I wonder if any of the authors of our field guides or our bird finding guides
were into "big lists".
Peter Shute
Sent from my iPad
> On 21 May 2016, at 12:40 PM, Tony Russell <> wrote:
>
> Hooray, at last some clearer perspective about various approaches to
> twitching in general.
>
> Thank you Paul Dodd for defining the differences between Big Years and Big
> Lists, and thank you Alistair for elucidating on the low value of either to
> the greater good ( and here I guess we are referring to conservation), and
> that outside of the birding twitcher oddball types, who gives a stuff anyway.
> It’s all just a game about competition and egos.
>
>
>
> Is it then any wonder why real scientific conservationists treat us with such
> disdain ?
>
>
>
> Tony.
>
>
>
> From: Alistair McKeough
> Sent: 21 May 2016 09:08
> To: Eric Jeffrey
> Cc: Paul Dodd; birding-aus; Tim; Denise Goodfellow; Tony Russell
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] John Weigel
>
>
>
> I'm always amused by how much angst this stirs up. It's almost certainly more
> fun that the big years themselves.
>
>
>
> Most of us watch on while the big listers go at it and enjoy a little
> vicarious pleasure in their explouts . Me doubly so, having bumped into John
> at Lake Cargelligo during his big Aussie year, and this feeling slightly more
> connected. Moreover, Sean's book on our own backyard version was one of the
> best reads ever in any genre, enjoyed by birders and non-birders alike.
>
>
>
> The reality is that this sort of intense activity is always going to attract
> people who enjoy things that are odd because they are odd (which, if you're
> on this list includes you!), who are well-resourced and prepared to make
> sacrifices in other parts of their lives to obsessively pursue a focus.
>
>
>
> The same can be said of almost any pursuit, be it mountaineering, car racing,
> rock climbing, running a marathon on each continent and million other
> esoteric pursuits. Big lists and big years are just where this end of the
> spectrum falls for those who like birds!
>
>
>
> Is it relevant to the greater good? Of course not. Is it competitive. Quite
> plainly so, not that the wider public care much.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for sharing the news Tim and please keep it coming. I
> enjoy watching on.
>
>
>
> And please keep all the angst ridden, green with envy commentary flowing
> too... it's half the fun.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 May 2016 at 08:05, Eric Jeffrey via Birding-Aus
> <> wrote:
>
> I do not believe that the difference between big listers and big years is
> that clear cut. To say that big listing is not a competition is simply wrong.
> The competition to be the world's top lister is extremely intense, just over
> a longer period of time. That is equally true of the top lister for a country
> or, at least in the U.S. for a state. Keeping track of that competition is
> one of the original and still main purposes of the ABA.
>
> Further, some of our top big years have been turned in by people who also
> have large life lists. It also begs the question of what you do about a
> person such as Noah Stryker, who in smashing the world big year record also
> pushed himself well toward the upper echelon of bird listing.
>
> Eric Jeffrey
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 20, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Paul Dodd <> wrote:
>>
>> First of all I want to untangle the notion that someone that conducts a "Big
>> Year" is also a "Big Lister". The two are absolutely poles apart. Ruth and I
>> have conducted our own "Big Year" in Victoria, and whilst we do travel the
>> world, bird watching, we are as far from being big listers as most people
>> that I know.
>>
>> A Big Year is all about seeing as many species as possible in a certain
>> geographic area within one calendar year. A Big List is about seeing as many
>> birds as possible in the world in a lifetime. A Big Year is about
>> challenging oneself and other Big Year participants (past and present) - it
>> is, in essence, a competition. A Big Lister, on the other hand, has the
>> luxury of time, and is generally not competing with anyone, past or present.
>>
>> Big Listers, as a rule, use guides. Big Year participants, as a rule do not.
>> In fact, when Ruth and I did our Big Year in Victoria, we used a guide only
>> once, and that was Simon Starr who helped us see Plains Wanderer. As people
>> that travel all over the world, Ruth and I ALWAYS use local guides in the
>> countries we visit - not necessarily to identify the birds (we have done our
>> homework, after all) - for the sole purpose of managing the logistics, and
>> getting us to the right place.
