I would like to congradulate Chris on his comments. As for the Port Gamble
CBC, I firmly believe that a minimum number of counters should be on a
count. But for those counts who get 75 plus counts or even less, I've been
on CBC teams where there were enough counters to have 6 or 7 people on a
team, and other counts with teams of 2 to 4 participants, believe it or
not the larger team didn't cover as much area, as the smaller team that
had hard working good birders. I can't relate to the first year of the
Port Gamble CBC in 1988, because there were only eleven participants, and
it wasn't covered well. Because most of my participants are not counters
that do 3 plus counts a year, and ones that are do counts on following
weekends, the dates suddenly get limited for a possible dates. So if the
count is divided well and the birders work hard, I have no question that
30 birders can cover a count well, and provide a accurate picture of bird
populations. I also agree with Chris that if there are good local counts
scattered around the state a much broader picture of common birds can be
seen. It great to get the unusual birds, but how many finches we get from
year to year is probably more valid information scientifically. Lastly,
while some counters may have science in the back of their minds, I doubt
seriously that even 15% of the WA CBC participants would participate in a
count if it wasn't a fun day of birding. A good count can have both. With
time local birders may start doing more than one count. Quite a few biders
in Kitsap, until now have done only one count per year, now they will be
doing two. I encourage CBC'ers to do the counts the want to do and do
them well, then small counts will have valid data. I'm sure my
participants will work hard.
Stepping of my soapbox,

Scott Downes
sdownes at u.washington.edu
Seattle WA



On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Christopher Hill wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>