Are you a birder if you don’t carry binoculars?
By Charlie • November 15, 2008 • 19 commentsWhen I was having dinner with the highly-entertaining YC Wee and KC Tsang (doyens and co-founders of the Bird Ecology Study Group) in Singapore earlier this month, I was asked a casual question that at first sight seemed rather clear-cut: “as a ’serious’ birder do you think that birders who go birding with cameras but without binoculars can really call themselves birders?” The answer would be ‘No’ - wouldn’t it? If I get somewhere and realised I’ve forgotten my binoculars I want to go straight home again. I feel like I do when I have one of those insecurity dreams where I suddenly realise I’m standing in front of the whole school and I’ve got no trousers on. No binoculars? It’s just not proper, chaps. Hide your head in shame and give yourself a stern telling-off, because no birder worth his or her salt would venture outside without a pair of bins slapping them in the tum. Surely..?
The more I’ve thought about it though - and yes, I probably do have too much spare time to think about all things ‘birdy’ - the less sure I’ve become.
Let me present the argument and then ask for your comments to help me decide:
1) If you carry a camera but don’t carry binoculars you’re not a birder because -
- Unless you have eyesight like Superman you can’t see anything more than 50 metres away, and that’s no way to go birding (which is what birders do)
- Unless you have binoculars you’re reduced to just ‘looking’ not ‘watching’, ’snapshots’ not ’stories’, you can’t follow anything so you can’t study anything - and birders study things, they don’t just look at them
- Binoculars don’t stop working because their batteries have gone flat, or it’s got a little bit dark, or it’s raining - with binoculars you can bird whatever the weather and (almost) whatever the time of day
- Binoculars are durable and they allow you to take risks, get wet, wade through rivers, stomp through mud, climb trees, get off the beaten track,
and live in stick houses[okay, not live in stick houses] - in other words you can actually GO BIRDING. Stick an expensive camera with an even more expensive lens on a heavy tripod and most owners won’t go out unless the sun is shining, the path is tarmacced, and the way forward very clear indeed: that’s not birding, that’s taking a walk in a park
2) On the other hand -
- Who actually spends all that much time looking at distant dots anyway? Why would binoculars close-focus if half the fun of birding wasn’t getting up-close and personal with the bird of your choice? Don’t most birders spend a good chunk of the day peering into the immediate undergrowth anyway? Do you really need binoculars for that, or will a camera do just as well?
- You can sometimes learn almost as much from a really good photograph as you can from watching a distant bird for an hour. Ideally of course it would be er, ‘ideal’ to have both the photo and the ‘time to stand and stare’ - but who really has that much leisure these days? And, in truth, aren’t many birders happy just to put a name to what they see rather than try to inwardly digest every nuance of behaviour?
- Yes, with binoculars you can bird whatever the weather and in the (almost) dark - but, let’s face it, I don’t really like getting wet and cold anymore, and aside from foxes and the odd owl there’s really not that much moving around in the (almost) dark anyway…and I’ll bet many of you feel the same way. And batteries? Buy two and they’ll last you all day anyway…
- Ever noticed how many birds you can see in a park? And how few you can see when you’re up to your neck in a swamp and there are leeches nibbling on your bits?
I know what YC and KC were really inviting me to comment on when they asked the seemingly innocuous question above. In some parts of Asia (probably because of the new-found wealth that has created an upwardly-mobile middle class) there are growing numbers of ‘birders’ with VERY expensive camera equipment who appear to be more interested in taking a good photo of a rarity than eg ever really learning about the common birds they photograph once and ignore from then on. That has stirred an ongoing debate amongst some passionate birders who wish the photographers would get more involved in contributing data to counts or breeding records or in fighting for the preservation of threatened sites. They’re not giving very much, runs the argument, yet they want to know where all the rare birds are and will often get in the way of ‘real birders’ just to get a better shot.
