As I've mentioned in a previous journal, I'm taking an ornithology class at a coastal research center. As a matter of opinion, I find it difficult to take the research process of bird watching seriously.

Science uses the most objective measurements possible. There is usually a little bit of room for subjective error, but that is compensated by a large sample size. Bird watching (at least what I've seen) is very different.

Say a flock of birds is spotted. The birdwatcher identifies what they think the species is and make a rough estimate how many were in the flock. I witnessed our professor do this process. He didn't even try to count the birds in a flock. He just said "120". I don't think it was even half that many birds, but I could be wrong. The point is this method is extremely subjective. Even if you averaged the estimates of a lot of people, you wouldn't get reliable results because of how wishy washy each source is. Human vision and memory is very fallible and it seems to be the cornerstone of their data. The professor even said that if you want accuracy and precision, wildlife biology probably isn't the field for you.

If they were serious about gathering data, they would use a more objective method such as a photograph. I would propose using a high resolution digital camera with GPS geo-tagging built in, a zoom lense, and accurate timestamps for the photos taken. Each picture file would have the data of the location, time, and the photo itself would be objective evidence that can be used for identifying the species at a standstill. If you wanted to be even more extreme and accurate (which I would), you could set up a series of data modules at specific locations. Inside would be one or more high resolution cameras with top of the line zoom lenses. The modules would be programmed to open the protective cover in front of the lenses and take a few photos at certain angles then transmit the data back to a computer network where the researchers could examine it or take more photos remotely.

I'm sure their data is reliable to the degree that if enough reports of a certain bird species were released in a certain area, we could assume that species of bird is probably currently inhabiting that area. That's the data they want and that's fine. I'm not so sure I can deal with how dull the process is though... at least with birds. Good grief birds seem dull to me now. Data on mammals or fish by just looking around for them? Sure that sounds somewhat interesting. They have a lot of variety in morphology, but birds appear to have very little. I'm not sure how much I would like wildlife biology now, but I'm fairly certain I do not want to study birds for a career.