>>
>> People have questioned the "practicality" of Big Years. When Sean Dooley did
>> his Big Year, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that seeing 700 species in
>> Australia was impossible. Sean, of course, proved "them" wrong by seeing 704
>> species. When John Weigel did his Big Years, there was no doubt that Sean's
>> record was almost impossible to reach, JW proved everyone wrong by seeing
>> 745 species. In his second year and second attempt, JW saw 770 species.
>> Surely this suggests that 800 species in Australia (and its territories) in
>> a calendar year is possible?
>>
>> When Ruth and I conducted our Big Year, we only had one goal in mind - to
>> beat Tim Dolby's record, set the previous year, of 345 species seen in
>> Victoria. In actual fact, Ruth and I beat that number in June of 2010 (by
>> seeing Little Penguin at St Kilda). We ultimately went on to see 392 species
>> (IOC taxonomy) in Victoria, surely suggesting 400 species in this state is
>> possible.
>>
>> Peter Shute mentions the problem of proof or verification. I suggest that
>> cheaters and frauds are soon found out. Ruth and I found several rare
>> species in Victoria in 2010, that would normally have people questioning
>> either our honesty or our ID skills - both were, in fact, questioned during
>> the year. Ultimately though, if you have integrity, it is hard to suggest or
>> prove that you were doing the wrong thing. For instance, we saw Spangled
>> Drongo in Victoria in 2010 (in actual fact, we saw this species twice in
>> Victoria in that year). We were challenged by one of the moderators of
>> Birdline Victoria (we obviously posted on that site), and our response was
>> simple - we actually used Birdline to indicate when and where rare species
>> were found and went to those locations to find the birds - the moderator
>> simply had not looked at the previous postings on their own site! We also
>> found Red-chested Button-quail in Victoria - normally an impossible species
>> to find in this state. I found the birds simply by looking for historical
>> records and going to those locations on the off-chance. One of the locations
>> looked like suitable habitat and we spent more than three hours quartering a
>> native-grassland paddock in 40 degree temperatures until we flushed a bird
>> and had a good-enough view to identify the species. Obviously our sighting
>> was met with a high degree of scepticism, but the following weekend a group
>> of birders attended the same site, and applying the same procedure,
>> identified the same species.
>>
>> If asked about the number of kilometres travelled or other such questions,
>> to date I have declined to answer. I feel that by asking that question, the
>> asker is establishing a particular point-of-view. Instead, I argue that
>> despite the carbon footprint, a Big Year has a certain value - and the most
>> immediate value is that people genuinely want to hear about it - and I am
>> talking about non-birders here. In and of itself a Big Year, whether
>> state-based, country (or region)-based or worldwide is going to be of
>> interest. And by writing books or blogs, and by public presentations, people
>> are engaged in this activity we call "bird watching". My experience with a
>> Big Year is that in the end it certainly *does* become about the journey,
>> rather than the target - one becomes very fixated on the birds rather than
>> the number. By virtue of the fact that we needed to see certain birds, we
>> became far more interested in the available habitat - so we certainly
>> developed a deeper understanding of where to look for birds.
>>
>> My experience with Big Listers is that they tend to be more private - Big
>> Listing is a personal activity, with personal goals, rather than being
>> public. This is neither right nor wrong, it is simply the way it is. Whether
>> Big Listers develop the same affinity for birds and habitat, or whether Big
>> Listers are fixated on just a number, I suggest depends on the birder. I am
>> absolutely certain that there are Big Listers that could care less about the
>> birds and are only interested in the "tick", and I am equally certain that
>> there are Big Listers that absolutely interested in the species and the
>> habitat.
>>
>> Ruth and I are NOT Big Listers - we are Big Year participants. I know of
>> nobody that is both a Big Lister and a Big Year participant. Since this
>> thread started with a discussion about John Weigel, I should point out that
>> I know John very well. John is definitely NOT a Big Lister - John is a Big
>> Year participant. John is also a person of the utmost personal integrity and
>> someone that I would not have any question should he say that he's seen a
>> Curlew Sandpiper in the lower 48.
>>
>> Paul Dodd
>> Docklands, Victoria
>
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
>
>
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
