[mou] Response: how NOT to do a CBC - part

[Roger Schroeder]

Just to clarify a point in the first paragraph, its not the NAMES of
participants that is important, but the TOTAL PARTY-HOURS that is
important to have accurate. The *party-hour* in this case the number of
hours spent by each group birding together - not the number of hours of
each participant in that group, and very far removed from the first hour
of partying after realizing that the CBC set a new record number of
species.

I suspect that many individual count compilers that face the scenario
described below actually DO record an accurate number of party hours when
submitting data - even if they do not list all the names of the individual
who participated. Consider the following situation. Two different group of
enthusiastic birders spent 7 hours on a CBC - Group A has 4 members, Group
B has 2 members. The total number of participants is 6, but the total
number of aprties is 2, and the total number of party hours for that
entire CBC effort is 14 (not 42). If one person in each group decide the
$5 Audubon fee is outrageous and refuse to pay, the CBC compiler does not
submit their names to Audubon, and therefore probably records that 4
people participated, not 6. HOWEVER, the total number of party-hours
remains the same!!!

In my brief expereience as MN CBC coordinator, my impression is that total
number of party hours is reasonably accurate enough - THANKS TO THE WORK
OF OUR COUNT COMPILERS - to allow for normalized analysis of CBC data.

What I like best about the article below is that it does re-inforce the
fact that CBC data is being used for a variety of purposes.

Roger Schroeder




> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: [wisb] how NOT to do a CBC - part 1
> From:    "William Mueller" <iltlawas@earthlink.net>
> Date:    Tue, December 13, 2005 9:12 am
> To:      "Wisconsin Birding Network" <wisbirdn@lawrence.edu>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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: iltlawas@earthlink.net
> On the web: http://home.earthlink.net/~iltlawas/index.html
>
>
> ##############################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <wisbirdn@lawrence.edu>.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, E-mail to <wisbirdn-off@lawrence.edu>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <wisbirdn-digest@lawrence.edu>
> Send administrative QUERIES, E-mail to  <wisbirdn-request@lawrence.edu>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mnbird mailing list
> mnbird@lists.mnbird.net
> http://www.mnbird.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mnbird
>


-- 
Roger Schroeder
MN CBC Coordinator
www.rohair.com/CBC.html