Subject: CBC scheduling (was:WA CBC list sorted)
Date: Nov 5 10:32:42 1997
From: Christopher Hill - cehill at u.washington.edu


On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Tom Schooley wrote:

> Here are the CBCs sorted by date and E.WA vs. W.WA:
>
> Brought to you by the following gripe.

Nothing like a good rant to bring up questions that are in the back of a
lot of people's minds.

Hope you don't mind my adding my two cents, Tom. I'm with you on the
general idea of spreading the counts around, but

> {The scheduling for western Washington on December 20 is absurd. Ten of 23
> westside counts are on that day alone. Gray's Harbor is traditionally on
> the first Saturday of the count period and is one of the premier counts of
> the state. It deserves all the help it can get.

I've done the Gray's Harbor count twice. I was under the impression that
it got pretty good coverage. Gray's Harbor usually leads the state (or is
close to the lead) in species diversity, and also is likely to turn up
a few rarities of interest to birders - I take it that's what you mean by
a "premier count." I'm not convinced that we should discourage other
counts because they might compete with Gray's Harbor, though. Most counts
draw most of their participants from within the count circle. More counts
means more total effort in the region, and that's good.

> But Oak Harbor, Port
> Gamble, and Port Townsend are all near each other and collectively over the
> years have added very little to the knowledge of birds in Puget Sound.
> (I'm sorry if that hurts someones feelings, but look at the data.) They are
> each fine birding areas, but none will get enough coverage for meaningful
> data. There are not enough "resources" in Washington to spread us that
> thin.

Tom, if you're making the argument that these counts are useless, I think
the burden is on you to present the data to us, not just to blithely say
"look at the data." What data is it that you think proves your point?

In the bigger scheme of things, is it more useful to spot one more
shearwater or Rock Sandpiper at Ocean Shores than it is to get a broad
picture of regional trends numbers of commoner birds? I recall a paper
published in American Birds years ago that pointed out regional
inconsistencies in gull identification in counts in this area. The point
couldn't have been made if there hadn't been data from 15 counts to
compare.

I'm all for counts having a certain minimum level of coverage. The
editors at Field Notes also make it explicit that having enough
participants is an explicit criterion for starting a new, or restarting a
dormant, count. But I'm not at all sure that doing two counts with 75
participants each is more valuable than doing six counts with 25
participants each. If that's your view, I'd love to hear why.

> Christmas Bird Counts are not a social program for birdwatchers.

That's your opinion, and one that overlooks a lot of what makes CBCs work.
They *are* a "social program," and they are a scientific endeavor, too.
They've also evolved into a giant fundraiser for National Audubon, but
that's for another rant. I see my challenge as a compiler as using the
recreational and social aspects of the count to make the science as good
as possible.

> Please consider using
> all the available dates to maximise potential participants on all the
> counts.

No real argument with that sentiment, but I think scheduling has a small
effect on total participation. From my experience in compiling the
Everett CBC, fewer than 10% of my potential counters are going to be doing
three or more counts. Of 40-50 counters, I can count half a dozen at most
whom I might lose to scheduling conflicts. Careful scheduling usually
reduces that to one or no counters who have a serious conflict with
another CBC they want to do.

[CBC dates snipped]

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu