>
>
>
>Didn't ABA just change their policy on this a year or two ago? I remember
>a big to-do in Birding, and article/announcement: "Heard Birds Count!"
>(and a small backlash from a prominent lister who felt the change somehow
>cheapened listing).
>
>

Yes, new ABA rules now allow one to count heard only birds. When one considers
that for some species, hearing is the best (if not the only) method for
identification, it seem ludicrous to have to see some birds to count them.

Most people identify Dowitcher, Flycatchers, Rails and Caprimulgids by call.
Seeing them should never have been an obstruction to counting them. The ABA
made this official in 1995. Many "hardcore" listers still insist upon seeing
lifers. We're not going to change them by sniping. We can only affect the
learned behaviors of new birders through example.

We all keep lists. We are all "listers." The issue is the degrees to which
any one believes adding to a list is important and the length to which any one
of us will go to get new ticks.

I think most of us draw the line at environmental damage, but what is
environmental damage? I think driving my car, burning fossil fuel and adding
to global warming through carbon dioxide emissions is environmental damage,
so I rarely chase (the Tillamook Hooded Oriole was only 70 miles away and I
stayed home).

The arguement here (and it is intractable) is who's line is the correct one.
I don't know...
I only know that in matters of ethics, everyone has a rationale. Everyone
thinks they are right. And unless there's a law against it they actually can
all be right.


--
*********************************** I got the blues so bad one time
* Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR * it put my face in a permanent frown
* mpatters at orednet.org * but I am feelin' so much better
*http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters* I could cake-walk into town