On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Deb Beutler wrote:
> Does this only occur in Kansas? Probably not.

I know it doesn't. In Portland the first year I did the count, I followed
the directions and only listed numbers of those field participants who
counted. Last year, I made a decision not to do this--I sent the names of
those who paid, but sent the actual numbers in, with a letter explaining
that I could not "fudge" the numbers and was reporting actual numbers of
field participants. They sent me back an unsigned form letter saying that
the numbers I had reported did not match the contribution, but they
published those numbers.

This presents a problem for those doing research. I was slightly chided
for being honest, and am not sure how I will deal with it this year. I
also can't imagine that Portland was the #26 count for participants in the
country last year as others probably just reported the paid numbers. Even
with party-hours being used, some shifting will occur in the data--I had
an entire party last year that didn't pay. If I don't report the actual
numbers, even this fudge factor slips away.

As a compiler, one is put in an untenable position on this data gathering
issue. One has to do what one can.

I'd note on that Nebraska also published all counts, official and
unofficial, in the Nebraska Bird Review--or at least that was the
practice. There were several counts that went underground after the fee
went from $1 to $3 to $5, but 3 if you count more than once, to $5.

RK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Korpi "The more you complain, the longer God
Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA lets you live."
rkorpi at csci.clark.edu --heard on _Prairie_Home_Companion_,
President, Oregon Field 11-28-98
Ornithologists
**Inquiries on Oregon birds
always welcome**