[ovenbird43]

Originally Posted by Birdingcraft

Or perhaps folks should just focus more on their world lists and not worry about boundaries that are human constructs rightfully ignored by the birds.

This is also something I wish for, but I don't know what the best way is to change our birding culture. Maybe rising gas prices or an increased concern of the impact of travel on the environment will encourage more people to choose their travels wisely, and visit fewer but more exotic places to get more "bang for their buck".

I used to think I would like to do an ABA-area big year, but I no longer feel that way. For the number of plane rides back and forth across the country that competitive big year listers make to chase vagrants, for example shorebirds from Europe or Asia, I would sure rather take one or two farther trips to see those birds in their natural ranges, along with loads of other new birds. I don't even think I'd want to do a big year within my state- again for the amount of driving around I'd do, I'd rather just take one week-long trip to Colorado or somewhere.

Another proposal in the article was to do away with the ABA area altogether, but I don't see that happening.

[fugl]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

I don't think the conservation benefits are necessarily from prominent listers exerting influence, but more that more people would be "aware" of the situation with Hawaiian Birds. For instance, all the "North American" field guides (even for non-birds) define North America as the ABA area. Changing the ABA area would probably expand field guide coverage, so even casual birders would at least be familiar with Hawaiian birds via glancing through their field guides. And that itself would probably increase ecotourism for Hawaiian birds, since really, who wouldn't want to see and I'iwi after seeing a picture of one!

Yes, but is it ABAers who drive the field guide market (& thus determine field guide coverage)? My guess is that it’s not, but it’s rather the casual birder/bird watcher/bird lover whose affiliation, if any, is much more likely to be with general interest organizations like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society & the like than with a specialist hobbyist outfit like the ABA. But, again, I don’t have the facts & this is just an impression.

[Chris Benesh]

Hi All,

I've spoken to a few ABA officials over the past several months who have mentioned the potential for expanding the ABA area. My general sense is that they are hoping to accomplish two goals. First off, to generate some new excitement in the (somewhat stagnant) organization by making new areas available from a listing perspective, i.e., many more new species to add to one's ABA list. Secondly (and more significant in my mind) is to make the organization much more multinational with the aim of increasing input from the Latin American birding community. Personally, I see both as a good thing.

Chris

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by fugl

Yes, but is it ABAers who drive the field guide market (& thus determine field guide coverage)? My guess is that it’s not, but it’s rather the casual birder/bird watcher/bird lover whose affiliation, if any, is much more likely to be with general interest organizations like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society & the like than with a specialist hobbyist outfit like the ABA. But, again, I don’t have the facts & this is just an impression.

As an outsider (European currently residing in the Caribbean), my perspective is that the area covered in field guides have changed in the last 20 years in Europe. It used to be strictly Europe that was covered, but as more people went for vacation in Southern Spain, Northern Africa, and the Middle East, there was an increase in the area covered. However, should in some future time the general crowd go a lot to say Gambia, I do not believe that would influence the field guides too much. There would just be too many new species to add that would only be relevant if birding S of Sahara.

Similarly, given the number of pages is Howell and Webb's Mexico guide, I don't think that an increased ABA region would lead to a field guide that included all in one. Maybe as a companion guide, and the Peterson has had a Mexico companion for a lot of years.

Niels

Maybe the period for Europe mentioned should have been 40 years or whatever -- anyway, that is not important for the point I am trying to make

[Mysticete]

Random replies to everyone:

On field guide coverage: I would say that the definition of the ABA area does indeed affect field guides moreso than other naturalist interests. One of the prominent guides after all is the the Nat Geo, which takes the time in the newest editions to illustrate EVERY possible vagrant recorded in the US. The average person interested in nature in the US probably doesn't care about all the Aleutian/Gambel ultra megas, but they are illustrated. And the bird guide market is by far the largest; birders are more likely to buy new editions and multiple different field guides than the average consumer. If a general nature audience was the main target, than I would expect to see similar numbers of guides to at least mammals, and probably herps as well.

On year listing; Kingbird Highway made it sound awesome, but I do kind of cringe at the concept of a big year. Beyond any environmental impact, you need to have deep pockets and lots of free time. A US year list says nothing about your birding ability, but lots about your financial security. That said, I have always wanted to go to Gambell and St. Paul, even if the vagrants could be easily seen in China on migration.

On ABA: I have faintly detected a whiff of desperation for getting new members. I am actually a member (for something like 4 years now); I enjoy the magazine, but I do wonder if the Internet isn't providing the same info for many new birders as the magazine did, and if they are not recruiting another new birders to compensate for loss of older birders.

So Chris, from your conversations does expanding the area seem likely? And is this something that might happen within the next year? Or is this largely just to see what the interest in doing so is, and maybe stir up controversy?

[bkrownd]

Originally Posted by ovenbird43

In another article, the author states that he passed up an invitation to visit Hawaii because it wasn't part of the ABA area. That just makes no sense to me.

I can tell you that it's a fact that some of the checklisting morons who visit Hawai'i ignore the native wilderness and endemic birds because they aren't on their stupid ABA checklists.

[jc122463]

I don't think that including Hawai'i (or Mexico for that matter) in the ABA range would change the field guides at all. I don't think that would be the main point though. Presumably ABA listers who would travel to Hawai'i if it were in the ABA range would also already have some knowledge about the different birds there. However, by expanding the range it could bring valuable tourism dollars to the areas. While the ABA might not have the political clout to change policy, making conservation a profitable enterprise will definitely go towards helping threatened species.

