Talking to several people about their CBC experiences has prompted me to
get on my soapbox again. It's really getting old and battered from overuse,
and one of these days it'll probably collapse under me, but until it does
I'll use it to my best ability.

Those of you who know all this already, don't read this message. ;-)

Christmas Bird Counts were begun around the turn of the century (the
*previous* turn of the century, if anyone can conceive of that long ago),
actually as an alternative to the day when hunters competed to see how many
birds they could shoot in a day. Within a few decades it was realized by
ornithologists that these counts provided one of the few ways by which
North American nongame bird numbers could be monitored over time, at least
during the winter season. By the 70s and 80s CBC numbers were being used
in a big way for this purpose, both for overall bird populations and for
specific species. Even with the acknowledged problems with using the data,
trends seemed to be apparent, and the counts were used because they were
basically all we had.

During the same period, the Breeding Bird Surveys were begun, and they are
our primary data source for temporal changes in bird populations on this
continent in the *breeding* season. They don't take the place of the CBCs,
which gather data in very different ways for, in many cases, different bird
populations.

Even when I was a kid I detected a dichotomy in viewpoints about CBCs. I
was trained by several "serious" birders in southern Florida who understood
the value of the counts to our undertanding of birds and who taught me to
be as rigorous as I could in counting and estimating numbers and in trying
to work the same areas consistently from year to year. The whole point of
the count was to get as accurate an assessment as we could of local bird
populations. Of course everyone was excited when a rare species was found,
and--would you doubt it--there was also a competitive aspect ("Loop Road
beat Miami for the first time this year"). My first encounter with a
really different viewpoint came when I went on the Cocoa, Florida, count
(#1 in the country for species for some years) and was introduced to the
"who gives a damn how many birds there are, as long as we find all the
species" viewpoint. This shocked my tender young ears (the concept, not
the language), another of life's small and large disillusionments as I grew
older.

And from what I have heard recently, it sounds as if the second group has
stolen the show. People run from place to place where some "good bird" is
expected to be, counting desultorily if at all as they go. They move into
other's count areas during the day just to check them out for rarities,
rather than staying in their own and trying to find every individual bird
they can. I've heard comments like "oh, we just estimated numbers at the
end of the day," and "three different parties were assigned that species as
a goal, told by the count compiler 'don't come back without it'" and "our
party leader told us not to waste time counting song sparrows, we still had
a Lincoln's sparrow to find" (honestly, this is true).

Several thoughts emerge from this. First, I hope everyone in Tweeterland
(and please tell your birding friends) is aware that CBCs are the *only*
ongoing population estimates we have for many North American birds
(especially the many species that breed primarily north of the Breeding
Bird Survey routes). The less dependable they are from year to year, the
less of value they tell us. CBCs furnish an opportunity for every birder
to contribute to gathering information about one of the most important
questions about each bird species at this point in time: is its population
increasing, decreasing, or stable? We have to know this information to be
able to see problems arising in their early stages and to manage those in
their later stages.

You have heard about the book _Where Have All the Birds Gone?_ by John
Terborgh in this forum. One of his main points in the book is how easy it
is for amateurs to contribute to knowledge about birds to serve the very
straightforward goal of PRESERVING THEM. I can do no better than to quote
him (p. 11): "Although basically an organized competition and social event
for birdwatchers, the ostensible purpose of the counts is to provide a
record of winter bird populations." He doesn't say much about that,
although he and others have used these data at great lengths.

Other questions come to mind, spinoffs from the idea that to most counters
the Christmas Bird Count is somehow akin to the Super Bowl. Why is it so
important that something be a competitive sport to generate so much
interest and enthusiasm? Why couldn't that much interest and enthusiasm be
merely a response to knowing that what we are doing is important in
conserving our planet's fellow inhabitants?

Again, I know many of you out there didn't need to read this (preaching to
the converted). I'd be interested in hearing rationalizations of why
sports/competitiveness will get people out of bed in the middle of the
night to slog across mudflats in the cold wind and rain, when knowing
they're contributing to an environmental cause won't. Any other
constructive comments are appreciated.

Dennis Paulson phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416