[reccom] Review List changes

[Ron Ryel]

Mark, I agree with your proposal to review out of range species within Utah. I 
have thought this would be a good idea for some time. Thanks for proposing 
it--I would like to see us add these reviews.
Best wishes, Ron


On 26 Jan 2007 at 16:15, Mark Stackhouse wrote:

> Hello from right now not-so-sunny Mexico,
> 
> 
> I doubt I'll get much sympathy from you guys over the cold snap we're
> having here (60's and sometimes rainy), but it feels cold to those of
> us accustomed to upper 70's this time of year. I'm glad to have a day
> that I'm not in the field. I'm sorry to be missing the good birds
> you're seeing there (several new possibilities for my Utah list), but
> can't complain about the nearly 400 species I've seen this month.
> 
> 
> It seems like we've had this discussion before, and I agree with David
> that the decision to add or remove species from the review list will
> always be subjective, and is written as such in the bylaws. It's why
> we're paid so well for this duty, to exercise our judgment.
> Realistically, the 2 occurrences or more for each of ten years must
> refer to more than just documented and reviewed sightings, or hardly
> any species would achieve that status. I think, in fact, that we see a
> negative-feedback in that as a species becomes more common, we get
> less of the reported sightings actually submitted for review. I think
> Glaucous-winged Gull is a good example - lots of reports on the
> Birdnet, but how many get submitted? I'm not sure of the real value of
> setting an arbitrary number of sightings over time, as other factors,
> such as the difficulty of identifying a species, should be considered
> as well. Cases such as Boreal Owl are even more problematic, as it's
> presumably a rare permanent resident, but how often can we expect
> reports? Speaking of that, should we make a formal request, as the
> checklist committee, for data from the Forest Service or DWR as to
> what they know, so that we can have a more accurate picture of this
> species?
> 
> 
> Another issue, and one I feel more strongly about, is the idea of
> requesting documentation from species outside their normal area of
> occurrence. In other states that are large and geographically diverse,
> regionally differentiated review lists are common. In our case, we
> could request documentation for sightings of Common Redpolls outside
> of Cache, Rich, and Box Elder Counties, for example. There would be a
> number of birds for which documentation of occurrences outside of
> Washington County would be appropriate (the recent Black Phoebe
> reported in Tooele County should probably be reviewed). Some birds
> that rather completely migrate, such as the Swainson's Hawk reported
> on the Salt Lake CBC, could be examples of birds for which sightings
> out-of-season could be requested. I think that it would be fairly easy
> to make a list of birds for which documentation could be conditionally
> requested, and that, because the number of out-of-area or
> out-of-season sightings would be few, I don't think it would add
> significantly to our workload. Having such birds on our review list
> would be more in keeping with how other large diverse states do their
> lists.
> 
> 
> Well, it's off to the beach (too cold to swim, but there might be some
> good shorebirds or cool shells).
> 
> 
> Stay warm!
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Mark Stackhouse
> 
> Westwings, Inc.
> 
> www.westwings.com
> 
> mark at westwings.com
> 
> 801-487-9453 (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA)
> 
> 011-52-323-285-1243 (San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico)
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:10 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
> 
> 
> <excerpt><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>Hello,
> All:</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>I am pleased so many of
> you are participating in this
> conversation.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>When I read Rick's
> comments, I see that he also is under the impression that the
> bylaw:</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>"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."</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</pa
> ram><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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:</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>We get some guidance
> from other portions of the bylaws:</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>1.c.  The
> Committee may, as it sees fit, delete species from the Review List.
> Such deletions will be made by majority
> vote.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <bold><fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold>
> 
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>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?</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontf
> amily>
> 
> <fontfamily><param>Tahoma</param><x-tad-bigger>David</x-tad-bigger></f
> ontfamily>_______________________________________________
> 
> reccom mailing list
> 
> reccom at utahbirds.org
> 
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom</excerpt>

-- 
     
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)