Hi Ted, All I can say to your assertion about ABA staff wanting to "get their way paid" to Hawaii is this: Seriously now, just how dumb do you think we are? If any of us wants to bird Hawaii, or visit Hawaii for any set of reasons, there are far more efficient ways to achieve that goal. Indeed, a number of us already have birded there and we could go back. Please, give us just a bit more credit. Also, setting up and working an event is a pretty different undertaking than attending one. That's why people pay to do the latter and get paid to do the former. Think of an airplane. Yes, everybody gets to make the trip, but would you assert that the pilot and crew are wanting to "get their way paid" to Seattle, or Chicago, or wherever? I doubt it. I've got no issue with you expressing your opinions; that's what this blog is for. But it's not for hurling thoughtless insults. Please avoid doing so in the future. Good birding, Jeff

Absolutely! There is a long tradition of birder song parodies. You haven't lived 'til you've heard Steve N.G. Howell's rendition of "Hotel Pteradroma," or the gang from BirdWatcher's Digest sing, "Mommas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowbirds," just to name two.

Liz and I kicked in our $100, Bob! Looks like things are rolling along well. Come on other birders and join us!

Jack, These are excellent suggestions. I will talk to David Hartley and Greg Neise, our web guys, about how we can implement them. We're working on a major redesign of the home page and its navigation and easily being able to tell where we are with the print periodicals should be a goal of that. Thanks.

Paul, If you define "work" as "entirely remove an exotic species from its nonnative range," then, most of the time, very likely nothing will work, certainly not for feral cats on a continental level. My definition of "work" in this case would be "significantly reduce mortality of birds and other native wildlife." As I figure it, TE would "work" much better than TNR. What's your definition of "work?" What would constitute movement in the right direction as you see it?

Hello again, Sam. I love it when I learn something from these discussions, which I almost always do. I hate it, though, when the way I learn is by discovering something I had held to be true is wrong, wrong, wrong. And so I hearby take a big bite of crow and say that you were right about the ABA history and I was wrong. I had thought the "no heard birds" designation on the list report closely followed the "heard birds count" ruling. It did not. "No heard birds" was introduced in the 2007 report, on page 32, which you can find here: http://listing.aba.org/downloads/ABA2006BDLR.pdf Kenn Kaufman penned an explanation of "Why Heard Birds Count" in the March 1994 Winging It. I believe that was not long after the official addition of heard birds, but it at least gives us a minimum span between the two events...something like 13 years. So I had that totally wrong in my head. And indeed, the 2007 date is close to when a lot of birders got iPods. The device debuted in 2001. I got my first in 2003, but I've always been a bit of an early adopter. And of course, you can use iPods for music, not just bird sounds. ;-) Even though I'm admitting I was totally wrong about the history, I'm going to very tentatively stand by my statement about the "no heard birds" being more about preserving (actually bringing back, it turns out) the past rather than an adaptation to a newly digitally-enabled present and future. I'll ask around, but it makes a lot of sense to me that the folks pushing for the "no heard birds" icon would be largely, but by no means entirely different than those who were experimenting with the then-new gadgetry. Please, if anyone has anecdotes or better to counter any of what I've said, do chime in. And again, I apologize for having my history wrong and thank Sam for the opportunity to get it down better.

Hi Sam, You make an interesting point. Many of us would favor eliminating the "no heard birds" icon, for a number of reasons, including the potential lessening of pressure to see birds that are easily identified and enjoyed by ear. But you do make one factual error I'd like to correct: the "no heard birds" icon is much older than the, "revolution of those amazing smart-thing devices." My recollection is that it showed up in the Big Day and List Report shortly after the "heard birds count" ruling, many, many years ago. As such, I believe it was an attempt at partially preserving the status quo, not an adaptation to greater ease of sound playback.

Morgan, Glad you're interested. More details will be available in the February issue of Winging It, which is at the printers and/or in the mail as I write this. Stay tuned!

Hi Derek, The obligation to maintain a functioning RSEC is clearly part of the ABA's bylaws, as you note. And we are working to get a reformed RESC up and running as quickly as possible. You'll be seeing more about that process in ABA fora like this one in the near future. As for the RSEC's brief period in a sort of holding pattern being, "troubling, at the very least," the ABA has in fact been through a troubled, challenging period, in all honesty. We're coming out of it quickly and well, I would contend, and making very good progress on adapting to a new age of birding, social media, etc. But there are just a lot of things in need of attention and many of those things are often hitched together in fairly complicated ways. For my part, I think that having a reformed and more easily accessible RSEC will play an absolutely key role in the ABA's evolution into a much more effective forum and fulcrum for the birding community. I'm very much looking forward to it. Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Tony White for all the many hours he did put into the RSEC over the years. I also look forward to calling on his formidable experience and wisdom as we move forward. If you're interested in potentially serving on the RSEC, or know people that would be, feel free to pass their names on to me at jgordon@aba.org. And feel free to contact me at that address if you want to discuss things in more detail. Great discussion, everyone. Jeff Gordon President, ABA

Westley, I agree that Twin Peaks was pretty bird-aware, if not birder-aware. "The owls are not what they seem." But that opening shot? It's a Varied Thrush, not a Bewick's Wren. Check it out: http://youtu.be/X2lkvrMa27c

Kim and Noah, I led 2 Antarctic trips back in the mid-90's. One, a whole-ship charter by VENT, was composed almost entirely of birders or at least folks with a strong interest in wildlife. But the other was very different. I had a bunch from VENT and Birdquest had another. But beyond our groups, the general population of the cruise was clearly out for bagging their 7th continent and experiencing the environment in the most general way. I could never believe the lines of of folks ready to return to the ship from shore landings before the final zodiac load had even disembarked. How could people cut their time in these amazing places so short, only to get back to the same old ship? The one landing we did make on the Antarctic mainland, the roles were suddenly reversed. Though there were a few things to look at, it was kind of unremarkable from a wildlife perspective. But, oh, the 7th continenters! They absolutely came to life, clearly viewing that landing as the culmination of their trip. If these comments seem critical or dismissive of folks with little interest in birds, I don't mean them to be. Many of those passengers were fine, fun people. But there was a remarkable difference in the way the birders and the others experienced Antarctica. Thanks, Noah, for this post!

Great stuff, Robert! Is this possibly a new wrinkle on planking? I've seen more than enough videos of people, "mimicking a wooden plank," but I don't think I've ever seen one of a BIRDER mimicking a BIRD mimicking a wooden plank! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planking_(fad)

William, Thanks for commenting, here and lower down the thread. I understand your concerns and they are ones I hear frequently. I guess one question I'd ask you is this: what about the birders that live in Hawaii? They are in many ways disenfranchised by the current situation. What would you say to them? As for the thought that Canadians wouldn't mind the Lower 48 being touted more (in your 2nd comment), my sense is somewhat different there. But I'm hopeful we'll hear from residents of many different places, both inside and outside the traditional ABA Area. Again, thanks for contributing to the conversation.

There are many wonderful things about the ABA Code of Ethics but there are some serious flaws, too. Sure, "never" is unequivocal, but how about, "rare," or "heavily birded areas?" In some places, the Code is a mishmash. In my opinion, it definitely needs revision. It's a difficult task indeed to craft a Code that is clear but flexible enough to be useful in the infinitely varied situations that birding encompasses. The Code has done its job well but badly needs updating. I strongly second Robert's mention of David Sibley's post about using playback well. ( http://www.sibleyguides.com/2011/04/the-proper-use-of-playback-in-birding/) I think Sibley's is the best, truest summary of the issue I've seen. And I'd like to see our Code of Ethics revised to indicate that there are situations where playback can be extremely helpful and appropriate and others where it is clearly neither. I realize blanket prohibitions (or endorsements) are comforting to some but I generally find them of little use in dealing with the complex, often messy realities of living on Earth.