I can understand the argument, but some (maybe ‘many’) photographers do of course contribute to counts or other data - even if incidentally just by turning up and recording that a bird is still present by posting its photo on the net. Without a decent photograph some records of extra-limital species would never get accepted anyway, and - let’s be honest - who doesn’t like looking at a great photo of a bird they may never see themselves anyway? I’ve a distinct feeling, too, that when it comes to environmental decision-making the people who can afford top-of-the-range optical gear probably belong to a stratum of society that has more clout than well-meaning activists who prefer not to be ‘mainstream’. Anyway at the most basic level of debate it does seem to me preferable that people are outside pointing cameras at birds rather than guns…
In the end does it really matter anyway what we call ‘birders’ who don’t carry binoculars but do carry cameras? Yes, it would be helpful if photographers would learn the etiquette of birding, learn the basics of fieldcraft, not talk loudly in hides (especially about how much their new lens cost), and, yes, it would be fantastic if every bird-photographer became a committed conservationist, campaigning to protect local sites from development, or helping build up more accurate trends in bird populations - but then it would be fantastic if every ‘real birder’ could be convinced to do the same as well. Like a good political party surely ‘birding’ is a broad enough term that we should welcome in anyone who’s interested in birds, whether they carry binoculars or not? Or if we say that, are we just opening the door to the sort of person who only sees birds in terms of focus, composition, and lighting and who will never understand the passion us “real birders” share and enjoy, never take the time to study, to learn, and properly appreciate, and who, therefore, will never truly belong to the ‘tribe’?
It’s not the most important question you’ll ever be asked, but what do you think?
• DO YOU BRAKE FOR BIRDS? Get your bumper sticker today! •
I started out birdwatching with binoculars in the true birder style when I was in school. I then lost touch with birding and by the time I returned to it, I was the owner of a superzoom camera, which I`ve since upgraded to an SLR and hence everytime I saw a bird I had to have it on record. I love bird photography and i seem to have a craving for it.I go out whenever I can but thats mostly weather permitting. But there are many times I ve asked myself if I`m a true birdwatcher. I would describe myself more of a bird photographer than a traditional bird watcher. I find that I`m no longer looking out for bird behavior or that unique identifying picture because all I`m concentrating on is getting that perfect picture. However when I return from my trips, I make it a point to identify my birds from the pics and read up about the bird and its habits before posting the pics/blog. It has done lots for my birding education.I`d love to take my binocs along with me but carrying two lenses and the binocs is too much equipment….I think the advent of affordable cameras and lenses have created a new breed of hybrids- the birdsnapper!However, I wouldnt say its a bad thing. Getting bird behaviour in pics and recording bird distribution as hard evidence and most of all blogging about it raises a lot of public interest and awareness.
I’m quite willing to say that I’m not a birder. I am certainly not a serious birder. I mostly watch birds in my backyard or at my school. I don’t go out after rarities. I hardly ever go out and look for birds. I do, however, carry my camera with me wherever I go. So, when I’m out and about and see a bird, I can take a picture of it. This certainly limits the birds that I can see but I’m still a rank amateur and this allows me the time and space that I need to learn about birds and birding. So, sure, call me a birdsnapper or bird dabbler or birder-wannabe or whatever you want. But, I think that it’s a bit elitist to say that one must have particular equipment in order to call oneself a birder. If that’s the case, perhaps someone should make a list of equipment one needs before one can go out on a walk and look at birds. Maybe a kit could be purchased with a special card so that one could be called a birder. Should birders have badges? Perhaps uniforms? I think a committee should be formed to establish what one must do, say, think, and act in order to become a proper birder. Oooooooor, we could all admit that birders might come in many different flavors — camera birders and binoc birders and amateur birders and professional birder and serious birder and casual birder and that the most important thing is respect for what we are looking at and what we are doing. Just my amateur camera-toting thoughts . . .
