Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Tuesday, June 30 at 09:32 AM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Greater Racquet-tailed Drongo,©Jan Wilczur

30 Jun LBRC - new web updates [Donna Dittmann ] 28 Jun MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates [Phil Davis ] 9 May Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [Martin Meyers ] 9 May Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [William Rowe ] 9 May How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [Martin Meyers ] 1 Apr Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Steven Mlodinow ] 1 Apr Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Chuck Otte ] 31 Mar Photos only and term limits [] 31 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [knights ] 31 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Martin Meyers ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Alan Wormington ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Andrew Kratter ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Joseph Morlan ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Cliff and Lisa Weisse ] 30 Mar Photographic documentation with no written details [knights ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [William Rowe ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [Ned Keller ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [Phil Davis ] 29 Mar Concerning term limits [Martin Meyers ] 6 Mar correction [Nate Dias ] 6 Mar Re: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Nate Dias ] 6 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Alan Wormington ] 6 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Mark Stevenson ] 6 Mar Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Mel Cooksey ] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Nate Dias ] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Alan Wormington ] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Nate Dias ] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Steven Mlodinow ] 5 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Joseph Morlan ] 5 Mar Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Nate Dias ] 4 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Stan DeOrsey ] 4 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Steven Mlodinow ] 4 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Phil Davis ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [William Rowe ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Steven Mlodinow ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question ["Spector, David (Biology)" ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question ["kratter AT flmnh.ufl.edu" ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Steven Mlodinow ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question ["Spector, David (Biology)" ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Buford Myers ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Kimball Garrett ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Alan Wormington ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [William Rowe ] 3 Mar Re: Procedural Question [Mark Lockwood ] 2 Mar Procedural Question [Steven Mlodinow ] 2 Feb Re: BUBO Listing - a website for listers globally [Phil Davis ] 2 Feb Re: BUBO Listing - a website for listers globally [Phil Davis ] 18 Nov Re: Stable isotope analysis as a tool for records committees [Mark Stevenson ] 18 Nov Stable isotope analysis as a tool for records committees [Bill Whan ] 18 Nov Arizona Bird Committee News [Phil Davis ] 22 Oct MD/DC Records Committee - updated web products [Phil Davis ] 11 Oct Identification Guide to North American Birds Part II - now available [Phil Davis ] 18 Jul Re: technology and BRCs ["K. Dean Edwards" ] 17 Jul Re: technology and BRCs [William Rowe ] 17 Jul Re: technology and BRCs ["George L. Armistead" ] 17 Jul Re: technology and BRCs [Alan Wormington ] 17 Jul Re: technology and BRCs [Mark Stevenson ] 17 Jul technology and BRCs [Mark Lockwood ] 13 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Richard Heil ] 13 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Ted Floyd ] 3 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Richard Heil ] 3 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports ["Paul A. Guris" ] 3 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Ted Floyd ] 2 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Richard Heil ] 3 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports (RESEND) [laurent raty ] 2 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports (RESEND) [Ted Floyd ] 2 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Ted Floyd ] 2 Jul Black-bellied Whistling-Duck sighting request [Phil Davis ] 1 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Buford Myers ] 1 Jul Questions for Ted on Records Probability ["Paul A. Guris" ] 1 Jul Acceptance/non-acceptance of records, Type I & II errors [David Christie ] 1 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Laurent Raty ] 1 Jul Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Ted Floyd ] 1 Jul MD/DC Records Committee web page updates and Review List changes [Phil Davis ] 30 Jun Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports [Rick Fridell ] Subject: LBRC - new web updates From: Donna Dittmann <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:03 -0500 Dear Bird Records Committee Forum, Phil's post prompted me to update you with regards to the Louisiana Bird Records Committee website, which is accessed through the Louisiana Ornithological Society's webpage: http://losbird.org/ or directly: http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/lbrc.htm At our site you can see the LBRC's newsletters (now two), state and review lists, bylaws, pending reports, documentary photos, and previous reports of the committee (although I have to apologize the pdfs are not very good), etc. Corrections, suggestions, or improvements always appreciated. Donna L. Dittmann LBRC, Secretary On 6/28/09 8:33 PM, "Phil Davis" wrote: > MD Osprey, MD Birds, and BRCF-L: > > Due to some web technical difficulties, it's been > a while since we have posted any updates to the > MD/DC Records Committee web pages. A new batch of > PDF web products is now available. Here are the highlights and a summary: > > 1. Members. Since our last posting three members > have rotated off the committee and we thank them > very much for their service; they are: Tyler > Bell, Ellen Lawler, and Marcia Watson. The three > new members that were elected to the committee > for three-year terms are: Gwen Brewer (Charles > County), Mikey Lutmerding (Prince George's and > Allegany Counties), and Dave Ziolkowski (Harford County). > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcmembers.pdf > > 2. Review Lists. The latest MD and DC review lists are posted here ... > > MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf > > 3. Official Lists. The current Official Lists of > the Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia are posted here ... > > MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf > > 4. MD/DCRC Databases. Updates to the abridged > versions of the MD/DCRC databases of reports and records are here ... > > MD > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf > (a very large document - you can search it but > you probably do not want to print it!) > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf > > 5. Minutes of the MD/DCRC 2009 Annual Meeting and > Annual Business Report. This detailed document can be found here ... > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2009.pdf > > 6. Skins Workshop Minutes. Species accounts, with > photographs, of taxa studied during the MD/DCRC > Skins Workshops at the Smithsonian Institution > for 2008 and 2009 have been posted: > > The 2008 report covers the following taxa: > Nelson¹s Sharp-tailed Sparrows ­ all 3 > subspecies; Broad-tailed, Calliope, Allen¹s and > Rufous Hummingbird ­ including the 2004 MD Calliope > specimen; California Gulls ­ all ages; > remeasurement and photographs of the 1842 DC > Leach¹s Storm-Petrel specimens: and measurement > and photographs of the circa 1842 DC Long-billed > Curlew skull skeleton specimen, comparing it with a Eurasian Curlew skull. > > 2008 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2008.pdf > > The 2009 report covers the following taxa: DC > Band-rumped Storm Petrels - in preparation for a > future split, Eastern/Western Meadowlarks; Lark > Bunting winter plumages; Mountain/Eastern > Bluebirds; Thayer's/Kumlien's Gull; and Western/EasternWood Pewee. > > 2009 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2009.pdf > > 7. The updated MD/DCRC index of identification > and reference articles can be found here ... > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf > (another large document - again, you probably do not want to print it!) > > Hope this helps ... > > Phil > > =================================================== > Phil Davis, Secretary > MD/DC Records Committee > 2549 Vale Court > Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA > 301-261-0184 > mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com > > MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html > =================================================== > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:33:18 -0400 MD Osprey, MD Birds, and BRCF-L: Due to some web technical difficulties, it's been a while since we have posted any updates to the MD/DC Records Committee web pages. A new batch of PDF web products is now available. Here are the highlights and a summary: 1. Members. Since our last posting three members have rotated off the committee and we thank them very much for their service; they are: Tyler Bell, Ellen Lawler, and Marcia Watson. The three new members that were elected to the committee for three-year terms are: Gwen Brewer (Charles County), Mikey Lutmerding (Prince George's and Allegany Counties), and Dave Ziolkowski (Harford County). http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcmembers.pdf 2. Review Lists. The latest MD and DC review lists are posted here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf 3. Official Lists. The current Official Lists of the Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia are posted here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf 4. MD/DCRC Databases. Updates to the abridged versions of the MD/DCRC databases of reports and records are here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf (a very large document - you can search it but you probably do not want to print it!) DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf 5. Minutes of the MD/DCRC 2009 Annual Meeting and Annual Business Report. This detailed document can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2009.pdf 6. Skins Workshop Minutes. Species accounts, with photographs, of taxa studied during the MD/DCRC Skins Workshops at the Smithsonian Institution for 2008 and 2009 have been posted: The 2008 report covers the following taxa: Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrows – all 3 subspecies; Broad-tailed, Calliope, Allen’s and Rufous Hummingbird – including the 2004 MD Calliope specimen; California Gulls – all ages; remeasurement and photographs of the 1842 DC Leach’s Storm-Petrel specimens: and measurement and photographs of the circa 1842 DC Long-billed Curlew skull skeleton specimen, comparing it with a Eurasian Curlew skull. 2008 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2008.pdf The 2009 report covers the following taxa: DC Band-rumped Storm Petrels - in preparation for a future split, Eastern/Western Meadowlarks; Lark Bunting winter plumages; Mountain/Eastern Bluebirds; Thayer's/Kumlien's Gull; and Western/EasternWood Pewee. 2009 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2009.pdf 7. The updated MD/DCRC index of identification and reference articles can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf (another large document - again, you probably do not want to print it!) Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:10:58 -0700 Sorry. Bill is certainly correct -- I should not have included "midwest" in my question. I really meant to aim the question at those states and provinces for which Gray-cheeked Thrush is a reviewable rarity, which probably means the far west (Alaska exempt, of course), inter-mountain west, and, perhaps, some or all of the Rocky Mountain west. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Rowe" To: "Martin Meyers" Cc: Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 7:24 PM Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west > Martin: > > Not sure which states you mean by mid-western. In Missouri, Gray- cheeked > Thrush is a fairly common migrant, and there is no record of Bicknell's, > nor do I know of a record in any of the states that border us. All > records of this type are presumed Gray-cheeked. To claim a Bicknell's > here might require a specimen. > > Bill Rowe > St. Louis, MO > > > > On May 9, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > >> I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid- >> western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. Since >> it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or photographed records, >> for that matter) can be safely differentiated from Bicknell's Thrush, >> what do you do with a record that seems acceptable as a Gray-cheeked >> "type" but lacks sufficient information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare >> Bird of California", the publication by the California committee, states >> that, "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North >> America." >> >> Martin >> >> -- >> Martin Meyers, Secretary >> Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) >> email: nbrc AT gbbo.org >> website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html >> > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 21:24:46 -0500 Martin: Not sure which states you mean by mid-western. In Missouri, Gray- cheeked Thrush is a fairly common migrant, and there is no record of Bicknell's, nor do I know of a record in any of the states that border us. All records of this type are presumed Gray-cheeked. To claim a Bicknell's here might require a specimen. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On May 9, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid- > western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. > Since it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or > photographed records, for that matter) can be safely differentiated > from Bicknell's Thrush, what do you do with a record that seems > acceptable as a Gray-cheeked "type" but lacks sufficient > information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare Bird of California", > the publication by the California committee, states that, > "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North > America." > > Martin > > -- > Martin Meyers, Secretary > Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 00:04:24 -0500 I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid-western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. Since it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or photographed records, for that matter) can be safely differentiated from Bicknell's Thrush, what do you do with a record that seems acceptable as a Gray-cheeked "type" but lacks sufficient information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare Bird of California", the publication by the California committee, states that, "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North America." Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:01:49 -0400 Greetings All Martin's summary/response really is quite good. I would like to highlight some points, mostly those brought up by Joe Morlan. To some extent, this returns us to a discussion of a year or so ago, so I don't know how far it is worth pursuing. It is hard to over-estimate the impact of a photo, or even a drawing, on reviewers. These seem to entrance us (I am guilty as well) whereas analysis of a written description seems so much less compelling/impelling.?Like Joe, I have (multiple times) seen written data almost totally ignored whilst fuzzy distant photos are analysed pixel-by-pixel. And, so, I do agree that photo-only records of rather obvious?species/plumages, particularly ones that are semi-regular (barely on review list) seems acceptable (this statement assumes date, location, AND observer), the cry and hew for written descriptions falls increasingly on deaf ears as observers/reporters find their written notes relatively ignored. I think it is encumbent on us as a community to try to educate observers in our state/province on HOW to document birds (I once saw a splendid example of this, on Joe's website, I believe) -- and then we need to force ourselves (me included) to really give some weight to a written description (especially from a known and trusted observer). And as a personal bug-a-boo... Drawings. These tend to have the same emotional impact as an actual photos, and I find myself having to force myself to look at the drawing and think, "What could the observer actually have seen at the stated, distance, duration of observation, etc." Has the artist noted what he/she is certain of, and what was drawn in just so the bird doesn't have blank spaces. Many drawings are honest, but there is this inherent need to make it a complete bird that is hard to resist, and unless the observation prolonged and the drawing done at (or quite close) to the time of observation, the room for bias sneaking in is at least as high as that in a written description. Yet... The impact on reviewers tends to be far more potent than a well-written description. This is not said to discourage drawings, but to implore reviewers to view them as a visual form of a written description, not as something inherently more accurate or "real." Cheers Steven Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Martin Meyers To: Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details First, I want to thank all of you who responded (via the list and via some personal communications) to my questions about term limits. Your opinions have been very helpful.? ? Now, as to photos...? ? This is a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit. The Nevada committee will review records that consist of as little as a photo with location, date, species name, and photographer's name. Generally, less that that would be unacceptable, although on one occasion, we even reviewed a record where the observer/photographer preferred to remain anonymous. We received the photo, with date, location, and species name from a friend of the observer -- the person who forwarded the photo happened to be a former committee member, which helped a bit. I was pretty uncomfortable with that one, but we reviewed it anyway (and it was accepted).? ? If a single photo is absolutely diagnostic (a male Hooded Warbler), we'll probably endorse the record. Otherwise, multiple photos would probably be necessary. But assuming the photo(s) convince the committee members that the bird is what it is purported to be, and there is no reason to suspect some sort of accidental or intentional misrepresentation as to location/date, the record will almost certainly be accepted.? ? Very brief digression:? I think the issue of intentional manipulation of digital photos to make them into something they are not is, for the most part, a red herring in the discussion. (Not in THIS discussion -- that has not been an issue raised in the current thread.) But I'd just suggest that if people are going to intentionally lie, it's even easier to lie in a written description than in a manipulation of a photo.? ? Back to the topic at hand:? Of course, we'd much prefer some additional written documentation, and I try to get it if possible, but it is not always possible. However, I actually prefer NOT to get an extensive written description of the bird, when that description consists entirely of details readily observable in (and rather obviously written from) the photo(s). What I ask for when I contact the submitter is any information not readily available in the photo. I suggest that vocalizations, behavior, weather conditions, habitat, etc. would be very helpful to the committee's task and to the eventual archived collection of data. Also that any observed descriptive details which do not show up in the photos would be very welcome. And I always ask about how they arrived at the identification, i.e., how similar species were eliminated.? ? But more often than not, I get very little, if any, additional information.? ? This leaves what I think is a relevant question. Just what is it that we, as records committees, are trying to accomplish? If the primary (although not the only) purpose is to try to gain a better understanding of what species visit our state or province, how often, when, and where, then I can't come up with any reason that a diagnostic photo (with the date and location) should be unwelcome as a submission.? ? So I'm certainly not saying we should be suggesting to our "audience" that all we want is photos. And, conversely, I do think it's very important to communicate to the birding public that photos are NOT necessary -- that many records receive committee endorsement based on well-written, thorough descriptions. I regularly hear from people I've contacted (perhaps as a result of a listserv post) that they didn't, or won't, submit the sighting to the committee because they "didn't get a picture."? ? In short, I'd argue that we should encourage detailed written documentation, but we should be darned happy with a couple of good photos with the listed required information.? ? I sometimes wonder (uh, oh, this is going to sound controversial, and I don't want to start anything like that) whether some of the preferences expressed for written description aren't based, at least a little, on "that's the way we've always done it". And while I'm a bit of a Luddite on a number of things, digital photography is not one of those things. The fact that many more birders have cameras available while birding has been an incredible boon for what it is we (as committees) are trying to accomplish. (And don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that if there wasn't a dead "bird in the hand".. well, enough said.)? ? Martin? ----------------------------------------------? Martin Meyers? Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee? website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc? email: nbrc AT gbbo.org? ? --------------------------------------------------? Bird Records Committee Forum archives:? http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html? -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Chuck Otte <cotte AT KSU.EDU> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:43:17 -0500 What Kansas has on their website for submissions is that a good photography augments a well written report, but still doesn't replace it. With that said, we still have people that send in very definitivie photos with nominal documentation. Informally, we have decided that as long as we have date, place, observers and photographer, we'll go ahead and accept it. But some photos have obviously not been as definitive as the submitter thought they were. We've run them through a vote and when they are not accepted, the secretary (me) get's to explain that the photo(s) were not sufficient to verify identify of the bird and without further documentation, i.e. a well written description, the committee had no choice but to not accept it. Chuck ----- Chuck Otte cotte AT ksu.edu County Extension Agent, Ag & Natural Resources Geary County Extension Office, PO BOX 28 785-238-4161 Junction City, Kansas 66441-0028 FAX 785-238-7166 http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/geary -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Photos only and term limits From: BlkVulture AT AOL.COM Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:53:10 EDT Hola, Figured I would kill two birds with one email. I've been on the Virginia records committee for seven years or so, and the topic of photo-only documentation has been discussed internally within our committee (VARCOM). Within our review process, we can accept birds at various levels, which I presume many other committees can do as well. Our "Category One" acceptance if for birds with some sort of physical documentation. That could include video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, or a specimen. I'm probably forgetting something in that category as well. For us, nearly all of these birds have been photographed. Some of these images only come with essentially demographic information, such as date, photographer, location, et cetera. "Category Two" is reserved for birds with only written details. Species that have only been accepted as Category Two are listed as hypothetical on the state list that VARCOM and our governing body, the Virginia Society of Ornithology, maintain. We have other categories, but they deal with provenance, historic, and other things not currently being discussed. During the review process, some committee members have objected to these image submissions with less-than-pithy details, and have actually not accepted them in the first round of voting solely because of the lack of a written description. I don't know if I agree with this approach. While having thorough written documentation is ideal, and I don't mean to sound like a smart ass here, but a picture can be worth a thousand words. A swallow-tailed kite that is well-photographed is an easy bird for me to accept with photos only. Many other birds fit that bill as well. Clearly there is room for error with image-only submissions, and a couple issues have been mentioned during this thread. In those cases, hopefully prudence would triumph and those birds would not get accepted. Where we also have some gray area is whether an image always needs to stand alone, or whether a marginal image with solid written details can be accepted as Category One. That seems a bit of the reverse of images lacking solid written documentation not being accepted for various reasons. As for term limits, VARCOM has them for voting members, but not for the non-voting secretary and chair. We are a committee of seven, and each of our terms is four years. We must rotate off the committee for at least one year before being eligible to be put back on. We loosely try to represent the various regions of the state, though that is not formal policy, nor is it always adhered to. Our secretary and chair are one year terms, and eligible for reelection until the end of time. Cheers, Todd --------------------------------- Todd Michael Day Jeffersonton, Virginia Culpeper County, USA blkvulture AT aol.com --------------------------------- **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:40:25 -0500 Thanks Martin and all that have put their two cents in about this issue, You are exactly right in your comments Martin. I hasn't been long that a record was a detailed report which non of us ever cherished writing but it was the only thing that could be done to verify our rare sightings. AND if by chance a photo was submitted along with it came a written report. That written report was required for more than one reason, one being that it told the story about the sighting as well as gave a detailed description of the bird. Also, in those not so far away days it stood up by itself just in case the photo/s were lost, damaged or deterioated in time. NOW, with all the archival CD's available to store our photos will these photos be around for eternity to represent this record? Or should we not worry about this happeneing and let the next committe chairs/secretarys handle the dilema? Gene Knight MBRC Chair Oxford, MS -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:00:23 -0700 First, I want to thank all of you who responded (via the list and via some personal communications) to my questions about term limits. Your opinions have been very helpful. Now, as to photos... This is a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit. The Nevada committee will review records that consist of as little as a photo with location, date, species name, and photographer's name. Generally, less that that would be unacceptable, although on one occasion, we even reviewed a record where the observer/photographer preferred to remain anonymous. We received the photo, with date, location, and species name from a friend of the observer -- the person who forwarded the photo happened to be a former committee member, which helped a bit. I was pretty uncomfortable with that one, but we reviewed it anyway (and it was accepted). If a single photo is absolutely diagnostic (a male Hooded Warbler), we'll probably endorse the record. Otherwise, multiple photos would probably be necessary. But assuming the photo(s) convince the committee members that the bird is what it is purported to be, and there is no reason to suspect some sort of accidental or intentional misrepresentation as to location/date, the record will almost certainly be accepted. Very brief digression: I think the issue of intentional manipulation of digital photos to make them into something they are not is, for the most part, a red herring in the discussion. (Not in THIS discussion -- that has not been an issue raised in the current thread.) But I'd just suggest that if people are going to intentionally lie, it's even easier to lie in a written description than in a manipulation of a photo. Back to the topic at hand: Of course, we'd much prefer some additional written documentation, and I try to get it if possible, but it is not always possible. However, I actually prefer NOT to get an extensive written description of the bird, when that description consists entirely of details readily observable in (and rather obviously written from) the photo(s). What I ask for when I contact the submitter is any information not readily available in the photo. I suggest that vocalizations, behavior, weather conditions, habitat, etc. would be very helpful to the committee's task and to the eventual archived collection of data. Also that any observed descriptive details which do not show up in the photos would be very welcome. And I always ask about how they arrived at the identification, i.e., how similar species were eliminated. But more often than not, I get very little, if any, additional information. This leaves what I think is a relevant question. Just what is it that we, as records committees, are trying to accomplish? If the primary (although not the only) purpose is to try to gain a better understanding of what species visit our state or province, how often, when, and where, then I can't come up with any reason that a diagnostic photo (with the date and location) should be unwelcome as a submission. So I'm certainly not saying we should be suggesting to our "audience" that all we want is photos. And, conversely, I do think it's very important to communicate to the birding public that photos are NOT necessary -- that many records receive committee endorsement based on well-written, thorough descriptions. I regularly hear from people I've contacted (perhaps as a result of a listserv post) that they didn't, or won't, submit the sighting to the committee because they "didn't get a picture." In short, I'd argue that we should encourage detailed written documentation, but we should be darned happy with a couple of good photos with the listed required information. I sometimes wonder (uh, oh, this is going to sound controversial, and I don't want to start anything like that) whether some of the preferences expressed for written description aren't based, at least a little, on "that's the way we've always done it". And while I'm a bit of a Luddite on a number of things, digital photography is not one of those things. The fact that many more birders have cameras available while birding has been an incredible boon for what it is we (as committees) are trying to accomplish. (And don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that if there wasn't a dead "bird in the hand".. well, enough said.) Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:48:11 -0400 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 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 Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:55:18 -0400 This is one of the trickier issues for current record committees to contend with, especially since photos of review species can be posted on the internet but never submitted to the RCs. In Florida, we require at least a minimal submission. If a photos of a review species are posted, but not submitted to the RC, the Committee, usually the Secretary, contacts photographer and asks if the photographer can submit the photo for the RC to assess. I then give them the options: an online FOSRC form; submit the photos by email without the form, or, minimally, give us permission to assess the online photo. In this way we have a person who is acknowledging that the photo was taken at the time and place indicated. I make pleas to the list serves about 2x/year requesting submission of review species, and list individual birds for which we have not received submissions. I also try to make it known that submissions with details are more likely to be accepted. Andy Kratter Secretary, FOSRC Cliff and Lisa Weisse wrote: > 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 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:38:49 -0700 On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:52 -0500, knights wrote: >What are other state's doing to compensate this lack of written documentation that should accompany a photo? Other than urging additional written description be submitted, I'm not sure there's much a committee can do to change the nature of their contributions. However, I think the voting process can be used to encourage or discourage certain types of documentation. As far as California goes, I would say that members are not happy with "photo only" documentation. We require a minimum of additional information including the name of the observer, the species, claimed, the date and the location. Even with a minimum of additional written information, voting members may be wary of records documented only by a single photo. There are a number of infamous cases where a single photo was misleading enough that it nearly passed committee review when it should not have. Having been burned by misleading photos in the past, members may be extra-cautious when there is little or no additional documentation. On the other hand photos often tend to be given much more weight than extensive written descriptions. Lets face it. Photos are more compelling and usually easier to evaluate than feather-by-feather descriptions. Busy committee members may make their decision based solely on their interpretation of the photos while ignoring or giving minimal weight to the accompanying written description. From time to time I've seen this happen to the detriment of the decision-making process. In some cases, I believe the written documentation alone would have probably passed committee review, but because crappy or misleading photos were included with the documentation, the record failed. The discussion during circulation tends to focus on what members have said about the photos while the written description gets lost in the process. If we publicly deplore the lack of detailed written descriptions, we could encourage them by giving them more weight when photos are ambiguous or seem to contradict the written descriptions. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <CliffandLisa AT OCTOBERSETTERS.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:25:57 -0600 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 Subject: Photographic documentation with no written details From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:52 -0500 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 Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:47:31 -0500 Martin: Missouri has a seven-member committee that includes the secretary and the chairperson as voting members. Members have four-year terms, renewable indefinitely—i.e., no term limits. So far, periodic voluntary departures have allowed a reasonable turnover; in fact, just this past summer, three out of seven members rolled off for various reasons, so we were able to put three new people on, two of whom had already been on our short list of good prospects. The other was nominated by members of the Audubon Society of Missouri in a lengthy and persuasive letter. As mentioned by Phil and Ned, we do give some consideration to geography. We have talked about instituting term limits, but I am still leery of the idea, for two reasons: (1) Unlike the situation in many states, but probably as you describe for Nevada, the pool of qualified people here is not comfortably large. It's gradually growing, but I don't feel that it is there yet. (2) Some of our long-time members are invaluable in preserving the committee's scientific and historical perspective. One in particular is an active and nationally known museum ornithologist who co-authored our state bird book; we also have a couple of other people who are in some way associated with professional ornithology or wildlife conservation. These people provide important balance to the skilled amateurs who make up the rest of the committee; we could not easily replace their experience, knowledge, and network of connections. So we will probably continue talking about term limits, and we may actually do it one of these days -- but I'm in no hurry. Bill Rowe Secretary, MBRC rowe at tjs.org On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I was wondering how many North American committees have member term > limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and > how you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in > how attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's > birding population. > > In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re- > elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he > or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one > year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members > certainly has had positive effects within the committee. > Nonetheless, considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders > both qualified and willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I > think of forcing out a member who is performing his/her duties > admirably. > > Thanks, > Martin > > -- > Martin Meyers, Secretary > Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:46:58 -0400 Ohio currently has seven members, and we're looking at expanding to nine. The secretary, who votes, is elected annually, without term limits. Other members have a three-year term, and must sit out a year after their term. We unofficially try to keep a geographic mix, as well as a mix of returning and new members. We are fortunate to have a large enough pool of qualified possibilities that we have had no problem with this system. Martin Meyers wrote: > I was wondering how many North American committees have member term > limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how > you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how > attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding > population. > > In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re-elected > for one more three-year term. After that second term, he or she must > leave the committee for a period of not less than one year. This has > worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members certainly has had > positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, considering the > size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and willing to serve, > I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a member who is > performing his/her duties admirably. > > Thanks, > Martin > -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:14:03 -0400 Hi Martin, et al. On our Maryland/DC committee, our nine voting member terms are three years each and members must rotate off of the committee for at least one year before being eligible to be reelected. Unofficially, we also try to balance our membership from across the state (Eastern Shore, central, southern, northern, Western Maryland, and DC.) Our Secretary is a non-voting member on records, but votes on procedural issues; our Chair can be either one of our voting members or a separate non-voting member (again non-voting on records, but votes on procedural matters). We are fortunate to have a relatively large field of experienced and qualified birders to select from. Historically, we have also had ornithological organizations to draw upon (including Patuxent Research Refuge, the Smithsonian, National Geographic, educational institutions, and others). I think our approach seems to work well for us here in MD/DC. Phil At 01:02 03/29/2009, Martin Meyers wrote: >I was wondering how many North American committees have member term >limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how >you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how >attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding >population. > >In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be >re-elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he >or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one >year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members >certainly has had positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, >considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and >willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a >member who is performing his/her duties admirably. > >Thanks, >Martin > >-- >Martin Meyers, Secretary >Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) >email: nbrc AT gbbo.org >website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Concerning term limits From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:02:29 -0500 I was wondering how many North American committees have member term limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding population. In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re-elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members certainly has had positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a member who is performing his/her duties admirably. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: correction From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:41 -0800 I should have said: "So wise *organizations* avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval. " instead of: "So wise BRCs avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval." Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:12:15 -0800 Mel: when I said "gets published in a higher journal" - I meant a higher ornithological journal than the state journal. Not that a national journal has more 'authority' on bird records within a given state than that state's BRC (methinks you "BRC Uber Alles" folks seem a tad insecure). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, The Auk, The Condor, etc. are all higher journals than state ornithological journals. For what it's worth, some state journals are considered 'higher' than others - The Florida Field Naturalist is more respected than the CHAT for example. An example you requested: North American Birds published an article of mine a couple of years back on "Pelagic Birds of South Carolina" and some of the review species mentioned were not accepted by our state's BRC. In similar fashion, there will soon be a well-documented note on "Range Expansion of the Bronzed Cowbird (Molothrus aeneus aeneus) into the Atlantic Coastal Plain north of Florida: a First South Carolina Record" that will be published in a 'higher' journal that the local rag. And the state BRC will not have accepted (or reviewed) that. Mel said: "BRCs are not in the business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit reports of their findings, and publish them as required" -- That is the problem. Science deserves an *open* peer review process, complete with the opportunity to rebut faulty publications (in this case BRC decisions). What other scientific discipline has "closed-loop committees" issuing final pronouncements, which can prevent publication, where there is no opportunity for further rebuttal (peer review)? That is most unscientific! So wise BRCs avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval. Georgia is an interesting case - they require a BRC submission for first state records, but they do not require BRC approval in order to publish. It's more of a co-notification rule, and I don't see a problem with that. Alan said: "Regardless of the format, a records committee is going to ultimately review the record (if photos or description exist)." -- Actually South Carolina's Committee will not review material that is not formally submitted to them, even if it is published elsewhere. I have been told that: "The SCBRC doesn't recognize reports that are not submitted to them, even if they are published in a journal." Again, not the best policy, especially considering they did exactly that to build the state list from bird records in the years prior to the BRC's existance. Alan also touches on a point at the heart of the matter - namely, that state BRCs are a recent invention that have inserted themselves into the scientific process (at the state level). An eminent ornithologist recently summed it up to me in excellent fashion: "In ornithology and other areas of science, researchers traditionally publish their records first, then let others decide on the merits of their findings. The journal editors are meant to send articles out for review, so pre-screening by a records committee is redundant, and just stymies the whole process." Again - BRCs should not be able to censor the scientific literature. Especially since BRCs are often composed of non-scientists and laymen and their members are often chosen by non-experts. In the rare cases where a BRC disputes a published note on a first state record, they should publish a rebuttal in the same journal. * That is how it works in 'higher' journals and it should be how it works in state journals too. If BRCs cannot compose a coherent rebuttal, then they do not have a leg to stand on and their decision is suspect. Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:32:12 -0500 Everyone, If by chance American Birds is considered a "higher journal" then the reported Nutting's Flycatcher was handled correctly by the Arizona Records committee. This situation is probably not that rare. Well before the establishment of various records committees, some first state or first provincial records were undoubtedly published in various journals. If such articles contain photos and / or descriptions of the bird, the current records committee is at liberty to review such records even if no other evidence exists. Regardless of the format, a records committee is going to ultimately review the record (if photos or description exist). Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:19:24 -0700 Mark Stevenson writes: > A event similar but not identical to the posited situation occurred > in > Arizona. > > A ratty bird identified in the hand in Arizona as a Nutting's > Flycatcher was > published as a Nutting's in "American Birds" and, as far as I know, > not even > submitted to the AZ BRC (=ABC). The ABC recently reviewed the bird > based on > the published article and photos in American Birds and rejected it. > > Mark Stevenson > Tucson, AZ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mel Cooksey" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:33 AM > Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > > > Nathan, > > > > You wrote.. > > > > "What if a first state record and associated material gets > published in a > > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not > exactly make > > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as > the > > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so > forth. > > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is > objective. > > Open is open." > > > > > > > > > > Nate, > > > > I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an > example of > > a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any > state > > or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a > paper on a > > legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been > accepted by > > the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have > been a > > very, very few cases in which first state records that have also > been > > first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist > Committee. > > The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a > hobby/sport > > organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward > the > > state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting > any > > proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution > in its > > periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of > those > > organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC > is the > > standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the > record is > > re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not > in the > > business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely > submit > > reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this > is as it > > should be. > > > > Mel Cooksey > > > > Corpus Christi, Tx. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nate Dias" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM > > Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > > > > >> Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the > discretion > >> of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or > others, > >> according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC > decisions. > >> > >> We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals > have > >> different purposes, as well as different criteria for > >> acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the > ABA > >> Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and > oranges. > >> > >> Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state > records' > >> here - not all records. > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "If both the committee and journal are part of the same > organization, if > >> you allow the publication of a record without committee > acceptance, then > >> you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the > other." > >> > >> -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state > records) > >> from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is > it? Or, > >> by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least > salvage the > >> journal... > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a > record in > >> the journal without first having the record accepted by the > committee?" > >> > >> -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records > Committees > >> also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of > these are > >> not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for > 'review > >> species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' > included > >> in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first > state > >> records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a > record in > >> the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a > red flag? > >> Or what if the record gets published and then later it is > rejected by the > >> committee? Then what?" > >> > >> -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state > BRC, > >> but if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. > It's > >> simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, > chemistry, > >> and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with > input from > >> advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals > may > >> then be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. > >> > >> So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by > physical > >> evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' > approval for > >> publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - > then the > >> BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. > To which > >> the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + > others' > >> approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then > respond > >> (given editors' + others' approval). > >> > >> That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process > (an > >> important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. > That seems > >> more in line with how other disciplines operate. > >> > >> I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical > evidence with > >> good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person > submitted it to > >> the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, > then it > >> should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend > to get > >> published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. > >> > >> * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has > happened and > >> will happen again before long: > >> What if a first state record and associated material gets > published in a > >> HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not > exactly > >> make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then > as the > >> process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And > so forth. > >> After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is > objective. > >> Open is open. > >> > >> Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:19:24 -0700 A event similar but not identical to the posited situation occurred in Arizona. A ratty bird identified in the hand in Arizona as a Nutting's Flycatcher was published as a Nutting's in "American Birds" and, as far as I know, not even submitted to the AZ BRC (=ABC). The ABC recently reviewed the bird based on the published article and photos in American Birds and rejected it. Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Cooksey" To: Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > Nathan, > > You wrote.. > > "What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. > Open is open." > > > > > Nate, > > I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an example of > a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any state > or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a paper on a > legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been accepted by > the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have been a > very, very few cases in which first state records that have also been > first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee. > The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a hobby/sport > organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward the > state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting any > proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution in its > periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of those > organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC is the > standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the record is > re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not in the > business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit > reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this is as it > should be. > > Mel Cooksey > > Corpus Christi, Tx. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nate Dias" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM > Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > >> Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the discretion >> of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or others, >> according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC decisions. >> >> We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals have >> different purposes, as well as different criteria for >> acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the ABA >> Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and oranges. >> >> Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state records' >> here - not all records. >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if >> you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then >> you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other." >> >> -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state records) >> from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is it? Or, >> by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least salvage the >> journal... >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in >> the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee?" >> >> -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records Committees >> also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of these are >> not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for 'review >> species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' included >> in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first state >> records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in >> the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? >> Or what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the >> committee? Then what?" >> >> -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state BRC, >> but if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. It's >> simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, chemistry, >> and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with input from >> advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals may >> then be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. >> >> So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by physical >> evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' approval for >> publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - then the >> BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. To which >> the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + others' >> approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then respond >> (given editors' + others' approval). >> >> That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process (an >> important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. That seems >> more in line with how other disciplines operate. >> >> I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical evidence with >> good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person submitted it to >> the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, then it >> should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend to get >> published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. >> >> * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has happened and >> will happen again before long: >> What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a >> HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly >> make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the >> process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. >> After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. >> Open is open. >> >> Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Mel Cooksey <cooksey AT STX.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:33:59 -0600 Nathan, You wrote.. "What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. Open is open." Nate, I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an example of a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any state or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a paper on a legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been accepted by the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have been a very, very few cases in which first state records that have also been first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee. The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a hobby/sport organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward the state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting any proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution in its periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of those organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC is the standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the record is re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not in the business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this is as it should be. Mel Cooksey Corpus Christi, Tx. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nate Dias" To: Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the discretion > of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or others, > according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC decisions. > > We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals have > different purposes, as well as different criteria for > acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the ABA > Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and oranges. > > Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state records' > here - not all records. > > Alan Wormington said: > "If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if > you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then > you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other." > > -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state records) > from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is it? Or, > by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least salvage the > journal... > > Alan Wormington said: > "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in > the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee?" > > -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records Committees > also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of these are > not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for 'review > species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' included > in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first state > records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. > > Alan Wormington said: > "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in the > journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? Or > what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the > committee? Then what?" > > -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state BRC, but > if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. It's > simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, chemistry, > and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with input from > advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals may then > be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. > > So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by physical > evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' approval for > publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - then the > BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. To which > the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + others' > approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then respond (given > editors' + others' approval). > > That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process (an > important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. That seems > more in line with how other disciplines operate. > > I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical evidence with > good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person submitted it to > the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, then it > should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend to get > published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. > > * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has happened and > will happen again before long: > What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. > Open is open. > > Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:13:58 -0800 Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the discretion of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or others, according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC decisions. We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals have different purposes, as well as different criteria for acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the ABA Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and oranges. Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state records' here - not all records. Alan Wormington said: "If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other." -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state records) from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is it? Or, by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least salvage the journal... Alan Wormington said: "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee?" -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records Committees also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of these are not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for 'review species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' included in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first state records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. Alan Wormington said: "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? Or what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the committee? Then what?" -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state BRC, but if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. It's simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, chemistry, and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with input from advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals may then be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by physical evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' approval for publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - then the BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. To which the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + others' approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then respond (given editors' + others' approval). That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process (an important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. That seems more in line with how other disciplines operate. I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical evidence with good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person submitted it to the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, then it should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend to get published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has happened and will happen again before long: What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. Open is open. Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: jlstasz AT AOL.COM Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:11:38 -0500 Hi Folks! When setting up the local Records Committee, the issue of publishing in the local journal and having a vote by the Records Committee rose to the forefront.  It has been solved locally by regarding any sighting as a "Report" until it has been reviewed by the Records Committee. If accepted by the Records Committee, the sighting is upgraded to a "Record". In the original "Charter" it was clearly stated no matter what the decission of the Records Committee, the publication of the sighting was not to be precluded. The rational being that the role of the Records Committe was to determine if the information submitted was sufficient to back up the identification, not if the sighting was valid. Good Birding! Jim Stasz North Beach MD jlstasz AT aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan Wormington To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 3:14 pm Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question Steve, I would have to disagree with you on this point. If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if ou allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then ou are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other. Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in he journal without first having the record accepted by the committee? Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in the ournal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? Or what=2 0if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the ommittee? Then what? Again my comments pertain only to the situation where both the committee nd state / provincial committee are part of the same organization. By ollowing protocol the credibility of both entities is enhanced. Cheers, Alan Wormington eamington, Ontario On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:29:39 -0500 Steven Mlodinow rites: Hello Joe and all That would be up to the journal.  I think a journal might well consider a BRC vote a peer-review (though it would really be peer-reviewing the ID/provenance of the bird, not the article itself); however, for obvious identifications of birds not kept in captivity, I wouldn't think BRC approval prior to publication as necessary. Additionally, the CBRC (and actually, I am proud to say, the WBRC) tend(s) to be very timely in voting. That is not true everywhere. Cheers Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Morlan To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:11 am Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800, Nate Dias wrote: >* Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: >It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state ornithological organization does not allow first state records to be published in the state's ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC approving the report first. >That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly independent scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board members. It also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is published in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone will publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and so forth). Would the same s ituation apply if the BRC was truly independent and not under the influence of the state ornithological organization? Let's say, that the BRC is functioning without hindrance from an outside board, but that board requires that first state records be approved by the BRC before being published in their state journal. In this example the BRC review and approval becomes a required part of the peer review process. Would that be a problem? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html =0 D -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- ird Records Committee Forum archives: ttp://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:14:38 -0500 Steve, I would have to disagree with you on this point. If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other. Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee? Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? Or what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the committee? Then what? Again my comments pertain only to the situation where both the committee and state / provincial committee are part of the same organization. By following protocol the credibility of both entities is enhanced. Cheers, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:29:39 -0500 Steven Mlodinow writes: > Hello Joe and all > > > > That would be up to the journal.  > > > > > I think a journal might well consider a BRC vote a peer-review > (though it would really be peer-reviewing the ID/provenance of the > bird, not the article itself); however, for obvious identifications > of birds not kept in captivity, I wouldn't think BRC approval prior > to publication as necessary. Additionally, the CBRC (and actually, I > am proud to say, the WBRC) tend(s) to be very timely in voting. That > is not true everywhere. > > > > > Cheers > > Steve Mlodinow > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Morlan > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:11 am > Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800, Nate Dias > > wrote: > > >* Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: > >It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state > ornithological > organization does not allow first state records to be published in > the state's > ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC > approving the > report first. > >That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly > independent > scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board > members. It > also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is > published > in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone > will > publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and > so forth). > > Would the same s > ituation apply if the BRC was truly independent and not > under the influence of the state ornithological organization? > > Let's say, that the BRC is functioning without hindrance from an > outside > board, but that board requires that first state records be approved > by the > BRC before being published in their state journal. In this example > the BRC > review and approval becomes a required part of the peer review > process. > Would that be a problem? > > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ > California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ > Western Field Ornithologists > http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:33:18 -0800 Joe brings up an interesting question. I agree that 'setting the BRC free' would lead to a process of evolutionary improvement in BRC quality. That would go a good way toward alleviating the peer review / censorship problem with 1st state records in state journals I alluded to. But as I understand it, one of the hallmarks of the peer review process is the ability to provide evidence-based arguments to publicly rebut/correct mistakes or inaccuracies. However, many (most?) BRCs have no process or provision for appealing their decisions - they are final. In some states, future BRCs can decide to re-review a decision. So for Joe's scenario to be problem-free, it seems to me that there should also be a way for non-BRC members to appeal / rebut the BRC decision (on the 1st state record) and cite evidence in favor of their argument. So I am not sure that 'setting the BRC free' alone would be a complete fix. But I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the matter. Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC ----- Original Message ---- From: Joseph Morlan To: Nate Dias Cc: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:11:35 PM Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800, Nate Dias wrote: >* Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: >It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state ornithological organization does not allow first state records to be published in the state's ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC approving the report first. >That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly independent scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board members. It also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is published in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone will publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and so forth). Would the same situation apply if the BRC was truly independent and not under the influence of the state ornithological organization? Let's say, that the BRC is functioning without hindrance from an outside board, but that board requires that first state records be approved by the BRC before being published in their state journal. In this example the BRC review and approval becomes a required part of the peer review process. Would that be a problem? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:29:39 -0500 Hello Joe and all That would be up to the journal.  I think a journal might well consider a BRC vote a peer-review (though it would really be peer-reviewing the ID/provenance of the bird, not the article itself); however, for obvious identifications of birds not kept in captivity, I wouldn't think BRC approval prior to publication as necessary. Additionally, the CBRC (and actually, I am proud to say, the WBRC) tend(s) to be very timely in voting. That is not true everywhere. Cheers Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Morlan To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:11 am Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800, Nate Dias wrote: >* Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: >It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state ornithological organization does not allow first state records to be published in the state's ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC approving the report first. >That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly independent scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board members. It also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is published in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone will publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and so forth). Would the same s ituation apply if the BRC was truly independent and not under the influence of the state ornithological organization? Let's say, that the BRC is functioning without hindrance from an outside board, but that board requires that first state records be approved by the BRC before being published in their state journal. In this example the BRC review and approval becomes a required part of the peer review process. Would that be a problem? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:11:35 -0800 On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800, Nate Dias wrote: >* Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: >It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state ornithological organization does not allow first state records to be published in the state's ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC approving the report first. >That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly independent scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board members. It also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is published in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone will publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and so forth). Would the same situation apply if the BRC was truly independent and not under the influence of the state ornithological organization? Let's say, that the BRC is functioning without hindrance from an outside board, but that board requires that first state records be approved by the BRC before being published in their state journal. In this example the BRC review and approval becomes a required part of the peer review process. Would that be a problem? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:51:41 -0800 Steve, Andy and others have it right. It seems almost impossible to maintain a high level of BRC quality over time, when non-experts (and even dilettantes) on state bird club boards vote yes or no on BRC membership. And when such membership votes are sometimes made based on personal friendship/enmity, under-informed notions of candidate competence, falling for candidates better at self-promotion than research, and so forth. It's even worse when the ornithological outfit's board (not BRC members) elect the BRC Chair. This can potentially lead to people chairing BRCs who are not exactly well-published/qualified themselves. As a result - decisions suffer, the BRC gets less and less respect from a state's top birders, the BRC receives a smaller and smaller proportion of rare or unprecedented birds found, and eventually the BRC becomes increasingly irrelevant in the scheme of things. An example: South Carolina is about to have its latest 3 'first state records' (all with documentation/physical evidence) published in outside journals and not submitted to the state's BRC. * Steve - here is an even further humiliation / travesty: It is especially bad when in addition to the above, a state ornithological organization does not allow first state records to be published in the state's ornithological journal without the (board-determined) state BRC approving the report first. That amounts to censorship and it effectively places a supposedly independent scientific journal at the mercy of inexpert state bird club board members. It also makes a mockery out of the peer review process (if something is published in error, then the way things are *supposed* to work is that someone will publish a rebuttal, the original author may or may not respond, and so forth). Nathan Dias - Charleston, South Carolina ------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: "kratter AT flmnh.ufl.edu" Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:21:10 -0500 David et al. Your desire for transparency is based on the assumption that the boards that "control" the records committee can be better assessors of potential committee members than the records committees themselves. I do not think that this is true in a great majority of cases. The boards of ornithological organizations (like the FOS in my State) are appointed to be competent at a number of tasks, such as growing membership, organizing meetings, and attending to pertinent conservation matters, etc. They may be legendary ornithologists, birders, or organizers, but they may not be in the top tier of assessing identifications. The records committees are often quite independent of the boards, composed of those solely qualified to assess bird records. I can see that records committees can become entrenched in particular institutions or cliques (certainly the FOSRC has been previously accused of this), but I do not see many instances where the boards can be better assessors who can best serve on the records committee. In my experience (I serve on four "records" committees, all of whom nominate their own members without providing qualifications to their boards), records committees work best when the members choose their membership. Andy Kratter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:12:14 -0500 Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Stan DeOrsey <jsmd AT ATT.NET> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:28:30 -0500 First I do not represent a state records committee, but otherwise call me cynical on this question because when I read the original posting the first thing I thought of was a mother organization which was more political than bird oriented. I read between the lines (perhaps incorrectly, but maybe not) of an organization who only wanted team players who thought about ecology, and fund raising, in the same directions as the directors. Someone who would be not contradict an organization's position on some piece of legislation, etc. I know organizations like this, although not with regard to a state records committee. Steven Mlodinow wrote: > >The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn >up > a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC >member... > and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to >this > organization's board for comment when a position needs to be >filled --- > then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to >delineate precisely > why that choice was made. > > > >Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? -- Stan DeOrsey jsmd AT att.