For me it has always been about seeing the animal, I say animal because I'm about seeing wildlife of all sorts in the wild, not just birds. Of course most animals can't be identified by sound, and I am hopeless on bird calls anyway.Fair, but birding by ear can also make things more inclusive as well... You already mention blind people, but also consider people that can't afford binoculars and/or cameras - I'd have no clue how to ever visually identify reed warblers or pipits if not for optics (because they're never really close enough), but hearing them and identifying them that way is technically possible for everyone with an internet connection and the willingness to learn...
I like the idea behind the exclusivity argument apart from that, but at the same time throughout the years these threads have kind of shown the exact opposite of that message - many people seeing great rarities and going to distant international birding destinations (something I'm definitely very guilty of!) doesn't create the most relatable or approachable view of birding to begin with, and I doubt those 5 or 10 extra birds we'd get a year by hearing them would really effect that in a significant way...
Oh that was a trick question, I was already crazy well before that.
My best friend is quite happy to count any form of identification, for instance a scat or a track as well as bird calls. I'll record such sightings if the species is notable or I have never recorded it before but don't count it.
Lastly these days there is always the chance that what you are listening to is somebody playing a recording to call the bird in.
): while they're decently regular on the British isles, the Azores, Canaries and Iceland, mainland European records are actually surprisingly scarce so this was definitely a good bird to get.
