Shawn Conrad wrote: "I don't think ornithologists are being fair to anyone to completely gloss over the effects of the increased popularity and sophistication of bird feeding, changes in habitat (both "good" and bad), and increased observer coverage. "
As I wrote to Shawn, I thought much the same as he did regards the "gloss-over" factor after reading the local newspaper version of the Audubon report; especially because of a single fact that I think is ever so slowly gaining currency: that since pre-CBC days, skilled observation of wild birds has expanded/improved -- How much? -- 50-thousand-fold? 100-thousand-fold? 200-thousand-fold? Might be, considering today's countless scopes, binos, zoom-lens digital cameras, mega-book stores loaded with bird field guides, instantaneous electronic communications, not to mention the daily bird-hunter/watcher excursions by millions of birdwatchers and "birders" to every scrub of park and governmental preserve. Not to disparage global warming enthusiasts, but my gut feeling is that a lot of the northward expansion data might be because -- year-by-year -- we are seeing (and accurately identifying and reporting) a heck of a lot more wild birds, including those -- "Surprising?" -- north-ranging birds. National Audubon's and the Star Tribune's hearts are in the right place, of course, but it's hard not to wince when we spot ostensible unbalanced reportage. Keep in mind, I haven't read the entire Audubon Report. Don Darnell Eden Prairie ---- Join or Leave mou-net:http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives:http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
