How do big listers bird? (1 Viewer)

[Mysticete]

How well a tour (or any group birding experience) works for someone depends on two factors IMHO. The environment a tour takes place in and the make-up of the group of folks. A birding tour focused on open habitats (grasslands, deserts, etc) is more suited to a group of people than birding along a forest trail. The other is simply the make-up of the group involved...if everyone has a different objective in taking the tour and a very different birding style you can run into an aggravating situation.

I've been on two tours, having mostly used guides or birded independently. None of them were an overall negative experience, but my second tour very much had an eclectic mix of folks of different experience levels and interests, and I felt I sometimes didn't jell with the group, with this causing me some stress on particular days of the trip.

 

[Farnboro John]

Another reason for a guide (sort of specific to my own peculiar case) is that I need another pair of good eyes (besides those of my wife) to help get me on difficult-to-see birds. I especially appreciate guides that can pick out forest or canopy birds and get them in the scope, because otherwise I'm probably not going to find them.

No question that a high life bird count is usually correlated to how much money you can spend on it. In our case we were able to attack this problem because I spent years getting myself into the correct organization in my company so as to get occasional remote work assignments in Asia. We used that to get in our Eastern Hemisphere birding without spending a fortune. But it basically meant doing work in manufacturing, something that was not interesting or fulfilling to me at all. It certainly was not what I spent 10 years in college for... I always felt that I prostituted my services so as to get birds. Or sold my soul. But it was worth it.

I believe the phrase is work-life balance. I progressively lost interest in promotion as I realised the grades above me had diaries full of meetings that would prevent quick reaction twitches: I decided I preferred to remain a case-worker where very little that I did wouldn't wait until tomorrow.

John

 

[jurek]

It is easy to travel across South Asia or South America independently for a fraction of a cost of an organized tour, taking local buses, small hotels or camping etc. If one has a month or more time, one can get a big list this way - which many birders did especially in their student holidays.

Another reason for a guide (sort of specific to my own peculiar case) is that I need another pair of good eyes (besides those of my wife) to help get me on difficult-to-see birds. I especially appreciate guides that can pick out forest or canopy birds and get them in the scope, because otherwise I'm probably not going to find them.

I wonder if aynbody else watched guides, trying to learn how they spot birds? I did it, both in top listers and watching native guides in New Guinea. It helped.

No question that a high life bird count is usually correlated to how much money you can spend on it. In our case we were able to attack this problem because I spent years getting myself into the correct organization in my company so as to get occasional remote work assignments in Asia. We used that to get in our Eastern Hemisphere birding without spending a fortune. But it basically meant doing work in manufacturing, something that was not interesting or fulfilling to me at all. It certainly was not what I spent 10 years in college for... I always felt that I prostituted my services so as to get birds. Or sold my soul. But it was worth it.

I feel the sympathy. I decided to abandon career in academia for a job which safely supports me and allows me to treat birds as a hobby. In the retrospect, I think I chosen well. When some career is underfunded I would probably neither be able to do a really good science nor be happy in life.

Even if I bird with friends, constraints of time / money / holiday times mean that sometimes I can go birding but they cannot. And sometimes I have time for holiday but not for planning the trip (something which takes considerable time in my experience, comparable with the tour itself). Then an organized tour kicks in.

 

[opisska]

We are diverging a bit here, but since we are talking about jobs - I have a long-time job (in academia) where one of the reason of choosing this path was the outlook for a lot of travel. At the end of the day, I ended up travelling mostly to the same three places over and over, one of which is the driest desert on Earth, other is a small island with limited fauna and the last one is quite nice but I have been there so many times that I have very little new to explore there nowadays ... I know many people who still envy me, but it's often the question of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.

Still the job has benefits in my ability to take any amount of unpaid vacation (since there is no supply chain or customers, nobody cares if science is not done in time, if I am not asking for money) and that allows me to see a lot of nature that way. And there is the occasional conference that brings me into interesting places but usually in very wrong times of the year. I do not recommend for example South Korea in July

 

[lgonz1008]

I've met a birder with a very large life list (over 8k species), he still goes on trips and gets a couple dozen lifers per trip. But the main answer as for why he gets to do this, is the same one many have mentioned here, deep pockets and free time. The man worked a couple of decades as the head of a bank and now is retired, so he can do anywhere from 5 to 10 trips around the world per year; with that said, he seems to have more bias for using an established tour company (Rockjumper in this case) over going out of his way to plan everything on his own or with a local guide.

Not sure how effective this would be in rainforest tours, but he was able to enjoy it. Personally I like doing a small group I put together and a local guide, if needed, over a tour company (usually more cost effective and I like birding with like minded people), but it really depends on the resources each birder has.

Let's be honest, there's a lot of birders that use big companies or international guides to determine their life lists simply because they find comfort in the brand or individual, even if it means dealing with some birders in their trip that they would rather not interact with due to differences in birding styles, goals, etc.

