Uganda and Rwanda: 1 to 22 June 2024 (4 Viewers)

[Steve Babbs]

If you measure the success of a trip by the number of ticks than a tour is usually the way to go. I don't. I am looking forward to retirement and going away for months at a time again. I realise than being able to go away for 5 or 6 weeks makes in a better position than most but I really miss the longer trips. Not being 'judgemental' though as I have used a local company for a guided trip to Sri Lanka recently, and will be using one for most of a trip to Boliva soon, as I do care a lot about my cat list and, although I would get a far bigger kick from finding my own cats, as the majority of the ones that I have seen so far have been, I realise that it is now likely to stay stagnant without a guide.

It's rather gone off topic but Uganda is very easy to do independantly for those without deep pockets. I am told Rwanda is too. The bits of Tanzania I have been too were very easy too.

 

[Paul Chapman]

If you measure the success of a trip by the number of ticks than a tour is usually the way to go. I don't. I am looking forward to retirement and going away for months at a time again. I realise than being able to go away for 5 or 6 weeks makes in a better position than most but I really miss the longer trips. Not being 'judgemental' though as I have used a local company for a guided trip to Sri Lanka recently, and will be using one for most of a trip to Boliva soon, as I do care a lot about my cat list and, although I would get a far bigger kick from finding my own cats, as the majority of the ones that I have seen so far have been, I realise that it is now likely to stay stagnant without a guide.

It's rather gone off topic but Uganda is very easy to do independantly for those without deep pockets. I am told Rwanda is too. The bits of Tanzania I have been too were very easy too.

I thought about responding but was inclined not to do so until this informed comment from elsewhere:-

I don't think these "crude" statistics mean very much in world birding. Seeing an extra 50 globally or regionally common and widespread species is of little significance to most keen world birders, who are generally far more target-oriented. I guess tour companies like to pad their lists for marketing purposes.

I have visited Uganda before independently save for local assistance so am fully aware that can be done.

In general, tours will not get you as successful results as longer trips with fewer participants and local assistance. Personally, I would always try and go with a friend or two and a local excellent birder if possible.

I think even as a first visit to a country, tours work best if you have not visited the region before but they do not maximise ticks if you have already done so.

Tours get participants generally because people do not have the time to make their own arrangements or want the comfort of someone else with more experience doing so. It is also genuinely difficult to find fellow participants for trips with whom you gel well and with whom you share the same objectives. I have had a lot of feedback on trips by others that suggest that.

Indeed, that is why this area of the site exists!

Counterbalancing the benefits of tours, there are significant drawbacks as I set out above. Cost is one but for me by far the largest counterbalance is an inability to influence Itinerary, targets and effort and the number of other participants effecting views, type of birding and photography.

All the best

Paul

 

[Steve Babbs]

Counterbalancing the benefits of tours, there are significant drawbacks as I set out above. Cost is one but for me by far the largest counterbalance is an inability to influence Itinerary, targets and effort and the number of other participants effecting views, type of birding and photography.

We are well off subject so I will make this my last comment. For me, by some way, the biggest drawback is I get nowhere near as much satisfaction from being shown something as from finding it myself - even if the finding it myself thing could be questioned if I know that a particular site is good for a species. Seeing Indian Pangolin was great but nothing like the thrill I got from, completely unexpectatedly, seeing Ground and Sunda.

I would 100% agree with what DMW said.

 

[Paul Chapman]

We are well off subject so I will make this my last comment. For me, by some way, the biggest drawback is I get nowhere near as much satisfaction from being shown something as from finding it myself - even if the finding it myself thing could be questioned if I know that a particular site is good for a species. Seeing Indian Pangolin was great but nothing like the thrill I got from, completely unexpectatedly, seeing Ground and Sunda.

I would 100% agree with what DMW said.

Not massively off topic really or off topic at all as this thread was advertising a tour and rapidly led to tour comparisons and the usual comments that you read on participating on tours... The actual circumstances tend to differ. Birders will get stuck in and find things or contribute if that is their nature. Birders will be passengers if that is their nature.

As set out, I have experienced a number of forms of travel and indeed foreign birding. I have always been bewildered by the concept of self-finding or indeed caring about who gets their bins on a bird first or whether I am giving or receiving directions. This is probably because most of my birding was solo and self-learned for my first decade or so.

Who picked up a bird first is a detail that I rarely remember. (Oddly, when I do, I often seem to remember things slightly differently from those that prize such things more significantly. ) But I do understand totally that feeling when you have dug something out for yourself. 👍

All the best

Paul

 

[Steve Babbs]

I didn't stick to no further comments!

