Two people break 10,000 species, and on the same day? Can it be? (2 Viewers)

[LittleBitOfBreadNoCheese]

To the "best birder" discussion: in the normal field, it's about the hearing of calls. I will always be beaten fair and square by all the people who are not tone deaf - I can spend days and days browsing sites, yet I won't be the rarity finder, because most are first found on calls (at least where I am birding usually) and I just suck at that, years after years, no amount of listening seems to be helpful.

But I don't think this really applies in world birding. How many of these big listers are really finding the birds themselves and how many are just paying guides to find them? Show me a birder who does 10000 without any guides and then we can talk, but the length of the list really is down to money when you can pay people to do it for you and the only thing you need is to survive being there.

Two (or maybe 3) of the top 12 on iGT are BirdQuest tour leaders in their own right. I've also done a day of birding with Keith Betton (no. 10) on the Isle of Sheppey many years ago and he was formidable.

 

[LittleBitOfBreadNoCheese]

I'd be happy to reach 1k, given I didn't do any serious birding between about age 15 and 55 (although I did travel a bit in my 20s and made quite a few incidental records).
I'm currently (and slowly) putting my historic records on eBird, and seem to be losing more species that in retrospect I'm not too sure of, than I'm gaining by getting out birding. Scythebill tells me I'm at 863, but I haven't updated for a little while, and my more critical approach with uploading to eBird is losing me some.
Given I'm too old and too poor to ever build a massive life list, my aim is to focus on 'bucket list' species and experiences, and enjoy the other species I see along the way. As for being a decent birder, I doubt I'm capable of surpassing my 15-year old self, when the acuity of my hearing and vision were significantly better than they are now.

I got up to 880 I think then unfortunately I lost the central list and I'm trying to reconstruct it and get it on BirdTrack. Proving much harder than I anticipated due to name changes, splits etc. I've always preferred to go to interesting places rather than chase big totals and both the BirdQuest trips I did were sub-200 totals.

 

[opisska]

I mean sure, some of the big contenders will inevitably be really good, but from sports point of view, this is a competition where doping is almost encouraged - so from the standings alone it's pretty hard to tell, who is the "best birder". Meanwhile, when watching the local scenes in "my countries", I can't help but notice that the reports of insane, hard to find and hard to notice rarities come often with the same names attached, so it's pretty obvious, who is really good at birding locally, because nobody is helpingn them.

 

[KenM]

The “Best Birder” will mean different things to different people.
The late Phil.Vines birded virtually “everyday” for some 60 odd years, in that time he “twitched” 4 Wallcreepers and “patch found” 4 Red-necked Phalaropes in London.
The bottom line is…as they say “oop North..no gain…we’ out pain!
Someone putting in 4 hours a week will inevitably be superseded by another doing 4 hours a day!

 

[Larry Sweetland]

On the "best birder" thing (if we're going on ability to locate and identify birds), then my guess is that if you're a pretty sharp birder who spends a lot of time in the field, then if you go round your local patch with a birder from elsewhere, chances are it'll be you that calls most things first. But unless your up there with "the best" there will be birders unfamiliar with your patch, from elsewhere in your country, that will blow you away by calling most of the birds on their first trip round your patch with you.

But there's a level above this, and that's birders who aren't even from your part of the world who are so hot, wherever they are on the planet, that they would still call most things first on most local patches anywhere in the world. In global terms, these are surely the "best birders."

 

[KenM]

On the "best birder" thing (if we're going on ability to locate and identify birds), then my guess is that if you're a pretty sharp birder who spends a lot of time in the field, then if you go round your local patch with a birder from elsewhere, chances are it'll be you that calls most things first. But unless your up there with "the best" there will be birders unfamiliar with your patch, from elsewhere in your country, that will blow you away by calling most of the birds on their first trip round your patch with you.

But there's a level above this, and that's birders who aren't even from your part of the world who are so hot, wherever they are on the planet, that they would still call most things first on most local patches anywhere in the world. In global terms, these are surely the "best birders."

To my way of thinking it’s akin to beauty being in the eye of the beholder regarding “Best Birder”.
I know a birder who goes out every day on his patch and sometimes sends me images of perhaps unfortunate low lit shots (I’m used to those), as he’s a little bit unsure of the ID.

Sometimes I can help, sometimes I can’t,
In the process he’s found many good birds with some being site firsts!
That’s what I’d deem a good birder, rather than someone that could ID most things “with one eye tied behind his back” and yet finds little in the course of day to day birding.

 

[Endre Kovács]

Ted Parker saw no point in listing at all. Local big days maybe, but anything bigger than that, no. Now one would be hard pressed to name a better birder than him, ever.

 

[james holdsworth]

To my way of thinking it’s akin to beauty being in the eye of the beholder regarding “Best Birder”.
I know a birder who goes out every day on his patch and sometimes sends me images of perhaps unfortunate low lit shots (I’m used to those), as he’s a little bit unsure of the ID.

