Tweets,

I know the serious birder topic was covered fairly well some time ago, but
I'd like to put my two cents in. I agree with Joe that we need to rethink
what is referred to as a serious birder or even a birder. If my
understanding of the original survey was correct, the intent was to
determine how many people are interested enough in birds that they travel at
least a mile to look at birds. These numbers represent how many people are
spending dollars, time and interest in observing birds vs. other activities.
While I personally list on a rather serious basis, does this make me a more
serious birder than somebody who chooses not to but does spend just as much
time observing birds? Along the same lines, I'd consider most if not all
bird biologists (of which I am one) birders, and few would consider
themselves to be listers or rarity chasers.
I also personally know a lot of friends that will look at birds on a hike
and try to identify them, with varying results. They are spending money for
the purpose of seeing birds and probably a lot of these less "serious"
birders are trying to protect habitat and species as much as many of us more
"serious" birders.
As a good example, think of how many people in the state probably belong to
one of the Audubon chapters. Now think of how many of those people traveled
to see the Redwing. I'd personally bet it's less than 10%. Does it really
matter if you have spent over a 1000.00 on optics, travel 3-4000 miles a
year birding in the state or know the exact count of your various lists by
heart? I'd be willing many of the non "serious" birders we are debating
about here on whether they should be counted or not care just as much as
many of the listers on what really counts in the end, protecting and
preserving those species so that kids 50 years from now can still decide
what side of the listing fence they want to fall on.

May we all enjoying those observations, list or no list.

Scott Downes
downess at charter.net
Yakima WA