Dennis the Knowledgable sez:

> 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.

Please! We'll buy you a new, high-tech riser when the soapbox collapses!

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

Couldn't help myself...

> Christmas Bird Counts were begun around the turn of the century

and more history. I wonder how many denisons of "tweeters" knew the
history?

(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.

Started by Frank Chapman in 1900 (I recently wrote a column on the
CBC for the Oregonian so my mind is currently filled with relatively useless
information on the event).

> 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.

During my (very brief as the "Big O" don't pay much) research, I came
across a Sport's Illustrated article on the CBC from the 1950's. You
Washingtonians may not realize what an incredible resource Powell's
bookstore is (the library was closed due to construction, etc).

The "most species" competition aspect of it was the focus of the
story, with stringers across the country reporting on various counts.
The Cocoa and San Diego counts were a focus of the story, as these
were the front-runners in the species count in those days.

> And from what I have heard recently, it sounds as if the second group has
> stolen the show.

I wonder how different from the fifties it really is? Though, of course,
competitive listing seems to be at the heart of the birding experience
for many, many people these days.

> 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).

This is so true. The Breeding Bird Surveys, conducted as "road sweeps",
also miss a lot of birds which are difficult to find in breeding season.
One of the justifications for systematic counts of migrating raptors
is that the BBS just don't sample breeding populations of certain
raptors to any appreciable degree, in particular forest-dwelling
hawks such as accipters.

I'm sure there are many bird species for which CBC data is potentially a
much better sample than BBS data.

> 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.

And, ornithology is one of the few scientific disciplines where amateurs
can make a meaningful contribution. Let's not mess it up!

> 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.

Can't help you here. Though I'll comment that in years I've participated
in CBC's for Portland Audubon, I've felt that most counters make an
earnest effort to really count numbers as well as they can (estimating
tens of thousands of waterfowl can be difficult!)

Perhaps the attitude of the count collator is important? After all,
that person picks the area leaders who then instruct the counters
(at least at PAS). Perhaps a little more education for leaders,
passed on to the counters would help.

-Don Baccus-