I think it is the being shown it by a guide thing. I have done considerably more birding abroad without other birders than with them but I have still done a fair amount with other birders. I would not have a clue for most birds I've seen in those circumstances if I or they found a bird first. To me personally that is very different to paying a local expert to show you - but if that is the only realistic way I will see something that I am desperate to see then I will do it. But that has only happened a couple of times for a bird I desperately wanted to see, in nearly 40 years of 'world birding', although I have been places when a guide is compulsory and been show birds in Sri Lanka on a mainly nocturnal mammals trip.

Right I'm off to try to see my first harvest mice for almost 40 years.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I didn't stick to no further comments!

I think it is the being shown it by a guide thing. I have done considerably more birding abroad without other birders than with them but when I have still done a fair amount with other birders. I would not have a clue for most birds I've seen in those circumstances if I or they found a bird first. To me personally that is very different to paying a local expert to show you - but if that is the only realistic way I will see something that I am desperate to see then I will do it. But that has only happened a couple of times for a bird I desperately wanted to see, in nearly 40 years of 'world birding', although I have been places when a guide is compulsory and been show birds in Sri Lanka on a mainly nocturnal mammals trip.

Right I'm off to try to see my first harvest mice for almost 40 years.

Good luck with the harvest mice.

As you have said previously, each to their own. Not a barrier for me. Whatever gets the best results and as importantly, fits with whatever preparation time I have for organisation. I'll continue to do variations of all three - entirely independent, hiring a guide for part or all of a trip and bird tours.

I cannot imagine having learned a fraction of what I learnt on Peruvian or Thai birds without excellent local guides.

All the best

Paul

 

[Andy Adcock]

Paul Chapman wrote:

I thought about responding but was inclined not to do so until this informed comment from elsewhere:-

I don't think these "crude" statistics mean very much in world birding. Seeing an extra 50 globally or regionally common and widespread species is of little significance to most keen world birders, who are generally far more target-oriented. I guess tour companies like to pad their lists for marketing purposes.

I wish I could tell you how many times I've tried to impart that gem to less experienced birders who were running around like headless chickens to tick a local rarity / scarcity that is much easier, not too far away. The two examples I can most easily retrieve from the old memory bank would be Ratchet-tailed Treepie and Limestone Wren Babbler in Thailand.

 

[abirdingguy]

Reasonable advice for those with the time and money. For some, it may be their best shot. I find it hard to look down much on birders for effort and passion put into pursuing a potential lifer.

 

[temmie]

Paul Chapman wrote:

I thought about responding but was inclined not to do so until this informed comment from elsewhere:-



I wish I could tell you how many times I've tried to impart that gem to less experienced birders who were running around like headless chickens to tick a local rarity / scarcity that is much easier, not too far away. The two examples I can most easily retrieve from the old memory bank would be Ratchet-tailed Treepie and Limestone Wren Babbler in Thailand.

I’m a bit confused, as limestone wren babbler is a 3-way split and 1 of them is a firm Thailand endemic (rufous wren babbler) while another one (variable) only occurs in Thailand and adjacent Myanmar. You could see the third one (annam wren babbler) technically in Thailand but maybe easier in Laos or Vietnam (haven’t been there).
With regards to ratchet-treepie: it’s monotypic but I wonder, as the kaeng krachan birds have only been discovered in the early 1990s, if molecular work has been done and meanwhile, you better catch them all (so that’s what I did). I didn’t have to invest any more time than I was planning to look for other birds at that spot, and found a Binturong nearby, so I would say you better try to see as many birds as you can, even as a world birder (or especially), as splits are always lurking around the corner, and as it’s better to have them in the bank while you’re at a likely spot for a certain species, than to assume the most likely place for that bird will automatically deliver (which obviously doesn’t happen from time to time).

 

[Andy Adcock]

It didn't occur to you that I might be speaking retrospectively, they haven't always been split and not everybody was going down to Kaeng Krachen in those days.

I’m a bit confused, as limestone wren babbler is a 3-way split and 1 of them is a firm Thailand endemic (rufous wren babbler) while another one (variable) only occurs in Thailand and adjacent Myanmar. You could see the third one (annam wren babbler) technically in Thailand but maybe easier in Laos or Vietnam (haven’t been there).
With regards to ratchet-treepie: it’s monotypic but I wonder, as the kaeng krachan birds have only been discovered in the early 1990s, if molecular work has been done and meanwhile, you better catch them all (so that’s what I did). I didn’t have to invest any more time than I was planning to look for other birds at that spot, and found a Binturong nearby, so I would say you better try to see as many birds as you can, even as a world birder (or especially), as splits are always lurking around the corner, and as it’s better to have them in the bank while you’re at a likely spot for a certain species, than to assume the most likely place for that bird will automatically deliver (which obviously doesn’t happen from time to time).

