> [mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf
> Of Wayne C. Weber
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 4:39 PM

> most years since 1980 (and 2 of them since 1974). (In
> addition, I did one route in Greater Vancouver from 1974 to
> 1994, but have since abandoned it since traffic makes it
> nearly impossible to cover properly now.) The long-term

Wayne's comment about abandoning a route due to traffic brings up something
I've wondered about for a long time. Are routes more likely to be abandoned
if they are in developed areas? Are new routes more likely to be situated
in non-ag and undeveloped areas? Does a non-random abandonment of routes or
placement of new routes skew the results? If routes are abandoned more
often in developed areas and new routes more likely to be established in
less-impacted areas, wouldn't that make the numbers for birds that don't do
well in ag or urban areas look better than they really are as urban areas
expand? Is there any sort of "correction" for these possible biases?

Whatever biases BBS has, however, the methodology is far better than for the
CBC.

Kelly Cassidy
Pullman, where it's hot and dry. The wheat in the surrounding fields smells
like it's roasting.