Dennis Paulson wrote:

> But can you tell me the real value to either the listers or
> the rest of the world in driving all the way across a state to
> see an individual bird (to add to their state list, of course)
> of a species they may have seen again and again and again in
> the next state or a few years earlier when they lived across
> the country? What does this add besides a check in a box? I
> wonder what would motivate someone who grew up with Cardinals
> and sees them regularly on visits back home to drive all the
> way across Washington to see one that appeared at a feeder.
> This is the sort of phenomenon that gives Byron an unending
> forum for his comments, it seems to me.

Actually I don't know about the status of Cardinal in Washington, so I'll
comment on California instead. I have seen a number of Cardinals here.
One in San Diego and another at El Monte. The El Monte bird was part of
an introduced population from the east which has a toe-hold in this suburb
of Los Angeles. The one in San Diego was probably an escaped cage-bird.
Cardinals may not be held legally in the United States, so the sighting of
the San Diego bird made me witness to the consequences of an apparent
crime. Formerly Cardinals of the native Arizona population occurred on
the California side of the Colorado River, but that population disappeared
after most of the Cottonwoods were cut.

Given this information, an observer in California wants to do much more
than just check a box. This observer will be acquainted with the
difference (visible in the field) between the Southwest race (C.c.
superba), the one in the East (C.c. cardinalis) and the one in Baja
(C.c. seftoni), etc. This will involve closer study of a stake-out
vagrant Cardinal to determine if it shows characters of the expected race
or if it might be an escape. If it's an escape, careful observation may
provide a clue as to its original source. The birder, so acquainted will
end up with a store of knowledge about geographic variation in this
species, will contribute a discussion and detailed notes to the
appropriate records committee and to the regional editors of "Audubon
Field Notes."

So, you say, maybe Cardinal wasn't a good example. My point is that
just as much depth goes into any careful observation of an extralimital.
You don't see the bird in the same way when you drive hundreds of miles
to see it as you did when they were common in your yard. It is a
learning experience for everybody involved.

If you intend to document a rarity, you will see the bird in a different
way. Your notes will reflect things in much more detail than otherwise
because you know a description will be required. We will read the
literature to determine what is known about aging and sexing as well as
geographic variation. The intensity of such observations is quite
different from casual observation, and the uniqueness of the sighting
makes us see such birds better than we might otherwise.

I hope all would agree that an experienced birder knows more about birds
and is a better observer than in inexperienced birder. If I were to drive
tomorrow to the Colorado River and see a stake-out Cardinal; I would have
more experience tomorrow than I do today, and I would thus be a better
birder than I am today. I feel this is true of everybody who chases or
lists. One ought not denegrate the quality of any observation without
considering the full context.

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