Alternatively, if you have got the embarrassment of a few witnesses and you cannot find a bird, do not despair. Choose your moment and pick out a distant flying bird and shout to your companions: "I've got it". Allow a little time to elapse, during which they will be panicking like headless chickens. Then add coolly: "Yes, yes its definitely the pratincole, just going out of sight over the trees. Going, going, gone". The likelihood is that your companions did not get onto the bird, which was probably a swallow anyway. However, if they express doubts, keep cool. Ask them: "Where was the bird you saw?". "Oh, not those trees, these over there". You have nicely got around that one. This is the kind of tick that you quietly add to the list and never mention again. Your companions may well have their suspicions, but can prove nothing.

One of the most distressing aspects of year-listing is arriving at the site after a long tedious journey on your own, to find that the broad-billed sandpiper flew off five minutes earlier. It was virtually on the list! This is a real dilemma and test of character. Has anyone seen you arrive? Does anyone realise you have missed the bird? The first encounter with other birders - bite the bullet: "Oh yes, I was watching it - from the other side for several minutes". No going back now. It is on the list. After all that effort you really deserve a tick". Just five minutes, it's not fair is it?

The mobile phone can be used very effectively, but some care is needed: "Yes, I've seen the Sardinian Warbler and am just leaving the site." However be very careful to ensure that the person you are talking to is not actually at the site. This could be very embarrassing. When using the mobile to contact other birders or the pager services that you are watching the bird or alternatively that you are on your way to the bird, make certain that there are no inappropriate background noises; like the washing machine, TV or the voices of market traders. If you are in the car, remember that they can hear the engine and road noise. It is a real give away to get this wrong, unworthy of a true professional.

Occasionally, even some of the very best imaginative fraudsters slip-up. Conversation on the mobile: "Where are you?". "Watching the arctic redpoll at Titchwell. "Any luck?" "Yes, good views". Up to this point everything is fine and nicely poised to get the redpoll on the list. However, frustration and a lapse, lead to a second call, just an hour later, to the same birder: "Where the hell is this frug duck. I can't find it". "Hang on, I thought you were at Titchwell". "Forget that, I'm at Minsmere". Note that the journey from Titchwell takes well over two hours. "Oh, what happened to the arctic redpoll?" Silence. Then: "Which pool was the frug duck on?" Despite the pit-falls, claiming to be watching a bird at one site while you are really at another, many miles distant is an excellent strategy. A variation is to be at neither site but sat comfortably at home. This enables you to select which site you want to "string" a bird for. During the long summer days you may be able to claim birds at both sites by co-ordinating the cover stories.

A birder at the site by mobile says "I am at the site, but about to leave. Okay" You say "I'm near Exeter on the A30 I should be there in an hour and a half ". In fact you are on your way to work and unable to go for the bird, but do not worry. The message that you are travelling to the bird will soon filter among those on site (who will be long gone in an hour and a half). With a bit of luck, it will soon be rumoured that you have already been for the bird. You can find out more about the situation at the site later and concoct an appropriate cover story.

Some of these techniques are quite risky and must be used with discretion, but in a tight corner your well-practised mendacity will generally overwhelm the average punter. He will be left wondering if his memory is playing tricks. Never panic, even in a crisis. Always appear quite relaxed, even nonchalant when challenged. Respond with something like: " I can't understand where you got that idea from. I was nowhere near Bridgwater last Thursday". Or: "Who told you? That idiot, he's always inventing stories. You can't believe a word he says". All very plausible. Simply being evasive is another ruse, maybe raising a contentious issue as a diversion. For example: Were you at Blakeney the other day? All that nonsense about a booted, obviously a Scandinavian willow warbler. By now he will have forgotten the question, so an answer is superfluous. You are off the hook and can breath more easily.

If you practice telling complex lies often enough, they will eventually be lodged in your subconscious, so that the events you describe will seem as if they really took place. This is an advanced technique, where the line between reality and fantasy is blurred and you acquire a new "reality", which suits your purpose far better than the redundant one. This will also make you a formidable opponent if anyone dares to challenge your version of events, because you will behave as if you had actually seen the birds and defend yourself with great conviction. You are quite likely to appear very intimidating, which helps to thwart rational argument and sincerely held contrary views. Never allow the truth to cloud the issue. However, it is unwise to try to be too clever and over-embellish or fall into the trap of complacency and telling different versions of the same event. This has happened. Silly mistake. Another neat little trick is to claim that a bird you cannot get to, but has been seen by the opposition, is an "obvious escape". This is useful for any species likely to be kept in captivity, say a black-headed bunting. Mention things like deformed feet, abraded plumage or unusual bill shape. You can generally rely on most people not looking properly at this kind of detail. If challenged, draw attention to the missing left hind claw. It was not really missing, but even if they looked at it, it unlikely to be remembered and you can accuse them of being unobservant. Conversely, you can make up a good story to convert an escape into a "wild bird", if you have seen it and the opposition have ignored it. "The bufflehead came in on the 25th with several other north American wildfowl, following a series of deep depressions which linked up and moved rapidly across the north Atlantic". You could embellish it: "Two others arrived in northern Europe during that period, a drake in Holland and a female in France. This appears to be a good candidate for a wild bird. I have made extensive enquiries and been unable to find any in captivity in East Anglia". You conveniently ignore the three fully-winged, free flying birds on the local duck pond. You can also play games with species like the ruddy shelduck. No one has any real idea of the origin of any of these birds, so you simply choose one that you have seen, say at Chew Valley and declare that this is the only genuine wild one. This has the opposition wasting a day travelling to Somerset, when you hope something good will turn up in Norfolk.

Rubbishing a bird you have missed is another good ploy, especially if the opposition saw it, during a brief stay. First, check that no big names are involved, if this is the case you have an excellent chance of trashing the bird. Locate the finder and subject him to some heavy-handed harassment. Ask if saw the semi-palmations, the auxiliaries or some other detail that you know full well that he will not have seen. Keep on about how difficult the species is to identify in winter plumage and his limited experience. Refer to the poor light, in fact do anything to raise doubts in his mind. If he is a normal human being, he will now be very much on the defensive and you are well on the way to convincing him that it was an aberrant dunlin. Back this up with a call to the county recorder, indicating your doubts about the bird and emphasising the importance of fully authenticated records. Add a few snippets that you have invented, suggesting that the finder is unreliable and throw in a few examples of fictional waders that it is alleged he has misidentified. By now the recorder will be thanking you for warning him. This bird will be rejected. Well done. Another one off their list. All that driving, fuel and effort down the drain for the price of a couple of phone calls. Makes you really laugh, if you have a sense of humour. Learning to be totally unscrupulous and without any conscience whatsoever, takes a bit of practice, but you will soon get the hang of it.

Ringed birds can be used either way: "The Spaniards are ringing large numbers of lesser kestrels and black kites ". Hang on a minute that is not right. They are ringing lots of lesser kestrels, forget the black kites. A genuine vagrant black kite was rubbished in 2000, precisely because it had a ring on. See how careful you have to be. Having a good memory is crucial. If you have not got one it is best not to get involved.

There are one or two nice little games you can play with "private sites". These are locations for scarce breeding birds or a vagrant that it is alleged, is not accessible to the public. The savi's warbler is a good example, which has been successfully claimed on several occasions. The best approach here is to imply that you are on good terms with the landowner; mention Andrew Smith or some other name. He gave you exclusive access, just to confirm the identification, provided that you kept quiet. Not only does this provide a comfortable armchair "tick", you also enhance your reputation as a responsible birder and simultaneously avoid all the sanctions reserved for suppression. It does not really matter if the bird exists or not, but initiating a rumour of an unconfirmed report of one in Sussex is helpful in strengthening credibility. Yet another advantage of this kind of "tick" is that you have a valid reason for not publicly acknowledging it until the year's end, by which time it is far too late to challenge the claim. Another useful concept is the so-called "secret site" which is available as an alternative to the example given above. These, you claim, are "stake-outs" for scarce breeding birds and are not known to other birders. Which is true, because they do not actually exist. Once again you avoid any risk of cross-examination and censure, and include another tricky bird without setting foot outside the front door. A further advantage of this device it that it can be used as a riposte to critics, by accusing them of betraying the locations and putting the welfare of the birds at risk. The fact that they will have no idea what you are talking about adds to their dilemma in trying to defend themselves.

It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of thorough intelligence gathering and meticulous record keeping. A diary should be kept detailing the availability of every rarity and scarce migrant; when it arrived, the duration of stay and any other pertinent information which might prove useful in compiling a good fabrication story. Interrogating the opposition is another excellent source of intelligence, which can be used either offensively or defensively. Remember that these people are actually travelling to all the locations and can provide a wealth of useful detail. The skill is to extract the maximum detail, whilst simultaneously, giving as little as possible away. Not easy. You may alternatively, use these exchanges to leak a few "stringy" birds into the public domain. This obviously requires care, but the benefits are considerable. If you can successfully persuade your opponents to accept them, you are home and dry. Do this with subtlety, introducing the subject obliquely. Often their enthusiasm to describe the event will enable you to slip in the odd supporting comment: "That's right, it kept feeding near the nettles". Or: "Yes, yes, by that broken fence. The fence and nettle bed where, of course, in all the photographs, but they won't realise that. This is also an opportunity to introduce a few key birds which were available earlier in the year, but you failed to see. It is always nice to get these established on the list as soon as possible.

The Internet is a source of further information. Being able to virtually immediately get excellent images of the bird is a great advantage and enables you to describe it precisely, without going anywhere near the site. With a bit of luck you will be able to glean useful data on the location, habitat etc. Being able to embellish a good story with some convincing detail like: "I had it down in the brambles by those yellow flowers, near that blue plastic bag" is the hallmark of the proficient mendacity you must practice.

Another device which works well in year-listing is creating a smoke-screen with bogus statistics. You declare various bird totals, randomly at different times. They are high, inaccurate and speculative (i.e. Birds you hope to see). We all live in hope! This tactic will confuse and demoralise the opposition. It also provides the opportunity to slot in a few retrospective birds, which the high claims will suggest that you must have seen, even though you have not seen them. This can be particularly useful if you realise that the peak period for a scarce migrant has passed and the few individuals, which did occur, were inconveniently distant and well attended. If, on the other hand, you find the opposition being less than candid with their on-going tally, you publicly castigate them for being devious and deceitful, implying that they are cheating.

It is always worth allowing a little time to elapse before claiming any "stringy" birds. Most people pay little attention to what others are doing at a twitch, because they are naturally focused on the bird. Even if they do happen to notice who is there, the event will soon be superseded by others, so that who was at which bird becomes rather confused. Furthermore, memories quickly fade and within a few weeks most of those present will recall only the bird and their own little adventure. These general circumstances can easily be exploited by the astute liar and cheat. Remember that most people will probably assume that you saw the bird, which is a good starting point. A few judicious leaks to test the water and ascertain what others know and can recall, then the way is clear to feed in your version of events. If you are lucky, you may even encounter the bloke who was last to leave the site. Here is your window of opportunity: "You left at 5.30? I must have just missed you, I got there a bit after that. Do not be too precise, give yourself room to manoeuvre. To enhance the credibility, you could add: "I looked through Mandy Smith's scope." Who is Mandy Smith? Well, she does not actually exist, but no one will ask and if they do you have no idea where she lives. Alternatively: "I looked through Rodney Brown's scope". This time it is a real birder, but he has just gone to Peru for three months. After all, why would you want to lie about an icterine warbler? You have seen dozens in the past, it is just a bit inconvenient that you have not set eyes on one this year. But, rest assured it is now part of history and more importantly, it is on the list.

There are one or two useful tricks in a tight situation, which are unfortunately not available to the ordinary birder. However, it is worth including them so that you can recognise and admire an advanced professional manoeuvre. This involves bringing a new species into the equation. Let us say, for example that you needed to increase your list of five years ago. Scour the records and find a bird that has been consigned to the pending bin. You dust it off, invent some "cock and bull" story involving an influx from Spain into northern Europe and you have another "tick". Simple. Or, you could decide to introduce a "split", promoting a sub-species, like Caspian gull or white wagtail to full species status. This is particularly useful if you suspect that the opposition has not bothered to see one. The timing of the announcement is of course, critical, preferably at the year's end so that they have no opportunity to remedy the situation. The ultimate sanction is "disqualification" or "banning" the opposition. This extreme measure is used in year-listing ostensibly for cheating. In most instances the infringement has been "Seeing too many good birds". Nice one. Coup de grace.

If you are at a twitch and an exceptionally rare bird is proving very elusive and several of your opponents have seen it, a clever technique to foil their claims is to make an arrogant call to the pager services asserting that: " There have been NO confirmed sightings to-day". What this actually means is if I have not seen it no one else has! Incredible. This is a quite brilliant stratagem and prevents a whole bunch of dudes claiming a "tick" on you. Another even simpler device to rubbish a sea bird on a pelagic or sea watch, that you have not picked up, say a black-browed albatross: Shout very loudly that it was a juvenile gannet with lots of outraged indignation and call them all idiots. No one will realise that you were looking in completely the wrong direction and have no idea what bird they were looking at. This also denies a whole bunch of innocent birders a legitimate "tick". Always claim the moral high ground: My only concern is to ensure the true identity of the bird and maintain the integrity of the records. Most people will accept all this at face value and will not realise that you are a fanatical bigot and devious liar.

Occasionally, you will be challenged and you must select an appropriate response. Getting very angry, raising your voice and threatening your accuser can be very effective. Force the argument onto birds that you really have seen, for which there are numerous witnesses and ignore any insistence that you should address the specific issues. These are the "slippery eel" techniques and must be practised. Usually, such confrontations take place at a twitch and you can easily evade them by saying that you are going to watch the bird. If you have already done that, simply get in the car and drive off. Attack is often the best defence. It is unusual for birders to be persistent, because normal people do not enjoy fraught confrontations.