[obol] Re: BIRDING article and Short-billedDowitchernumbers...aclarification

[Larry Mcqueen]

Thanks, Charles, for your post.  It's tough for those with normal and
supernormal hearing to understand or at least consider, this hidden handicap
of aging birders.  I have new hearing aids (my second pair), which help in
many ways, but hearing aids do not restore normal hearing.  In fact, they
can block some aspects of normal hearing which are taken for granted, and
they can change the quality and reduce the presence of bird calls.  This is
an issue experienced by many and rarely discussed.    

Larry McQueen


Subject: RE: [obol] Re: BIRDING article and
Short-billedDowitchernumbers...aclarification

I belong to a special cadre (not quite the right word but...)of birders that
most people often overlook.  You see, I can't hear very well.  In fact, my
hearing is getting pretty bad.  If I can walk right up to Dowitchers and get
them to talk to me as they flush, I can tell them apart.  Just standing back
with a spotting scope and listening to them talk is something I can't do.
For those of you who can't understand why new identification techniques
would cause some birder's hearts to flutter, it's probably because you
neglect to understand that there is a whole, giant batch of us that depend
heavily on field marks to bird. I often hear remarks on OBOL like, "all you
have to do is listen" or "just learn the songs".  I'm not claiming that
these folks are insensative or rude.  They just neglect to recognize that we
are here, we can't hear, and we get worse every year.

-----Original Message-----
From: obol-bounces at lists.oregonstate.edu
[mailto:obol-bounces at lists.oregonstate.edu]On Behalf Of DJLauten and
KACastelein
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:18 AM
To: DAVID IRONS
Cc: obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
Subject: Re: [obol] Re: BIRDING article and Short-billed
Dowitchernumbers...aclarification


Dave,

First, thank you to both Charles and you for posting this discussion on
OBOL.  It is a topic many of us are interested in, it is a birding
related topic, it is educational, and you are very correct that the
masses need to know that an article in Birding is not necessarily the
final word, nor correct, and needs to be criticized when appropriate.

I agree with everything said, but I must say that the last time I saw
you, you had bruises all over your head from knocking it against the
nearest tree......ok, I'm kidding.

I really don't mean to poo-poo this situation.  My point is exactly what
Dave states, your not going to ID every bird you see.  I see Dave's
point about being asked "what is that Dowitcher?" on a regular basis.
I've been asked similar questions about Golden Plovers.  People often
don't want to hear "I don't know"; they want a name put on it.  Part of
my point is don't get too caught up in hot shot birders finding the most
detailed and subjective ID criteria for some of these species.  Truth is
that most of what we see is pretty easily IDed.  A few species get
tricky, like Dows and Golden Plovers.  Some of us are nuts enough to
keep looking at these difficult species to work out the IDs.  But I
think for a lot of us, we should realize that articles like the Birding
one will just further confuse you.  The truth is that you are going to
see Dows, and most of them are pretty easily ID-able by a simple voice
or simple plumage characteristic.  Some are going to cause you immense
brain pain.  That is when it is time to look at the Yellowlegs....um,
which species is that???

Isn't it easier to explain to someone who is asking about those Dows to
just listen for a while....when they go 'keek keek keek', they be LBs,
when they go 'tu tu tu' they be SBs.....instead of trying to explain
that that one there has a slightly decurved bill at the tip (don't you
see it???) and the forehead angle is more flat than curved (don't you
see it...there...right now.....when it picks it head out of the water,
before it slips it back into the water again) and the tertial markings
bleed into the interior of the feather (what, you aren't sure which
feather is the tertail???? and you can't see that buffy color on that
feather squiggling into the middle of that feather.....heh, what power
scope are you using???? are you looking at the same bird as me?????)
and....oh shoot, here comes a Peregrine and they are all flying.....and
listen, they be calling 'keek keek keek'.....LBs.......if you ask me,it
is a lot easier to learn two simple field marks than a bunch of field
marks that depend on a bunch of definitions that one has to keep sorted
in our head - that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn that stuff, but let's
keep it easy first.

Funny part about it to me, the good ole way of IDing birds has stood the
test of time.  Does anyone think this 'new' method is going to
drastically change the bird knowledge we have or how we go about birding?

