I know the Terrapin Point discussion on Discord was shut down, but I wish to add a few points that I think are important. Nobody defended listing birds viewed from Terrapin Point from a data/science perspective, but I think there is an obvious reason it is good for the eBird dataset.
People have pointed out in this discussion and others how listing is a silly game that causes perverse birding habits. But the gamification of birding gets people out in the field. Sometimes you need a little extra motivation to donate a cup of blood to the Jamaica Bay mosquito population in pursuit of a few shorebirds. eBird plays along too, which is why they publish Top 100 lists, target species, and have various other features on the site to help users grow their patch, region and life lists.
When I go to Jamaica Bay, I sometimes go straight to Terrapin Point and bird that manageable plot of land rather than tackle the entire West Pond. Why does making a dedicated Terrapin Point list constitute “bad eBirding”? This type of activity brings more checklists to eBird, and I believe that is better for the dataset, not worse for it. One moderator mentioned that they considered eliminating the Terrapin Point hotspot altogether (!), and they point to “data quality” as a primary reason. But the hotspot serves its purpose perfectly: it attracts more birders, more checklists, and more sightings. This means more data.
The suggestion that birding at Terrapin Point, or any spot near a county border, is “bending the rules” or a “loophole” is, in my opinion, a mischaracterization. 30% to 40% of Jamaica Bay is in Kings County, and as we all know, part of the public trail at the wildlife refuge goes through Brooklyn. Before beach access was limited, this little piece of Brooklyn was also the best place to view Yellow Bar Hassock (also in Brooklyn), a prime gathering spot for shorebirds in the bay. More people bird West Pond than they otherwise would because of the border on Terrapin Point.
It’s worth directly addressing the ABA vs. eBird listing protocol debate without the tedium of relitigating it. I sympathize with ABA listers who have seen the goalposts shift because of different eBird guidelines and the emergence of eBird, rather than an infrequently published ABA magazine, as the premiere place to show off your list. I think it is a great shame that the #1 lister in Kings essentially de-platformed from eBird out of frustration. But there must be a more sensible solution to this problem than changing eBird guidelines for Terrapin Point to exclude non-ABA sightings. Part of the problem here is that everyone is a little embarrassed about the absurdity of listing, and we are trying to make this discussion about anything *but* listing. Perhaps something very simple, like maintaining an online ABA list for Kings County, would relieve some of the accumulated resentment among ABA listers.
Installing Terrapin Point guidelines that happen to preserve ABA sightings while excluding eBird-acceptable sightings feels unfair to everyone playing by eBird rules (on eBird!). It has also led many birders to question whether the Terrapin Point debate is about data quality rather than ABA vs. eBird listing protocol. There are plenty of eBird hotspots across the world that are frequented by birders specifically because they are situated on a border. eBird has specific, detailed guidance about navigating county borders that directly contradicts the new Terrapin Point guidelines. With exquisite timing, moments after Ian nixed the Terrapin Point discussion on the eBird discord channel, a message appeared from someone requesting a hotspot for the Rockland County portion of Palisades Park. Someone from eBird quickly responded, “we can make that happen.” This leads me to my final point.
Growing your lists on eBird may be a game, but games are meant to be fun. I think the most insidious aspect of the Terrapin Point guidelines change is that it feels like a calculated effort to take the fun out of listing for the eBird contingent. Sure, “you can still keep your own list” of unmoderated Terrapin Point birds, but the implication is clear that there is a shame quotient attached to those birds: “Bad eBirding.” The moderators have implored us to learn historical context to avoid a “myopic” discourse on Terrapin Point. But the historical context that most resonates with me (and which I sympathize with), is that recent Terrapin Point eBird sightings have taken some of the fun out of birding by ABA guidelines. The changes to the Terrapin Point landing page read more like retribution than a data-forward policy.