Hello, Maryland birders.

I recently learned of the thread (threads, actually) on the MDOsprey
list pertaining to Birding magazine and the American Birding Association
(ABA). I appreciate the candor of the various folks on the list, and it
is gratifying to see a diversity of opinions in and perspectives on the
matter. Surprise of surprises, I have some feedback to offer.

First, let's take a look at what Birding really is. In its current
(2006) form, each issue (6 per year) of Birding contains the following
10 regularly occuring features:

  1. Letters to the Editor. We edit (copiously so) for 
     style, but, otherwise, it's anything goes.
  
  2. Editorial. Until November/December 2005, an overview 
     of the theme of the issue. But that's changed, 
     starting with the January/February 2006 issue; see 
     below.

  3. Flight Path. An in-house feature that looks at
     the work of ABA's programs (e.g., Checklist 
     Committee, Young Birder Convention) or of that
     of our partner organizations (e.g., Bird 
     Conservation Alliance, several TNC chapters).

  4. Traditions. Reminiscences and commentary on a
     photograph from yesteryear. (Paul Baicich, editor.)

  5. News and Notes. User-friendly digests (4 per issue)
     of major research in the ornithological literature; 
     akin to the old "Gleanings" column, but each entry
     in News and Notes is shorter. (Paul Hess, editor.)

  6. Photo Quiz and Photo Quiz Answers. Analysis of
     1-4 (usually 3) "mystery" photographs of birds
     that are difficult to identify or otherwise
     problematic. (Chris Wood, editor.)

  7. Sources. A look at the cultural, social, and
     historical influences on the modern birding
     community. (Rick Wright, editor.)

  8. Dimensions. A look at the human side of birding,
     at the birders themselves; akin to the old "Joy
     of Birding" column, but perhaps more reflective.
     (Sheryl DeVore, editor.)

  9. Tools of the Trade. Subjective impressions of 
     and objective data on optics and other products
     for the birder. (Derek Lovitch, editor.)

 10. Book Reviews. Lively, opinionated synopses of 
     and commentary on books that deal in any way,
     really, with birds. (Eric Salzman, editor.)

In addition to these 10 regularly appearing features (1-5 in the front
third of the magazine, 6-10 in the back third), we run 3-6 feature
articles in the middle of each issue of Birding. As several folks on
this list have noted, these feature articles cluster around a particular
theme or topic. Themes are typically broadly defined, and there is a
fair bit of conceptual diversity among the different themes. Recent
themes have included:

  1. Birding in the Old World (March/April 2006)
  2. Grassland Birds (January/February 2006)
  3. Birding in Alaska (November/December 2005)
  4. Biology of the Emberizidae (September/October 2005)
  5. Biology of the Charadriiformes (July/August 2005)
  6. Recognizing Hybrids (May/June 2005)
  7. Waterfowl Biology (March/April 2005)
  8. Birding in California (January/February 2005)
  9. Studying Seabirds (December 2004)
 10. Raptor Identification (October 2004)

Thus, we have had themes that have looked at places (e.g.,
January/February 2005), at taxa (e.g., July/August 2005), and at
"issues" (e.g., January/February 2006).

A major goal of ours here at Birding is to expore as broadly as possible
the many facets of any particular theme. Consider the content of the
January/February 2005 issue. Just California? True, but look at the wide
diversity of coverage:

  * Dave Shuford's article (pp. 38-42) on the remarkable
    legacy of Annie Alexander.
  * John Moir's article (pp. 44-50) on the California 
    Condor's road to recovery.
  * Jerry Uhlman's article (pp. 52-57) on the challenges
    facing the Salton Sea.
  * David Ainley's article (pp. 58-65) on speciation and
    status in the dark storm-petrel complex.
  * Walter Wehtje's article (pp. 66-73) on recent 
    discoveries by pelagic birders off the coast of
    southern California.
  * Mike San Miguel's article (pp. 74-82) on the thills
    of birding in "the other Mexico"--Baja California.
  
Also, the Editorial (pp. 10-11), one of the News and Notes entries (pp.
30-31), and the Photo Quiz Answers (pp. 84-88) all have a California
focus.

Thus, we have taxonomic diversity, geographic diversity, and conceptual
diversity, all within the same issue. Plus, a wide variety of personal
perspectives and authorial voices: Nobody would ever confuse David
Ainley for Jerry Uhlman, and you're not gonna mix up Dave Shuford and
John Moir.

