> This is quite at variance with a statement made by Kelly Cassidy to explain
> the apparent decrease in numbers over time: "The owls are spacing
> themselves out better, now that they have presumably stopped moving south,
> making it harder to see large numbers in small areas." They are actually
> amazingly *un*spaced, presumably congregating in areas of owl prey.
> Perhaps they spread out all over the landscape when they begin foraging at
> dusk. What we don't know about them would fill at least a bread box.

I agree with Dennis. The 'spacing out' part of the hypothesis clearly
seems to wrong. Maybe the observer decline in interest is the best
explanation for *apparently* decreasing numbers. As you say, the
appeal declines when there are 900 instead of 24. (Or was that Dennis'
sly way of trying to shame Tweeters into a Bushtit mapping project.)

Kelly Cassidy