I bird, I list, I study ecology and evolution. I take pride in my list, I also find myself debating species concepts ad nauseum. I am in the middle of a self-arguement. Personally I feel that "species" is not properly defined in ornithology and I don't believe that it really could be. Species, supspecies, morphs, I've studues them all. I may just lop my list down to genera, but then again sometimes those loose out as well. How can I, as a scientist and a birder, keep a list using criteria I disagree with? I would be tempted to stop listing altogether, but I have spent a good deal of my short life searching every nook and cranny of my region to come up with my list, which so far has been the by AUO definitions, actually just marking the birds in my field guide as I went along for the first few years.
Although not a lister, I certainly sympathize. Just trying to code birds for survey purposes, I've run into a similar dilemma when the BBL doesn't provide a code for two races/forms/types of a species but does for three others (e.g., Dark-eyed Junco), or doesn't list an entire species at all (e.g., Wild Turkey).
Embrace complexity and ambiguity -- two concepts that are necessary if you are to make your peace with attempts to classify the complexity of nature while using scientific memes that shift over time. In this case, accept that birding is a hobby that complements ornithology, but is not itself science, and beyond that, keep "score" in whatever matter you find most satisfying. The more detail you keep for each sighting -- right down to morph, subspecies, variant, etc., the greater your future flexibility to reclassify at whatever level you choose, as you wrestle with these concepts and further develop your own belief system. IMHO only, of course...