[Birdtalk] off-topic

[Dave Rintoul]

-----Original Message-----
From: birdtalk-bounces at utahbirds.org [mailto:birdtalk-bounces at utahbirds.org]
On Behalf Of RICHARD JILL WOOD
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:07 PM
To: birdtalk at utahbirds.org
Subject: [Birdtalk] off-topic

Hi all,

I've been thinking about this for quite a while now.

A person reports seeing a bird that is "rare" to an area, and he is
"requested" to submit a report to the local records committee by a member of
said committee.  However, this person (the observer) does not know that the
record committee will either a) reject the observer's report, or b) never
even review it.

Is it just me, or is this rather unethical behavior on the part of the
records committee?  And who does one go to to complain about record
committeesand their unethical behavior?

To me, this is like submitting a grant proposal and being on the review
committee that is reviewing the proposals.

Richard

========

I can't speak for other state record committees, but since I was secretary
of the Kansas Bird Record Committee for 6 years, I do have some background
in this area. I can state emphatically that we reviewed every record that
was sent to us, PARTICULARLY if one of our committee members asked the
observer to submit a record. So yes, I agree that it would be unethical to
not review a record that was submitted under those circumstances. I am not
sure, however, if this ever happens. Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

As to whether it would be unethical to "reject the observer's report" under
these circumstances, I would say no. Rejections are a fact of life. If the
evidence is not sufficient, bird record committees have an obligation to
reject sighting reports. The bird record committee serves a scientific
function in most states, essentially verifying the state bird checklist.
Science depends upon good data, and if the data are not sufficient (for
whatever reason), then the report should not be accepted. This is NOT a
judgement about the observer (even though many feelings are bruised when
folks think that this is the case); it is a judgement about the quality of
the observation data and the facts found in the report.

As for the notion that this is "like submitting a grant proposal and being
on the review committee that is reviewing the proposals", I think that is
quite a stretch. Bird record committee members are usually avid birders, and
as such, are evangelical in their desire to get more people interested in
birding. It is part of their personality to approach other birders and talk
about birds. If, in this capacity, they hear about an interesting sighting,
they SHOULD encourage the observers to submit the report. They should NOT
guarantee that the committee will accept the report; again, I know of no
situations where this has happened. 

Requests for proposals (RFPs) from granting agencies are exactly the same.
You can be approached by a program officer at NSF and asked to submit a
proposal. Only a fool would believe that this guarantees that the proposal
will be funded. Finally, the outcome of a grant review usually involves
money (or not).  The outcome of a bird sighting review, believe it or not,
has somewhat lower stakes. It is possible to get over having a grant
proposal rejected; indeed, it is absolutely necessary. It should thus be
possible to get over having a bird sighting rejected.

If you want to maximize your chances of having a sighting report accepted,
you might read this excellent document on how to write a bird observation
report for consideration by a record committee:

http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/details/details.html

hope this helps

Dave

Dr. David A. Rintoul, Associate Director	<drintoul at ksu dot edu>
Biology Division - KSU				     ICBM: 39.18N, 96.58W
Manhattan KS 66506-4901					VOX: 785-532-6615 
http://www.ksu.edu/biology				FAX: 785-532-6653

"Both the eye and the mind are notoriously fallible instruments."
				  		Stephen Jay Gould