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

Wed Jan 24 02:23:57 GMT 2007

Hey again,
I probably should have read this (and the rest of my emails) before I sent
my earlier reply.
I'm out of time for now, but I think David brings up some good points and
I'll try to reply later.

However for now, I'd say we only remove the Hermit Warbler if / when it
meets the criteria of "more than two times per year for the ten years
immediately......"  I much prefer using such an established criteria rather
than "infusing subjective expertise".   (even if said expertise is my own
(and Larry's) who are fairly certain we could find at least one Hermit
Warbler annually at the right time and place).  Come on Larry, start writing
up those HeWa records so we take it off the list!!!

Later,
Rick
  -----Original Message-----
  From: reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org [mailto:reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org]On
Behalf Of David Wheeler
  Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:54 AM
  To: reccom at utahbirds.org
  Subject: Re: [reccom] Review List changes and checklist project -- muchado
about nuthin?

  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 by the Committee would doom us to never
removing any species from the Review List.  Perhaps our 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 regularly each year by DWR/Forest Service
scientists (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 would think 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
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ______________________________________________________________________
  > ______________ 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
  > _______________________________________________ reccom mailing list
  > reccom at utahbirds.org http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom

  --

  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)

  _______________________________________________
  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/20070123/b9034b87/attachment.htm