I feel somewhat schizophrenic about folks using field guides in the field. I always take (or mean to do so) a field guide with me when I’m leading groups in the field. It’s simply much easier to show people what the birds look like than witter on about it. (Incidentally, I also find it useful to take a “digiscoped” photo, however crude, of birds in view to go over ID points with the bird they’ve actually seen). I usually take the ‘Pocket Guide of birds of Britain’ by Kightley et al – not because it’s the best, but because the illustrations are large & clear and it’s not cluttered with extra-limital species. Hot days it’s the Mitchell Beazley guide cos it fits in my shirt pocket.
However, I loathe using field guides personally. Partly it’s because I rarely see birds in the field in the UK that I can’t identify (excluding UTVs, distant dots, etc). I know that this sounds like arrogance, but, since I’ve been birding for 40-odd years, I really shouldn’t need field guides in run of the mill situations if I’ve been paying attention. If I do see something that throws me then I write a description/draw/take notes. That way I look more closely at the bird, I avoid jumping to conclusions and I LEARN. I have been known to run away if someone get a guide out near me when I’m still in the process of observing the bird. I simply don’t want my observations to be contaminated. It is all too easy to see what you want. Did I use field guides when I started? Of course I did, but even then I tried not to get too dependent. Which brings me on to what really does worry me about how folk use field guides as an habitual crutch. First, if you’ve got the bird in front of you what you should be doing is watching the bird not thumbing the guide. Look at what you can see & compare it with other species. If your first response is to stick your nose in a field guide then you can grow too dependent on it. Rather than compare the bird with the plate it’s much better to compare it with other birds, file away what makes it distinctive to you so next time you ID it yourself – it really isn’t too hard to learn the basics. This internalised learning is both much more rewarding and a far better learning tool than grinding through the guides. I’ve seen folks sit there watching birds in a hide, get the guide out to identify the species, move to another part of the same hide and get the book out again to identify the same species. It never seems to occur to them to cross reference to birds that they’ve actually just seen and which are still in view – mainly cos they never really LOOKED at it in the first place!. Looking at the field guide becomes automatic response. OK, if they want to remain on a plateau in terms of their ID skills it’s up to them, but it doesn’t stop me thinking that they’ve made a mistake! I do take a field guide with me when I’m abroad. I may simply be seeing new species too rapidly to take detailed notes & need a quick refresher. However, even so I try to minimise my use of the thing. In Europe I use a field guide largely to check distribution – is it early, late, etc? In America (the only non-European area I’ve birded) I admit to using a field guide more often but even here as little as possible. I read up before hand and consider recourse to the field guide as a personal defeat!
However, the advent of the Collins guide has changed attitudes. Folks who wouldn't have used a guide in the field will look at Collins. Partly cos they now want to ID birds beyond simple species level & this book (up to a point) allows you to do this. The book is also so damn good that using it doesn't involve the loss of face!
John