Tweeters and OBOLinks,

A couple of readers, in private messages, have suggested that perhaps
I was being a bit hard on organizers of the Great Backyard Bird Count
(GBBC), or even on the observers themselves. Allow me to restate my
position.

For both the Christmas Bird Count (CBC) and the GBBC, one of the main
objectives is to get new or relatively new birders involved in a
cooperative project. This is an extremely laudable objective, and one
that I fully support. Today's beginning birder may, in a few years,
become a scientific researcher, state bird club president, or ardent
and knowledgeable conservationist-- or just a good average citizen who
cares about wildlife and supports measures to protect or restore
wildlife.

I had been birding about 18 months when, in 1960, I was invited to
take part in my first Christmas Bird Count. Although I was already
keen, this experience elevated me to a higher plane of enjoyment and
appreciation of birds. I'm sure many other novice birders have been
similarly affected by their first CBC.

In 18 years as compiler of the Vancouver, BC Christmas Bird Count, I
did my best (with much help from others) to encourage as many
non-birders and beginning birders as possible to take part in the
count-- even though it probably added little to our species tally.
During many of those years, Vancouver was one of the top 4 or 5 counts
in North America in the number of observers. I have also led, on my
own time, more than 100 organized birding field trips over the last 30
years or so, although I've not been able to do this as often in recent
years. I've done this because I enjoy sharing my enthusiasm with
mostly less experienced birders.

The CBC and the GBBC differ somewhat in the relative emphasis they
place on encouraging participation vs. generating scientifically
useful data. In the CBC, I would say these 2 objectives are of roughly
equal importance. The labours of compilers and regional editors help
to ensure that both identifications and counts are as accurate as
possible, and that counts are done in a similar way each year. Even
though Cornell touts the scientific value of the GBBC, I would say
this value is far less than for the CBC, because of the method itself
and the smaller effort put into editing results.

It may seem paradoxical, but I find that the scientific value of the
CBC (not to overstate it-- it does have its limits) is one of the main
things that attracts beginners to the CBC. It is a revelation to many
that simply spending a day outdoors counting birds can help to
document changes in bird populations, perhaps even providing evidence
for adding a species to, or removing it from, Threatened or Endangered
status.

The GBBC not only produces less useful results than the CBC, but it
lacks one vital ingredient of the latter-- the interaction between
experienced and beginning birders, which can be at least educational,
and at best inspirational. However, the GBBC is a popular event, as
evidenced by the 45,000 counts sent in this year. Perhaps a way can be
found to make the results more useful-- probably by recording more
data on the exact location, length of observations, or even the
habitat(s) covered in the counts.

I should back off somewhat on my remarks about the lack of editing of
GBBC results. As Mike Patterson has noted, an effort is made to
prevent input of erroneous data, and the organizers of the GBBC are
interested in hearing from people who note probable misidentifications
in the results. I will be sending my comments on the B.C. and
Washington totals, at least, to the GBBC gurus.

But the main value of the GBBC is clearly to encourage birders to take
part in a cooperative project. For many, it may be their first
experience at doing so. If it helps to increase their level of
interest in birds and in the environment, then more power to the GBBC.

Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, BC V2C 6E4
contopus at home.com