On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Dennis Paulson wrote:
> The American Birding Association conducted a survey of their members a few
> years back and found that their survey respondents were, statistically
> speaking, the *same* people who responded a decade (or was it 2 decades?)
> earlier! In other words, there *wasn't* a cadre of younger birders.

Actually, since they didn't survey birders as such, but ABA members, the
results could conceivably reflect the changed focus of the orgnaization
and its publications more than a change in the average age of birders.
The New Yorker magazine had the same "problem" with their audience - no
new recruits for more like *4* decades, but they seem to have decided
(editorial switch, more color and *horrors* photographs in the new style New
Yorker) that younger readers were avoiding their magazine, not that no
one reads magazines any longer.


--[interesting account of growing up an "empty-lot naturalist" snipped]--

Another study I heard about by word-of-mouth (I seem to be full of these)
examinied the upbringing of those who later became professional
naturalists (I'm not sure how whether they looked just at academics or
just how they defined that). The surprising outcome: compared to city
kids or country kids (and this was back when there were a lot more
country kids) *suburban* kids were much more likely to become
professional naturalists.



> How can we make birds as interesting as sex?

Sorry, I just had to laugh at this...;)


> Perhaps the [CBC] horror stories that I related are in a rather small
> minority;


I suspect so, but it never hurts to remind people. A newer younger
birder in my party on the Gray's Harbor count pointed out to me that I
was slacking a bit in counting effort, and I am glad she did.


Chris Hill
Seattle, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu