[wisb] Re: the Counting Question!
- From: "Wayne & Susie" <wsrohde@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:56:20 -0500
Just because it's another dreary day...
I'll chime in with my own (tentative) thoughts:
1) As for my own practice, I don't do much competitive birding either,
though I do enjoy a Big Day Count or so each May. And for the record, I
don't count birds that, for example, I see in a photograph "after the fact"
but not in real time. I appreciate the fact that those who compete should
do so according to the prescribed set of rules. No argument from me on this
matter!
2) On the other hand, I personally think (subject to correction) that it was
OK to record the Red-necked and Western Grebes I found on a CBC ... even
though I needed some "enlargement help" to (at least initially) confirm ID.
This was made easier by the fact that later that same day I returned to the
site, saw the grebes at much closer range, and could (I take it) identify
them perfectly alright at that point! And of course I had no qualms about
alerting other birders to the presence of the grebes once I knew about them.
(To frame this another way, what if prior to viewing my images I was 50%
sure of the grebes' ID? What if I were 90% sure? Where is that line???)
3) But here's where things get a bit more sticky. It seems to me that we
have a couple of different sets of variables with which we're trying to
deal. One has to do with the initial "observation" situation (e.g., was a
camera employed in the field to augment magnification for ID purposes? ...
or was a bird later discovered in a photo back at home? ... etc.). These
are differing situations. The other has to do with the reporting of such
situations (i.e., is it fair to use alternative methods for one's own
purposes? ... or for a CBC? ... or for alerting other birders? ... or for
competitive purposes?). These are also differing scenarios!
To really go out on a limb, I'd like to combine a couple of the above
situation/scenarios, and state my opinion (again, subject to correction).
So here's my example. What if I'm birding and using a scope, and simply
don't have enough magnification to ID a bird. So I slip my digital camera
in place and digiscope and image of the bird, and then magnify it to view it
on my LCD - in the field. What if I then can ID the bird - in the field?
Here's my questions: First, can I count it on my personal list? I would
say yes. Second, can I report it to, say, the CBC? Again, I would say yes.
The bird was there, and the data is important. (But some may disagree.)
Third, can I count this bird on a Big Day? Hmmm... It's getting more
difficult to say, is it not? (Here's where I think people would disagree.
While most folks would not think it appropriate to add a bird to one's list
that's later discovered in a photo, I sense that this business of using
digiscoping as an aid to ID while still in the field is harder to guage.)
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it is OK to use such a
process on the spot out in the field ... even for competitive birding.
(Again, just for the sake of argument.) But what if I couldn't see my LCD,
so I walked to the car to view it in better conditions? Would that be OK?
(If the car was right next to me? Or within 20 feet?) If so (just for the
sake of argument), what if I still couldn't tell, so I transferred the image
to my laptop in the car for a better look-see? And (for the sake of
argument) if that's OK, what if I didn't have the laptop in my car, but
drove home to view the same image on my computer at home?
And... What if I did all of this, then went back and looked at the bird
again. Could I count it then? (But what if it hadn't moved? Could I be
objective about the degree of my ID ability at that point? Or would I just
be reading into the situation what I learned from my LCD or monitor? Then
again, what if the light was better later on???)
Or, to further confuse everyone, we all know that every single one of us has
erred in bird ID (at least once or twice!). I would imagine that we are
most prone to mistakes when birding at the limits, at greater distances.
What if someone truly thought, via a scope view only, that a certain bird
was "bird A." But what if I did the camera thing, and discovered that my
friend had erred in his or her judgment? Could my image disprove the
initial ID? Could it or should it overturn it?
I have a hunch that all these speculations are more than just academic
questions to ponder on rainy days. New technology may very well challenge
our ability to determine what's fitting and what's not fitting for
observations, reporting, etc. What if, for example, some super duper scope
was invented that allowed one to peer into places no traditional scope could
venture?
Just where do we draw these lines???
Wayne Rohde
Walworth, WI
####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn
Other related posts:
- » [wisb] Re: the Counting Question! - Wayne & Susie
