[reccom] Review List changes

[Ron Ryel]

Milt, Thanks for the message, information and perspectives.

Some thoughts for discussion:

I suggest we might consider species for review when we are uncertain of 
their status, or when they are exceptionally rare or out of range. I don't see 
the records committee being in place to conduct population monitoring of 
bird species--records of observations are adequate for this even with some 
misidentification. However, when we are uncertain of a bird's status 
(season, distribution, or abundance), we should consider this a species for 
review. I don't see this applying to the question of whether a species is 
common or abundant, but rather if a species is rare, occassional, irregular 
or simply accidental. I like the idea of keeping the number of records per 
year as a criteria, but if we are confident of a species status, I don't see a 
need to continue reviewing every sighting.

Best wishes, Ron





On 24 Jan 2007 at 15:31, Milt Moody wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> I think that the main thing we should keep in mind is that we make
> sure the Review List has the birds on it that we (as a committee)
> would like to have documented.  This is especially important when
> we're going to publish a checklist that will be the main reference in
> this regard for several years.
> 
> The bylaws has two different sections concerning Review List changes
> as David quoted:
> 
> B. Review List, Section 1 - is concerned with the general rule which
> says that the committee can make changes "as it sees fit" and these
> changes can be made "BY MAJORITY VOTE" (I'm assuming this is in at
> least the spirit of the "average two or fewer times per year" for 10
> years).
> 
> B. Review List, Section 2 - is concerned with special cases of
> "increasing abundance" and "under-reported species" and requires
> "written documentation" and a "VOTE OF 5-2 OR GREATER."  
> 
> It may not always be exactly clear which of the two cases a certain
> species might fall under, but I think a certain amount of subjectivity
> and good judgment is required in both instances.  
> 
> I hope the (sometime a little awkward and ambiguous) bylaws don't get
> in the way of having a good Review List that contains the birds that
> need to be documented.  This has to be determined, as I see it, by the
> the procedures of proposal, discussion and vote of the committee.  And
> I think we're proceeding well along that path.
> 
> Thanks for your enlightening and well-thought-out comments,
> Milt
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site
> using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
> _______________________________________________ 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)