[reccom] Review List changes and checklist project -- much ado about nuthin?

[Ron Ryel]

David, Thanks for the comments. Regarding common redpoll, it is regular 
enough in the northern counties (Cache, Rich and likely Box Elder), but vast 
areas of these are not birded so records are not so common. I feel that the 
review group is primarily to determine occurrence of new or very rare 
species to the state. Simply because a species does not reach most of the 
state does not mean it should be a review species. I think we know enough 
about common redpoll occurrence to make additional observations rather 
redundant--it is a rare winter visitor to northern Utah. Just like brown-crested 
flycatcher is a rare summer visitor to southwestern Utah (it is not on the 
review list simply because it is localized and there are more people looking 
where it is found). I don't see how additional information about either 
species would warrant review by the committee as this information will not 
change our knowledge of either species' status and distribution. In contrast. 
our knowledge of boreal owl is still rather limited--there are few records and 
from a sizable area. I would hope at some point we would remove this from 
the review list if it is established as a regular visitor and/or breeder, and its 
distribution better defined. I don't think we know nearly as much about 
boreal owls as common redpolls.

What is the current status of black swift--are there no longer annual records 
for this species, and/or no longer nesting individuals? If the species has 
become like red-headed woodpecker (apparently formerly a regular breeder 
in ne Utah, but now very infrequent), then I think it should be added to the 
review list. Otherwise, if it is simply very rare but regular, I don't think we 
need to have the committee review records.

Just some thoughts for discussion.

Best wishes, Ron


On 23 Jan 2007 at 10:53, David Wheeler wrote:

> 
> I agree with the Glaucous-winged gull, but the Redpolls are news to
> me. Perhaps they show up in Cache Co. and no one else knows about them
> in the lower reaches. It brings up a question about what we consider
> adequate observation for the purposes of the removal from the Review
> List. 
> 
> The bylaws state, in part:
> 
> "In general, the Review List will consist of species that have
> occurred within Utah on average two or fewer times per year in each of
> the ten years immediately preceding revision of the Review List." 
> 
> Do we want these"occurrences" documented formally (ie. submitted to
> us) or just somehow agree to take a species off the List by,
> absolutely no disrespect intended, informal observations? As far as
> the redpolls are concerned, I think it would be useful for the rest of
> the birding community to know the pattern of occurrence for this
> species. For that matter, apparently I myself am very uninformed on
> the frequency of sightings of this species in Utah.
> 
> Let's take Cackling geese as another example. They are reported all
> the time by certain individuals in the birding community. By that
> standard we shouldn't be reviewing them at all (in another 8 years).
> Yet I think I speak for more than myself in stating that there are
> members on the Committee who are skeptical of the accuracy of some of
> those reports.I would argue we really have very little idea what is
> really going on with that species/superspecies and should count only
> reviewed "occurrences" in the meantime.
> 
> Of course, the problem is that we don't have nearly enough people
> submitting records to the Committee for review. So a strict reliance
> on records reviewed and accepted bythe Committeewould doom us to never
> removing any species from the Review List. Perhapsour annual review of
> the Review List is the best method after all, as it allows us to
> infuse subjective expertise, but it just seems there should be a more
> formal count of the three or more species annually for the last ten
> years benchmark.
> 
> Another odd species is the Boreal owl, which apparently nests in
> several mountain ranges and are observed regularlyeach yearby
> DWR/Forest Servicescientists (who know of their nest sites), but they
> don't share their info with the rest of us either. Should that be on
> the list? I wouldthink yes, until we get some formal data from those
> agencies.
> 
> And what do Rick and Larry think about removing the Hermit warbler off
> the list?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks for your indulgence,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> >>> "Ron Ryel" <range at cc.usu.edu> 1/23/2007 8:44 AM >>>
> Milt, I would also suggest removing glaucous-winged gull and common
> redpoll from the review list. Both are observed nealy annually. Best
> wishes, Ron
> 
> On 23 Jan 2007 at 7:28, Milt Moody wrote:
> 
> > Review Page:
> > http://www.utahbirds.org/ReviewBirds/UnderReview.htm
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > Here are the suggestions for review list changes that have been
> > received so far:
> > 
> > To be removed:
> > Broad-winged Hawk
> > Ruddy Turnstone
> > Least Tern
> > Northern Parula
> > 
> > To be added:
> > Black Swift
> > Brown Thrasher
> > 
> > If you have other suggestions, please send them in. We will be
> > discussing these proposed changes and voting on them within the next
> > week or two.
> > 
> > Two committee members (Rick and Kris) have offered to help with the
> > checklist so far. If anyone else would like to help with updating
> > the status and abundance codes, please let me know soon.
> > 
> > I will be going over the records to see which review species were
> > accepted without physical evidence. A link to the preliminary list
> > that I made (very quickly) when we were discussing the matter last
> > year is provided below. If anyone knows of other species that should
> > be listed (in the top section) or those that are on the list that
> > actually have physical evidence that you know of, please let me
> > know.
> > 
> > http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/AuxiliaryList.htm
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Milt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____________________________ 

-- 
     
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)