[reccom] Review List changes and checklist project

[Kristin Purdy]

All,

I'm the guilty party who submitted the species to consider deleting/adding 
to the review list. I proposed the four delete species because of the 
consistent confirmed and unconfirmed sightings, and the two add species 
because of the lack of reported sightings.

I agree with everyone that we need review list criteria that is not 
abitrary, and we have it. However, it doesn't matter. Accumulating data 
against that criteria to prove whether or not a species belongs on that list 
is totally arbitrary. The data is dependent on the whims of birders who do 
or don't submit records. Therefore, how can we measure a species' abundance 
against the criteria?

How about the reverse problem--a species that's in decline that does not 
appear on the review species list. Let me use as an example the 
Yellow-billed Cuckoo. I'm personally aware of three reports of this species 
in the last 5 years. In the summer of 2004, a DWR intern to Northern Region 
Sensitive Species Biologist Adam Kozlowski surveyed for Yellow-billed 
Cuckoos and did not find one bird. When and how do we decide this bird is a 
candidate for the review species list?

There may not be a solution to this problem. I believe our choices are to 
cling to a standard based on underreported data or to make subjective calls 
based on formal and informal reports. Which option is scientific? Neither.

Kris
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milt Moody" <miltonmoody at yahoo.com>
To: "Records Committee" <reccom at utahbirds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: [reccom] Review List changes and checklist project


> 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
>