 

[DMW]

I can see how my comment was ambiguous, but I was talking about devoting time to seeing common / widespread species you've already seen elsewhere just to get a longer trip list. For example, spending a morning at a wetland or coastal site where there's almost certainly nothing new might get you an easy 20 extra species v spending it in forest where you might see 1 of your target species.

Of course, with taxonomic change, there's an added layer of complexity to take into consideration, especially if you are birding in an archipelago such as the Philippines or Indonesia.

 

[temmie]

It didn't occur to you that I might be speaking retrospectively, they haven't always been split and not everybody was going down to Kaeng Krachen in those days.

I'll rephrase your words:
"I didn't make myself clear that I was speaking retrospectively, and while they haven't always been split, they were already known to be ssp. that were clearly fenotypically different so better to be safe than sorry".

With regards to the Treepie, the question whether you would have gone when it wasn't known (pre-1991) / people weren't going there (I don't know since when Kaeng Krachan was firmly on the birder's map) is irrelevant as you can't pose the question if the treepie is worth going to a place if it either wasn't known, or if people didn't go there; It's relevant if people go there since the Treepie was discovered there / since it's on the birding map, and the question that has to be answered if there are good reasons to search for that bird.

The answer to that question is imho less black-white than you suggest: If you don't go looking for the Treepie in Kaeng Krachan because it's easier elsewhere, you still have to see it elsewhere, and world birding is a slow marathon, so it could take another decade before you're finally in Treepie territory somewhere in the 'easier' place in Vietnam, for example. For many people, Thailand is a destination they go first, and only after Thailand they will visit Vietnam. It's always a good thing to reduce the number of target species in Vietnam having seen many of them in Thailand, so in the particular case of the Treepie, given there aren't many hard targets in the upper elevation section of Kaeng Krachan, I would include the Treepie in the 'put in some effort' category, without compromising on searching for e.g. Rusty-cheeked Hornbill, but in hindsight: I would even consider Ratchet-tailed Treepie in the top 5 of best birds you can see in Kaeng Krachan higher elevations (next to the Hornbill and Pin-tailed Parrotfinch, with the parrotfinch not exactly a site-specific hard target either, maybe some other species but can't really think of 'hard' targets over there). I haven't birded thoroughly in Thailand but I only have about 5 birds I can realistically target in Kaeng Krachan and none of them is a bird I have to see in that park as they're widespread (boogie) birds.

The other (in case of the Treepie probably less relevant, but still, not fully known) reason is that many songbirds have different ssp. across their range and some of these ssp. are split candidates. Even without splits, I have, almost a decade ago, realized I shouldn't skip non-lifers from the want-to-see list on my overseas trips; these are not target birds sensu stricto, but it's better to be safe than sorry, and it's simply a good thing to see birds over and over again in different places. So nowadays, I strive to see everything everywhere, ofcourse without compromising time looking for targets. When I'll be in Vietnam, I'll be looking (or more likely listening) for Ratchet-tailed Treepies.

What DMW says about wetlands and coastal sites makes much more sense with regards to giving examples, as most (not all!) shorebirds are monotypic / migrating birds that are nice for the list but 100% irrelevant as a target bird. Examples as Ratchet-tailed Treepie, but especially Limestone Wren Babbler are, imho, a bit unfortunate if one wants to explain how world birders manage targets.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I can see how my comment was ambiguous, but I was talking about devoting time to seeing common / widespread species you've already seen elsewhere just to get a longer trip list. For example, spending a morning at a wetland or coastal site where there's almost certainly nothing new might get you an easy 20 extra species v spending it in forest where you might see 1 of your target species.

Of course, with taxonomic change, there's an added layer of complexity to take into consideration, especially if you are birding in an archipelago such as the Philippines or Indonesia.

Totally agree with this and if I can agree with other trip participants, unless there is a species that one or all of us need, I try to skip these kind of sites, huge, trip lists don't intereset me.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I'll rephrase your words:
"I didn't make myself clear that I was speaking retrospectively, and while they haven't always been split, they were already known to be ssp. that were clearly fenotypically different so better to be safe than sorry".