If someone could just find an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Hawai'i, they wouldn't know what to do with all the money flowing to them!

[bkrownd]

Don't we have enough such phantoms here already? About a dozen species have gone extinct here in the last 20 years. Where da money, brah?

[Microtus]

I agree with Birdingcraft in #23.

As an aside, I used to dream about visiting Attu (back when it was receiving visitors) and seeing "every" bird in the ABA area. Now, meh. I go where I want to go and am not terribly about having or not having a large ABA list.

[Richard Klim]

The Dec 2009 issue of Winging It reveals that on Oct 17 the ABA Board rejected a proposal to expand the ABA Area to mirror the definition of the AOU-NACC Area (ie adding Mexico, Central America, West Indies, Hawaii, Greenland and Bermuda).

Richard

[csanchez7]

I can tell you that it's a fact that some of the checklisting morons who visit Hawai'i ignore the native wilderness and endemic birds because they aren't on their stupid ABA checklists.

This is both shocking and saddening -- that having birds on an ABA list make them somehow more important than the potential of seeing species that are a unique and endemic radiation to the Hawaiian Islands -- or at least, for finding some of the rarest birds on Earth that few others have seen.

Hawaii hardly needs an 'Ivory-billed Woodpecker' when half or more of its finches are either extinct or teetering on the brink of extinction.

I feel the same as the above listers, but I cringe just as much about people who do state or even county lists -- nothing can be more artificial than the usually straight, arbitrary lines of Miami-Dade that divide the Everglades roughly in half, for example. A lot of people won't look for good birds on the other side of the county line because it is not in their county anymore. I don't keep a county list, but I DO keep location lists for things like Everglades National Park, A.D. Barnes, Key Biscayne, etc.

Furthermore, a lot of ABA birders find it more 'respectful' to have gotten all of your year birds within a state or county. A lot of ABA birders like to spend their monetary resources driving around a state for a year chasing down every possible bird -- often birds they are familiar with but want to see only for that year's 'tick' -- rather than using those resources (fuel, car maintenance, tires, etc) to go somewhere with new birds or new or exciting ecosystems (say SE Arizona, Costa Rica, Thailand, etc).

To each his own...

Carlos

[Mysticete]

But they mentioned that the last time this came up for decision this was voted on by the members?

I don't think ABA should = AOU, but I would like it to at least incorporate Bermuda, Hawaii, and Greenland, and at some point Mexico. It kind of annoys me that they didn't vote on each of these potential areas separately, and it also annoys me that actual members were not queried. Between this and the horrible logo choices I have not been terribly happy with my membership lately. Perhaps when it comes to renew next year I will put my money where my mouth is...

Also, in regards to CSSanchez, I county listed when I lived in San Diego. It wasn't that I didn't want to go and visit someplace new, it was that I didn't have the time or money to do so. SD county made a nice region to concentrate on, and was certainly fun to do a year list there.

[csanchez7]

Mysticete,

I think its fine if you don't have the money and decide to stay within your county for the year, although during my efforts this year I found myself spending so much on fuel and car maintenance for driving around within Miami-Dade that I might as well have gone a little further afield. I decided to throw in the towel in the little competition I was having with several other birders. They also 'looked' down upon my effort, because I included my study abroad birds from Australia.

I don't like the fact that county listers tend to 'look down' on people who include lists from other areas because they take 'less effort'. Perhaps it is something more endemic to my area of the country, but I have certainly experienced it.

For me, its far cheaper to go to Costa Rica and bird for a week than to go to California and bird for a week -- from direct experience. Keeping yourself within the bounds of the ABA certainly doesn't make things more affordable in my part of the country.

Carlos

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

The Dec 2009 issue of Winging It reveals that on Oct 17 the ABA Board rejected a proposal to expand the ABA Area to mirror the definition of the AOU-NACC Area (ie adding Mexico, Central America, West Indies, Hawaii, Greenland and Bermuda).

A plea for a (partial) re-think, from Ted Eubanks:
blog.aba.org/2010/11/annex-hawaii.html

[One small contradiction between the stated inclusions/exclusions: St.-Pierre-et-Miquelon is already included in the ABA Area (para 6), not excluded (para 8).]

Richard

[Mysticete]

The most recent issue still has letters to the editor coming in about, both positive and negative. One of the negative letters wanted to get rid of Alaska, and make the ABA area even smaller!

[ovenbird43]

Originally Posted by csanchez7

For me, its far cheaper to go to Costa Rica and bird for a week than to go to California and bird for a week -- from direct experience. Keeping yourself within the bounds of the ABA certainly doesn't make things more affordable in my part of the country.

Carlos

Even in my part of the country, it's usually cheaper to fly to Costa Rica than to California, unless one drives the 2 hours west of here to fly from Tulsa. Even then, only some California cities are cheaper. Not to mention the different costs for on-the-ground travel and lodging- depending on how one travels, Costa Rica has the potential to be far cheaper than traveling anywhere in the US.

Heck, I can fly to many South American countries for less than it would cost to fly to Alaska. Of course I would love to go to Alaska someday, it just hasn't been my highest priority.

I do keep both ABA and state lists, but I don't put much effort into boosting either of them, and I don't confine myself to their boundaries.

[Mysticete]

Looks like all of us ABA members will be getting a ballot this coming month...Finally putting the Hawaii issue to vote!

http://blog.aba.org/2012/07/aba-area-2012.html#comments