But is a web cam any different than a stakeout for a bird? Years ago
when the Kelp Gull showed up in Galveston I chased it and didn't
bother to take a scope, I figured why bother there will be 50 scopes
there better than mine. Sure enough when I got there, there was a line
of scopes on the gull and I looked through someone else's scope
already trained on the bird. No one would argue that I couldn't count
that bird.
If I go to someone's house to see a bird coming to a feeder is it any
different experience wise than a webcam except for the driving part?
In both cases are the skills and knowledge I use to identify the bird
any different?
Some suggest drawing the line at when electronics are used to identify
a bird, but to me that feels wrong too, that would mean someone
wearing hearing aids could not bird with the hearing aids in.
There are already electronic binoculars on the market where you don't
have pure optics but a tiny LCD screen to view. Should a bird seen
with these not be counted? that seems wrong too.
If you go on a tour and a guide points out a bird and tells you the ID
marks for that bird and you see those ID marks should you not count
that bird? few would argue that you can't because you did carry the
ball over the goal in the end even if everything was brought to you on
a platter.
It really is cost and not technology limits a virtual birding tour. 4K
pan/tilt/zoom (PTZ) cameras are already on the market and a 4K video
signal is getting close to the resolution of the human eye. Imagine a
series of 4k PTZ cameras in a remote location with stereo audio. Would
jumping from camera to camera and scanning around be that much
different in skills needed to find a bird?
Or maybe someone builds a birding robot you could rent for a time,
Telepresence birding is technically something that can be done now.
Imagine one of those bomb squad robots reconfigured for birding that
you drive though a remote rainforest or across a remote Gulf of Alaska
Island. Those robots could share the trail with real birders there
too.
It really comes down to the question of what is a life list. Is it a
list of birds I've identified or a record of my memories of the field
experience of identifying a bird? When I look at my life list and see
Golden-browed Chlorophonia I relive the experience of being on that
suspension bridge in Monteverde, I can picture the broken branch on
the exact tree the bird was one. When you look at my life list you
just see that I've identified Golden-browed Chlorophonia somewhere.
From your perspective would it be any different to you if I had
identified that on webcam?
David Sarkozi
Houston, TX
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Gmail <donutposse1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is one of those birding koans I have pondered before also.Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
Like: if I find a dead bird and identify it, does that count for a list?
Life, day, etc?
If I find a sure fire proof of a certain bird (castings, call, feather, nest)
is that a sighting?
To me there is some part of birding pride that relates to luck and immediacy,
physically being able to get close enough to observe, or being in the right
place at the right time. Seeing a photo of a bird doesn't feel the same as
seeing the bird. A webcam I set up to spot something feels different than
logging someone else's site and watching theirs.
Listening to a live album doesn't feel the same as seeing my favorite band in
concert. But did I hear them perform? Audubon did a lot of his work based on
bird corpses. Did he kill them all himself? If so is that more or less
evidence "counting" him as a person who saw a particular species and
identified it?
It's all a matter of personal choice, but logs and lists have room for noting
the nature of the sighting as well. Maybe "seen on my webcam" or "found by
fewmets" is an * after the listing. But knowledge gained is similar in
nature, and the enjoyment can be the same, and those are the parts of birding
I value.
Devin Collins
donutposse1@xxxxxxxxx
512.814.9089