I find birding without my camera nearly as unsatisfying as birding without binoculars… and I’ve tried both plenty of times!
My understanding is that birders are always birding, in the sense that they are always at least somewhat aware of avian activity in their surroundings. So, I suppose if you’re a birder, you’re a birder regardless of how you’re equipped at any given moment.
This is an interesting question. My preference is to put many people in the ‘birder’ category then subdivide.
For example I have been a birder for many years. I would call myself for most of that time a casual birder because I birded as a side to some other activity I was doing, like hiking. Its only recently I would call myself a serious birder because now I go on dedicated birding trips.
I personally never take a camera with me when birding. Part of this is because I have little interest in photography. It is also because I walk a lot when I bird, at times over five miles. When walking that much the less carried the better.
I sometimes regret not having a camera when I see a rarity though. I always submit to ebird and a picture would be a much better record of a rare bird.
Thanks for the post Charlie. I see that your piece is attracting many comments.
I have often been referred to as a bird watcher and each time I replied “well yes and no.” In the traditional sense, a bird watcher carries binoculars and I don’t. Though I do _watch_ birds, the tool I use is different; I use a camera.”
It’s all about passion. I’ve sat for hours in pursuit of that perfect hummingbird photograph. When I’ve heard the hammering and sound of a Pileated Woodpecker, I’d take off running through the woods in search of it. While carefully walking through a marine nature study area during nesting season, I encountered an irate Canada Goose. I’ve cautiously pursued a Great Blue Heron via small motor boat on a lake.
The thrill of spotting a new bird is equal to that of a traditional birder. And I don’t just photograph the bird. My post-processing involves bird research and education. So in response to the question of “are you a birder?” I would say yes, but not in the traditional sense. My passion is the same; it’s just that the equipment I use is different.
[...] “Are you a birder if you don’t carry binoculars?” asks Charlie. It’s an interesting post, and he presents arguments both pro and con, so go take a read. [...]
Well Charlie, it looks as though this post has stirred up some deep feelings. I have always been opposed to labels of any kind. And I must say I almost died laughing through Liza’s comment (thank you Liza, I want the entire kit with the “I am a birder” card). I was just on a bird walk yesterday with my Audubon group and we had a few photographers with us. They also carried binoculars. Since we went to locations with lots of water, many also carried scopes to use at appropriate stops.
Maybe we are lucky that we have so many different approaches to the activity we all love so much. We had a couple of instances during the day when identification was in question. Our photographers in the group were able, with incredible diligence, to pursue the birds in question and get photographs which we could then examine more closely for positive ID.
Maybe I am just lucky enough to belong to a local group where everyone contributes to the experience no matter what equipment they possess. We actually have a newer birder in our group that had no equipment on a walk a couple of weeks ago. She spotted many birds with her naked eye that weren’t seen by anyone else looking through expensive binoculars until she pointed them out! Go figure.
I feel naked without binoculars anytime I’m outdoors. Like Mike said, we are always birding, at any given moment, we are all birders.
Wow.
Way to see both sides of the argument… that was very open-minded of you.
When we go out, I carry binoculars and my dad brings the camera. So I guess together we make up a ‘real’ birder.
Hi All - thanks so much for taking the time to so articulately express your opinions. I would like to stress though that I wasn’t attemting to pigeon-hole anyone, and that the question (as asked originally) probably makes more sense taken in a regional context. However, it’s great that it’s inspired such great comments - and Liza Lee’s idea of a ‘birder’s kit’ is priceless. I’m obviously going to have to ask something like this every week…
I gave up using binoculars several years ago. They still hang in my coat closet, and occasionally I pick them up as I gather my “stuff”, but I always put them back.
I don’t know if it’s a problem with my eyes. It’s not the binoculars; I’ve tried all sorts, and still have the same issues.
I lose track of the birds with binoculars. Somehow, I can’t keep an awareness of the overall landscape and focus on one tiny point at the same time. So much of my time is spent saying, “Where? Where? … Oh! I just missed it!”
