[Birdtalk] Records reported to the Records committee

[David Wheeler]

I hope I don't re-open any unpleasant memories for anyone with this
posting, but I thought I'd add a clarification to the discussion of
records submitted to state record committees.  I hope it helps to
assuage some of the pain that comes from feeling "rejected" by the
Committee.
 
Let me just say that I have had my share of my records rejected by both
the Utah Records Committee and, before that, the one in Gambia (back
when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa).  It is undoubtedly an
unpleasant feeling to have your record, submitted with all good
intention "rejected", and I certainly never enjoyed that.  However, I
think there are two points to keep in mind:
 
(1)  I always learned a lot from the reasoning given for the
rejections, when I enquired.  It helped me hone my skills as a birder to
know what wasn't up to snuff in my rare bird submissions.  I recall a
lot of "Oh yeah, that makes sense--I forgot to consider that" moments
that helped me grow.  (Reminds me facetiously of the whole "builds
character" argument, but it is more than that...)
 
(2)  Now, as a member of the same committee that helped me "grow" in
the past, I have insight into the process of voting/rejection.  And the
important thing is this:  when the Committee "rejects" a record it ISN'T
saying the birder didn't see the bird in question.  The Committee is
simply voting on whether there is any reasonable doubt about the
identification AS PRESENTED.  There have been many votes where one or
another of us has said something like "I believe the birder saw the
***** [particular species], but the submitter hasn't eliminated the
possibility of it being @@@@@ [something else], so I have to vote
against it."  I hope the distinction is clear, because it is critical. 
We are not necessarily rejecting the sighting, per se, but rejecting its
inclusion in the official list of reviewed and "accepted" sightings (if
the case for the species hasn't been adequately made to the exclusion of
other plausible possibilities).  So it is not unusual for us to firmly
believe the submitter actually saw the bird in question and yet still
vote to not "accept" the record (because a higher standard of acceptance
hasn't been met).  The burden of proof is on the submitter in order to
protect the "sanctity" of the official bird data (not one's personal
list).
 
I hope that helps clarify our gatekeeper role a bit.  I know it is
disappointing to have one's efforts seemingly negated by a nay vote, but
consider also that all submissions are kept as part of the official
record, irrespective of whether they are rejected or accepted by the
current voting members, and can inform the understanding of our current
bird species distribution by future generations (that can go back and
review the old records in light of their new understanding).  So even
"rejected" submissions can be useful as data.  Immortality is thus
assured.  ;o)
 
There are plenty of bird sightings I have made over the years which I
firmly believe to be correct, but I know I would have a hard time
convincing some committee of the sightings' acceptability beyond a
reasonable doubt.  That doesn't mean I didn't see those birds.  And I am
content with that.  It is as it should be.  As so many have pointed out,
our lists are our own, and we must, in the end, satisfy ourselves to our
own standards and need not get outside "approval" from others for every
bird we see.
 

Hopefully that helped answer some of y'all's concerns rather than just
creating more confusion.  I think submitting records, if done correctly,
is a great way to organize your thoughts, hone your skills, and
hopefully help science.  And, if any of you feel "done wrong" by the
system as it now stands, or have suggestions on how to improve it,
please let me know and I will pass on your concerns to the rest of the
Committee members.
 
Until then, whether you submit or not, happy birding!
 
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20060822/0e15ef3d/attachment.htm