[obol] Some thoughts on the NAMC

[Wayne Weber]

Oregon Birders,

As a non-Oregonian--  however, one who has participated recently in the NAMC
(in Washington)--  I would like to offer some thoughts on the future of the
NAMC.

First of all, thanks to Chuck Gates and the ECBC for agreeing to try to
organize the NAMC on a statewide level, and for trying to re-invigorate the
project and make it more useful. However, I agree with Joel Geier that it
would not be a good idea to make major changes in the rules or format of the
NAMC until there has been a thorough discussion among county coordinators,
and preferably in the wider birding community, and until something
approaching a consensus has been reached. (If such a discussion has already
occurred, I'm not aware of it.)

My perspective is that of someone who has been heavily involved for many
years in cooperative projects like the Christmas Bird Count, Breeding Bird
Survey, and breeding bird atlas projects (including the Oregon BBA).
I have not taken part in the NAMC in Oregon, but I have been a participant
for 3 of the last 4 years in Skagit County, WA.

It should be kept in mind that the NAMC is still in operation in many states
other than Oregon, at various levels. In Washington, I believe there are
only 2 counties which still do the NAMC-- Skagit (spring only) and Klickitat
(spring and fall). However, Skagit County, at least does a very thorough
job-- splitting the county up into 17 areas and assigning a team to each
area, much like a Christmas Bird Count.

If major changes are made in the rules in Oregon, then not only would you
lose comparability with previous years' data, but you would lose
comparability with other states where the NAMC is still done. If this
happened, I think you would have to change the name of the project, because
it would no longer be the NAMC.

My thoughts on some particular topics:

1. SUMMARIZING AND ANALYZING PAST DATA

I believe Joel is absolutely correct that we need to summarize past data,
preferably post it on a website, and do at least some preliminary or
regional analyses of the data. If the data are not being systematically
preserved and used, then it seems hard to justify continuing the project.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a lot of continuing enthusiasm for the
project, as evidenced by the number of Oregon counties in which it is still
taking place.

The NAMC is certainly a loosely-standardized project compared with other
projects like the CBC (Christmas Bird Count) or BBS (Breeding Bird Survey).
As Craig Miller points out, part of the reason for this is that such large
areas (counties) are covered. Nevertheless, if an attempt is made to cover
each county in a similar way every spring and fall, it should be possible to
extract some useful results.


2. STANDARDIZATION AMONG COUNTIES

This is a topic which hasn't been much discussed so far, but which I think
needs to be addressed. Some counties (e.g., the Skagit County, WA example)
have a very organized approach, with observer teams assigned to distinct,
non-overlapping areas. Other counties seem to take a much more lax approach,
with a request from the coordinator to "send me a list if you were out
birding in the county" on the NAMC date, without worrying about overlap of
areas. I believe that the more organized approach is by far the more useful
one-- even if there are only 2 or 3 teams in the county-- and that county
coordinators should be strongly encouraged or even required to use this
approach, even if it means that some counties no longer participate.

3. COUNTING VERSUS NOT COUNTING BIRDS

I'm afraid I must disagree with Chuck about the advisability of counting
versus not counting birds on the NAMC. With the exception of atlas projects,
I can think of few bird-related cooperative projects that do not involve
counting, or at least estimating, bird numbers. How useful would the CBC or
BBS be if people only listed species rather than keeping track of numbers?
Not very. Chuck is correct that many birders do not enjoy keeping track of
numbers and that it might "spoil the fun" for them. However, this type of
birder (who I am NOT disparaging in any way!), for the most part, does not
take part in co-operative projects anyway, and I don't think that opening
the project to list-only reports would help the project in any way.

4. CHANGING THE DATE FOR THE FALL COUNT

Once again, I think this is not a good idea-- in large part, because it
would destroy any comparisons between post-2007 and pre-2007 data.

Obviously, a count on one date, or one weekend, cannot capture the migration
of all species. Mid-September is certainly too late for most neotropical
migrant landbirds (flycatchers, warblers, vireos, etc.). It is too early for
many waterfowl and raptors, which don't appear in numbers until October or
even November. However, for a good number of species, this is fairly close
to the migration peak. If you are going to pick one date, the 3rd weekend of
September is as good as any other date, in my opinion.

5. CHANGING TO A TWO-DAY INSTEAD OF A ONE-DAY COUNT WINDOW

Although I am generally arguing against changes in the NAMC rules, there is
one small rule change that I would be in favour of--  allowing counts on
EITHER the Saturday or Sunday of the weekend, rather than on one day only.
This would probably encourage increased participation from people who are
unable to take part on "the" day.

Consider other projects. A Christmas Bird Count can be done anytime between
about December 14 and January 5. A BBS route can be done anytime within
about a 5-week window. Why should the NAMC be restricted to a single day? On
the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest expanding it to more than
one weekend in either spring or fall, because bird populations change so
quickly during migration, unlike the winter or breeding seasons.

To use only one concrete example, in September 2004, I did some intensive
birding in northern Wheeler County, which would have added 15 or 20 species
to the county NAMC list that fall (there was only a single party), but my
results could not be included because they were one day too late!


I hope my comments will be useful, even though many of you may not agree
with some of them. I enjoy reading the NAMC reports that do get sent to
OBOL, and I would like to see the project continue and to be improved.
I wish Chuck and the ECBC the best of luck in reviving the project, and
especially in getting the results on the Internet and in getting some
summaries and analyses of the results published!



Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus at telus.net