[reccom] listing of unverified species

[Kristin Purdy]

All,

Let my put my bottom line up top and then split a few hairs.

Bottom line: I agree with Ron's proposal.

Here's the hair splitting, and know that my thoughts require no action on 
anyone's part. I offer this simply as something to consider. Designating 
records that had physical evidence denotes a subliminal preference for that 
evidence. I'll take a wild guess that everyone wishes for physical evidence 
paired with carefully written sight records. A designator for physical 
evidence might not lead our birding community to understand the same.

Look at the reverse situation. The committee has considered records with 
photos and the dreaded narrative, "see photo". Last year's Red-throated Loon 
record was accepted with a few regrets due to the missing description. Had 
that been a first state record, would it have been accepted? Of course, the 
photo doesn't always clinch the ID, as with a Blue-headed Vireo and the 
Mourning Warbler records from a couple years ago. Better narratives might 
have been  the convincing elements.

I've been buffaloed in the past by a photographer who failed to remember 
anything about his bird sighting except what the image showed--not habitat, 
not the way the bird exploited the habitat, size, sounds, movement--nothing. 
I watched this same photographer make an incorrect ID of a bird simply from 
what he saw when he downloaded his images. I had advised him what the bird 
was and where to find it after watching and listening to it three times--but 
after seeing his photo, I understood the mistaken ID (it was still 
wrong--but I "got" it).

Finally, my point. I believe that sometimes birders grab for the camera at 
the expense of being good observers and all they're left with is the image. 
I hope the designation on records with physical evidence doesn't proliferate 
"see photo" sight records.

My comments are colored by the fact that I don't own a camera and will 
likely never get a shot of a rare bird. I've been considering holding my 
cell phone camera lens up to my scope eyepiece, though, for those future 
moments spent with rarities and nary a photographer in sight. You know the 
old saw, desperate times call for desperate measures...

Let the designating begin!

Kris
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Ryel" <range at cc.usu.edu>
To: "Utah Bird Records Committee" <reccom at utahbirds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: [reccom] listing of unverified species


> Milt, Attached is an old state list from Oregon that has designations for
> species which have physical evidence and for those with accepted sight
> records, but no physical evidence. I would like to see us do something
> similar with the Utah list as per our bylaws. What do others think, and is 
> this
> possible to do with our records (it seems like we could do this rather 
> easily).
> Best wishes, Ron
>
> -- 
>
> Dr. Ronald J. Ryel
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Wildland Resources
> Utah State University
> 5230 Old Main Hill
> Logan, UT  84322-5230
> USA
>
> ron.ryel at usu.edu
> range at cc.usu.edu
> 435-797-8119
> 435-797-3796 (fax)
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> The following section of this message contains a file attachment
> prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
> If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
> you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
> If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
>
>   ---- File information -----------
>     File:  obrclist.pdf
>     Date:  9 Jan 2007, 0:02
>     Size:  27111 bytes.
>     Type:  Unknown
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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