This was a VERY important posting on WisBird. Laura Erickson Duluth, MN ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [wisb] how NOT to do a CBC - part 1 From: "William Mueller" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, December 13, 2005 9:12 am To: "Wisconsin Birding Network" <[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a continuing risky trend on some Christmas Bird Counts. Some groups allow counters to participate, and submit data to the National Audubon Society, but send names only of those counters who wish to pay the fee. Since quite a few folks seem unwilling to pay the $5 fee, the compilers of these counts apparently see no problem with this practice. But this undermines the accuracy of the count, and makes the hard work of other counters who are willing to pay the fee less meaningful. I see the dilemma some have with excluding those who cannot pay, or are unwilling to pay, but I'd like to attempt to explain how important it is that all participants be included in the official listing. The CBC is truly "citizen science" in that it is accomplished with the help of ~50,000 citizens across North America. Of course, the word "citizen" comes first in that phrase - and there are important considerations regarding these fees, that are on the minds of many, in situations similar or identical to the one I've described. But that second word is "science", and that is a major part of the reason for the event, in the first place. When we survey populations of anything, one of the considerations is comparing data from year to year, and place to place, across geography and time. In order to have any accuracy, we use a "normalizing" process - comparing counts of birds from year to year would be meaningless unless we introduce a way to make these counts comparable by considering observer effort. So we keep track of numbers of counters, and the amount of time they spend counting. Then as an example, when we count 1000 geese one year, and 1500 the following year, we know the number is meaningful because we can divide that by our observer effort - in this case, a number of "party-hours". If the teams tallied these 1000 geese in year A by expending 25 hours, we can say we had "40 geese-per-party-hour". If, in that hypothetical second year, we had those 1500 geese and our teams had expended 50 hours, our critical number of "geese-per-party-hour" would be 30...this means the population present that year had decreased - not increased as one might surmise only from the raw count data. Where am I going with all of this? If the numbers of party-hours are incorrect (which they will be if everyone participating is not accounted for), then the meaning of the data is lost. Perhaps there is a way around this. If some counters could subsidize those who cannot pay (or who cannot pay the full amount), the dilemma is erased. Would this be possible in any of these cases? I am simply trying to suggest a way to keep the counts accurate and meaningful - as well as finding a way for compilers to be inclusive of everyone who would like to be there. Later this week - more things to avoid...and ways to IMPROVE your CBC. William P. Mueller Milwaukee, WI (414) 643-7279 E-mail: [email protected] On the web: http://home.earthlink.net/~iltlawas/index.html ############################## This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[email protected]>. To UNSUBSCRIBE, E-mail to <[email protected]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[email protected]> Send administrative QUERIES, E-mail to <[email protected]>
