Date: 12/6/18 4:07 pm
From: Tristen Hynes <tristen.hynes16...>
Subject: [obol] Re: new CBCs and gaps
I think you said it yourself, Doug. "Cbc protocol has barely changed in the
last 100 years".... I hope it never does. I do agree that there is no need
for any new counts, and that the counts that failed did so for a reason and
to try to bring them back or bring new counts in would take away from our
current counts and more beloved areas. Having said that I agree with Alan
in the sense that if 20 people from each of the big counts were to work
together to cover an area that isn't covered(that should be) would be

Tristen Hynes

Sent from my Huawei Mate 20 Pro

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 1:52 pm W. Douglas Robinson <
<w.douglas.robinson...> wrote:

> No, I am not advocating for 5 min counts during winter. That does not
> work. I am advocating for keeping track of the numbers at each place you
> visit, whether you stay there for a few minutes or a few hours. This is
> absolutely not about point counts. It’s about filling in gaps in knowledge
> of winter birds outside the boundaries of establishing new CBC circles.
> That’s all it is.
> > On Dec 6, 2018, at 1:49 PM, <adamus7...> <adamus7...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I find it infinitely more satisfying, personally, to challenge myself to
> find as many species as I can within a large area (e.g., Big Day, Big Sit,
> CBC, Oregon 2020 block, etc.) during a specified period of time (day,
> month, year, etc.), than to go to a dozen point locations and do a 5-minute
> point count at each. In 5 minutes I can usually find many more species by
> jumping from habitat to habitat and stopping only briefly at each. Doing
> so tests the predictive habitat models rolling around in my head. I don't
> discount the fact that point counts as Doug describes give data much more
> useful to science. I voluntarily do hundreds of those counts each year, as
> well as BBS routes (which are a series of timed point counts), and I urge
> others to do them. But whatever the limitations of data collected from
> CBCs and other large areas, I enjoy the "sporting" flavor of those to a
> greater degree. I'm a wildlife biologist, and I hope loosely-or
> unstructured area searches will always be a p
> art of birding, whether or not they get sucked into the eBorg-o-sphere.
> >
> > Paul Adamus
> > Corvallis
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <obol-bounce...> <obol-bounce...> On Behalf
> Of W. Douglas Robinson
> > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:24 PM
> > To: OBOL <obol...>
> > Subject: [obol] Re: new CBCs and gaps
> >
> > Here he goes again…eBird this, eBird that. But, why do we need new CBCs
> to fill gaps in winter bird information?
> >
> > We could have fun visiting a poorly-counted place, coordinate the
> counting so multiple teams are out on the same day in nearby areas, and
> share results at the end of the day over hot food and drinks, all without
> the paperwork and bu-ro-crazy of a CBC.
> >
> > In fact, simply eBirding the effort could be argued to be more
> scientifically useful. If each party created new checklists for each place
> they counted birds, instead of summing up (guessing) how many birds of each
> species they had all day long in their CBC section, then the counts are
> actually much more useful for repeat efforts in the future.
> >
> > Let’s face it, CBC protocol has barely changed in 100 years. But we have
> learned a whole lot about the problems of using such bird count data to
> learn much that is scientifically defensible about population changes over
> time. One of the biggest challenges is not knowing exactly where the data
> were gathered (variation from year to year in routes, time at stops in
> sector, different observers who count numbers in different ways, etc, ad
> nauseam). With eBird it is very easy to create new personal locations at
> each stop you make all day long and keep more accurate count data that
> someone then has a chance to repeat with some level of confidence they are
> doing it the same way you did.
> >
> > No constraints of staying inside the circle of a diameter that has no
> clear biological justification. No commitment to try and count it every
> year. No worries about minimum number of people participating. Also no
> worries about site overlap or avoiding double counting. All the modern bird
> counting literature says that we can soooo much more about bird numbers
> when we DO count the same sites more than once.
> >
> > Identify some of the under-birded places, gather up interested friends
> to go count birds, archive the data in eBird (call it a CeBC, if you will),
> socialize, and then go find another under-explored place next time.
> >
> > At some future time, eBorg will eat the CBC database anyway. It makes
> logical sense and National Audubon is an eBird partner. Maybe this dire
> prediction of assimilation gives us a little extra willingness to feel like
> we can make meaningful contributions without being inside an official
> circle.
> >
> > But continue supporting your favorite CBCs. I look forward to a couple
> myself this winter.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > POST: Send your post to <obol...> JOIN OR QUIT:
> > OBOL archives: Contact moderator:
> <obol-moderators...>
> >
> >
> POST: Send your post to <obol...>
> OBOL archives:
> Contact moderator: <obol-moderators...>

Join us on Facebook!