 

[Lerxst]

Good discussions. I keep coming back to the implicit question of "what defines a 'Big Lister'?" I'll never be challenging anyone in the top 20 on eBird, but I consider myself a big lister because birding and getting lifers is a BIG deal in my life and I spend more time, energy, and money on it than anything else. Every non-birder we know thinks we are clinically insane due to this mania that my wife and I share. It was back when my life list number crossed 500 that the fever really kicked in and I considered it a Big deal even then.

I am ambivalent about the competitive aspect of listing. On the one hand, I am a competitive person, I think that with the right attitude, competition is good for humans, insofar as it can motivate self-improvement and so on. On the other hand, the numbers are ultimately meaningless. Nobody cares about other people's life list numbers, as a general rule, and those numbers will be forgotten when we are gone, except for a few extreme record-breaking cases.

My wife is as huge a bird fanatic as I am, and unlike me she has birded her whole life, being lucky enough to grow up in SE Arizona and South Texas. And she has never once kept a life list. She refuses to do so. She simply does not care about numbers, she just wants to experience birds. I cannot really relate to this, but I wish I did.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I believe the phrase is work-life balance. I progressively lost interest in promotion as I realised the grades above me had diaries full of meetings that would prevent quick reaction twitches: I decided I preferred to remain a case-worker where very little that I did wouldn't wait until tomorrow.

John

Hmmm. Best birds seen when I was meant to be in a Board Meeting.... Soul mortgaged but now redeemed. 😉

 

[jurek]

I am ambivalent about the competitive aspect of listing. On the one hand, I am a competitive person, I think that with the right attitude, competition is good for humans, insofar as it can motivate self-improvement and so on. On the other hand, the numbers are ultimately meaningless. Nobody cares about other people's life list numbers, as a general rule, and those numbers will be forgotten when we are gone, except for a few extreme record-breaking cases.

It is not a normal competition. For one thing, there is no way to check others numbers. On the other hand, birders normally cooperate, which means it is a quest not against each other, but against the environment, much like mountain climbing.

I like to see many species, but frankly speaking, more important are colorful birds and interesting sightings, and good landscapes. I feel bored with one more drab white-eye or an antbird, for example.

 

[lgonz1008]

Good discussions. I keep coming back to the implicit question of "what defines a 'Big Lister'?" I'll never be challenging anyone in the top 20 on eBird, but I consider myself a big lister because birding and getting lifers is a BIG deal in my life and I spend more time, energy, and money on it than anything else. Every non-birder we know thinks we are clinically insane due to this mania that my wife and I share. It was back when my life list number crossed 500 that the fever really kicked in and I considered it a Big deal even then.

I am ambivalent about the competitive aspect of listing. On the one hand, I am a competitive person, I think that with the right attitude, competition is good for humans, insofar as it can motivate self-improvement and so on. On the other hand, the numbers are ultimately meaningless. Nobody cares about other people's life list numbers, as a general rule, and those numbers will be forgotten when we are gone, except for a few extreme record-breaking cases.

My wife is as huge a bird fanatic as I am, and unlike me she has birded her whole life, being lucky enough to grow up in SE Arizona and South Texas. And she has never once kept a life list. She refuses to do so. She simply does not care about numbers, she just wants to experience birds. I cannot really relate to this, but I wish I did.

I think it depends on how the birder reacts to it, there are some crazy listers in my area that love to be the number 1 birder in the county or the state based on eBird. They have almost double my life list in the area because of it, so I consider them big listers within their limits. On the flipside, since my list is worldwide, I think I'm nowhere the level of a big lister since I'm barely around 10% of all bird species in the world.

So the "big listers" really depends on how big your range is, and if you've seen at least 2/3 of all birds within your set range, then I think you qualify as one. But again, the difference is huge, since a big lister in the US would be around 700 species, but in most countries in South America that would not even get you in the top 20% of the birders.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think it depends on how the birder reacts to it, there are some crazy listers in my area that love to be the number 1 birder in the county or the state based on eBird. They have almost double my life list in the area because of it, so I consider them big listers within their limits. On the flipside, since my list is worldwide, I think I'm nowhere the level of a big lister since I'm barely around 10% of all bird species in the world.

So the "big listers" really depends on how big your range is, and if you've seen at least 2/3 of all birds within your set range, then I think you qualify as one. But again, the difference is huge, since a big lister in the US would be around 700 species, but in most countries in South America that would not even get you in the top 20% of the birders.

I think you need to adjust your percentage higher for smaller areas....

It also needs to be higher where you have fewer vagrants.

All the best

Paul

 

[lgonz1008]

I think you need to adjust your percentage higher for smaller areas....

It also needs to be higher where you have fewer vagrants.

All the best

Paul

Fair point, in places like a county, state or province, the number should be up to 90% to be seen as a big lister. Based on eBird, I'm around 100 species away from the top lister in the county, so even though I'm in the top 40 birders, I don't think I'll ever come close to be among the top listers for where I live.

The other tricky thing for listers in small places, is that many consider counting escapees and non-accepted vagrants in their list because they run out of targets after a while. Which is why I prefer to focus on international listing, even if I'll never reach the realm of the big listers on it, at least I'll have the confidence my lifer is truly wild/countable.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Fair point, in places like a county, state or province, the number should be up to 90% to be seen as a big lister. Based on eBird, I'm around 100 species away from the top lister in the county, so even though I'm in the top 40 birders, I don't think I'll ever come close to be among the top listers for where I live.

The other tricky thing for listers in small places, is that many consider counting escapees and non-accepted vagrants in their list because they run out of targets after a while. Which is why I prefer to focus on international listing, even if I'll never reach the realm of the big listers on it, at least I'll have the confidence my lifer is truly wild/countable.

90% seems to correlate with totals over here.

All the best

Paul

 

[opisska]

So you can't be a big lister if you are not good at it?

 

[Farnboro John]

So you can't be a big lister if you are not good at it?

Oh no. You can go with guides (who apparently will confirm whatever you need for your list ) and eventually get yourself into the realms of big listers. Especially if you are the persistent sort who is still at it after forty years or more.

But you will never be No. 1 because to get there you have to be able to fill the gaps with your own ability: the knowledge and senses to get you that brief calling fly-over or distant seawatching one-off.....

John

 

[opisska]

That was more of tongue-in-cheek reaction to the definition of "big listers" through the number of species on their list. I think I am for example a pretty hardcore lister, but as I am not very good at it, I fail to pass the numerical criteria

 

[THE_FERN]

For a small attempt, I did twice the same birding circuit in a rainforest: one day with a guide, another one without a guide. It was in New Guinea and in Costa Rica. To my surprise, day total was exactly the same. But I take care to find birds on my own (although I am not a big lister by any means).

Granted, some low-density species are easily findable only by knowing an exact territory. But these species are surprisingly low percentage of the total, and spending time in the field you are likely to pop up on them by chance. Besides, a GPS or ebird can substitute for a guide.

The main difference is whether or not you know the calls. Even in my local park, at least 25% of records are heard only. In South America this would be more like 50%. It's location dependent of course, calls not so important in (most of) Africa, Australia

 

[THE_FERN]

Bird guides often string species to satisfy a customer (and their boss)

Agree, but think a bigger problem is mistakes. Of course, everyone makes them, but guides are often quite offhand about identifying (especially common) birds. I always try to double-check IDs, and don't record things I can't verify.

I much prefer finding my own birds but have gone on several guided trips. It all boils down to what you want from birding (I personally have no time for the "competitive" aspect). If you view birds as akin to cultural heritage like paintings then it's perfectly acceptable to have a guide but it's a bit like painting by numbers.

 

[jurek]

The main difference is whether or not you know the calls. Even in my local park, at least 25% of records are heard only. In South America this would be more like 50%. It's location dependent of course, calls not so important in (most of) Africa, Australia

I agree, and this importance of calls is more forest / rainforest birding vs open country birding. So I was surprised of the result in two overseas rainforests where I did not know calls very well.

I do take care to learn calls, or at least listen to calls of the few most desired species in the field (note - this is not the same as constantly loud playing these calls in hope to attract the birds).

Agree, but think a bigger problem is mistakes. Of course, everyone makes them, but guides are often quite offhand about identifying (especially common) birds. I always try to double-check IDs, and don't record things I can't verify.

There are different reasons. Stringing to fill the expectations (also of the company to have a brilliant list and attract future clients) is common. And there are 'honest' mistakes. The guide often must get clients to see the likely bird as quickly as possible, before confirming the ID himself. Makes sense, perhaps. And local guides often have no good bins and no bird book.

 

[Lerxst]

If you view birds as akin to cultural heritage like paintings then it's perfectly acceptable to have a guide but it's a bit like painting by numbers.

It could be that way, but I use guides partly for the logistics of traveling in difficult-to-navigate places -- I do not want to have the stress of my wife trying to drive us through the streets of Bangalore or some chaotic Colombian city. And I always verify the IDs made by the guide, and so does my wife. We study the field guides for months before a trip and know exactly what we are looking for and what field marks to focus on. The guide is there to get us to habitat and point out where the birds are so we can ID them. I record every bird vocalization that they call out and I compare it to xeno-canto after the trip to be sure they were right. But mostly I benefit from the guide because I am legally blind and I appreciate the assistance of someone with good eyes patiently directing my bad eyes through the dense canopy so I can get my bins on a bird I'd not see otherwise, through no fault of my own. Without that I don't stand a chance to enjoy birding the way normally-sighted people do.

There is nothing paint-by-numbers about it.

 

[Paul Chapman]

That was more of tongue-in-cheek reaction to the definition of "big listers" through the number of species on their list. I think I am for example a pretty hardcore lister, but as I am not very good at it, I fail to pass the numerical criteria

The Original Poster was referring to those individuals who had recorded the most species 8,000 or 9,000 species. I think difficult to interpret the word "big" alternatively. But of course, these exchanges always repeat the lack of correlation between the number & competence as opposed to dedication, longevity, effort, time & finances.

All the best

Paul