[Birdtalk] off-topic

Sun Aug 20 09:02:41 GMT 2006

Fellow birders,

At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that I completely disagree 
with Richard regarding records committees soliciting documentations - 
not only is it ethical for the committee to solicit documentation of 
rare bird sightings, it is their duty to do so. It's not particularly 
ethical for a committee to fail to review submitted records, though 
there may be circumstances where review of each and every record may 
not be necessary or even desirable.

I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and 
purpose of records committees.

Records committees do not exist to "jury" the lists of individual 
birders. What a birder places on her individual list is no one's 
business but their own. If a birder wishes to play the "listing game," 
and compare her list with another birder's list, then there must be an 
agreed-upon set of listing rules. Most birders who do this use the 
listing rules of the American Birding Association, that state (among 
many other rules) that rare bird sightings must be accepted by the 
state records committee before they can be counted on a birder's list. 
However, the purpose of the records committee, and it's interest in 
reviewing the sighting, has NOTHING to do with the individual list of 
any birder. Any birder who imagines that a records committee, or any 
committee member, has any interest whatsoever in the list of that 
birder is completely mistaken.

The sole purpose of the records committee of any state is to maintain 
the list of birds thought to occur in that state, perhaps with 
information regarding abundance, seasonality, and geographic 
distribution of each species. This information is used to publish state 
checklists, by authors of field guides, and to generate species range 
maps, among other things. In the past, ornithologists accepted as 
evidence of occurrence only specimens collected and preserved as museum 
specimens. No sighting records, even those supported by photographs, 
were accepted at all. If it wasn't proven by a specimen in a museum 
someplace, the bird didn't exist in the state, as far as science was 
concerned. There are still some professional ornithologists who feel 
that this is the only trust-worthy system. No sightings of any kind by 
birders "counted", and there was no use for records committees at all. 
Evidence regarding what birds occur where was limited largely to what 
was encountered in collecting expeditions and surveys conducted by 
professional ornithologists and their students, and incidental 
specimens turned into museums by the public. Clearly this provided a 
very limited picture of the birds of a particular place. For example, 
birds documented for Utah by this method number slightly more than 300 
species, not the over 430 species we now recognize for the state.

With the growth in the popularity of birding, a potential source of 
scientific information exists in the form of sighting reports of 
birders in the field. Again, some ornithologists still do not accept 
any sighting records as evidence of occurrence. However, most accept 
well-documented and reviewed records as evidence of occurrence. The 
purpose of the records committee is to review the evidence submitted by 
the observer to determine if the sighting is supported by enough 
evidence to be included as an "official" sighting for the state. The 
records committee, therefore, is the interface between the birding and 
ornithological communities.

Remember that the "gold standard" for records is a physical specimen - 
so any sighting record must be rigorously documented, and many are 
rejected not so much because the sighting is not "believed" but because 
the documentation is not sufficient. Posts on rare-bird hotlines or 
list-serves don't count at all. The rarer the sighting (rarity based 
upon previously accepted reports), the more rigorous the standards for 
acceptance. For example, in the Utah Bird Records Committee we are 
currently having a debate over whether any state-first record should be 
accepted without some physical evidence such as a specimen or 
photograph. At no time is the committee concerned with the list of an 
individual birder. If a birder wants to claim the Ostriches seen on 
Ebenezer's Ostrich Ranch, or even the Chilean Flamingo on the Great 
Salt Lake, that's their business, but such sightings shouldn't be 
included on the state checklist. We wouldn't  expect the next field 
guide to western birds to include Chilean Flamingo, and show a range 
map for the species including the Great Salt Lake.

In as much as the records committee exists to accumulate and ensure the 
integrity of the knowledge regarding the occurrence of birds in the 
state, it is absolutely the duty of the committee to solicit 
documentation of sightings and submit them to a rigorous review. 
Remember, none of this is about any individual birder, or their list - 
it's all about providing the most accurate picture possible of what 
birds live or pass through our state.

Good birding (and send in documentation for your rare bird sightings)!

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 2:53 PM, RICHARD JILL WOOD wrote:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Birdtalk mailing list
> Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
>

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