I'm a little puzzled by a number of the observations and comments regarding
the utility/validity of the CBCs. In particular, the comments range from
stating how substantial and valid they are, to how little they are
used/mined/organized (which to me suggests that there is little
opportunity to assess their ongoing substantiality/validity).

In the Feb 95 Birder's World, page 44, refering to the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology/Bird Population Studies, it states that the "BPS researchers
analyze data collected by participants in such popular projects as the
annual Christmas Bird Counts ...."

Surely, they and others (e.g., NAS?) over the years, must have
published scientific articles describing the bases, strengths,
weaknesses, appropriate/inappropriate uses, and other issues related
to the (valid) use(s) of CBC data?

Surely, the CBC can't still be just a quaint, interesting, intuitively
appealing activity that has no rational basis (of credible
scientific/analytic substance) for [and descriptions of] its protocols?

In particular, with respect to the recent tweeters comments, is the issue
of variability in the deployment of whatever protocols exist. Seems like
there's a lot of concern about "sloppy" work, however unwittingly it
might be happening. I wonder....?

Anyone else reading this into the tweeters messages? Is it library
literature search and reporting time? Anyone have this stuff at
their fingertips?

Peter