Have fun
Dave Lauten





DAVID IRONS wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I am not banging my head against the wall trying to ID every dowitcher I
> see.  I am quite convinced that there are a certain percentage of birds
> that I will never be able to ID unless they call and I'm fine with
> that.  However, I do not live in a birding vacuum.  Unlike you and
> Kathy, I bird in a place that gets lots of visitors and when I encounter
> folks trying to sort out ID issues I endeavor to assist them.  If I have
> answered one question about dowitcher ID this year I have answered a
> hundred.  Articles in BIRDING are just one of the resources that birders
> turn to as they try to learn how to separate similar species.  If their
> resources are rife with the sort of disinformation that is found in this
> article, I think it is important to let them know.  Too many resources
> and self-proclaimed experts are telling them they can ID every bird they
> see if they just take the time to learn a bunch of make believe field
> marks.  I experience the frustration this creates firsthand as I
> encounter other birders in my local area.
>
> Additionally, in serving as a regional editor for NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS
> and a member of the OBRC I also end up having to make judgements about
> sight records that are submitted.  I believe a little education up front
> can make both of these jobs a little easier.  Chuck Gates was the one
> who posed the original question on this issue.  Chuck is not some
> neophyte birder who is still trying to learn the basics.  He is a
> veteran birder and he is the local expert and an esteemed educator for
> the birders in his area.  I would bet he has been asked questions about
> dowitcher ID and it would certainly be helpful to him to know if this
> article is a worthwhile resource.  Chuck is a very valued sub-regional
> editor for NAB.  He is my go-to guy if I have questions about the status
> of birds in his area. If I can help him help the observers in his area,
> I will happily spend a little extra time in order to give him good
> feedback.  Perhaps I should have just responded to him privately on this
> issue, but I figured there might be a few others on OBOL with similar
> questions about this article.
>
> When I first started birding seriously, AMERICAN BIRDS (now NAB) had
> recently published an article stating that Western and Semipalmated
> Sandpipers could not be separated in the field unless they were in full
> alternate plumage.  I am thankful that birders more experienced than I
> took the time to get me on the right track.  The best repayment I can
> think of is to pass it forward.
>
> Dave Irons
>
>
>> From: DJLauten and KACastelein <deweysage at verizon.net>
>> To: DAVID IRONS <llsdirons at msn.com>
>> CC: obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
>> Subject: Re: [obol] Re: BIRDING article and Short-billed Dowitcher
>> numbers...aclarification
>> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:41:15 -0700
>>
>> A couple of points.
>>
>> One, I don't believe I said what I thought were peak counts of SB Dows
>> during migration.  Most people will see a max of a couple of hundred,
>> but that is because no one does any kind of counts at one spot of
>> northbound birds.  In other words, when Kathy and I see the shorebirds
>> moving, we rarely have time to stop and watch for a while.  We have
>> dreams of doing full scale, all day, counts during the time period.
>> We have some really good locations to do so from (like Bandon Beach St
>> Pk - China Creek parking lot).  If one stood at one spot all day and
>> during the course of the entire migration window, I suspect on some
>> days we would easliy count into the thousands of Dows.  I also believe
>> that some birds are flying over the ocean within a mile or two of
>> shore and therefore are hard to detect.  So, Dave, you are correct, it
>> seems like the percentage of birds we are seeing is very small, but I
>> suspect that is partly from the fact that no one is really looking
>> 'correctly' nor counting correctly.
>>
>> Two, I haven't read the article yet, so I don't have any comments on
>> it yet.
>>
>> Three, I just made this comment to a friend of mine.  It is a bit
>> harsh, but I stand by my point:
>> "For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to look
>> at 10's or 100's of dows and have to know the ID of each and every
>> one. Honestly, where in this country is it such a big deal to figure
>> out that that one out of 50 dows is a SB or LB instead of a LB or SB?
>> What information does this give us that would lead us to conclude some
>> incredibly new bit of info on the distribution and migration of
>> dowitchers that we don't generally collectively know already?  I love
>> Dows, but come on everyone, if you listen to them for a few minutes,
>> you'll ID them, and if you can't hear them, then you aren't close
>> enough to ID them by plumage anyway!"
>>
>> My point: why are you banging your head against a wall trying to pick
>> out the finer details of plumage (or worse yet, some subjective
>> structural jizz) when all the talking they do will answer most of your
>> questions?
>>
>> Ok, ok, you want to know for sure that there aren't 3 SB Dows instead
>> of 1 in that flock of LBs at Fern Ridge.  Fair enough.  But of what
>> relevency is it, accept to your own ego?  Taking it to a bit of the
>> extreme, we all know that SB Dow is rare in winter, LB is not, so a
>> group of quiet roosting birds may have a SB in it, and you don't want
>> to flush them to hear them call, and you'll have to document it for
>> the CBC, so you have to know these fine plumage details.  Well, I
>> might remind you of what Mike Patterson tells us all the time:  that
>> is a data point that in the larger picture is really quite
>> irrelevent.  Sure, it makes a great addition to your county list, or
>> the CBC total, but that's all it does.  The facts are still that 99%
>> of the SB Dows do not winter in this country.  No matter how many SB's
>> we ID in the winter, those facts aren't going to change anytime soon.
>>
>> With all that said, I do strongly encourage everyone to look at
>> Dowitchers.  They are incredibly neat birds, and the more you look the
>> better you'll get at IDing them.  But remember, not every bird is
>> ID-able, nor does it matter.  Wish them luck on their journey.
>>
>> Apologies to anyone who feels I'm being harsh, I don't mean to be, it
>> just seems like there is a bit of mental clogging going on.
>>
>> Dave Lauten
>>
>> DAVID IRONS wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry about the fat-finger on the blank post with this subject line.
>>> In my earlier post I suggested that
>>> northbound Short-billed Dowitchers "overfly" Oregon.  Some of our
>>> coastal buddies, who actually see northbound Short-billeds every
>>> year, have responded in a manner that suggests they feel I overstated
>>> the situation.  When I used the term "overfly" I was not suggesting
>>> that there are years when no Short-billed Dowitchers are along the
>>> coast in Spring.  I did a little research online and found that
>>> current estimates put the total population of caurinus ("western"
>>> sub-species) Short-billed Dowitchers at about 75,000.  Tim, Dave and
>>> Mike seem to agree that peak counts most years are in the 200-300
>>> range and that the window of passage for northbound birds occurs 20
>>> April-10 May.  Assuming that a fairly high percentage of the total
>>> caurinus population passes through or over Oregon on the way to
>>> northerly breeding grounds, the peak counts they report represent far
>>> less than 1% of the total population being detected on the ground at
>>> any single site in Oregon.  As Dave pointed out in his post, Oregon
>>> is severely challenged when it comes to major stopover sites for
>>> mid-size waders.  Humboldt Bay gets stupid numbers of shorebirds even
>>> when compared to numbers found in the collective estuaries of Oregon.
>>>
>>> Most of the subscribers to this listserve do not live on the outer
>>> coast and most probably average less than one trip per year to the
>>> coast during the narrow window when Short-billed Dowitchers are
>>> moving north.  Since they are all but absent inland in Spring
>>> migration, the majority of us have very little opportunity to see
>>> fresh alternate-plumaged Short-billed Dowitchers.  Our perception
>>> (and perception is reality) is skewed by our limited experiences with
>>> Spring birds, making it tough for many of us to effectively
>>> synthesize the BIRDING article and the claims of new field marks for
>>> Dowitchers.  My comments were designed as a response to a question
>>> about this article and whether it might be of help to the average
>>> OBOLite.  I appreciate the feedback from Dave Lauten, Tim Rodenkirk
>>> and Mike Patterson, along with the data they included.  As a group
>>> they probably spend more time monitoring coastal movements of
>>> shorebirds than the rest of us combined.  I also would like to hear
>>> their comments on the BIRDING article.
>>>
>>> I went back and re-read the article more critically last night.
>>> Today I had the opportunity to test some of the claims made by the
>>> authors on hundreds of Long-billed Dowitchers at Fern Ridge.  Among
>>> all these claims of new field marks, only wing length, primary tips
>>> falling short of the tip of the tail, seems to hold up for LBDO.
>>> Today and yesterday I was able to closely examine several dozen
>>> Long-billed Dowitchers, and in every case the wingtips fell just
>>> short of the end of the tail.  I am underwhelmed by the usefulness of
>>> any of the other characteristics they discussed. They proposed that
>>> Long-billed Dows have straight bills while the outer 1/3 of
>>> Short-billed is slightly down-curved.  Today I saw several
>>> Long-billed Dows with bills that were slightly down-curved.  The
>>> whole "loral angle" claim seems to be a total reach.  It is highly
>>> subjective and affected by a whole range of factors including viewing
>>> angle, molt, posture etc.  The notion that Long-billeds are more
>>> hump-backed than Short-billeds is also highly subjective and in my
>>> opinion of little if any use in attempting to separate Long and
>>> Short-billed Dowitchers.  Among the group at Fern Ridge today (about
>>> 20+ active birders of varying skill levels), there was a general
>>> concensus among those of us who had read this article that it was
>>> more confusing than helpful.  I have no doubt that it will widely
>>> discredited and criticized in the next issue of BIRDING.
>>>
>>> Dave Irons
>>> Eugene, OR
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> obol mailing list
>>> obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
>>> http://lists.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/obol
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>>> obol-leave at lists.oregonstate.edu.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> obol mailing list
>> obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
>> http://lists.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/obol
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>> obol-leave at lists.oregonstate.edu.
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
obol mailing list
obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
http://lists.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/obol

To unsubscribe, send a message to:
obol-leave at lists.oregonstate.edu.



_______________________________________________
obol mailing list
obol at lists.oregonstate.edu
http://lists.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/obol

To unsubscribe, send a message to:
obol-leave at lists.oregonstate.edu.