With regards to the Treepie, the question whether you would have gone when it wasn't known (pre-1991) / people weren't going there (I don't know since when Kaeng Krachan was firmly on the birder's map) is irrelevant as you can't pose the question if the treepie is worth going to a place if it either wasn't known, or if people didn't go there; It's relevant if people go there since the Treepie was discovered there / since it's on the birding map, and the question that has to be answered if there are good reasons to search for that bird.

The answer to that question is imho less black-white than you suggest: If you don't go looking for the Treepie in Kaeng Krachan because it's easier elsewhere, you still have to see it elsewhere, and world birding is a slow marathon, so it could take another decade before you're finally in Treepie territory somewhere in the 'easier' place in Vietnam, for example. For many people, Thailand is a destination they go first, and only after Thailand they will visit Vietnam. It's always a good thing to reduce the number of target species in Vietnam having seen many of them in Thailand, so in the particular case of the Treepie, given there aren't many hard targets in the upper elevation section of Kaeng Krachan, I would include the Treepie in the 'put in some effort' category, without compromising on searching for e.g. Rusty-cheeked Hornbill, but in hindsight: I would even consider Ratchet-tailed Treepie in the top 5 of best birds you can see in Kaeng Krachan higher elevations (next to the Hornbill and Pin-tailed Parrotfinch, with the parrotfinch not exactly a site-specific hard target either, maybe some other species but can't really think of 'hard' targets over there). I haven't birded thoroughly in Thailand but I only have about 5 birds I can realistically target in Kaeng Krachan and none of them is a bird I have to see in that park as they're widespread (boogie) birds.

The other (in case of the Treepie probably less relevant, but still, not fully known) reason is that many songbirds have different ssp. across their range and some of these ssp. are split candidates. Even without splits, I have, almost a decade ago, realized I shouldn't skip non-lifers from the want-to-see list on my overseas trips; these are not target birds sensu stricto, but it's better to be safe than sorry, and it's simply a good thing to see birds over and over again in different places. So nowadays, I strive to see everything everywhere, ofcourse without compromising time looking for targets. When I'll be in Vietnam, I'll be looking (or more likely listening) for Ratchet-tailed Treepies.

What DMW says about wetlands and coastal sites makes much more sense with regards to giving examples, as most (not all!) shorebirds are monotypic / migrating birds that are nice for the list but 100% irrelevant as a target bird. Examples as Ratchet-tailed Treepie, but especially Limestone Wren Babbler are, imho, a bit unfortunate if one wants to explain how world birders manage targets.

Don't fall off that box.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Thanks for the discussion. Very interesting for me. The covering of subspecific possibilities (and indeed in the case of Kaeng Krachen undescribed subspecies - relevant to Grey-chinned Minivets there as well as the Treepie) is another complexity and layer I am far from understanding.

I cannot imagine having learned a fraction of what I learnt on Peruvian or Thai birds without excellent local guides.

Essentially as I understand it, Kaeng Krachen was an unknown location with various isolated species populations. Essentially, the various collecting expeditions had been completed before its discovery and that is why a number of subspecies remain undescribed. But that is only from discussing things with our very well-informed guide - co-author of The Birds of Thailand.

All the best

Paul

 

[temmie]

Don't fall off that box.

Always happy to educate, share knowledge, correct wrongness, stand corrected and learn. 🤓

Ps: have a good trip, Mike!

 

[DMW]

Thanks for the discussion. Very interesting for me. The covering of subspecific possibilities (and indeed in the case of Kaeng Krachen undescribed subspecies - relevant to Grey-chinned Minivets there as well as the Treepie) is another complexity and layer I am far from understanding.



Essentially as I understand it, Kaeng Krachen was an unknown location with various isolated species populations. Essentially, the various collecting expeditions had been completed before its discovery and that is why a number of subspecies remain undescribed. But that is only from discussing things with our very well-informed guide - co-author of The Birds of Thailand.

All the best

Paul

There are some distinctive subspecies which have been trailed as a likely split for decades, and a lot of birders make the effort to see these as an insurance tick (or merely because they actually want to see them!), and bird company tour itineraries are a good source for these. However, in recent years there have also been quite a few "out of the blue" splits of forms that really aren't terribly distinctive in the field. I'm trying to reconcile my completist instincts with the sense of "did I really just devote time and money to see this?". For example, I was in the Ryukyu Islands last week and just spent 2 days travelling to and from Iriomote to see 4 taxa. Only one of these is split by IOC (Iriomote Tit) and I left wanting a refund!