To twitch or not to twitch, that is the question

There’s no judge-mongery going on here just a perusal over the pros and cons of twitching.  Admittedly there are worse things happening in the world but I’m just questioning the culture and self-moderation of twitching.  Why twitch? Simple- to see something you wouldn't usually see.  Something new, that you haven’t seen before.  Wow, that can’t happen very often so is undoubtedly worth doing from time to time.  Right?

I've often been asked “what do you do when you see what you've gone to see?”  Well; look at it, question the ID of the bird with the knowledge and more often the hunch I have, spend far too long digi-scoping it when I should be just watching it, taking it all in.  But twitching takes you to places you wouldn't necessarily go to for any other reason so a huge benefit can be just being or going somewhere new.  How many twitches have you been on when the place or weather is just as memorable as the ‘bird’ and what about mutual appreciation between fellow travelers and twitchers?  10 hours in a car, sometimes as little as 1 hour in the field, you either need to get along or be accepted as a mute in those environs, and split the costs in equal measures of course.

Not all twitches go to plan and 10 hours on a motorway can result in a ‘dip’; zero bird(s), £80 of fuel up in smoke, a £60 speeding ticket for doing 34mph in a 30 zone, a parking ticket for that extra 10 mins of searching effort, 4 hours sat in traffic, other perils of being on our roads; RTAs, etc., I’ve been there and worse and for those days you justify the good days getting you through.  A run of those days is hard to deal with.  The law of averages almost always balances out though and I’d guess over 65% of twitches I’ve been on were successful and I’ve forgotten about the other 35%, almost.

10hrs on the motorway 1hr in the field. Hmmm.  Doesn’t 10hrs in the field and 1hr in the car sound better?  How about 0hrs, 0 car, 11hrs in the field?  Admittedly that would result in less rarities seen but almost certainly not less birds. See ‘Footit’ or ‘PatchWorkChallenge’ as alternative birding initiatives to spending a day in the car.  As for money spent on fuel (or tax) to which we Brits just politely accept and pay, that £80 up in smoke bit bothers me too.  How could that £80 be better spent than on spending a day in a car gabling on seeing a one or two birds?  Joining a conservation organisation or two or three maybe?

I hold my hands up, I am a lister and bumbling towards 400, usually still adding a few ticks a year (should really be on 450+).  Undoubtedly the cost of travel is a big factor in the idling but also that time in field issue.  I shouldn't be idling, I should be trying to keep up with the ‘Joneses’ or Jones. Twitchers congratulate one another for ‘connecting’ with the target bird.  

Say again!  

You drove/flew/sailed from A to B and saw a bird. That one tick might have cost £5 or £500. Congratulations!  See the Llama’s take on that here: http://leicesterllama.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/congratulations.html

The biggest hit for me though has been on Yearlisting. Those timed trips to Norfolk and Scotland and chasing relatively local species just to see them that year has really has hit the buffers.  I don’t need to see them annually, that badly, contributing to potential negative impacts on them and their habitat.  I might however make the trip and bird an area making a few days of it, staying over, and spending money in the local economy but that is not compelled around year-listing and might happen once every few years.   

So if applying some idealisms the conscious conservationist mindset that many birders benefit from we would question the reasoning behind anything that would have a negative impact on the bird or its habitat including unnecessary travel.  The trouble here is the noticeable threat from travel or demands from travel on the environment which is easy to dismiss or at least not notice and easiest to turn a blind eye to.  Take the oil industry for example, to which we are almost all slaves to.  Where do you draw the line for necessary travel? Driving to see something 2 miles away, 200miles away or flying 2000miles just to add something on your WP list. Which is worse?  If I ever was able to afford it I hope I wouldn't get the urge to do the latter.

Play it cool:

A plea to the NGBs out there; I would just say don’t get too fixated on needing to see 1 bird after the next just to beef-up your country list. An 11 year old girl in Oz has just seen 3000 world species so you've lost that one before you get any ideas.  The need to see a bird can be addictive but this just becomes an indication of your tolerances of motorways, your age, spare cash and spare time.  They’re just birds and it’s just a tick.  See Mr Crake’s take on it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHXQp-NhFuE

If you’re really worried about listing then just worry about the potential blockers: sure if it’s something you think you’ll never see again then go but most things turn up again so for the less rare maybe hold off until there’s one closer or until you go somewhere for a week and are almost guaranteed to see it.  Self-finding has to be the way to go and is many more times more satisfying and often more educational.  That localisation of efforts has to be more beneficial to the environment too and has the added spin-off benefits of Birdtracking, Atlas’ing, and other local recording or research initiatives, or how about ‘volling’ at an obs or reserve.  I couldn't give a hoot if anyone has seen 200 or 500 species in Britain and no one should be bothered about my total, but if you've found a 'BB' or a local rarity then, you'll know which feels better.  Self-finding is the way to go.