[Birdtalk] off-topic

Fri Aug 18 19:24:52 GMT 2006

Hi Richard,

I was a bit puzzled by your first post, because I can't imagine a 
records committee acting as you describe. Not that I'm saying that 
there are not records committees that are plagued by cronyism and other 
bad behaviors - clearly there are. However, with the Utah committee, we 
encourage everyone to submit documentation for all rare bird sightings 
(we have a list of species for which we request documentation), and 
pledge not only to review them all, but to do so within two months of 
receiving the documentation. I can't think of any examples of submitted 
records that weren't reviewed (though I do remember one record that was 
withdrawn by the observer before review was complete). No one can say 
how a record will fare before the committee. All records are judged on 
the merits of the submitted evidence, and if a committee member has a 
pre-conceived idea of how they are going to vote, it would only be 
because they had seen the evidence or had some prior knowledge 
regarding the sighting before the documentation was submitted. For 
example, I did have an idea of how I was going to vote on the 
Broad-billed Hummingbird you reported before it was submitted because I 
had seen your photographs and had considerable correspondence with you 
regarding the sighting. However, I'm only one vote on the committee and 
I didn't discuss my opinion or my correspondence I had had with you 
before the others voted. Even so, I carefully reviewed the 
documentation you submitted before voting myself.

Given the new background information that you submitted in your second 
post, I think I can understand why the committee you refer to has made 
such a seemingly odd (and, on the face of it, unethical) request. The 
job of the records committee is ultimately to create the state 
checklist of birds, which is a document that attempts to give a picture 
of the birds that occur in the state, with some information regarding 
the abundance and distribution of each species. Given this, it's easy 
to imagine the circumstances of the Monk Parakeet request of your local 
committee. Without having any communication or knowledge of your 
committee, I would guess that they are interested in how abundant and 
widely distributed this exotic species is in your state. Therefore, 
they would request documented sightings, and because correct 
identification may not be often in doubt, may not need to put them all 
through a normal review process - just record numbers, dates and 
location. However, some sightings, if they fall outside of the "normal" 
pattern, may need to be reviewed to make sure there was not an error in 
identification.

This seems to me to be the most logical explanation for the situation 
you describe. Most records committees are not in the business of 
abusing birders.

Thanks for submitting an interesting question and situation.

Mark

Mark Stackhouse
mark at westwings.com
801-487-9453 (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA)
011-52-323-285-1243 (San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico)

On Aug 18, 2006, at 3:10 AM, RICHARD JILL WOOD wrote:

> I don't think you answered my question or got my point.
>
> Where I now live, the records committee is solicitng reports on 
> sitings of Monk Parakeets, yet a member of the record committee admits 
> that they may never review them.
>
> My question is, how ethical (or unethical) is that?
>
> And if it is unethical, who do we report them to?
>
> I think that this is a VERY productive matter.
>
> Richard
>
>> From: "Glenn B. Barlow" <gbarlow at aros.net>
>> To: "'RICHARD JILL WOOD'" <rwoodphd at msn.com>
>> CC: <birdtalk at utahbirds.org>
>> Subject: RE: [Birdtalk] off-topic
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:21:33 -0600
>>
>> Well, Dr. Wood.
>>
>> I am sure that some folks would agree with your example, and some 
>> would not.
>> It depends, I guess, on what the submitter wanted to prove, or not.  
>> Doesn't
>> it?  If both persons are operating on the basis of honesty, then there
>> probably is not a problem.  Besides, as I understand it, there are 
>> several
>> people on the records committee and one of the individuals could 
>> excuse
>> himself/herself from making a judgment, if it became necessary.  I 
>> suppose
>> if that was the case, then the other members of the committee could 
>> make a
>> judgment.
>>
>> For example (just and example), if someone new to the area claimed 
>> he/she
>> had seen a bird that had never been recorded in a particular 
>> location, then
>> I think the report has to be questioned.  Unless, of course, the 
>> individual
>> submits some kind of photographic evidence, or has a credible witness.
>>
>> Also, as another example, while at Bear River Bird Refuge today, we 
>> saw many
>> dowitchers.  I wanted to find a Short-billed.  Knowing how rare they 
>> are in
>> this area, after I located what I thought was such a bird, I asked a 
>> person
>> whom I considered credible, to look at the bird and told him why I 
>> thought
>> it was a Short-billed Dowitcher.  It was a good thing, because after 
>> he
>> studied it and in his mind considered the various facts, etc., and 
>> confirmed
>> the sighting, then all the birds flew!  So, I added it to my list.
>>
>> Do you know what evidence the person in your example has/had/might 
>> have as
>> evidence that he/she truly saw the bird claimed to be seen, other 
>> than the
>> person's own word?  A photo?  A witness?  Remember, there is a saying 
>> that
>> goes something like, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall 
>> all truth
>> be established.
>>
>> If I were you I would forget the matter and spend your time on 
>> something
>> more productive, whatever that might be.
>>
>> For example, we heard a talk tonight by Pete Dunne on the "Art of 
>> Pishing."
>> Perhaps you could buy his new book with that subject, and learn to 
>> perfect
>> your ability to "pish," if it needs improving.
>>
>> Just my thoughts.
>>
>> Glenn Barlow
>> A Utah Birder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----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 8:07 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
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's 
>> FREE!
>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Birdtalk mailing list
>> Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
>> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 
>> 8/16/2006
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 
>> 8/16/2006
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's 
> FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Birdtalk mailing list
> Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
>