Sometimes I can help, sometimes I can’t,
In the process he’s found many good birds with some being site firsts!
That’s what I’d deem a good birder, rather than someone that could ID most things “with one eye tied behind his back” and yet finds little in the course of day to day birding.

“Best” patch birders are going to understand weather, migrant traps, breeding habitats etc. So, they will be out at the right location, right weather and time of year and find higher numbers, early / late records and rarer stuff. Also, they will know what to look for, based on timing, weather and likelihood, so less random than you might think.

I hear people say that finding good birds is luck….sure, that’s part of it but you create your own luck by putting yourself in the best position, through persistence, knowledge and planning, to find rare birds.

 

[Paul Chapman]

“Best” patch birders are going to understand weather, migrant traps, breeding habitats etc. So, they will be out at the right location, right weather and time of year and find higher numbers, early / late records and rarer stuff. Also, they will know what to look for, based on timing, weather and likelihood, so less random than you might think.

I hear people say that finding good birds is luck….sure, that’s part of it but you create your own luck by putting yourself in the best position, through persistence, knowledge and planning, to find rare birds.

I see that this post is widely liked...

What is most odd about it is the lack of realisation that there are individuals who combine world listing with a stellar list of finds both generally and also in patch listing terms. There is a fallacy in the analysis that there is always an either/or and in the absence of a realisation that travelling widely and seeing a large number of birds - subject to competence - actually arms you to become a better patch birder (subject to time)....

Indeed, someone in the eBird Top Ten pulls out find after find in a bird-impoverished inland English County!

All the best

Paul

 

[james holdsworth]

I see that this post is widely liked...

What is most odd about it is the lack of realisation that there are individuals who combine world listing with a stellar list of finds both generally and also in patch listing terms. There is a fallacy in the analysis that there is always an either/or and in the absence of a realisation that travelling widely and seeing a large number of birds - subject to competence - actually arms you to become a better patch birder (subject to time)....

Indeed, someone in the eBird Top Ten pulls out find after find in a bird-impoverished inland English County!

All the best

Paul

There is complete realization on that point…I was only talking about what makes a birder apt to find good birds, locally or otherwise. Not sure why you’re trying to draw a distinction as I certainly wasn’t. Good birders are good birders, on their home patches or a thousand miles away.

 

[Paul Chapman]

There is complete realization on that point…I was only talking about what makes a birder apt to find good birds, locally or otherwise. Not sure why you’re trying to draw a distinction as I certainly wasn’t. Good birders are good birders, on their home patches or a thousand miles away.

No idea....

“Best” patch birders

 

[james holdsworth]

Yeah, we (some of us anyway) were talking about patch birders….you were the one that felt I excluded world birders even though everything I said applies equally, even if I didn’t feel the need to spell that out. What are you really on about here?

This conversation is beyond pointless.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Ted Parker saw no point in listing at all. Local big days maybe, but anything bigger than that, no. Now one would be hard pressed to name a better birder than him, ever.

Being honest, I'd never heard of him but reading his 'Wiki' page, there is this

'Once, hearing a recording of a dawn chorus in Bolivia, he realized that one of the sounds was an antwren of the genus Herpsilochmus—but since he knew all the sounds of those birds, he knew he was hearing a previously unknown species. The following year, the new species was discovered.'

This sounds very like the way (the way it was told to me anyway) that Paul Holt discovered that the hitherto endemic, Nepal Wren Babbler, was also present in India.

 

[Farnboro John]

Ted Parker saw no point in listing at all. Local big days maybe, but anything bigger than that, no. Now one would be hard pressed to name a better birder than him, ever.

Eventually the Earth will either be a cold lifeless ball of rock or consumed in the expansion of its star, so you can argue there is no point in anything ever. Or you can put listing in its correct context of human achievement and often community. Lists provide a quantifiable basis for sport and competition at all levels, a system for deciding what birds to try to see next and/or where to visit next and even, god forbid, a bit of fun between friends and community members - for those that consider there is a birding community - maybe that didn't include Mr Parker....

John

 

[Owene]

There’s obviously a level of jealousy involved, ‘sure he’s seen a lot of birds but he’s rich’ about the big listers and obviously some of those birds will have been found for them but in my very limited experience of bird tours the act of birding from waking up to going to sleep and then doing the same the next day and the next and the next does nothing negative for your skills and a lot positive. If you’re open to learning at all you’re also soaking up stuff from other good birders at every point.

I know there are patch birders who are up and out every day for a few hours and that obviously grows skills a lot too but if you’re doing it on that kind of level then you’re in a very privileged situation around time and life style choices too. Hardly anyone holding down a job will be doing that 7 days a week.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Yeah, we (some of us anyway) were talking about patch birders….you were the one that felt I excluded world birders even though everything I said applies equally, even if I didn’t feel the need to spell that out. What are you really on about here?

