[reccom] Review List changes

[David Wheeler]

Hello, All:
 
I am pleased so many of you are participating in this conversation.
 
When I read Rick's comments, I see that he also is under the impression that the bylaw:
 
"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." 
 
might be considered to mean "...occurred within Utah and records thereof submitted to (or even approved by)...".  But is that really the standard we want to hold our list to?  Consider:
 
1)  There are several species on the Review List which "occur" in Utah more than twice a year (Boreal owl, Hermit warbler, Glaucous-winged gull, Redpoll?, etc.).  But not enough people in the birding community write them up to ever take them off the list.  Even if our own Mr. Tripp and Mr. Fridell studiously write up and submits Hermit warbler sightings for six years, it may not get taken off the list if the average isn't adequate over the last decade.  By this standard, I doubt any of the above-named species would be removed from the list.

2)  If we relax that interpretation of the standard and remove birds we "know" to occur more than twice off of the Review List without documentation (i.e. officially approved by the Committee), we allow subjective "knowledge" to shape the list.  I don't personally have a problem with that (we were supposedly chosen as the gatekeepers of the state's birding records, or "High Priests of Birding" as one person would have it, precisely because of our expertise), but we should all be clear that this is what we are doing.  By this standard, we could vote on Boreal owl, Hermit warbler, Glaucous-winged gull, Redpoll, etc. and possibly remove them from the list based on our expert (albeit undocumented) knowledge of the occurrence of said species in our state.
 
We get some guidance from other portions of the bylaws:
 
1.c.  The Committee may, as it sees fit, delete species from the Review List. Such deletions will be made by majority vote.
 
2.a.  Notwithstanding the criterion above, any committee member may petition the Committee to remove a species from the Review List if the species can be demonstrated or comfortably presumed to be more abundant than the number of accepted records presently indicates.
 
b.  The petitioning member must submit written documentation to substantiate the purported patterns of historical abundance, and/or recent trends in abundance and/or access, coverage, or reporting. 
 
c.  Any such petition to remove a species by this special rule shall be voted on and accepted with a vote of 5‑2 or greater. 

 

I take it from 2.a., that we are to consider only official Committee accepted records for the 2/yr over 10 years rule unless a written petition is submitted and accepted as described in 2.b. & c.  I don't think we can just propose and vote on species for removal without going through this process.  Do the rest of you read this differently?
 
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20070124/9ff4120d/attachment.htm