Fw: "a model of superb documentation"

["Kristin Purdy" <kristinpurdy at comcast dot net>]

I'd like to add my 2 cents' worth to Harry's commentary about conciously
leaving his field guide at home--do it!  Field guides are absolutely
indispensible--except when the bird is in your presence.  I've learned this
lesson the hard way.  Too many times I reached for the field guide to check
the first field mark while the bird was still visible.  With book in hand, I
looked up to double check the bird and--no bird.  I traded my opportunity to
be a careful observer for a look at a picture of what the bird was supposed
to look like.  The bird dumped me while I was flipping through pages.  I
prioritized on the wrong thing and never got an opportunity to observe all
the other field marks.  When I finally realized I should watch only the bird
without distracting myself with field guides and such, I think my
observation skills improved.

 Take your method of observation a step further--call out the field marks
from beak to tail while you're watching the bird.  Not only will calling out
the field marks ensure you observe as much as possible, you'll better
remember what you saw when you get back to your field guide.  Don't worry
about appearing eccentric by talking to yourself--birders already have an
eccentric reputation and you won't do anything to damage it.  You'll be
amazed by how much more you see when you act like an expert observer instead
of immediately consulting with the expert who wrote the field guide.  Try
it!

Just a week ago, this method paid off during the Antelope Island CBC.  I
served on Bill Fenimore's team and we birded the sector that ran down the
east side of the island toward Garr.  I was scoping a group of Tree
Sparrows--and then one sparrow popped up out of the brush that looked
completely different.  I called out the field marks that I could see as the
bird faced the birders:  comparable in size to the Tree Sparrows, narrow
white eye ring, blackish malar stripe, white throat, streaked upper
breast--difficult to determine if the streaks formed a central breast spot
or not--ending abruptly and giving way to whitish lower breast and belly.
Bill also got a chance to look at the sparrow through the scope.  Still, we
weren't sure.  Once the bird dropped back into the brush, the field guides
came out.  I noticed the white throat depicted in the field guide and said,
"I called out a white throat, didn't I?"  "Yes!" came a chorus of the
birders who heard me blab off the field marks.  The field marks led Bill to
the Vesper Sparrow--a bird that appears on Wasatch Audubon's CBC checklist
(meaning it has been seen on Christmas counts in the past), but is
classified as a rare winter bird.  We were not prepared for the sight of a
winter Vesper Sparrow and frankly, it threw me.  The moral?  Ignore the
field guide while you can see the bird and instead, blab eccentrically.  The
method might pay off with a conclusive ID!

Kris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. Harry Krueger" <hkrueger@cableone.net>
> To: "'birdtalk'" <birdtalk@utahbirds.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [BirdTalk] "a model of superb documentation"
>
>
> > True, from a geographical perspective this post doesn't seem to matter
to
> > you in Utah (or to me in Idaho, either)...but there is a VERY IMPORTANT
> > lesson here for us all to pay close attention to.  How many times have
we
> > looked at a bird - WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT THE BIRD - and come to an
> > identification conclusion because it is what we EXPECT, or maybe even
what
> > we want to see.  Perhaps someone else has seen it before us and made the
> > "authoritive" identification...or it was posted to be a certain kind of
> > bird...or it is what "always" occurs in that area at that time of the
> > year...or...or...or. Believe me when I say that there is much more
> > satisfaction in carefully coming to a conclusion based on detailed,
> thorough
> > personal observation and documentation than on what all too often is a
> > flipant community-based "OK, I saw it.  Now what?"
> > This may be a bit backwards to some, but I would rather go into the
field
> > with a notebook and pencil (and perhaps a camera) than with a field
guide
> in
> > my pocket or car.  There was a point where I acturally consciously left
my
> > field guide at home, so that I would be dependent on taking notes and
> > otherwise documenting what I was seeing.
> > Note the line in the observer's post: "I am very
> > > inexperienced with waterthrushes so would appreciate ANY comments."
> > Inexperience is all the MORE reason for painstaking documentation...and
> > inexperience does not preclude us finding "good birds!"
> > And finally remember: "It is what we think we know that we really don't
> > until we really get to know it personally."
> >
> > Harry Krueger
> > Boise, ID
>

_______________________________________________

"Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
     BirdTalk:
To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
_________________________________________________