Why are field guides taboo in the field? (1 Viewer)

WelshFalcon said:

By the way, what's the collective noun for a group of twitchers?

Click to expand...

A "dread". (Well, if it isn't, it ought to be - especially when the bird's just been re-found in the next field but one.)

Jason

I always have a Field Guide (or two) close at hand. When we find a new bird, we start a general checklist of features such as wing bars, eye markings, eye color, legs, bill, etc. and after having done that we go to the field guide to check it out. Often we find that there are two very similar species and we need to check one more inconspicuous item to ID the bird.

Last weekend we got a great view of a Meadowlark on a fence and ran through our mental checklist. I knew it was a Meadowlark, but my wife hadn't seen one yet. Then after it flew, we got out the Field Guide and saw we missed an important point to distinguish between Eastern and Western. Luckily the range map ruled out the Western, but otherwise we would not have been able to positively ID it.

My guides range from dog-eared to actually falling apart (I like to think from good use rather than poor treatment, but quality of bindings is another possibility but that is another thread!). For me it's like the American Express ad, don't leave home without it.

QUOTE=Doug]I can't get my head round the fact that most birders seem to feel that you shouldn't use a field guide in the field?!!!

What you should have is a note book, pencil. optical equipment, polo's & a mars bar, Collins in the rucksack & most importantly the name & address of your County recorder. Never be afraid to get out your Field guide. Whilst botanising I would not be without my Stace, on Fungi my Phillips & on plant Galls my Hancey.

Colin J.

An old chestnut this one with pro`s and con`s on both sides of the arguement.

I agree no-one should ever be looked down on under any circumstances whether they are checking the ID of a Semi-palmated Sandpiper or the differerences between a Song Thrush and a Mistle Thrush. Thats just snobbery pure and simple and frequently by people with little reason to sneer!

I personally fall on the side of using the guide as a reference tool away from the bird...I carry a stock of books in the car (Collins, both Macmillan guides and the sadly out of print Field Guide to Rare Birds) and will happily refer to them before or after i`ve seen a bird...They can frequently become the centrepiece of some highly charged ID discussions too...(Scandanavian Rock Pipits and American Herring Gulls being two recent examples!!)
I think having the guide in front of you whilst observing can lead you to "see whats in the book" sometimes...better to take objective notes and then look back in an unbiased fashion.
However, not everyone has the time or desire to become a real ID guru and having the book to hand to help out can really improve their enjoyment of the birds...its one thing having to make notes and refer back later if you`re unsure about one bird, its a whole different kettle of fish if you got half a dozen or a dozen which are perplexing you!
I`ve been going through the "start from scratch" process this year with Dragonflies and find that reading up on target species before a trip, making notes and then comparing them to the books on your return is the best way to learn....but it didn`t stop me dipping on that Lesser Emperor at Marazion!!!!!

colin j said:

a mars bar
Colin J.

Click to expand...

Prefer yorkie myself, still far too fattening.

and if you want to use a guide then use it.

Personally I almost always have a copy of Collins with me - though more often to aid me in answering questions from others in hides. It seems that I attract questions of "what's that wader?" and "how do you tell a ruff?" having a copy of Collins to illustrate ID features is very useful.
That said I'm happy enough to use it for my own good if I need to - though agree with what has been said about taking notes before turning to the guide. Collins comes out most of the time, but the note book never gets left at home.

"Prefer yorkie myself"
Not for girls Pete

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

watcha John

I take it yer not an English teacher - hence the lack of paragraphs

very good points mind!

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!.

Click to expand...

I think this hits the nail on the head,

Spud

I tend to try and work the bird out and then refer to the guide. I do find I'm using it less than I used to. Of course the days when I don't have it.......

I tend to use the guide as an aide memoire(?!) nowadays.

When I've been birding for 40 years ............as it is after a year and a half alot of birds are still uncommon to me!

Ditto john,I feel I can ID most things in the field and if i cant, I take notes and do it later!
My own bugbear is the lack of people with notebooks,I hardly ever see birders with notebooks these days,writing down whats been seen etc, people seem to just turn up at a twitch,see a bird and go home!!
I dont get all snobbish though if I see someone with a fieldguide,and will always try and help people if possible,must admit though I was caught short once when I found a major rarity and even though the id was correct,needed to get hold of a decent field giude before releasing the news,just to make sure!!

Perhaps those people who do carry a field guide but who have been birding for a fair while might consider leaving it at home to see what happens - either you'll be presently surprised at how much you remember or alarmed by how much you don't. Either way I suspect you'll learn more while in the field and feel less and less need to carry it in the future.

Also, when it gets dark and you unfortunately have to stop birding you'll have the option of picking up the guide, reliving the days events or anticipating the kinds of identification problems that could be encountered in the future.

The human brain is a rather impressive organ and can understand and retain vast quantities of data. Just think of all the time you could save when not looking at a book and all of the birds you could be seeing and taking in in that time...

Spud

I agree 100% with your sentiments Spud - and thats exactly what alot of people do...the sales figures for "hard-core" books such as Sylvia Warblers and Pipits and Wagtails illustrate just that!
But and its a big but, there`s lots and lots of people who enjoy birding but have neither the time or inclination to become real ID experts - and fair play to them theres no harm in it.
Let everyone get into it to the depth they`re happy with - whether thats racially assigning Rock Pipits or telling apart Mallard and Wigeon.

collective noun for twitchers

How about a "tic" of twitchers-a nice clean double-entendre

The trouble with leaving your field guide at home is that, if you haven't done your homework, you're very likely to be stumped by very similar species. If you don't know what to look for you may miss essential diagnostic features. Mipits and Tripits come to mind, but there are loads of others. Description first; field guide for confirmation.

Jason

Alternatively, do your homework.

Spud

My point precisely.

Jason

Yes, I suppose it is!

Of course, you need to know what particular features to take notes on - the uninitiated in the joys of pipit ID could waste pages of notes describing generic pipit features I suppose.

Spud