This conversation is beyond pointless.

What I am on about is that people were banging on about "patch birders" and "world birders" as if they are different or indeed, often not the same people. I pointed out that this was incorrect.

I see that this post is widely liked...

What is most odd about it is the lack of realisation that there are individuals who combine world listing with a stellar list of finds both generally and also in patch listing terms. There is a fallacy in the analysis that there is always an either/or and in the absence of a realisation that travelling widely and seeing a large number of birds - subject to competence - actually arms you to become a better patch birder (subject to time)....

Indeed, someone in the eBird Top Ten pulls out find after find in a bird-impoverished inland English County!

You have responded to that by making the same distinction again. Your response is that you were talking about patch birders not world birders but the same applies to both....

There may be birders who bird their patch and do nothing else. Ken gave the example of someone he knows that finds lots of things, cannot identify a lot of them and sends him poor photos. I am not sure most would identify that with the same degree of adulation as Ken but to be blunt, as long as that individual enjoys it, great.

But the vast majority of people that I know who work their patches combine it with broader experience that improves their birding and their patch birding. That is true all around me. The broader your experience the better you tend to be as a birder. The individuals that Larry refers to who would turn up on someone else's patch and find birds. It is OK as many patch birders would probably just disbelieve their eBird Checklists any way. 😀

I am not sure how you saw my response as not being that some of the best patch birders I know including my example are also world birders but I do not tend to make such distinctions and compartmentalise. Most people who worry about such definitions and distinctions do so to score points. Birders are birders. They do different things. Many of them in their own fields are excellent but those with more time to perfect their art and with the time and money to spend their time birding for longer in different ways improve their chances of developing their skills.

All the best

Paul

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

I have stayed out of the ‘best birder’ tangent of this thread, till now. My view is that there is no such thing as the ‘best birder.’

It would be necessary to define ‘birder’ first, and I suspect everyone has a different idea of what that means.

Quantifying the ‘best world lister’ is simple (as long as by best, one means numerically highest).

It might also be possible to define ‘best patch birder,’ if by that one means most species found, measured against the perceived productivity of a site.

Is best only defined by finding stuff, or might there be other considerations too?

So, first decide the criteria, then analyse the data.

Maybe it calls for a new thread - ‘What is a birder?’ Then we could have the thread - ‘Who is the world’s best birder?

(I suspect there will be almost as many answers to the first question as there are birders - whatever they are.) 😘

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I am not sure most would identify that with the same degree of adulation as Ken but to be blunt, as long as that individual enjoys it, great.

Well quite. I don't know if the Kenn Kaufmann quote has been mentioned above but in case not:

“Birdwatching is something that we do for enjoyment, so if you enjoy it, you are already a good birder. If you enjoy it a lot, you are a great birder.”

 

[dantheman]

I have stayed out of the ‘best birder’ tangent of this thread, till now. My view is that there is no such thing as the ‘best birder.’

It would be necessary to define ‘birder’ first, and I suspect everyone has a different idea of what that means.

Quantifying the ‘best world lister’ is simple (as long as by best, one means numerically highest).

It might also be possible to define ‘best patch birder,’ if by that one means most species found, measured against the perceived productivity of a site.

Is best only defined by finding stuff, or might there be other considerations too?

So, first decide the criteria, then analyse the data.

Maybe it calls for a new thread - ‘What is a birder?’ Then we could have the thread - ‘Who is the world’s best birder?

(I suspect there will be almost as many answers to the first question as there are birders - whatever they are.) 😘

I was thinking we need a new thread congratulating Peter K on his epic* achievement of reaching 10,000 birds ...

(Another tangent I was thinking of was around world birding and how it works)


*(epic by whatever criteria you choose)

 

[Farnboro John]

Well quite. I don't know if the Kenn Kaufmann quote has been mentioned above but in case not:

“Birdwatching is something that we do for enjoyment, so if you enjoy it, you are already a good birder. If you enjoy it a lot, you are a great birder.”

Unfortunately I find this as over-simple as much of what Kaufmann writes, which is why I don't enjoy his writing.

If you are enjoying birding but are kidding yourself that you are finding new stuff by stringing (intentional or not) then it doesn't matter whether you are enjoying it a little or a lot, your birding is based on falsehood and you are neither a good nor a great birder. If you know you are doing this or if you deny publicly what everyone else knows (e.g. refusing to change an identification in the face of knowledgeable advice) you are also not a great human being.

To be a good ordinary birder (which is a fine thing to be) you have to be honest with yourself and others, be open to learning experiences and value improving your skills above being right. If you aren't interested in learning you are a dude at best and a bad birder at worst.

Within these constraints there is a heck of a lot of room to undertake birding in a huge amount of different ways and hold a lot of opinions with which others may or may not agree, leading to many protracted discussions with more opportunities to learn.

John