[Birdtalk] off-topic

[RICHARD JILL WOOD]

Hi all,

I've known of Matt since 2001 or so, when we were both affiliated with 
Cornell, however, we had a few heated battles off list, so I will refrain 
from starting another one with him now :), though I suspect that by now, we 
have respect for each other, both as birders and as people.  I can't speak 
for Matt, but I know that I myself respect him and what he says about 
birding.

That being said, I want to respond to a few things that Matt has said.

First off, about reporting a sighting.  I have been doing that since 2001, 
and I have met with great resistance many times.  Yes, it's nice to post, 
and yes it's nice for someone to respond to posts, but couldn't the 
non-witnesses be "nicer" to their posters?  I realize there is some 
skepticism involved, but must it be so harsh (there have times in the last 
year when I have seriously considered giving up birding just because of the 
public criticism I received after posting such "impossible to see" birds as 
a Boat-tailed Grackle)?  Did you ever think that maybe you are scaring the 
new posters off?  This isn't like going into academics and having every 
professor being a bastard to you because that is how every professor was to 
them.  I myself post not to brag, but in the hopes that someone else will go 
out and see what I saw.  Secondly, and I have said this before, I have YET 
to encounter another birder in the field WITH a camera and TAKING bird 
photos, and I have been birding since 2001.  So who is submitting photos 
with their reports?

Secondly, about submitting a report.  I have submitted two reports in my 
birding career, once in Texas, when  my wife and I observed a Swainson's 
Warbler, and in Utah, when we observed a Broad-billed Hummingbird.  Both 
reports were solicited by members of the respective states' record 
committees.  I will never submit another report, and not because both were 
not accepted, but because of how the situation was handled.  As I stated, 
committees shouldn't be soliciting reports, they should allow birders to 
submit them of their own volition.  For me, having my report rejected wasn't 
the problem, it was how it was rejected.  The whole process made me feel 
like I am an idiot and just go out there and am not careful and don't do my 
homework, and so forth.  For example, this spring I reported seeing an 
Eastern Wood-Pewee near my apartment complex.  It was questioned as it was 
deemed to be too "early".  I even gave reasons as to how I decided it wasn't 
a Phobe, namely its size, behavior (no tail pumping) and the location in the 
tree where it was perched (higher up in the tree).

Again, the unethical behavior, in my view, occurs when committees solicit 
reports, and then don't review them or review them in a timely manner.  If 
they aren't going to ever review them, why solicit them?  I guess maybe if 
you can't see how this could be considered unethical, maybe one has no 
ethics?

When I originally posted this, I had no intention of rehashing all this, but 
I guess because the responses from Glenn, Mark and Matt, I had to.

Good birding,
Richard

>From: mjw22 at comcast.net
>To: birdtalk at utahbirds.org
>Subject: RE: [Birdtalk] off-topic
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:12:54 +0000
>
>Hello All,
>    Thanks to Dave & Glenn for their on-topic comments about documenting, 
>getting witnesses to "confirm" the rare bird and also writing a good 
>report.
>     I'd like to second what Glenn said about getting some other skilled 
>witnesses "on the bird".  When a rare bird is found, many birders call 
>hotlines, text message listserves, call others, etc.  Some birders don't 
>and they should expect greater scrutiny (and yes, *gasp*, skepticism) if 
>theirs is the only report and it lacks photo, sound or other conclusive 
>documentation.  If there were only one eyewitness to a crime, that witness 
>would spend a lot longer on the stand than if the crime was caught on tape.
>      That said, we are not reporting crimes or performing any moral 
>obligation here.  We're out there to enjoy birds.  If you come across a 
>rare one and would like to report it, that's great.  Preferably, share it 
>with others in a timely fashion (so they can enjoy AND confirm) and, if 
>nobody's around, you have the option to write a report.  While I would 
>encourage submitting formal reports, this is not required of any birder.  
>If you can't handle rejection, don't submit the report.
>       I'm really failing to see how ethics are involved in a situation 
>where reports are requested.  If birders feel as though they won't be 
>fairly reviewed, they have the option to simply not submit.   Records 
>committies know this and, as Dave mentioned, most good ones make it a point 
>to review each and every record. But, it would be unethical to force even 
>mildly negligent records committies to review records against their will. 
>Also, perhaps the request for reports is to collect records that MAY be of 
>interest in the future but aren't particularly pressing now.  I'm thinking 
>that a few more documented reports on Passenger Pigeons would be pretty 
>interesting. Unfortunately, we no longer have that option.
>        In short, nobody is forcing anyone to act against their will.  
>Nobody's badgering the bird witness. Go out, see birds, have fun, report 
>them if you want to share your sightings with others.  If the only purpose 
>and enjoyment people recieved from birding was from reporting sightings, I 
>think there would be a lot fewer birders.
>
>Pish out,
>Matt Williams
>Provo, UT
>_______________________________________________
>Birdtalk mailing list
>Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
>http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/