What we have here, to my mind anyhow, is a diverse and wide-ranging
assessment of a particular topic, viz., California, that is presumably
of interest to many ABA members. The alternative would be to run similar
articles, shotgun style, scattered across 6-8 issues' worth of Birding.
But why? Why not concentrate them into a single venue (in this case, the
January/February 2005 issue of Birding) where they can be directly
compared and contrasted? The major conceptual interests of the American
birding community are in there, anyhow: This issue (like most issues)
has the big three of Identification, Conservation, and Birdfinding,
along with treatment of some slightly more arcane matters such as
history and culture.

The alternative to thematic coverage? TV-style sound bites, I guess. A
little bit of this, a little bit of that; no rhyme, no reason; just odds
and ends. It is much more satisfying, for me anyhow, to spend a fair bit
of time with a particular issue or topic, to look at it from different
angles, to listen to different folks' voices--with the end-result, I
hope, of a deeper and more-nuanced take on ... California, or Alaska, or
Hybrids, or Waterfowl, or whatever.

Changing gears a little here, I note that several contributors to the
MDOsprey thread(s) drew comparisons between Birding in 2006 and Birding
in the good old days. Ah, the G.O.D. Theorem, according to which
everything was better in the old days ... 'cept for the annoying problem
of faulty memories and hard facts. Several folks specifically pined away
for the early 1990s, so let's take a look at the facts:

  * The 1990 volume of Birding (vol. 22) 
    was 312 pages long.
  * The 2005 volume of Birding (vol. 37) 
    was 688 pages long.
  * The 1990 volume of Birding measured
    7.5 by 10 inches.
  * The 2005 volume of Birding measured
    8.125 by 10.875 inches.

What that boils down to is that the 2005 volume of Birding was 260% of
the size of the 1990 volume. In other words: Much more content.

Ah, but what about the *nature* of the content? There's actually more
identification material than ever, appeals to the G.O.D. theorem
notwithstanding. A smattering (not at all complete) from 2005:

  * McKay's Bunting (November/December)
  * Red-necked Stint (November/December)
  * Red-faced Cormorant (November/December)
  * Herring Gull (November/December)
  * Golden-plovers (September/October)
  * Sparrows (September/October)
  * Dowitchers (July/August)
  * Puffins (July/August)
  * Buteos (May/June)
  * Kelp Gull (May/June)
  * Sapsuckers (May/June)
  * Grosbeaks (May/June)
  * Trumpeter Swan (April/May)
  * Wigeons (April/May)

Again, just a smattering. Many of the 2005 department columns touched at
least tangentially on identication, with several of the book reviews in
particular dealing explicitly the matter.

There's much more conservation than in the past, of course, although I
note that there has, to some extent, always been conservation converage.
The issue was hotly debated in various fora (e.g., Point/Counterpoint,
Letters to the Editor) even in the prehistorical 1970s and 1980s.

And there's far, far more coverage of bird biology--ecology, behavior,
vocalizations, etc. With regard to bird biology, our goal is to cover
topics that can readily be observed by ordinary birders in the field:
nesting & courtship, geographic variation, etc.

Could there be *less* of anything?--given that the magazine is 160%
larger than it was 15 years ago. The only thing that there is less of,
bizarrely enough, is, ahem, international coverage. Must be collective
amnesia or something, but Birding, impressions to the contrary
notwithstanding, was a much *more* international publication then than
it now is. When we conceived of the March/April 2006 issue ("Birding in
the Old World") a year or more ago, I thought of it as a much-needed
gesture to our hordes of internationally inclined members; I haveta say,
I'm surprised (not annoyed, not ticked off, just surprised) that the
March/April 2006 is being regarded by some as emblematic of a long-term,
wholesale shift toward international coverage. And here I was, thinking
I was just throwing table scraps down to the dog... Oh, and check this
out: Our "Guidelines for Contributors" actually contain a prohibition
against submitting "international" material. See for yourself at:
http://www.americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/guidelines.html#3. (Scroll
down to "International Birding".)

Something else that there's a little bit less of, at least relatively
speaking: birdfinding articles. Various reasons: (1) excellent coverage
of the matter on the pages of Winging It; (2) a burgeoning fleet of ABA
birdfinding guides that now cover a good deal of North America; and (3)
the internet, of course, with birdfinding information on, well,
anywhere. Then again ... the bulk of the March/April 2006 issue was
birdfinding! The absolute amount of coverage devoted to birdfinding is
probably the same as it used to be.

A few replies to some specific issues that were brought up:

* Janet Millenson and Brendan Klick wrote about what they perceive to be
the ABA's struggle for identity, and I think they've hit on something
important: The American birding community of the early 21st century is
in transition. For our part here at Birding, we're trying to identify
major themes that are reflective of present-day and even future currents
in birding: geographic variation, hybrids, exotics, and of course
conservation. 

