[obol] Re: About the science end of birding, work, and fun
- From: Wayne Hoffman <whoffman@xxxxxxxx>
- To: David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:30:34 -0700
Well said, David -
In a previous career I did call myself a scientist. My current one, not so
much, but I do know how to formulate a hypothesis, design a study, and
analyze data to evaluate the hypothesis. I do have an interest in patterns
of molt. I have even published on the subject in the past. My preferred
approach to interacting with birds and nature is different from Dave's, or
Paul's, or Mike Patterson's, but I hope no more or less "valid." Mine
involves telephoto lenses more than spotting scopes, and extended study of
particular individuals more than cataloging of all the species in an area.
I think we should all feel secure in our own approaches. We should also be
tolerant of each others' approaches, and more importantly, tolerant of of
each others' reporting and advocacy. I enjoy Paul's accounts of finding
his 190th and 191st species in a county, and I enjoy Dave's descriptions of
blitzing random sections of distant counties. I tend to resist the
implications that I ought to be turning in lots of ebird checklists, but I
do not resent the suggestion that I should.
I do not turn in ebird checklists, in part because my preferred approach
does not yield very good checklists, and because Oregon is getting awesome
coverage by birders who do follow its preferred approaches more closely
than I do.
Oregon has plenty of room for all of our activities, and we should glean
what we value from each others' posts, and let pass without rancor the
parts that are less personally relevant.
The recent discussion of Mockingbird distribution and occurrence started
with a complaint about ebird filtering, but I learned good stuff about
Mockingbird occurrence and I think a lot of us benefited from at least that
part of the discussion.
One important lesson to remember: the structure of email and other
web-based communication disables the instant feedback (much nonverbal) that
happens in face-to-face conversation, so it is a lot harder to avoid the
kinds of statements that others might find overly critical. So, it is
important to 1) think through what you write from the perspective of what
might offend parts of your audience that you may not have even met, and 2)
be slow to take offence at others' postings that may not completely adhere
to your sense of proper decorum. My current career includes a fair amount
of meeting facilitation. One of the more important facets of that is to
recognize when people are talking past each other, for example answering a
different question than the one asked, and intervening gently to get them
actually communicating. List serves do not do very well at that, so we
need to train ourselves to read and think twice when a post strikes us as
off-base or offensive.
Wayne
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul et al.,
>
> Suggesting that the style of birding that many of us engage in is work,
> intimidating, or forces on this community some obligation to participate
> fosters the "tension" that you suggest exists. I, for one, could care less
> how others choose to approach birding. I post things that I notice and
> share knowledge because there might be others who share my curiosity about
> certain things. If they do great. If they don't, equally great. I make
> careful observations and try to expand my knowledge because I enjoy it and
> it's fun! Those of us who pay attention to ageing and sexing birds, molt
> limits, and aspire to know about subspecies, don't do it because we are
> wannabe scientists. We do it because it enhances and adds value to our
> birding experience (again FUN). Many of the folks that I know who log and
> contribute sightings to eBird and other databases do so because we want to
> leave a trail of breadcrumbs for future generations. I don't read and write
> North American Birds columns because I want to enhance or build my
> reputation, or because I want make a name for myself in scientific circles.
> I do so because I want to understand and help future generations understand
> how things may have changed when they retrace my footsteps 50 years from
> now. I now that most amateur birders will never record notes about their
> observations. I was that birder for many years. They will never record how
> many singing Yellow-breasted Chats that they saw and heard along a two-mile
> stretch of some rural road that runs along a creek out in the middle of
> Oregon's wheat country. I don't have any problem with that, because I know
> that a few of us will do it. If chats no longer occupy that habitat 50
> years from now, some of us will have left a trail of breadcrumbs for
> meaningful comparison.
>
> More than 150 years ago, Henry David Thoreau recorded the blossom dates
> for many species of flowering plants around his cabin at Walden Pond.
