next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>> Lance Laviolett --Apple-Mail-42427F61-D0F8-46F6-9E50-4496C1C087F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richard I totally agree. I want to click =E2=80=9Clike=E2=80=9D.=20 Nancy Sent from my iPad > On May 23, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Richard Stern <sternrichard@gmail.com> wrote:= >=20 > The old-fashioned method of ID-ing rare birds, or birds of uncertain ID, w= as to "collect" (shoot) them and then study them feather by feather. The med= ium-fashioned way was to look carefully, try and draw a diagram in the field= notebook you always had with you, and describe the bird feather tract by fe= ather tract. The new-fashioned way is to take a photo, and assume that recor= ds committees, e-bird etc. trust your honesty re: where and when etc. The pr= oblem with just taking a photo and then asking What is this?, as many beginn= ers (especially Facebook users), seem to do a lot, is that it does not ingra= in into consciousness any sense of the bird's biology, behaviour or relation= ships etc. The FB group on hawk ID has the right idea - when someone posts a= picture asking for the ID, any answer has to include the reasoning behind i= t, not just the name of the bird. I usually try to do that when I answer que= ries on line. >=20 > The other issue is that while a good photo can be diagnostic, a single pho= to only shows one aspect of the bird, and in a particular light - which can o= ften be misleading - one reason why I think field guides with idealised draw= ings, e.g. Sibley, are better than photographic field guides. And ..... inst= ead of simply posting a picture and asking What is it, I think everyone inte= rested in bird ID should purchase a good field guide and learn how to use it= properly, as well as read the ins and outs of the ID process, and at least c= ome to a tentative conclusion before asking the question. But perhaps I'm pr= eaching to the choir on this forum. >=20 > Richard >=20 >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Paul Murray <pwmurray.murray911@gmail.co= m> wrote: >> Hi All, >> Further to the discussion of pros and cons of bird ID via photographic me= ans and the theme that direct observation, experience and avian knowledge ar= e the preferred methods for bird ID and educational reasons: I would like t= o support the bird/nature watchers amongst us who rely on our cameras to ID w= hat we see in nature. >>=20 >> Some of us who rely heavily on our cameras for bird (and wildlife in gene= ral) ID due to personal infirmities or handicaps probably would not be bird w= atchers or observers of nature were it not for the benefit of the camera and= associated long lenses. I envy those with good colour vision, eyesight and= hearing who can easily pick out a red bird from green foliage or see direct= ly all the various colour differences of a bird's plumage within a species o= r, who are able to hear the high frequency song a bird makes when no direct s= ighting is possible. For those of us who are colour blind, have poor eyesigh= t and/or defective hearing, the enjoyment of looking for and identifying bir= ds is impossible without a camera. For us, the camera and a long lens is ma= ndatory if we want to enjoy the "sport" and ID of a bird species after the f= act via our photographs is usually the only way we can identify what we thin= k we observed - it might not have been a bird but a log that looked like a h= eron from a distance. LOL >>=20 >> So, when you see us in the field with our cameras and long lenses, please= be mindful that the use of such equipment may be the only way that person c= an take part in the hobby that you love. >>=20 >> Paul Murray >> Dartmouth >>=20 >>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Fritz McEvoy <fritzmcevoy@hotmail.com> w= rote: >>> Hi All, >>> I've been bird watching around my home since the late 90's and have a= good knowledge of how to ID birds, but have almost never sent in a rare bir= d submission without an accompanying photo.=20 >>> I bought camcorder many years ago and think it can be just as good= a tool as binoculars for identifying birds as well other species. A knowled= ge of field marks, flight times, range and habitat is important but a good q= uality photo or video (particularly with audio) is better for ID purposes. = =20 >>> There are a few tricks that make using a camera a better tool for I= D'ing birds none more important than positioning yourself so that the sun is= behind you. I find a HD camcorder with a high power optical zoom and image s= tabilization plus an ability to view and edit the video frame by frame is be= st.=20 >>> On a related note a camera has replaced collecting for many, like m= e, who watch and report on Lepidoptera. In this case I've found - being the c= ontrarian that I am - collecting to be a much better means of identification= for moths and butterflies. >>> There is nothing wrong with being old school as a bird watcher bu= t I think we have to accept that most people aren't interested in learning t= he finer points of bird identification; they just want to know what they saw= . That's why sites like iNaturalist have become so popular. All the best. >>> Fritz McEvoy >>> Sunrise valley, CB >>> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> on b= ehalf of Laviolette, Lance <lance.laviolette@lmco.com> >>> Sent: May 22, 2018 2:35 PM >>> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca >>>=20 >>> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Acadian Flycatcher on Brier Island >>> =20 >>> Hi, >>> =20 >>> Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), photogra= phic equipment has become so advanced and taking photographs so inexpensive t= hat =E2=80=98shoot first, identify after=E2=80=99 is a technique that is gai= ning favor. I know a number of birders who have hung up their binoculars and= now carry only a camera with long lens. Their gear allows them to shoot man= y photos