[reccom] Official Checklist Project

[Milt Moody]

Greetings,

To go right along with our present "physical evidence" discussion I'd
like to start the checklist project, so when we have come to a
consensus on these matters, and worked out some of the details we can
express it with a new checklist.

According to the bylaws, “The official checklist shall be reviewed and
amended at least every three years.”  It looks like the time is right
for this task.

Although the bylaws  say that a checklist committee should be composed
of the secretary and two other members, last year we added  “northern 
and southern specialists”  so that there were actually five members of
the checklist committee in essence.  This time I’d like to ask for
volunteers to assist with this checklist project.  The first two
volunteers will be the official committee members and the rest will be
consultants.  All those who would like to participate and would have
time to complete the project in the next 2 or 3 weeks are welcome.  

This is how I’d like to proceed:

I will attach a Word and a WordPerfect document of the 2005 Utah Birds
website version of the checklist (the official records committee
version of 2004, plus four additional species – Cackling Goose, White
Ibis, Black-headed Vireo and Rufous-backed Robin – and a listing at the
end of the checklist of recent checklist changes).  The participating
members can make changes to the Abundance and Status codes as they like
and highlight them in red, maybe, and then return the checklist (as an
attachment).  (Alternately, you could print out a checklist, make the
changes and the mail it to me or just make a list of  changes and send
it to me by e-mail OR  some other method that’s convenient for you  –
I’m flexible).  

When the suggested changes are compiled then we can “discuss”  (by list
serve) any differences in opinion and after resolving them have a full
committee vote to accept the changes or not.  During this process we
should be able to come to a conclusion about some of the wording and
other details.

There are a couple questions I would have:

1. Should we change the “Washington County indicator” from an asterisk”
 (*) to and “down arrow” if we can, (“∨” is not in all character
sets)  to be consistent with the “up arrow” (∧) for the “northern
Utah” indicator?  

2. Should we keep using the “#”  for review species and add a “##” for
review species that have been accepted without physical evidence?  (We
could use “*” and “**” but it doesn’t call attention to the review
species as much as the “#” does).

3. The wording, as Ron has broght up, dealing with the "unverified /
accepted without physical evidence" species.

If anyone has any questions or suggestions about this project please
chime in.

And please let me know if you’d like to participate so I’ll know who
the official checklist committee members are and who’s working on the
project as consultants.

Thanks,
Milt


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UtahChecklist2005.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 71168 bytes
Desc: 3120313437-UtahChecklist2005.doc
Url : http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20070115/de4d9194/UtahChecklist2005-0001.doc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UtahChecklist2005.wpd
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 55824 bytes
Desc: 751991103-UtahChecklist2005.wpd
Url : http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20070115/de4d9194/UtahChecklist2005-0001.obj