Mike Patterson wrote:

> Let's say I go out and casually see a Ross' Gull. I tell somebody who cares
> that I saw a Ross' Gull.
>

[ stuff munched ]

> I have for good or ill created a data point. I have committed science.
> I have contributed to the ornithological data base.


In what way ?


When I arrived in Seattle. I was very keen to get a copy of the annual bird
report. Every county in the UK publishes one, detailing all the significant
(rare birds, unusual birds, all sightings for a given species, top 100 counts
for a common species, breeding records etc, etc, etc). I was disappointed when
I found that no such report existed - WOS recent reports goes a very small
step along the way.

There is no real way of finding out whether a particular sighting is
interesting or worthwhile, whether it is common on unusual. I suppose with
more experience out here I get more savvy, but I bird largely in ignorance ;-)

Gene Hunn's guide is excellent, but it doesn't tell me whether 5
yellow-headed blackbirds at Montlake Fill is worth writing down or reporting
(in a perfect world I would record absolutely every bird - but I can't write
that fast).

There is a real gap between "casual" or systematic birding and ornithology,
more so over here than in the UK. The birding and ornithology are different -
casual birding and ornithology have for the most part nothing in common other
than the subject of interest.

Stuart MacKay