That's quite true if what you're doing is counting inside an existing circle or if you didn't keep track of the sites you counted at in order to repeat them next time. I'm thinking more of a way to generate data for areas that currently don't have much, or that by their very nature can't be done in a CBC circle or constitute a "natural" unit for counting. Klamath Lake is a good example. Except for a tiny corner, NONE of it is in a CBC circle. It would take two complete circles to include all of it (and even then you would not get the small corner that is now in the KF CBC circle). But the natural, desirable data set is for the lake as a whole, and its margins. There's no particular reason to count the north half and the south half separately, yet under the CBC protocol you have to. Under the Curmudgeon's protocol, the lake becomes the Klamath Lake Winter Bird Count - a single sensible unit. I agree that if you just counted here and there randomly, with the "circle" never the same, the results might as well be eBird casual. But Klamath Lake (or a watershed, or a mountain) remains the same over time, a sort of pre-established count area, and one with more commonality in terms of avifauna than a CBC circle as we now know it. -- Alan Contreras acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx Eugene, Oregon On 12/5/13 7:12 PM, "Joel Geier" <joel.geier@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >Alan & all, > >The biggest and most obvious problem with your idea of "fungible >circles" is the possibility to compare with historical data. Which, so >far as I've read in the scientific literature, is the main thing that >the CBC concept currently has going for it. > >Good birding, >Joel > >-- >Joel Geier >Camp Adair area north of Corvallis > > > > >OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol >Manage your account or unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/obol >Contact moderators: obol-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol Manage your account or unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/obol Contact moderators: obol-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx