Incidentally, I'm waiting to see a Canadian Beaver and not counting it just because I know which local ponds have active lodges and gnawed trees. FYI. 
ZooChat Big Year 2013
- Thread starter jbnbsn99
- Start date
- Status
no, no, and no
Why not? I need more than Voice of God. Though I'm inclined to agree on the basis of the Law of the Slippery Slope.
I have no idea what either of those things are
Chlodonias, you where the first to respond to the Big Year thread...I give you seniority points...but what about Bird Song? I'm kinda dubious about big numbers being racked up concerning similar looking song and shore birds, but respect the honor system. With mammals, particularly Bats, Shrews, mouse-like Rodents...and small, boreal predators...it's gonna be hard to secure positive identification (or in the case of SBPs, actual observation). Like I said, I'm not trying to claim Beavers based on sign, or Wolf based on tracks spotted in March, or Wolverine based on a photo one of my patrolmen took earlier in May (I was his dispatcher). But a feline track on a muddy trail in a Boreal Forest when no other Wild Felid lives in the area and there is no chance of misidentification (unlike your various sparrow, gulls, pipers, bats, rats, and shrews) and all I get is no, no, and no?
But I won't quibble, back to nine:
1) Red Fox
2) Arctic Fox
3) Red Squirrel
4) Moose
5) Dall Sheep
6) Musk Ox
7) Striped Skunk
8) Virgina Oppossum
9) Eastern Cottentail Rabbit.
:-(
Sorry. Voice of God references your No, No, and No response to my question. I.e. Directive answer, with no explanation. The Law of the Slippery Slope, refers to a comprimising of the standards that leads to an unexpected and unintended weakening of the standard as additional compromises are applied. American references. I hope, might just be me.
I don't count birds on call. I'm pretty sure most of the people on this thread don't count birds on call. For me it is bird watching, not bird listening to something I can't see which may or may not be what I think it is but I'll assume it's the thing I want to add to my list. (Jocularity there, no need to take it literally). Some passerines are so similar they can really only be identified correctly through a combination of seeing and hearing them (but I have never been party to seeing those particular species); shorebirds -- indeed the vast majority of birds -- can be distinguished by sight if you have the experience.
Mammals: to take the bat example, I have seen probably, I dunno, a hundred species of bats. But I have exactly 15 on my life list. Those are the only ones I could identify by sight. If I can't identify it, it doesn't make the cut.
if you want more than "no, no, and no":
1) If you want to count an animal based on footprints it's your list so go ahead, but why? Surely the challenge is seeing the animal itself, even if it takes twenty years. I saw a movie poster outside the cinema the other day; I didn't have enough money to go inside but I'm going to say I still saw the movie because I saw the poster. I also slept with this really hot girl....well actually I only saw her from the bus window but I'm still counting it as sleeping with her because hot girls are hard to get. (Those examples are references to "track only, with photo confirmation. I'm counting it, because wild forest cats, are not easy to spot").
2) Roadkill? If you keep a roadkill list then sure, or even a general "dead animal list", but otherwise how does finding some roadkill compare to watching wild animals?
3) Predator-killed small mammals? Same as above. If you found a pile of hairy woodpecker feathers would you go "Woo-hoo! Finally I have seen a hairy woodpecker! Look how beautiful this pile of bloody feathers is!"?
I'm sure that all came across as very obnoxious but that wasn't the way it was intended
But thanks for the clarification. I'll stop digging through Owl Pellets hoping to identify recognizable bits....I was hoping for a twofer with that strategy! ;-)
I do count birds and bats that I have heard only (using a bat detector). I do this not only because it is conform the most "rules", but also because those sounds are a better identification tool than sight. F.e. all the warblers.... But tracks I do not count neither do dead animals...
I personally don't count anything unless I physically see a living specimen. Even if it's just a glimpse.
~Thylo
~Thylo
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I personally don't count anything unless I physically see a living specimen. Even if it's just a glimpse.
~Thylo
And because I am not good at identifying birds on sight, I only count birds I see, take a photo of, and whose photo is clear enough to identify the bird by cross referencing with my bird book/app.
that just comes with experience. The longer you are birding the better you become at IDs. At the start it is hard because you don't have any ground base to work from. Often you don't even know where in the book to look (i.e. you don't know if the bird is a wren or a warbler or a pipit).
It can be the same with experienced birders if they visit an unfamiliar part of the world, e.g. a birder very familiar with British birds may struggle in southeast Asia because they have no base-line for identifying babblers and bulbuls. They may not even know what sort of bird it is to start with and so won't know exactly where in the book to search.
I'm with you on that Nanoboy. I only add many small birds to the list after I've gotten the pictures uploaded and cross referenced against the book. Many end up in the "I wonder what that was" file.
I like to refer to them as really fresh fossils. ;-)
The difference, though, is that an experienced birder will have a better idea of how to identify the bird than a novice (eg. They would recognise a babbler or bulbul is a passerine and so ignore all non-passerines.) and novices who are frequent zoo visitors will have an advantage as being able to tell a hornbill from a turaco, for instance.
But it's the LBJs that sort the men from the boys.
Hix
60) Grey Jay
61) Blue-Winged Teal
Mammals
10) American Black Bear
Amphibian
1) Wood Frog
61) Blue-Winged Teal
Mammals
10) American Black Bear
Amphibian
1) Wood Frog
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
The difference, though, is that an experienced birder will have a better idea of how to identify the bird than a novice (eg. They would recognise a babbler or bulbul is a passerine and so ignore all non-passerines.) and novices who are frequent zoo visitors will have an advantage as being able to tell a hornbill from a turaco, for instance.
But it's the LBJs that sort the men from the boys.
Hix
I am gradually getting better though. Without consulting the field guide, I can already tell the difference between an emu and a sparrow!!
I am gradually getting better though. Without consulting the field guide, I can already tell the difference between an emu and a sparrow!!
but you still use the app right?
(And the next step is telling apart an emu and an emu-wren).
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
- Status