Are some birds more "valuable" than others?

A bird term unique to this area of the Midwest (MO, KS, OK) is Zootie -- those rare and unexpected birds that show up to excite the entire birding community. On the Missouri Bird List-Serv, the question came up as to what the opposite of this would be. Of course in due time, "Trash" birds came up as a term used to describe the common bird. Do a google search of "Trash Birds" or "Junk Birds" and you will find that it is commonly used by birders across the country.

My birder friends from outside of Missouri and I believe it to be a horrible term implying that certain birds, those that we see every day, have no merit. More than 99% of the birds I watch fit the category of being common, but I certainly do not consider them to be trash.

I wrote back to the gentleman posting the term and politely asked why such a negative term could be used for any bird. This fellow is a very experienced and respected birder in Missouri. He is just 1 or 2 birds shy of a life list of 700. He provided a good response by putting it into the context of birding competition, specifically a Big Day. A Big Day is a competition where teams spend an entire day trying to see as many different bird species as possible. A good showing would be to see 200 birds in a single day. WOW -- that's a lot of birds. My entire LIFE list is only 70 in 2-1/2 years.

As the Big Day participants strategize, they place birds into different categories. There are the "target" birds that they have to get to guarantee a high number of birds for the day, and they have to know where to look for them. The "bonus" birds could show up anywhere, they are not expected to find them, but if they do, they fill in the gap when target birds are not found. Then there are the birds so common that they know they will found almonst any place they go. They do not have to have a plan to find them. These are the "trash" birds.

Granted, it's an ugly term but in this context, it's not intended to be derogatory. I'm sure there are a lot of birders that do use it in a negative fashion, but I have to believe that the best birders are only using it as a convenient label in the competitive spirit.

The gentleman posted his response to me on the Bird List-Serv and explained that a certain subscriber (me!) took umbrage at the term. Interesting responses from the group included the suggestion that another term might be coined to replace "trash" birds. And here's a reply that made me glad that I spoke up and might be making a small difference:

I would like to recommend that we all make it a point to remove "trash bird" from the lexicon of birding. For sure it does not portray us, the birder, as somone who appreciates the beauty of the common birds; moreover the term, trash, shows a complete lack of appreciation and respect for something that we spend untold hours watching, studying, admiring, and protecting.

Many of you have expressed the word or phrase you use to define common everyday birds, and they all sound great, but in my humble opinion the word trash should never be used to define any bird.

Bird on my friends, bird on.

Maybe here in Missouri, the use of that ugly term will be put to rest. Enjoy my photographs of non-zootie, yet valuable birds.