[reccom] Official Checklist Project

[Ron Ryel]

Milt, I would be happy to review the status of "northern" specialities.
best wishes, Ron


On 15 Jan 2007 at 7:22, Milt Moody wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> To go right along with our present "physical evidence" discussion I'd
> like to start the checklist project, so when we have come to a
> consensus on these matters, and worked out some of the details we can
> express it with a new checklist.
> 
> According to the bylaws, “The official checklist shall be reviewed and
> amended at least every three years.”  It looks like the time is right
> for this task.
> 
> Although the bylaws  say that a checklist committee should be composed
> of the secretary and two other members, last year we added  “northern
> and southern specialists”  so that there were actually five members of
> the checklist committee in essence.  This time I’d like to ask for
> volunteers to assist with this checklist project.  The first two
> volunteers will be the official committee members and the rest will be
> consultants.  All those who would like to participate and would have
> time to complete the project in the next 2 or 3 weeks are welcome.  
> 
> This is how I’d like to proceed:
> 
> I will attach a Word and a WordPerfect document of the 2005 Utah Birds
> website version of the checklist (the official records committee
> version of 2004, plus four additional species – Cackling Goose, White
> Ibis, Black-headed Vireo and Rufous-backed Robin – and a listing at
> the end of the checklist of recent checklist changes).  The
> participating members can make changes to the Abundance and Status
> codes as they like and highlight them in red, maybe, and then return
> the checklist (as an attachment).  (Alternately, you could print out a
> checklist, make the changes and the mail it to me or just make a list
> of  changes and send it to me by e-mail OR  some other method that’s
> convenient for you  – I’m flexible).  
> 
> When the suggested changes are compiled then we can “discuss”  (by
> list serve) any differences in opinion and after resolving them have a
> full committee vote to accept the changes or not.  During this process
> we should be able to come to a conclusion about some of the wording
> and other details.
> 
> There are a couple questions I would have:
> 
> 1. Should we change the “Washington County indicator” from an
> asterisk”
>  (*) to and “down arrow” if we can, (“∨” is not in all character
> sets)  to be consistent with the “up arrow” (∧) for the
> “northern Utah” indicator?  
> 
> 2. Should we keep using the “#”  for review species and add a “##” for
> review species that have been accepted without physical evidence?  (We
> could use “*” and “**” but it doesn’t call attention to the review
> species as much as the “#” does).
> 
> 3. The wording, as Ron has broght up, dealing with the "unverified /
> accepted without physical evidence" species.
> 
> If anyone has any questions or suggestions about this project please
> chime in.
> 
> And please let me know if you’d like to participate so I’ll know who
> the official checklist committee members are and who’s working on the
> project as consultants.
> 
> 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 
> 

-- 
     
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)