> Today, we are able to compare his dates with the current blossoming dates
> and gain some understanding about how climate change is altering such
> things. Thoreau was not a scientist. He was a poet, an essayist, and a
> philosopher. He was also observant and had some degree of intellectual
> curiosity. He looked at the world and wrote down what he saw. Were his more
> detailed notes and observations of the plant life around Walden Pond
> intimidating to his neighbors who just looked at the flowers and admired
> their beauty? Were those neighbors intimated and did they feel obligated to
> match Thoreau's dutiful record keeping? Did Thoreau care if they shared his
> level of interest in such things? I doubt it. Like Thoreau, I am not a
> scientist. Neither is Bob Archer and neither is Shawneen. I sell frozen
> food for a living. Bob works for a bank. Shawneen does landscaping and
> gardening work. No one pays us to collect and contribute eBird data, it's
> just part of what we do when we go out birding. Our curiosity extends to
> learning the trees that make up the habitats we are exploring, being able
> to identify the more common butterflies that we see, and admiring the
> beauty of wildflowers as we try to determine their identity.
>
> Can you go birding without looking at the landscape, noticing other
> creatures, and being somewhat aware of the vegetation community that
> surrounds you? Can you watch a singing Sage Thrasher without consciously or
> subconsciously smelling the sage? Can you watch a Tufted Puffin circling
> Haystack Rock at Cannon Beach without hearing the surf and smelling the
> ocean. Maybe, but I think most birders are engaged in a more holistic
> experience. Part of that holistic experience for me is recording my
> observations and, as some of you may have come to appreciate, writing about
> the experience in a way that creates a sense of place and connects that
> with the birding experience and the human experience.
>
> I don't see anyone publicly calling into question Paul's motivations for
> trying to see 200 species in every Oregon county, or making an effort to
> see 100 species in every Oregon county in a single year. Is my interest in
> studying molt limits, something I've done with a cold beer in my hand in my
> backyard, somehow more intimidating or less fun than his efforts to hit
> rather daunting listing milestones? That's Paul's gig and scant few other
> Oregon birders are out there trying to match these feats.
>
> It's time to put an end to the pigeon-holing of various birder types.
> There is room for everyone. If I run into you in the field I may well ask a
> question that you cannot answer. I'm not asking those questions because I
> have some perverse need to put other birders on the spot, I'm asking
> because I'm hoping to learn something.
>
> Dave Irons
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Sullivan wrote:
>
> > I'm responding to Bob Archer's note below.
> >
> > Yes, there is an aspect of birding that drifts into science. Yes, science
> > requires you to prove what you assert, and you can expect to be
> challenged
> > and you should be willing to prove what you claim. There are reputations
> at
> > stake. There are OBLIGATIONS to observe carefully, report thoroughly,
> > document, verify. You have to get it right.
> >
> > But birding is also (I hope) a friendly pastime. You find something and
> > share it with others. You meet a friend and say, "I saw a Masked Whatsit
> at
> > Nearby Refuge," and your friend says, "Great! Where was it?" You give
> > directions and the friend goes to look. Or you go there together and show
> > it to her. You grin together. You walk on down the trail and find another
> > dozen species. It's a nice morning in the shade on a hot July 1. Isn't
> > birding grand?
> >
> > Then the scientist comes along and asks which subspecies the Whatsit was,
> > whether it was an adult or a juvenile, etc. He wants a description.
> You're
> > intimidated. Birding isn't fun anymore, it's work, it's an obligation,
> your
> > reputation is a stake. You're supposed to care about molt sequence, age,
> > gender, subspecies, culmen, rectrices, etc, etc, and you REALLY DON'T.
> > You'd just like to enjoy the cool of the morning and the beauty of the
> > Lazuli Bunting.
> >
> > There's a tension in birding. A tension between those who want to
> > continually improve (skills, knowledge, etc) and who would invite others
> to
> > continually improve, and those who just want to enjoy birds at the level
> > where they are comfortable.
> >
> > I suspect there are a lot more folks in the "just enjoy" category than
> there
> > are in the "continually improve" category.
> >
> > Good birding, whatever your level,
> >
> >
> > Paul T. Sullivan
>
>
Other related posts:
