[reccom] Milt's End-of-year Analysis, Rick's "escapee" gull

[David Wheeler]

I can't believe I did this "respond to all" so soon after someone else did.  Sorry to waste everyone but Mark's time.
 
The last e-mail was to Mark in the context of our negotiations for me to join him in Mexico at his place this month.  I cannot wait to get some Gray hawks and motmots on my year list, especially when today it is snowing!
 
David
 


>>> "David Wheeler" <dswheeler at utah.gov> 12/12/2006 9:00 AM >>>
You're killing me.

>>> Mark Stackhouse <westwings at sisna.com> 12/11/2006 3:47 PM >>>
Hola from sunny Mexico!

Sorry, couldn't help it, having heard this morning's SLC traffic report 
on KCPW radio (that I listen to every day over the internet when I'm 
home). Hope you enjoy the new snow. The MacGillivray's Warbler that 
chipped in the bush across the street wants to say "hola" to the folks 
in Utah (I think). I shouldn't be too smug about the weather, as I'll 
be back in Utah for the holidays next week (I promise to dig up the 
Tufted Duck photos ASAP). By the way - kudos to Larry for the 
state-first Gray Hawk; I just added Gray Hawk to my yard list here 
about half-an-hour ago when one flew down the street

I'd like to comment upon Milt's end-of-year analysis, and commend him 
for a job well done and for an even more commendable effort to further 
improve the function of this rag-tag bunch of birders we call a 
committee (from one of the dysfunctional members).

First, although everything can be improved, and it's usually good to 
continually seek improvement, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 
this committee turns over records far faster than most, if not all, 
other state records committees, and in general functions better and 
more openly than our colleagues around the country. In an e-mail to 
myself and several other people about an article being prepared for 
North American Birds, Steve Mlodinow, of the Washington State BRC, 
referred to a record we reviewed and that he pulled off of our website, 
and made the comment "God, I hope the WA BRC ever gets anywhere close 
to this!" We are setting a positive example for records committees 
around the country, and we all deserve a pat on the back, and 
especially Milton, who really keeps this show in business.

As far as timeliness of records review goes, I think the two-month 
deadline is more than reasonable, and probably among the fastest 
turnaround times of any committee. The fact that we actually make the 
two-month deadline so often, and that our average is just about 
two-months (what was the longest it took us to review a record?) is 
commendable, and again, I would suggest, probably among the best 
turn-around times in the country. With an all-volunteer committee, I'm 
not sure that a shorter time is reasonable.

Although some votes are easier than others (though I wouldn't want to 
ever treat any of them as no-brainers), Milt's assumption  that records 
that received unanimous first-round votes were, in fact, easy or fast 
isn't necessarily true. Although it seems that any record that could 
get this motley crew to agree on the first reading would be 
straightforward, a review of the comments on some of these records 
indicates that the decisions weren't all easily reached. I, for one, 
don't like to decide my vote on any record the first time I read it. I 
think that thorough, thoughtful review of the records is more important 
than a fast turn-around.

It would be nice, if the records came in evenly at one per week (which 
I doubt ever actually occurs), to be able to take a few minutes each 
week to deal with the new record(s). However, some of us  have jobs 
which aren't so regular. I often find myself without internet, or with 
internet so briefly each day that the time I have is barely enough to 
keep up with business and family contacts. Also, while traveling I 
often don't have all of the references I normally use while reviewing 
records. While an ideal situation would be to do one or a few records 
at a time and never "fall behind," I find that the only way I can 
review records is to block-off a few hours and do whatever records are 
outstanding. Occasionally, I find that it may be a month or more before 
I can find time to review any records. My point is that if we try to 
focus too much on forcing quick review of records (even as we have some 
of the fastest review times in the country), I think we may find it 
increasingly difficult to find qualified people to volunteer for this 
service.

My other comment in this already too-long message is that I think we 
should try (by some mechanism - maybe an article in Utah Birds authored 
by the committee, implying coming to some agreement among ourselves) to 
deal with the twin issues of hybrids and escapees in records we review. 
This is, of coarse, prompted by Rick's amusing gesture with the 
Heermann's Gull record. But in addition to the issue of escapees, we 
have often struggled with issues of hybrids, especially with the 
Red-naped/Red-breasted Sapsucker complex. I think both of these issues 
could benefit from a more global approach, with some 
standards/guidelines for signs of hybridizations or escapees that could 
be useful for ourselves and for birders in the field (and who submit 
documentation). I think it may help in records review, rather than 
dealing with each record on a case-by-case basis.

Just some thoughts, and I look forward to seeing the opinions of the 
other committee members.

Hasta pronto!

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)

_______________________________________________
reccom mailing list
reccom at utahbirds.org 
http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20061212/a05d6a55/attachment.htm