Page 30 of 31

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 2:12 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
If they don't allow a binder, and instead do a second book like for ornithology, I'm going to use Sibley, and for the second book either Audubon or a dendrology textbook.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 4:43 pm
by Kokonilly
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
Speaking from experience, I'd rather organize a binder my own way and have a better handle on the information than just cram every bit of information I possibly can into a binder. I read every page of my (inherited) Fossils binder and added information here and there, and we did pretty well, if I do say so myself.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:03 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
Speaking from experience, I'd rather organize a binder my own way and have a better handle on the information than just cram every bit of information I possibly can into a binder. I read every page of my (inherited) Fossils binder and added information here and there, and we did pretty well, if I do say so myself.
I'm not saying just cramming every stray thing you can find, but just organizing every tree, adding photocopied info from 2 or three books, get some internet information, scan every page before you put it in, etc. Having a well-organized binder and putting as much stuff in as possible are not mutually exclusive.
Our team hasn't even brought a book for fossils, they just put all the pages inside the binder, and they did pretty well also.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:15 pm
by tuftedtitmouse12
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
hm, did you look at peterson?

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:35 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
hm, did you look at peterson?
If Peterson Trees is anything like Peterson birds, then don't use it. It's okay for images, but it doesn't have enough information to make it worthwhile.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:38 pm
by JSGandora
I looked at the preview and it doesn't have much information, and in addition it doesn't have range maps.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:49 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
I looked at the preview and it doesn't have much information, and in addition it doesn't have range maps.
There's a book that's supposed to be the absolute best, but only for the northern United States. It is by John Laird Farrar, and called :Trees of the Northern United States and Canada

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:55 pm
by JSGandora
That book have tons of information, if only all the species were there. It's missing a vast majority of the trees on the 2004 list.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 8:57 pm
by kjhsscioly
I was digging through a veritable treasure trove of old scioly tests and paper this afternoon (read: 1 meter tall pile of paper :x = large recycle bin filled + filing box worth of old tests :D ). I found the old forestry binder, which wasn't too useful, but I also found many tests, which I will upload later. The most important thing I found was that IL has actually released a very short (50-60 specimen) list of trees to use for state, which is extremely useful. I think the forestry test they gave was not heavily specimen based, but rather more multiple choice.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 11:10 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
I was digging through a veritable treasure trove of old scioly tests and paper this afternoon (read: 1 meter tall pile of paper :x = large recycle bin filled + filing box worth of old tests :D ). I found the old forestry binder, which wasn't too useful, but I also found many tests, which I will upload later. The most important thing I found was that IL has actually released a very short (50-60 specimen) list of trees to use for state, which is extremely useful. I think the forestry test they gave was not heavily specimen based, but rather more multiple choice.
I found one of those lists for CA in the storage room at my school, but ours is 100 trees long!