[reccom] Photo only records

[Milt Moody]

Greetings Committee Members,
I've been aware for quite a while that other records committees "produce" records from information they get mostly over the internet without having the original observer submit a report.  We haven't been doing that and we pretty much take what people will give us (which may be the right way to do it, I don't know).  This is especially relevant with the increase of digital photos being sent in to the listservs.  Sometimes the people who see these birds don't submit a sight record even when asked. 

I've remained on a US/Canada records committee listserv that discusses subjects related to state bird records and found the following thread very interesting, so I thought I'd pass it along. (It contains a familiar name "Cliff Weisse" a neighbor to the north).

Hope all is well,
Milt

*****

Re: Photographic documentation with no written details
Monday, March 30, 2009 3:48 PM
From:
"Alan Wormington" <wormington at JUNO.COM>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
BRCF-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
Everyone,

I don't think one should quibble as to the format of a record.  As long
as one has the basic info re date, location, observer, etc., its
obviously enough to process and publish the record.  Even if this
information was not obtained directly from the actual photographer.

In a similar vein, what if a rare specimen were dropped off at your local
museum but there was no corresponding Rare Bird Report, just date,
location and finder written on a specimen label or a scrap of paper?  As
long as you have confidence in the info received (even though scant) its
obviously enough to process the record.

Here in Ontario photographers often post their rarity shots on the OFO
web site.  I know the Secretary in the past regularly contacted the
photographer for both permission and additional details, but often got
poor responses or no responses.  More recently it was decided that the
OBRC Secretary could just lift the photos off the site at will, since the
OBRC is a committee of OFO.  Thus some records are "photo only" but when
circulated they always have the basic info re location, date, etc., which
is not only easy to obtain (because we already know about the record),
but the photos on the web site already have such labelling.

"Photos only" with no documentation is a trend that I suspect will
continue to expand in the future.  I have found that many photographers
will go to great lengths to display or promote their "fabulous" photos,
but they are not necessarily inclined to properly document the record.
They're just not interested. 

Another typical scenario is that the actual finder of the bird does not
submit a Rare Bird Report, but various photographers come along and
obtain numerous photos of the bird.  Then the finder says "lots of photos
were taken" so no need to write a Rare Bird Report.  And the
photographers will say "but I'm not the finder of the bird."  Not an
uncommon situation, and not much you can do about it.

Cheers,

Alan Wormington
Leamington, Ontario
Assistant to OBRC Secretary


On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:25:57 -0600 Cliff and Lisa Weisse
<CliffandLisa at OCTOBERSETTERS.COM> writes:
> I'll take this question a step further.  In Idaho we have several
> good
> photos of Review Species but some include no written report at all. 
> I'm
> curious if other states regard a photo as a record?  If so what are
> the
> minimum required details?  Date, location, name of
> photographer/observer, etc.   Is a written report required  by any
> BRCs?  Thanks in advance.
>
> Cliff
>
> knights wrote:
> > BRCF Members,
> > 
> > I am new to this forum and have recently been elected to the Chair
>
> > position of the MS Bird Records Committee. I have been a Member
> for
> > years since the MBRC was organized. Getting full documentation on
> a
> > rare bird has always been a task no matter what state is
> represented.
> > Now that the latest technology in digital cameras has dominated
> the
> > documentation aspect of keeping records my question is this. What
> are
> > other state's doing to compensate this lack of written
> documentation
> > that should accompany a photo? Are we giving in to the situation
> and
> > forgetting where we started years ago demanding all the little
> > pertinent details? And are we tweeking our defintions of a record
> to
> > compensate the situation?
> > 
> > Thanks for any comments on this subject? I have read the thread
> back
> > in July 2007 that addressed some of this but haven't seen what the
>
> > record committees around the US are doing if anything.
> > 
> > 
> > Gene Knight
> > MBRC Chair
> > Oxford, MS
> > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records
> > Committee Forum archives:
> > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html
>
> --
> Cliff and Lisa Weisse
> Island Park, Idaho
> cliffandlisa at octobersetters.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Bird Records Committee Forum archives:
> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html

"The Early Worm Gets The Bird!"
              --- Alan Wormington

--------------------------------------------------
Bird Records Committee Forum archives:
http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html