For me birding is about a place. I think the pleasure of seeing a wood warbler is related, somehow, to the realization that this place can support those wild birds. We are not yet entirely homogenized.
In Aldo Leopold's terms, I think it's about appreciating "the land," or ecosystem for its own sake. Maybe I'm exaggerating; maybe it's just using land for entertainment or diversion. But I prefer the more high-minded notion: a place that can sustain wood warblers is better than one that can't. ]]>
To wit, when surveyed, human males from one end of the planet to the other express a preference for females with a certain hip-to-waist ratio; commonly called an hourglass figure. Similary, Peahens invariably prefer Peacocks with lots of "eyes" on their tail feathers.
Now, I can imagine a critic describing an abstract, hourglass-shaped objet d'art as, say, "wonderfully supple, hypnotizing in its gentle turns &c, &c." Next door, the same critic might encounter, say, a tapestry with a pattern of "eyes" on it; immediately would ensue prating about the "mesmerizing decorative qualities, Lacanian symbols," whatever.
So far, the critic & the sexual selectors seem, at least on one level, to be roughly the same. But the difference would appear in the next gallery which contains (a) a rough-edged, chunky, block-like abstract sculpture; &, (b) an abstract painting that happens to include the beautiful colors of an Eastern Bluebird.
The critic will immediately begin to hold forth about "the stark, aggressive angularity" of the sculpture & the "deceptive simplicity" of the lovely canvas. However, significantly, both the gentlemen survey respondents & the Peahen would be left cold.
In sum, appreciation of art or beauty seems to be a much more general intellectual capability or sensibility. It seems to me that, in order to believe that birds have a capability that is more like the critic's than like the gentlemen respondents', we would have to show that the Peahen appreciates the colors of, say, an Eastern Bluebird as much as does the critic.
A similar point: we can appreciate lots of different music, including a variety of birdsong. But, apparently, birds are largely indifferent to songs of all but their own species.
So, although it might seem like birds have the same aesthetic sensibilities that give rise to our appreciation of art & music, I doubt if that's really true. ]]>
It seems to me that undue emphasis on one's list is kinda like talking about money. It's not that people aren't interested in it; but, somehow it's impolite. E.g., it can easily have the unpleasant air of bragging or whining. But, more fundamentally, I think talk about the list is like changing the subject: talking about one's collection is not talking about bird watching.
On the other hand, I have noticed that nobody in HMBC seems to mind off-hand references to lists: "I remember that; that was a life bird for me!"; or, "Was that a life bird for you?" Also, they all seem to enter gleefully into the fun of the final tally after an outing. ]]>
However, a more intriguing sight was about a dozen Cedar Waxwings soaring around over the trail. Their behavior reminded me of the way Swallows swoop around getting insects; also, some hovering like Kingbirds. I've read that Cedar Waxwings "[o]ften fl[y] out to catch insects in midair." (Lives of North American Birds). So, I suppose that's what they were doing. But somehow it seemed to have a playful, show-off quality to it that made it seem a little more interesting than ordinary feeding. ]]>
If you, like me, sometimes ask yourself why you're standing in the bushes smacking bugs trying to see that guy who really just wants you to go away, it seems like an important point; & they're right. E.g., before I could identify an Eastern Bluebird with certainty, i was thrilled to see one in our neighborhood because it meant, well, that this is a nice place to live; it hasn't been ruined. Yet. ]]>