It may be a coordination problem; I can’t follow a moving object with the binoculars. Or a weird dyslexia - I can’t keep right and left straight in my head.
So the camera has been a great boon. I see a bird off in the distance, and take dozens of shots, almost at random. At home, I get to blow them up, and really look at them. Sure, I miss the characteristic movements of the birds, and the sense of immediacy, but I get to see what I never could with binoculars.
So, am I a birder? I know one of my greatest pleasures is to watch them, near and far. And, while a “lifer” is exiting, so is a new behaviour pattern of my backyard chickadees and juncos.
I think this is a case of the “Art” of Birding vs. the science of birding. I go birding with my SLR that has a telephoto lens. I never add a bird to my list without a picture. Why? As I notice from the birders that I have been out with, they will ID a bird so fast and at a distance that they may have seen the bird for at most a second or two. Yet they will say with the up most confidence that it was a certain bird. I can not believe that one can ID anything with that fast of a look. In any science if others see the same data and come up with the same result then there is a good chance that it is correct. No photo no data. I have shown good photos of birds to birders, some times I come back with no two answers are the same. Yet in the field you will get an ID with 100% confidence.
I agree with Mike’s theory. While every time I go out specifically to look for birds, I have binoculars and usually a small camera as well, I’m actively aware of the birds around me even when I’m not doing something bird-related and without binoculars.
So I never really go birding, in as much as I am birding, all the time, in every place, with or without binoculars.
Though I do tend to enjoy it more with the optics.
Great post! I’ve been called a birder but I’ve never driven fours hours to catch sight of one bird, and I don’t agonize over my “life list”. It’s too short to worry about, anyway. I’m not obsessed with birds, I just enjoy them.
I do tend to backyard birds - I feed them, care for them, cook for them, and spend lots of money to make them happy. I’ve made a Barn Swallow nest with my own hands, and spend most of my summer making hummingbird nectar.
My binoculars are always handy but my camera is a necessity. I’ll check a distant bird with my binoculars then get as close as I possibly can to get that photo! Wouldn’t do that in a group of intense real birders, however, for fear of being reprimanded. LOL!
Am I a birder? Doesn’t matter.
Mary
In line with what Mike wrote, I think a “birder” is anyone who is aware of the birds, regardless of what tools they own or use to pursue their enjoyment.
Like Nate, I enjoy my birding more with bins and a camera, but I am birding regardless of the circumstance. I’ve compiled decent (and interesting) lists from outdoor restaurants and weddings, “road birds” while driving, impromptu stops while the bins are at home, late night dog walks, and so on. Also, those on “big days” are almost without question hardcore birders, but so many birds aren’t seen, but simply “ticked” when a voice is identified (no bins necessary - though they are gripped with white knuckles, just not always raised).
My bottom line: if you’re aware, you’re birding!
-Mike
That’s funny - and I’m sure that it wasn’t meant too serious.
Who made up the first part of definitions? Birding Nazis?
It’s utter nonsense.
Aside from the fact that Birder is a term without real definition, just reading things like that would take the fun of being one!
I go - with what seems to be the consensus in the comments.
If you’re aware - you’re birding.
I have an old but decent pair of binoculars, 7×50. While 7x is mostly sufficient, I have found that far away birds are often difficult to identify.
I also have a digital camera with a resolution of 10 megapixels and a 70-300 mm zoom lens.
Now, if I have to identify a far away bird, it is often easier to not use my binoculars but simply take a record shot and then zoom in on the bird (out in the field) on my camera’s LCD screen.
What am I?
A birder?
And when I go owling at night wihtout camera and binoculars, entirely relying on my ear, what am I then?
Of course, I do have two of them. Ears, that is.
Whoa Jochen - you’re still going birding, but can’t FIND TIME TO WRITE AN EMAIL?? I give up (not really)