[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CBCS



I don't like to agree with Tom Joyce, might go to his head, but he has some
good points. I once dropped out of Audubon because it's publication got away
from birds to the point that I was receiving issues in which the only
mention of birds was in the ads.
I think it has come back a little way since that time.
I think the data generated by CBCs are important. While there are many
uncontrolled variables, the mass of data generated over such a long time is
useful. Valid conclusions can be drawn by through statistical analysis,
especially now that computers are available to all.
I don't recall a "peer reviewed monograph" based solely on CBC data, but
people like Jared Diamond and E.O. Wilson have used the data in their
popular writing, and those folks make a lot of sense to me.

                                    Reece Mitchell
                                    Flat Rock, NC
                                    rmitche2@tds.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Joyce" <tominbrevard@webtv.net>
To: <carolinabirds@duke.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:29 PM
Subject: CBCS


> C' Birders,
> I have to admit that I purposely threw some oil on the fire to provoke
> responses to the subject of whether CBCS conducted under the aegis of
> NAS had any relevance to the average birder.
>
> So far, there have been a number of comments expressed on C'Birds. They
> have pretty much fallen into two categories:
>
> a) CBCS are fun, and worth doing because it's a group thing and there's
> the possibility of seeing a rare bird, so who cares about NAS"s
> shortcomings, just go ahead and enjoy.
>
> b) CBCS provide important long-term info about bird distribution which
> is important to scientists and assists in bird conservation etc.
>
> My response to a) is:
> Why not continue to participate in CBCS through your local bird club,
> Audubon Chapter etc.? Why does NAS have to be involved in your fun
> thing, other than to collect their $5.00 mandatory contribution?
>
> As far as b) is concerned, I really wonder what important scientific
> conclusions have ever been developed by the avalanche of CBC info over
> the history of the counts. Has any reputable avian scientist ever
> written a peer-reviewed monograph based on this welter of information?
> I'm not an ornithologist, so I really don't know. The skeptic in me
> suggests that NAS has all the reasons in the world for maintaining this
> "feel good" funding, while at the same time striving to reduce the
> associated expenses so as to improve its "bottom line".
>
> Remember, the NAS has for a long time been an organization prinarily
> interested in conservation in a general sense. Its original primary
> focus on birding has blurred significantly since it revised its mission
> statement.
>
> OK, Guys and Gals, tell me how wrong I am!
>
> Tom Joyce
> Brevard, NC
>
>