[Birdtalk] off-topic
RICHARD JILL WOOD
rwoodphd at msn.com
Sun Aug 20 09:17:10 GMT 2006
And I disagree with Mark. The role of the committee should be to review
reports, all of them, but not to solicit them, with the goal of maybe
reviewing them. Some records committees completely IGNORE state
chesklists/range maps, e.g.the state of Maryland BRC.
Richard
>From: Mark Stackhouse <westwings at sisna.com>
>To: Utah BirdTalk Birds <birdtalk at utahbirds.org>
>Subject: Re: [Birdtalk] off-topic
>Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:02:41 -0600
>
>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)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Birdtalk mailing list
>Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
>http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Birdtalk
mailing list