* Kurt Schwartz remarked about the journal North American Birds that
"much of the stuff that you all have complained about being missing from
BIRDING is published therein." Right on. Both North American Birds and
Birding are published by the ABA, and we have identified specific niches
for both publications. In a nuthshell and grossly oversimplifying:
Birding does identification, North American Birds does status and
distribution. There's extensive cross-over, though, and both
publications have strong current emphases on bird conservation.

* Laura Appelbaum and Karen Caruso, in rather different ways, lamented
the fact that the American birding community is demographically
monolithic: basically old, white, and rich. The implication, for me
anyhow, is that this demographic reality is reflected on the pages of
Birding. These are important concerns and, I believe, legitimate
criticisms (although not just of Birding and the ABA). We've got a ways
to go, I realize, but here's something to ponder: The editors of Birding
are a lot younger than I think a lot of people realize. No names, if you
don't mind, but three of the major players at Birding are in their 20s,
four more are in their 30s, and six (I think) are in their 40s. No
question about it, Birding in 2006 is reflective of the editorial
leanings of young adults or at "worst" early middle-agers.

* Bill Ellis raised an excellent speculation that happens to be false.
He wondered, perfectly reasonably, if the international coverage ('cept
there's not much of it; see above) in Birding might be driven by the
influence of advertisers with international biases. Believe it or not:
Nope. Editorial content is planned way in advance here at Birding, and
then the advertisers are, to some extent, sought out with the content of
any particular issue in mind. I should note, though, that the bulk of
ads come to us in a manner that is simply independent of specific
content; advertisers love us for the basic reason that we have a
well-defined niche and audience.

* Gail Mackiernan pined away for a North American equivalent of the
almost-real-time summary of European rarities that is published monthly
in Birding World. Has anybody noticed that the "Sightings" column in
Winging It is inching closer and closer to that model? The
January/February 2006 "Sightings" column in Winging It is four pages
long (used to be one page long) and it has data as recent as January
2006. The column is put together by Rick Wright, Jon Dunn, and Paul
Lehman--three folks who definitely know what they're doing. Gail also
said: "As for Birding, I would like to see more ID features that explore
difficult groups, especially those that look at subspecies or which
incorporate new information. Exploring potential splits. Features on
birding in areas of North America not commonly explored, including
Mexico and Canada." Um, aren't we already doing *all* of that? But,
Gail, here's something to whet your appetite: The next issue of Birding
(May/June 2006) has articles on Gray-bellied Brant, Eastern vs. Western
Willets, cryptic species complexes in the ABA Area, new splits in
Britain (ouch!), current paradigms in avian taxonomy, the Shy Albatross
complex, and "Sparred" (Spotted x Barred) Owl hybrids. Honest, folks,
it's in there. Always has been.

* Norm Saunders wrote about an old ABA membership survey. Just to let
y'all know, ABA Director of Publications Bryan Patrick and I are in the
planning stages of a survey that will focus squarely on the content and
direction of Birding. Norm also lamented the demise the ABA Sales
discount, which actually was reinstated a little while ago. 

Whew! Honest, I didn't mean to write as much. Let me wrap up with just a
few encouragements:

* We really and truly do want to hear from y'all. I'm delighted that
this discussion played out on the MDOsprey list, but I'd love to see it,
too, in, say, the Letters to the Editor section at Birding. Unless the
content of your letter is actionable or brain-dead (we get plenty of
both types of mail), we'll run it. Or if you'd like to communicate
privately with me about content (and other matters), I'm all ears. I
don't really have much of a "personal agenda" for Birding; rather, my
agenda boils down to a strong commitment to producing a magazine that
serves as a mouthpiece for and inspiration to the modern birding
community. 

* Did you know that you can read Birding articles on line now? Check it
out at: http://www.americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/archives/index.html.

* Finally, I am as susceptible as anyone to pining away about the Good
Ole Days that never really existed. That's a major reason for which I've
embarked on a year-long review of the history of Birding magazine. I'm
learning all sorts of amazing things--the heavy emphasis on
international birding in the early days, the anti-listing revolt that
took place much earlier than I had imagined, the conservation
discussions that played such a big role in the early years, etc., etc.
I'm learning that the Birding magazine I *thought* I knew is very
different from the one it really was. Check out the first two entries in
this series at:

 
http://www.americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/archives/vol38no1p20to21.pdf
 
http://www.americanbirding.org/pubs/birding/archives/vol38no2p20to21.pdf

One last thing: Again, thanks very much for taking the time to share
their thoughts about Birding and the ABA. I welcome any queries or
suggestions about the matter.

All the best,
Ted Floyd

-------------------------------

Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding

American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974

303-444-6363


Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org