Tweeters

This e-mail was on OBOL and I believe it will be interesting to more than
a few, so I am forwarding. Gives an interesting and appropriate perspective
on the Kaufman's new book. Sounds like a very welcome book.

Bob Taylor
Sumner, WA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew G. Hunter" <mhunter at PROAXIS.COM>
To: "Multiple recipients of list OBOL" <OBOL at BOBO.NWS.ORST.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: Kaufman's new Birds of North America


> Hi Folks,
> With permission from Ken Kaufman, I'm forwarding a note that Ken wrote
to
> a handful of birding friends 30 November 1999, which was then forwarded to
> a bird editor's/writer's e-mail list in December 1999. Ken's note will
> likely clear up some things that perplexed Greg in his OBOL review of the
> book, and in any case contains some interesting insight into Ken's
> interests and the purpose and target audience of the book.
>
> I would be interested to hear your reactions and thoughts.
>
> Matt Hunter
> Corvallis, OR
> mhunter at proaxis.com
> 541-745-5199
> http://www.proaxis.com/~hunter
>
> >Subject: News from Tucson
> >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:02:04 -0700
> >
> >To my friends in the birding world --
> >
> > I hate to be sending out something that looks like a form letter. But
> >this year I've been completely out of touch with almost all my birding
> >friends -- didn't even make the ABA convention this year, for the first
time
> >since 1978 -- and I wanted to try to catch up a little.
> >
> > Mostly I've been out of circulation because I'm heavily involved in a
new
> >book project. Until recently, the publisher had asked me not to discuss
it
> >widely. You may have heard rumors. I'm writing to confirm the rumors,
and
> >to dispel the false impression that seems to go with them.
> >
> > Yes, I'm working on a field guide. A guide to all birds, all of North
> >America. But birders I've told so far have jumped to the same
conclusion:
> >this book should be big, advanced, cutting-edge, filled with new details,
> >pushing the limits of identifying subspecies and rarities. There seems
to
> >be a universal perception that all field guides should strive for that.
> >Actually, I'm going the opposite direction. This note is to explain some
of
> >my rationale in advance.
> >
> > Here's my starting point. Say I have some friends who are sharp,
> >intelligent, curious people, and they've decided to try birding... but on
> >their own, not going with organized trips. What field guide do I
recommend
> >to them?
> >
> > Well -- at the moment, there isn't a good one to recommend. The
> >Petersons come closest, but they're drifting out of date, and the
separation
> >of plates and maps is irksome. The Golden Guide is out of date, and
> >problems with its illustrations are well known. We all know that photo
> >guides, the way they've been done in the past, aren't effective for
> >identification. The National Geographic is great for experts, but it is
> >very clearly and pointedly not meant for new birders. And I'm looking
> >forward to the Sibley guide as much as anyone, but at two volumes and
eight
> >or nine hundred pages, it won't be something for casual birders to toss
in
> >the daypack.
> >
> > For my friends who are just getting into birds, there is not a good
guide
> >to recommend. So I'm working on such a book now. (There are good people
> >working with me on it, too, but I'm the one who will take the blame for
> >anything wrong with it, hence the first-person tone of this note.)
> >
> > To get started on the book, I had to make basic decisions.
Fortunately,
> >in the nine years since my Advanced Birding was published, I've spent
loads
> >of time talking to casual or beginning birders, so I had a basis for
> >deciding questions like these:
> >
> >---- Should the book include only common birds? My answer is, No.
> >Everything that occurs regularly has to be there. Even a total beginner
> >will wonder, "Could it be something else?"
> >
> >---- Should the book include extreme rarities? Generally, no.
Particularly
> >not Attu specialties; anyone who goes vagrant-hunting in Alaska will go
with
> >experienced leaders or will carry more heavy-duty references. Ditto for
> >very rare pelagics; no one sees those on their own. Ditto for those that
> >are very hard to identify; inexperienced birders should not even be
thinking
> >about Little Stints -- only a minority of birders have even worked out
the
> >differences between Leasts and Semis. The more extreme rarities are
> >included, the more likely people are to be confused or to misidentify
what
> >they see.
> >
> >---- Should the book be arranged in the latest AOU sequence? Not when it
> >means that similar species won't be close together. The purpose of a
guide,
> >obviously, is not to teach checklist order (which will change again
anyway);
> >it's to allow people to put names on birds.
> >
> >---- Should the book show subtle differences among subspecies? Yes if
these
> >affect the identification to species; otherwise, no. You and I may care
> >about the race of a Spotted Towhee, but 99.9 per cent of birdwatchers are
> >happy to get it to species. Some recent books make people think they can
> >identify birds to subspecies in cases where they really can't.
> >
> >---- Should the book show subtle age and gender differences? Again, only
if
> >the differences are noticeable enough to make people wonder about the
speces
> >identification. Some recent books make people think they can identify
birds
> >to age and sex in cases where they really can't.
> >
> > With these points in mind, I'm working on a field guide that's
intended
> >to be complete but compact, highly accurate without being overwhelmingly
> >detailed, with thorough attention to the basics and with the attitude
that
> >these birds are all exciting and worth seeing.
> >
> > I already know that some experts (especially those who deal with the
> >public) will welcome a high-quality, entry-level guide. But some will
> >insist that every beginner should start with an advanced field guide. I
> >think that idea is based on a false perception of the typical beginner.
The
> >typical beginner is not Claudia Wilds on her first Chincoteague survey,
or
> >Steve Howell on his first Mexico trip. And I'm certainly not talking
about
> >kids, like some of these amazing kid birders in ABA today. A youngster
who
> >gets into it, with all that time and energy, may build their skill and
> >knowledge very rapidly -- it's misleading to think of them as
"beginners."
> >
> > No, the typical beginner -- the one who makes up 99.9 per cent of the
> >bird watching public -- has other interests besides birds, and other
demands
> >on his/her time, and will never be able to devote a lot of time to
> >developing their skill. The typical beginner will never become an
expert,
> >AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD. The purpose of a standard field
> >guide should NOT be to turn beginners into experts, but rather to help
> >people enjoy birding.
> >
> > Why do I care so much about beginning / casual birders? Simple
answer.
> >Bird habitats face monumental threats. Birds and nature need all the
> >friends they can get. Someone who's totally thrilled by their first
Yellow
> >Warbler today may vote in favor of habitat protection tomorrow. Anyone
who
> >cares about conservation should want birding to be as open and welcoming
> >and inclusive as possible. We need to cater to the entry level, the
first
> >step -- not insist that everyone should learn to swim by being dumped
into
> >the deep end of the pool.
> >
> > So that's my new focus. It's coming along well. I'm already resigned
to
> >the inevitable: some short-sighted hotshots will write blistering
reviews
> >of my new field guide merely because it's not intended for experts.
(Fair
> >is fair -- I did the same thing to Roger when his revised eastern guide
came
> >out two decades ago.) But regardless, I wanted to let you know what I
was
> >working on before the news gets out to the general birding public.
> >
> >Kenn Kaufman