Dennis suggested a Sage Thrasher Subcommittee, and by extension other
Subcommittees, to learn more about why Washington's birds are here.
I asked: "Shall I devote an upcoming [WOSNews] issue to helping
independent investigators, as individuals or teams, take part in this
one-species-at-a-time approach to knowledge acquisition?"
Scott Ray wrote: "You've got my vote, Scott."
Others (Michael Smith, Andy Stepniewski, Herb Curl) seemed to like
Dennis' idea, with an emphasis on rarer species.
And Dennis elaborated on his initial thought, stressing the need to
learn about the common species.

Now I return to the role I might play. Whether these Subcommittees (I
think we need a less-bureaucratic, snappier name) investigate historic
distribution, current abundance, or various aspects of life history, they
will need to know what resources are at their disposal. Who among
Tweeters is willing to write about one or more of the possibilities?
In my earlier post, I mentioned BBS, BBA, CBC, WDFW, and others for
distribution and abundance queries. An authority on each of these might
run through the quality and quantity of information, accessibility,
utility, and so on.
To get at life history information, no investigation could ignore prior
publications. Would someone want to write about the classic series
published under the direction of A.C. Bent? Or maybe a review of old
Washington bird books (Jewett et al., Dawson and Bowles, others)? How
about the various ornithological journals available? On-line searching
abilities (Gopher, WWW, etc)?
=Interested writers can contact me directly or via Tweeters.=
Coincidentally, I am always interested in submissions that report
preliminary findings, summaries of M.S. or Ph.D. research, and the like.

In the end, I believe Dennis is right. A few people with lots of energy
*might* explore the lives of a handful of species.
I worry that there are too few birders who are dedicated enough to shed
new light on the state's avifaunal mysteries.

Scott