Tirade mode on.

The science of ornithology is more than just studying the breeding
biology and behavior of common birds. That is one aspect of it and
certainly there is much to be learned, even about many of our common
species. Byron seems to keep harping on the value of careful observation
of behavior vs. the "worthless" activities of mere "listers."

In so doing Byron implies that "listers" don't contribute in a meaningful
way to ornithology and, more insidiously implies that the observations of
listers are not as detailed as those observations of birdwatchers who
carefully study behavior.

I think this is an artificial dichotomy and I think the entire premise is
nonsense. Listers take just as detailed notes on their observations as
any other type of birder. Their journals are filled with data on weather,
arrival dates, nests found, and fine points of identification. Listers
also go to see stake-outs to add to their list. I've written on this
before, but it's been several years, so I'll go over it one more time.
There is value to seeing birds you have not seen before. That value is
the experience you gain from seeing the bird in real-life. The
circumstances of the observation provide a familiarity with the diversity
of life on earth one cannot get from books. If it is one of the species
that poses an identification problem, the serious birder will take careful
notes, perhaps draw sketches, and perhaps discover an previously unnoticed
field-mark. These observations will fill seasonal summaries in "Audubon
Field Notes" and perhaps lead to publication of an identification paper in
"Birding."

[Incidentally, your seasonal reports for "Audubon Field Notes" for the
months of March-May are now due. Please place your interesting seasonal
observations in taxonomic order and send them to your local regional
editor. The addresses are published in "Audubon Field Notes." This
seasonal effort is probably one of the largest ongoing distillation of
the discoveries of amateur birders and the unpaid regional editors
deserve our continued support.]

There is no question that the more experience one gains with a diversity
of species, the better one becomes at accurate field identification.
Behavioral observations are essentially useless unless one knows for sure
the specific identify of the birds one is studying. Identification is
a basic skill which is a prerequisite for all other birding endeavors.
It may be just a starting point, but it is essentially open-ended.
Nobody knows all there is to know about field identification. There is
always more to be learned from each day in the field. And that learning
comes from looking through flocks of common birds to find rarities as
well as by chasing stake-outs and organizing big-days or whatever. Any
time you are seeing new birds or old friends, there is an opportunity for
learning, and learning is the prerequisite for teaching and teaching is
how one makes a contribution. It may be by original research published
in a scientific journal, it may be by contribution of a seasonal report
for distillation in "Audubon Field Notes" or it may be formally leading a
field trip for your local Audubon chapter. I regard all these as forms
of teaching. Sharing what you have learned.

You may make all the careful behavioral observations you like, but that is
NOT IMPORTANT. The important part is CONTRIBUTING those observations
somehow, somewhere, someplace. The same is true regardless of whether one
is a birder, birdwatcher, ornithologist or whatever label Byron want's to
use. It's not the activity per se which matters, but what you do with it
and how you approach it, that makes it important.

OK, Byron, if you were trying to build a fire here, you succeeded. I
trust you have your "Audubon Field Notes" contribution ready to send.

Tirade mode off.

----------
Joe Morlan
Albany, CA
jmorlan at slip.net