Hi Chris
My position on this is very close to that set out in Chris Lester's posting
the other day.
There is a significant difference between what are just personal birding
lists of the "I saw this variety" -which we all have, and the record keeping
on a particular day or at a particular place - that we all do as well.
In the latter case, what we are trying to do for record purposes is to
confirm the presence of birds on a day, or at a location - and so long as I
can be certain that the bird is there it doesn't really matter if I see it,
hear it, or smell it! . But, with the emphasis on the certain.
An extreme example often serves to illustrate: it would be ridiculous to
exclude a kookaburra from a census on the grounds that it was calling from
the top of a distant tree, but we couldn't get a look at it. And does it
then require only a look, a glance? Or is it also necessary to see that
which distinguishes a Laughing Kookaburra from a Blue-winged without regard
to the call? For me, the call can be just a contribution or even the sole
determining factor in making an id - but some discipline must be applied so
that wishful thinking doesn't outstrip experience.
As to the personal life lists - we make our own rules, and then have fun, or
not, talking about them. The only argument in favour of any consistency of
guidelines for personal lists is so that people can compare them - which is
another game entirely.
Bill Jolly
"Abberton", Helidon, Qld
ph 07 46976111
fax 07 46976056
email:
Visit our website at: http://www.abberton.org
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Chris Lester
Sent: Thursday, 28 October 1999 16:15
To:
Subject: birding-aus Heard versus seen
Dear Birding-Ausers,
The recent debate on whether you can "tick" or otherwise "observe" birds by
call rather than just seeing them has cycled between the interesting and
the infantile. At times, the debate has also raged at the intolerant and
dogmatic level. I feel compelled to add a contribution that hopefully adds
constructively to the debate, but also reinforces the need for a higher
degree of tolerance and flexibility.
In the end, what a bird observer lists is up to him/her. If someone only
wants to be a "birdwatcher", that's fine. However, not all of us want to
be just "birdwatchers", but aspire to be "bird observers". It may take
different skills, and arguably more experience (although not necessarily),
but, for many species, birds can be easily identified by call. Yes, there
is mimicry and there are birders with tapes behind many trees giving out
false calls. And mistakes can be made identifying birds whose calls are
infrequently heard or poorly remembered. But, that doesn't mean that a high
percentage of birds can't be identified solely on call. Mostly, it takes
only practice. And, you can even sort out the mimics and tapes fairly
easily.
So, if a bird calls from a tree or bush and isn't seen, do we have to
pretend it doesn't exist? That seems a ridiculous concept to me. Of
course it exists - and it can be recorded, if you can identify it from the
evidence available.
I don't pretend to be able to identify every bird from its call or to
identify every call I hear. However, I am confident I can identify many
calls in many places. I also don't pretend I can identify every bird I
see, even some I see very well. Sometimes, I just have to leave a bird
that I have seen or heard off my list because I can't identify it. From my
experience with other birders, this seems to be the case for everyone.
So, what's my point. In the end, our relative ability to identify birds
depends on our ability (visual acuity, hearing, memory) and our experience.
Some people can better identify birds than others and , just because some
people are not confident enough to identify bids on call, doesn't mean
no-one can do it. Some people aren't very good at identifying "seen"
birds, either.
Listing, similarly, is up to one's personal preferences. You don't have to
keep a list. If you do, it doesn't have to be accurate or reliable or at
the same standards as the "real" listers (whatever that means). However,
there are many of us who try and keep "accurate" lists of what we observe.
It's an important part of the hobby for me.
And, even here, the rules are variable. The accepted standard in Australia
is that a bird should be seen and identified to go on one's list for the
first time. (As well as being alive, unrestrained, not an escapee, etc,
etc.) But, in the USA, the American Birding Association has listing rules
that allow heard birds to go on one's list. This is because many
endangered birds and their habitats have been detrimentally affected by
keen birders trying to "see" the new species.
So, in the end, you can pretty well do what you like. However, the major
point is that others be allowed to make their own choices, too.
While I still put birds on my "life list" only after I have seen them, I
record birds I have heard only and I list birds on call after the initial
sighting. For me, birds can be heard and not seen, which is the converse
of the preferred ideal for children.
Regards
Chris
PS Has some-one got a little quote that encourages tolerance that I can
append to my e-mails?
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
