The Oystercatcher is my all time favorite bird. This is because of my anthropomorphizing. I admit it. I love these birds because they have so many traits that we call human. I shouldn’t call them “little” as they are about 18 inches high and are powerful flyers.
They keep the kids around for longer than most other birds. Teaching them the difficult art of opening clams and oysters with their powerful beaks.
Do you travel for birding? Thanks for your continuous posting of various birds. I always look forward to each new species. It’s relaxing or something…
These pictures, were of course all shot in Brooklyn. I go out onto the beach, waving a twenty, and many of the smaller songbirds, fall for this gambit. But the Oystercatchers said, "Cut the BS, you want us to pose - either come up with BIG BUCK$ or some good weed.
It’s the price you pay for shooting wildlife in New York.
As for your other question, I’ve found that the shore, marshes, and forests of Brooklyn have more species of bird than anywhere else I’ve been. There are roughly 600 plus speices of bird in North America; at one time or another you can find over 400 species that at least spend some time there. That’s a lot!
Dave
Well, as you already know, I’m a fan of your photography and this batch of oystercatcher shots is really great. You’ve got them in such typical poses, especially the shot of the two birds flying (left to right and with the background of water), as well as the solitary bird with it’s back to the camera but head turned round. Excellent! We get a lot of oystercatchers here on the coast where I live and they are also one of my favourite birds. They have a lot of character, I think.
I was interested in your comments about the birds playing. I see a lot of play here among particularly crows and ravens but also other birds and animals. I’ve seen crows having a go at rabbits for fun as well as having a go at buzzards and other animals. I’ve also seen blue-tits teasing an owl. I could go on and on about the instances I have seen animals showing what I can only call a sense of humour/fun.
But this takes me back to a former discussion we had, that is, the authenticity of science, because I am also very aware of how scientists would interpret much of this behaviour much differently from me. They do not recognise this side of animal nature, perhaps do not even see it. They interpret all behaviour such as to support the theory of the selfish gene and to support the idea that nature is competitive.
From the way you talk, I might suppose that your experience of the natural world finds it to be rather more benign than the scientific view and more in line with my experience. Would you agree?
Thanks again for letting us see these photos.
Up until the Spring of 2004, you were correct on the attitude of scinece towards birds.
Since they have no cortex, then based on existing premises, birds could neither be self aware, or show such esoteric mamalian charateristics such as “play.”
Finally, they have changed their minds. Not because they discovered a cortex, but because the evidence and the data could no longer be ignored. So at this conference of Ornitologists, it was announced that birds have an “equivalent” to the cortex. That the brighter members of the genera are often VERY clever indeed.
The Corvids, Crows, Ravens, etc, are among the brightest. Personally, while I’ve never seen a species that plays as much as Otters, Oystercatchers play more than any other bird I’ve seen. Are Oystercatchers “smarter” than Corvids? I have no idea.
I don’t think that many people give them the kind of attention to figure this out. While they are “common” in their choice of habitat - After all, who actually see’s them that often?
Dave
So scientists have spend how much time and money “discovering” something which I discovered by the time I was about 2 years old i.e. that animals and birds play?
Scientists quite specifically leave their own feelings and senses behind them because it is of paramount importance that they achieve complete detachment from the subject of the experiment. But if my senses are far more sophisticated than any scientific instrument could hope to be, where does this leave us?
And again, as a 2 year old child I “knew” that animals played. Should my parents have corrected me my attitude? Should they have told me that animals and birds do not play on the basis that science says that animals and birds do not play?
(Meanwhile I’m looking forward to seeing your next batch of photos. I forgot to say I liked the symmetry in your first oystercatcher shot.)
I’m not sure how much science is to blame (although, no matter how you cut the cards, they have to bear blame). But it is religious dogma than animals have no souls. I believe that on this subject, scientists were deliberately seeing what they wanted to see.
And after all, how many people turn their dogs into “children?” It’s one thing to FINALLY recognise that dogs are individuals with their own motivations, but it is anthropomorphising to see “human” characteristics in animals. Animals have their OWN characteristics - And they don’t need to be turned into cut-down humans for us to appreciate them.
Dave