[Birdnet] Rare sightings

[Robert Bond]

After reading many postings regarding bird reports, especially for  
unusual or rare birds, I thought I might try to add some perspective  
as a member of the Utah Bird Records Committee.  I understand that the  
committee and it's various members have come under fire from time to  
time, and certainly some of this criticism is warranted, particularly  
with respect to tardy decisions.  However I am certain that one of the  
criticisms has to do with which birds are accepted and rejected.  It  
is never easy to have a report denied, for whatever reason, especially  
when the observer is very certain of the identification.  What we all  
need to realize is that a denial on the part of the committee does NOT  
necessarily mean that the bird was not correctly identified.  The  
criteria for accepting a report for a rare bird, especially for a  
first or second record for the state, as Mark eloquently stated in his  
recent post, are indeed stringent.

This situation can certainly sometimes lead to sticky situations.   
This was brought home to me in a very real way a few years ago.  I had  
been asked by Paul Lehman to help with the bird distribution maps for  
Utah for the Sibley guides when the guides were broken down to the  
East and West.  I had spent considerable time and effort going through  
all of the records for Utah, especially for the unusual birds.  When I  
finally sent all the information to Paul, he noted that I had not  
included Mourning Warbler on the list.  I told him that there was only  
one report, that it was a fall report,  and the committee at that time  
did not feel that MacGillivray's Warbler could be totally excluded and  
had not accepted the record. He then proceeded to tell me that the  
report was his, and I was chagrined that I was not aware of that  
fact.  After hearing his story I have absolutely no question in my  
mind that he saw a Mourning Warbler, but I confess to being a bit  
sheepish about the fact that his record was not accepted.  After all,  
who was I to tell Paul that his record had been rejected.   
Fortunately, he knows the necessity of absolute proof, beyond any  
shadow of doubt, for first state records, and he had accepted their  
decision.

I saw a thrush about 40 years ago just outside Brigham City that I am  
virtually certain was a Gray-cheeked Thrush.  There were no hot lines  
or records committees in those days and the bird was never reported.   
And if it was to be reported today, without multiple observers and  
photographic documentation, it rightly would also be rejected.

I suppose the reasons for my ranting on the subject are two. First is  
to point out that no-one should feel badly about reporting anything  
they feel is unusual or rare for fear of being unduly chastised.  And  
second is to encourage  all of the rest of us to be supportive of  
those who might have made a mistake in their reporting.  After all,  
sooner or later, we all are going to be embarrassed by our blunders,  
no matter how experienced we might be.

And as far as the Records Committee is concerned, just remember that  
the criteria for accepting or rejecting a bird in no way are  meant to  
tell you what you did or did not see, and I am sure many Utah birders  
have birds on their lists that were not on the official Utah list when  
they were added to their own personal lists.

Cheers, and great birding.

Bob Bond