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:41:22 -0500 Greetings All I agree that nominations from outside the BRC can be of value. For the last 4 years, we have published in WOSNews that an opening in the BRC will be available (usually with at least 6 months notice) and ask for nominations. We have actually had surprisingly few. We have discussed what makes an ideal member, some of which I outlined in the "resume" portion of the discussion. A great birder who can't vote on time or is unwilling to do necessary research is not an ideal member, so as Phil and others have pointed out, multiple characteristics come into play... How to evaluate these is another question. Best Wishes SteveM -----Original Message----- From: Phil Davis To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:46 pm Subject: Re: Procedural Question Hi BRCF-L:    I've only had a chance to quickly skim this thread ... I hope to read everything in more detail in the next day or two.    Just a couple quick comments ...    1. Our MD/DC Records Committee nominates and elects our own member using a procedure similar to what Alan Wormington described for Ontario. The President of the Maryland Ornithological Society (MOS), the organization under which we are chartered, is then presented with our slate of new members and he/she ratifies them since we are a standing committee of the MOS.    2. A few years ago, some of us were concerned that we were being perhaps a b it too lax in scrutinizing the qualifications of our own nominees. To deal with this, we (the MD/DCRC) did two things:    a. We now start our nomination process via email prior to our Annual Meeting and we ask the members who are planning to nominate someone to give us a brief description of the nominee's background via email. Even though we are a small state, it's amazing what we all don't know about some of the candidates, especially with people that are somewhat new to our area.    b. A few years ago, I brainstormed a "mindmap" of what might be (?) a set of "ideal" qualifications of an MD/DCRC member to help us focus on our nomination and election process. You can find a copy of this mindmap, as a one-page PDF document, here ...      http://pdavis.posterous.com/mddcrc-records-committee-membe (the truncation is not an error)    Note that this is just an internal-MD/DCRC set of discussion guidelines, not actual membership guidelines from our sponsoring organization! The thinking is that no one will have all of these qualifications; however, nominated candidates should certainly have some of them.    Hope this helps ...    Phil    At 23:12 03/02/2009, Steven Mlodinow wrote:  >The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn >up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC >member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to >th is organization's board for comment when a position needs to be >filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to >delineate precisely why that choice was made.  >  >Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation?    ===================================================  Phil Davis, Secretary  MD/DC Records Committee  2549 Vale Court  Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA  301-261-0184  mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com    MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html  ===================================================    --------------------------------------------------  Bird Records Committee Forum archives:  http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html  -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:46:13 -0500 Hi BRCF-L: I've only had a chance to quickly skim this thread ... I hope to read everything in more detail in the next day or two. Just a couple quick comments ... 1. Our MD/DC Records Committee nominates and elects our own member using a procedure similar to what Alan Wormington described for Ontario. The President of the Maryland Ornithological Society (MOS), the organization under which we are chartered, is then presented with our slate of new members and he/she ratifies them since we are a standing committee of the MOS. 2. A few years ago, some of us were concerned that we were being perhaps a bit too lax in scrutinizing the qualifications of our own nominees. To deal with this, we (the MD/DCRC) did two things: a. We now start our nomination process via email prior to our Annual Meeting and we ask the members who are planning to nominate someone to give us a brief description of the nominee's background via email. Even though we are a small state, it's amazing what we all don't know about some of the candidates, especially with people that are somewhat new to our area. b. A few years ago, I brainstormed a "mindmap" of what might be (?) a set of "ideal" qualifications of an MD/DCRC member to help us focus on our nomination and election process. You can find a copy of this mindmap, as a one-page PDF document, here ... http://pdavis.posterous.com/mddcrc-records-committee-membe (the truncation is not an error) Note that this is just an internal-MD/DCRC set of discussion guidelines, not actual membership guidelines from our sponsoring organization! The thinking is that no one will have all of these qualifications; however, nominated candidates should certainly have some of them. Hope this helps ... Phil At 23:12 03/02/2009, Steven Mlodinow wrote: >The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn >up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC >member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to >this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be >filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to >delineate precisely why that choice was made. > >Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:03:19 -0600 I'd like to weigh in again, in agreement with Steve and Andy Kratter. I am grateful that the Board of the Audubon Society of Missouri leaves us alone to make our selection of new members and does not try to control it or even guide it. Andy is exactly right, that those Board members have many virtues but are generally not among the most knowledgeable birders or evaluators and would not be good judges of who is. On the contrary, they could easily be misled by someone's long resume of tours taken, parts of the continent covered, life list amassed, etc., when in fact that person may still not know what they need to, may not have the patience to do careful research, may still get field characters all mixed up despite years of experience.....we all know such people, and I have a couple in mind who could probably do some back-door persuasion of our Board that they belong on the records committee. They would be disasters. So a mere resume could be misleading, but on the other hand, when we have positions open, we do solicit nominations from the whole membership, we occasionally get one, and we are glad to get that person's resume (or the nominators' testimonials) if we don't know him/her very well. Actually, that just occurred this past year, when we filled three positions. For two of the three we elected birders well known to us who needed no resume; for the third, we got an outside nomination with a long description of the person's qualifications, about which we had had no idea. He's on the committee now and contributing just fine. Overall, I don't see this as an issue of scientific accountability and openness but rather one of awareness and sensitivity to other people's personal qualities and skill sets. Ideally you will get a committee that functions with a good level of expertise, with varying points of view, and with civility and humor. A committee that makes these membership choices for itself is analogous to the board of any non-profit institution, e.g., an independent school like the one in which I work. Such boards are self-perpetuating for similar reasons. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Steven Mlodinow wrote: > Greetings David (and others) > > It is only humiliating in that the Board is placing itself as a > superior judge over the committee. I will not comment on some of > the board member's field abilities or knowledge of the state's > birders. > > Otherwise, the resume becomes just another hassle for a group of > volunteers that struggles with doing its primary job; This is not a > career, being a BRC member, nor for any of us does it contribute to > our careers. > > I think some quite suitable candidates might just say, "Forget it" > with the extra hassle of having to "prove" themselves on paper.... > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spector, David (Biology) > To: sgmlod AT AOL.COM; BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 5:05 pm > Subject: RE: Procedural Question > > I agree that a traditional resume might not have the appropriate > data, and any > resume alone would not be enough (that's why we have interviews for > jobs). For > example, a life list of a zillion, a bunch of degrees, or a long > list of > prestigious publications would not be qualifications for a records > committee. > On the other hand, an entry like "Have banded and taken molt data > on a thousand > sparrows of a dozen species," or "Have led 23 gull identification > workshops for > the following organizations" might be relevant. Ultimately > important attributes > such as willingness to work hard, ability to work collegialy on a > committee, or > soundness of judgement are best assessed in person and via > references, but some > indirect information may be available on a resume in the boards and > committees > listed. I would never suggest that any serious decision be based > solely on a > resume, but I don't see the harm in having the added information, > which I would > not characterize as "humiliation." > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Steven Mlodinow > Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 7:47 PM > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Subject: Re: Procedural Question > > Greetings > > David, in theory your argument is strong. However, there is no > resume that > adequately assesses the reliability of one's field skills. One can > talk about > all of the places they have birded, but this is not evidence that > they could > identify one of those birds if it showed up in their backyard. The > number of > rare birds one has found does not necessarily speak to their > overall skill > level, especially in judging reports by others. > > Additionally, to be a good committee member, you need to be willing > to research > identifications/documentation, work well with others, be able to > review > documentation in a timely manner, and be a "fair" judge. There is > no resume that > can cover this. To really even start to guess at who will be a good > committee > member requires personal knowledge of that person. I can think of > few possible > substitutes. For instance, I know some extremely talented, > diligent, reliable > obserevers who have published naught, and some who have published > much but > couldn't identify their own face in the mirror. > > I can't think of any resume that would sort the wheat from the > chaff here except > for written testimonials, perhaps.... > > Steve Mlodinow > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spector, David (Biology) > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 4:27 pm > Subject: Re: Procedural Question > > > > Here is a different perspective: > > If a committee wants to assert some competence, if a committee > wants its > decisions to carry weight in a wider community, wouldn't it be good > ideas both > to have that committee composed of people whose credentials are > subject so some > scrutiny and to have that committee be responsible to a larger group? > > If I submit an article to the Auk and it is rejected, and if I > believe that the > editor rejected my article for reasons not related to the quality > of the article > > (e.g., incompetence, bias), I can bring my case (which I would do > only in the > most extreme cases) to the board of the AOU, which publishes the > Auk. If my > claim for an identification is rejected by a committee that > appoints itself, > that may consist of an essentially closed, self-perpetuating group > of buddies, > there is no such wider institutional responsibility. Of course, as > an academic, > > I have a much greater stake in whether I get a publication than if > someone adds > my sighting to a list, but the emotional stake may be similar. > More importantly > > than the emotional stake, is that the process by which data goes > into print, > whether as a publication or as an occurrence on a state list, > should be subject > to procedures that inspire confidence in those who may use those data. > > I don't understand the strength of opposition that has been > expressed to greater > > openness and accountability. > > David Spector > Biology, Central Connecticut State University > and > Belchertown, Massachusetts > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Buford Myers > Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 6:19 PM > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Subject: Re: Procedural Question > > Steve, > > I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned > below would > be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive > screenings which > would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National > Security; The > Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird > committee member > should be compelled to provide: > 1. DNA sampl > e > 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check > 3. Iris scan > 4. Complete medical history > 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of > all assets, > liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. > 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard > drive > 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings > 8. Drug screenings > 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers > 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars > > Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue > your own > Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records > Committee > disbanded than submit to such tyranny. > > Regards, > Mac Myers > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steven Mlodinow > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM > Subject: Procedural Question > > > Greetings All > > > The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has > drawn up a list > of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and > we are > supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's > board for > comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do > select someone, > we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. > > > Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? > > > Steve Mlodinow > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the > new Email > Toolbar now! > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee > Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the > new Email Toolbar now! > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:12:09 -0500 Greetings David (and others) It is only humiliating in that the Board is placing itself as a superior judge over the committee. I will not comment on some of the board member's field abilities or knowledge of the state's birders. Otherwise, the resume becomes just another hassle for a group of volunteers that struggles with doing its primary job; This is not a career, being?a BRC member, nor for any of us does it contribute to our careers. I think some quite suitable candidates might just say, "Forget it" with the extra hassle of having to "prove" themselves on paper.... Steve -----Original Message----- From: Spector, David (Biology) To: sgmlod AT AOL.COM; BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 5:05 pm Subject: RE: Procedural Question I agree that a traditional resume might not have the appropriate data, and any resume alone would not be enough (that's why we have interviews for jobs). For example, a life list of a zillion, a bunch of degrees, or a long list of prestigious publications would not be qualifications for a records committee. On the other hand, an entry like "Have banded and taken molt data on a thousand sparrows of a dozen species," or "Have led 23 gull identification workshops for the following organizations" might be relevant. Ultimately important attributes such as willingness to work hard, ability to work collegialy on a committee, or soundness of judgement are best assessed in person and via references, but some indirect information may be available on a resume in the boards and committees listed. I would never suggest that any serious decision be based solely on a resume, but I don't see the harm in having the added information, which I would not characterize as "humiliation." David -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Steven Mlodinow Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 7:47 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Greetings David, in theory your argument is strong. However, there is no resume that adequately assesses the reliability of one's field skills. One can talk about all of the places they have birded, but this is not evidence that they could identify one of those birds if it showed up in their backyard. The number of rare birds one has found does not necessarily speak to their overall skill level, especially in judging reports by others. Additionally, to be a good committee member, you need to be willing to research identifications/documentation, work well with others, be able to review documentation in a timely manner, and be a "fair" judge. There is no resume that can cover this. To really even start to guess at who will be a good committee member requires personal knowledge of that person. I can think of few possible substitutes. Fo r instance, I know some extremely talented, diligent, reliable obserevers who have published naught, and some who have published much but couldn't identify their own face in the mirror. I can't think of any resume that would sort the wheat from the chaff here except for written testimonials, perhaps.... Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Spector, David (Biology) To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 4:27 pm Subject: Re: Procedural Question Here is a different perspective: If a committee wants to assert some competence, if a committee wants its decisions to carry weight in a wider community, wouldn't it be good ideas both to have that committee composed of people whose credentials are subject so some scrutiny and to have that committee be responsible to a larger group? If I submit an article to the Auk and it is rejected, and if I believe that the editor rejected my article for reasons not related to the quality of the article (e.g., incompetence, bias), I can bring my case (which I would do only in the most extreme cases) to the board of the AOU, which publishes the Auk. If my claim for an identification is rejected by a committee that appoints itself, that may consist of an essentially closed, self-perpetuating group of buddies, there is no such wider institutional responsibility. Of course, as an academic, I have a much greater stake in whether I get a publication than if someone adds my sighting to a list, but the emotional stake may be similar. More importantly than the emotional stake, is that the process by which data goes into print, whether as a publication or as an occurrence on a state list, should be subject to procedures that inspire confidence in those who may use those data. I don't understand the strength of opposition that has been expressed to greater openness and accountability. David Spector Biology, Central Connecticut State University and Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bi rd Records Committee Forum on behalf of Buford Myers Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 6:19 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Steve, I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned below would be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive screenings which would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National Security; The Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird committee member should be compelled to provide: 1. DNA sampl e 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check 3. Iris scan 4. Complete medical history 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of all assets, liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard drive 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings 8. Drug screenings 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue your own Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records Committee disbanded than submit to such tyranny. Regards, Mac Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar n ow! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: "Spector, David (Biology)" <spectord AT MAIL.CCSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:05:16 -0500 I agree that a traditional resume might not have the appropriate data, and any resume alone would not be enough (that's why we have interviews for jobs). For example, a life list of a zillion, a bunch of degrees, or a long list of prestigious publications would not be qualifications for a records committee. On the other hand, an entry like "Have banded and taken molt data on a thousand sparrows of a dozen species," or "Have led 23 gull identification workshops for the following organizations" might be relevant. Ultimately important attributes such as willingness to work hard, ability to work collegialy on a committee, or soundness of judgement are best assessed in person and via references, but some indirect information may be available on a resume in the boards and committees listed. I would never suggest that any serious decision be based solely on a resume, but I don't see the harm in having the added information, which I would not characterize as "humiliation." David -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Steven Mlodinow Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 7:47 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Greetings David, in theory your argument is strong. However, there is no resume that adequately assesses the reliability of one's field skills. One can talk about all of the places they have birded, but this is not evidence that they could identify one of those birds if it showed up in their backyard. The number of rare birds one has found does not necessarily speak to their overall skill level, especially in judging reports by others. Additionally, to be a good committee member, you need to be willing to research identifications/documentation, work well with others, be able to review documentation in a timely manner, and be a "fair" judge. There is no resume that can cover this. To really even start to guess at who will be a good committee member requires personal knowledge of that person. I can think of few possible substitutes. For instance, I know some extremely talented, diligent, reliable obserevers who have published naught, and some who have published much but couldn't identify their own face in the mirror. I can't think of any resume that would sort the wheat from the chaff here except for written testimonials, perhaps.... Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Spector, David (Biology) To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 4:27 pm Subject: Re: Procedural Question Here is a different perspective: If a committee wants to assert some competence, if a committee wants its decisions to carry weight in a wider community, wouldn't it be good ideas both to have that committee composed of people whose credentials are subject so some scrutiny and to have that committee be responsible to a larger group? If I submit an article to the Auk and it is rejected, and if I believe that the editor rejected my article for reasons not related to the quality of the article (e.g., incompetence, bias), I can bring my case (which I would do only in the most extreme cases) to the board of the AOU, which publishes the Auk. If my claim for an identification is rejected by a committee that appoints itself, that may consist of an essentially closed, self-perpetuating group of buddies, there is no such wider institutional responsibility. Of course, as an academic, I have a much greater stake in whether I get a publication than if someone adds my sighting to a list, but the emotional stake may be similar. More importantly than the emotional stake, is that the process by which data goes into print, whether as a publication or as an occurrence on a state list, should be subject to procedures that inspire confidence in those who may use those data. I don't understand the strength of opposition that has been expressed to greater openness and accountability. David Spector Biology, Central Connecticut State University and Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Buford Myers Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 6:19 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Steve, I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned below would be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive screenings which would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National Security; The Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird committee member should be compelled to provide: 1. DNA sampl e 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check 3. Iris scan 4. Complete medical history 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of all assets, liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard drive 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings 8. Drug screenings 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue your own Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records Committee disbanded than submit to such tyranny. Regards, Mac Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: "kratter AT flmnh.ufl.edu" <kratter@FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:21:10 -0500 David et al. Your desire for transparency is based on the assumption that the boards that "control" the records committee can be better assessors of potential committee members than the records committees themselves. I do not think that this is true in a great majority of cases. The boards of ornithological organizations (like the FOS in my State) are appointed to be competent at a number of tasks, such as growing membership, organizing meetings, and attending to pertinent conservation matters, etc. They may be legendary ornithologists, birders, or organizers, but they may not be in the top tier of assessing identifications. The records committees are often quite independent of the boards, composed of those solely qualified to assess bird records. I can see that records committees can become entrenched in particular institutions or cliques (certainly the FOSRC has been previously accused of this), but I do not see many instances where the boards can be better assessors who can best serve on the records committee. In my experience (I serve on four "records" committees, all of whom nominate their own members without providing qualifications to their boards), records committees work best when the members choose their membership. Andy Kratter -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:47:34 -0500 Greetings David, in theory your argument is strong. However, there is no resume that adequately assesses the reliability of one's field skills. One can talk about all of the places they have birded, but this is not evidence that they could identify one of those birds if it showed up in their backyard. The number of rare birds one has found does not necessarily speak to their overall skill level, especially in judging reports by others. Additionally, to be a good committee member, you need to be willing to research identifications/documentation, work well with others, be able to review documentation in a timely manner, and be a "fair" judge. There is no resume that can cover this. To really even start to guess at who will be a good committee member requires personal knowledge of that person. I can think of few possible substitutes. For instance, I know some extremely talented, diligent, reliable obserevers who have published naught, and some who have published much but couldn't identify their own face in the mirror. I can't think of any resume that would sort the wheat from the chaff here except for written testimonials, perhaps.... Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Spector, David (Biology) To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 4:27 pm Subject: Re: Procedural Question Here is a different perspective: If a committee wants to assert some competence, if a committee wants its decisions to carry weight in a wider community, wouldn't it be good ideas both to have that committee composed of people whose credentials are subject so some scrutiny and to have that committee be responsible to a larger group? If I submit an article to the Auk and it is rejected, and if I believe that the editor rejected my article for reasons not related to the quality of the article (e.g., incompetence, bias), I can bring my case (which I would do only in the most extreme cases) to the board of the AOU, which publishes the Auk. If my claim for an identification is rejected by a committee that appoints itself, that may consist of an essentially closed, self-perpetuating group of buddies, there is no such wider institutional responsibility. Of course, as an academic, I have a much greater stake in whether I get a publication than if someone adds my sighting to a list, but the emotional stake may be similar. More importantly than the emotional stake, is that the process by which data goes into print, whether as a publication or as an occurrence on a state list, should be subject to procedures that inspire confidence in those who may use those data. I don't understand the strength of opposition that has been expressed to greater openness and accountability. David Spector Biology, Central Connecticut State University and Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Buford Myers Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 6:19 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Steve, I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned below would be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive screenings which would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National Security; The Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird committee member should be compelled to provide: 1. DNA sampl e 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check 3. Iris scan 4. Complete medical history 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of all assets, liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard drive 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings 8. Drug screenings 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue your own Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records Committee disbanded than submit to such tyranny. Regards, Mac Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: "Spector, David (Biology)" <spectord AT MAIL.CCSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:27:58 -0500 Here is a different perspective: If a committee wants to assert some competence, if a committee wants its decisions to carry weight in a wider community, wouldn't it be good ideas both to have that committee composed of people whose credentials are subject so some scrutiny and to have that committee be responsible to a larger group? If I submit an article to the Auk and it is rejected, and if I believe that the editor rejected my article for reasons not related to the quality of the article (e.g., incompetence, bias), I can bring my case (which I would do only in the most extreme cases) to the board of the AOU, which publishes the Auk. If my claim for an identification is rejected by a committee that appoints itself, that may consist of an essentially closed, self-perpetuating group of buddies, there is no such wider institutional responsibility. Of course, as an academic, I have a much greater stake in whether I get a publication than if someone adds my sighting to a list, but the emotional stake may be similar. More importantly than the emotional stake, is that the process by which data goes into print, whether as a publication or as an occurrence on a state list, should be subject to procedures that inspire confidence in those who may use those data. I don't understand the strength of opposition that has been expressed to greater openness and accountability. David Spector Biology, Central Connecticut State University and Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum on behalf of Buford Myers Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 6:19 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Procedural Question Steve, I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned below would be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive screenings which would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National Security; The Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird committee member should be compelled to provide: 1. DNA sample 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check 3. Iris scan 4. Complete medical history 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of all assets, liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard drive 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings 8. Drug screenings 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue your own Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records Committee disbanded than submit to such tyranny. Regards, Mac Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Buford Myers <bmyers990 AT EARTHLINK.NET> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:19:11 -0600 Steve, I cannot imagine that you fail to see that the procedures mentioned below would be valuable first steps in moving toward more comprehensive screenings which would serve two overwhelmingly important missions: National Security; The Obliteration of the Concept of Privacy. Any prospective bird committee member should be compelled to provide: 1. DNA sample 2. Fingerprints and FBI background check 3. Iris scan 4. Complete medical history 5. Comprehensive financial report including detailed listings of all assets, liabilities, tax returns for the past ten years, etc. 6. Complete inventory of personal library and copy of computer hard drive 7. Access via key-logger for monitoring of web/internet wanderings 8. Drug screenings 9. Contact information for follow-up interviews of former lovers 10. Any other information demanded by the Bird Record Committee Czars Seriously, I think you and the other committee members should issue your own Recusant Manifesto. I would rather see the Louisiana Bird Records Committee disbanded than submit to such tyranny. Regards, Mac Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Kimball Garrett <kgarrett AT NHM.ORG> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:59:55 -0800 Steve, Western Field Ornithologists is the parent organization of the California Bird Records Committee. The committee operates under its own by-laws and nominates members from within; the WFO board plays no role in nominating, electing or approving the members of the CBRC. Nobody within the CBRC or the WFO board wants it to be any other way, but it has led to some confusion vis a vis the WFO by-laws. Specifically, the WFO president is an "ex-officio" member of all other WFO committees, although this has never been the case with the CBRC (which, in other respects, is another committee of the WFO). A recent and (in my opinion) quite innocent effort to change the by-laws so that the WFO president has a more formal role with the CBRC (strictly as a liaison to the WFO board and not, of course, as a voting member) has caused reactions among the CBRC members ranging from mild, good-natured paranoia to outright apoplexy. Because WFO provides some operating funds for the CBRC and because the CBRC is one of the most visible endeavors of WFO, it makes sense to formalize the channels of communication. But, to repeat, nobody has ever suggested that officers or board members of WFO have ex-officio membership in the CBRC with voting rights, nomination rights, etc. That simply won't happen unless the officer/board member happens to also have been elected from within the CBRC (which has occurred frequently in the past). Incidentally, Western Field Ornithologists occasionally or regularly publishes in its journal Western Birds the reports of committees from other states in western North America in addition to an annual report from the CBRC. Please consider Western Birds as an outlet for such reports if geographically appropriate. Also, WFO would consider being the parent organization for bird records committees from any western state or province that wished to have such a relationship. The CBRC by-laws state the following regarding qualifications for membership: B. Qualifications. Anyone is eligible to become a Voting Member if, in the estimation of the existing Voting Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability in, and knowledge of, field identification of birds and is a member in good standing of Western Field Ornithologists. Obviously a great many other factors enter into the committee's decisions when assessing potential new members, but the only qualifications stipulated in the by-laws are those above. The complete by-laws may be found at the CBRC web site: www.californiabirds.org There is also a link to the CBRC site at the main WFO site: www.westernfieldornithologists.org Bookmark these, as the old URL (wfo-cbrc.org) is being phased out. Kimball Kimball L. Garrett Ornithology Collections Manager Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90007 (213) 763-3368 (213) 746-2999 FAX kgarrett AT nhm.org ________________________________ From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Mlodinow Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:12 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:20:33 -0500 Everyone, Ontario sounds similar to Texas, as described by Mark Lockwood. At our OBRC (spring) Annual Meeting (to finalize certain records that have split decisions) we also select new committee members that start that very same year. For each vacancy current members can bring forward the names of potential members. The merits of each person are then discussed. Then a vote takes place to rank all nominated persons. Those ranked the highest are selected to fill the positions (either 2 or 3 depending on the rotation). Nominated persons may or may not know that they have been nominated until they are asked to serve. If for some reason they are not interested, then the next highest-ranked person on the list is asked instead. Any member of the Ontario Field Ornithologists (OFO) can also nominate a person to serve, but I believe this has never happened. It would not affect the process, since whoever is nominated would be added to the original list for discussion and vote. This is a simple process that works very well. In essence the old committee is voting in members for the new committee. Without question the current members are the best qualified to decide who should be on the new committee. Re the process in Washington, it sounds a bit scary that an external "board" has to approve the selections. Even though the OBRC is a working committee of OFO, the OFO Board of Directors are never directly involved. Cheers, Alan Wormington Member, OBRC Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:12:14 -0500 Steven Mlodinow writes: > Greetings All > > > > The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn > up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC > member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to > this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be > filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to > delineate precisely why that choice was made. > > > > > Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? > > > > > Steve Mlodinow > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:20:13 -0600 Steve: I assume you mean that your state ornithological society requires these procedures, and that its board is micromanaging you as you describe. This doesn't happen in Missouri; we have plenty of autonomy. Nominations are made directly to us, no one else sees them, we select from among the nominees, and we are not expected to account to anyone else as to why we chose one person over another. The Board of the Audubon Society of Missouri (our parent organization) does like to hear a report on how things are going with the records committee (as opposed to the official Annual Report on decisions, which I write and which appears every March in the journal and on line) and they like us to lead field trips at meetings and hold occasional ID workshops around the state. But as far as exerting control over our basic functions, they don't -- we are left to make our own decisions. Does this cover the point? Bill Rowe St. Louis On Mar 2, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Steven Mlodinow wrote: > Greetings All > > The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn > up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC > member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees > to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to > be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to > delineate precisely why that choice was made. > > Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? > > Steve Mlodinow > > Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the > new Email Toolbar now! > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Procedural Question From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:48:28 -0600 Dear Steve, In Texas we do not have any such procedures. All nominations for members of the BRC are made by committee members (Texas Ornithological Society Board Members can also make a nomination). There have been a time or two where a nominee is not personally known to all members of the BRC and additional information about experience was requested in order to make an informed decision. Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm _____ From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Mlodinow Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Procedural Question Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow _____ Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now ! -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Procedural Question From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:12:14 -0500 Greetings All The organization to which we are, in theory, responsible has drawn up a list of "recommended qualities" for any potential new BRC member... and we are supposed to submit a resume for all nominees to this organization's board for comment when a position needs to be filled --- then, when we do select someone, we are supposed to delineate precisely why that choice was made. Does any other BRC submit to such humiliation? Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BUBO Listing - a website for listers globally From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:52:38 -0500 BRCF-L: Below are Mike Prince's responses to my points. I placed an "MP:" in front of each response to increase readability. I'll forward them without additional comment right now, expect to mention that I understand that our MOS logo is copyrighted. I also understand that he has subscribed to BRCL-L, so I will assume that he can directly read any BRCF-L responses. Thanks. Phil At 06:14 02/02/2009, Mike Prince wrote: >Hi Phil > >Thanks for raising your concerns again: I appreciate that they are all valid >and am happy to respond. I'm not a member of the Bird >Records Committee Forum-Listserver so please would you forward on. I've >tried to deal with all the individual points you raise. > > > your web site may either purport or appear to reflect the official data of >the MD/DC Records Committee... >MP: This is certainly not our intention: we have always stated who is >responsible for the maintenance of the official data and have provided links >back to their website (where one exists). I've also now added to our Species >List FAQ at http://www.bubo.org/listing/Species-Lists/66.html to state that >the authority should always be referred to directly where the "official" >list is required. > > > I just did not have the time or inclination to take it upon myself to >ensure that our ongoing MD/DCRC updates were communicated to you >MP: This is perfectly understood. As I had emailed to you in August, "we >wouldn't expect you, or anyone else maintaining a 'master' list, to notify >us of updates: instead we assume that if someone is using BUBO Listing to >keep, for example, their MD list, they would be likely to alert us if they >noticed we were out of date". With over 70 authorities used currently in >BUBO Listing this seemed the most pragmatic approach. > > > Your message to BIRDCHAT also implied that your data is "official" >MP: Sorry, this was never my intention although re-reading it I can see how it >could be taken this way. In my defence I'd like to add that the moderators >of Birdchat permitted me a certain length email so I couldn't explain >everything in full detail! > > > your totals are significantly in disagreement >MP: There are valid reasons why our totals may vary from the >official totals and >I have just updated the text on our Species List FAQ at >http://www.bubo.org/listing/Species-Lists/66.html to make these clearer. The >most common one is that we include 'pending' or 'provisional' species if >requested to do so by any of our listers. We have found that most listers >want to add something to their lists immediately they have seen it and in >advance of official record acceptance. Assuming the record is later rejected >then we remove it from people's lists. We also tend not to include species >groups or pairs (which explains why "guillemot, species" and "frigatebird >species" from the MD and DC lists respectively are not included). In general >I have tried to explain discrepancies like this on the relevant authority >page (e.g. >http://www.bubo.org/listing/Species-Lists/view/Species-Lists-and-Authorities >/Maryland-MD/DC-Records-Committee/66.html) but admit that I will not have >captured every one specifically. (In the MD and DC specific cases you >highlighted I had also left a couple of species out by mistake - now >corrected.) > > > I realize that you are a commercial enterprise >MP: I suppose the fact that we do allow some advertising qualifies us as a >"commercial enterprise" but the reality is that we are two people who have >put BUBO Listing together in our spare time, purely as an aid for birders >interested in listing. We will accept advertising as a way to offset the >costs we have personally incurred but this is certainly not a priority. >Incidentally we do not actually have any paid advertising on the site at the >moment: the adverts that are there are from organisations that have given us >significant publicity in the past. > > > Indicate an "as of" date from when you last downloaded our data >MP: Sounds sensible so I have added it to the MD and DC pages and >will gradually >retrofit for other authorities. > > > Clarify your verbiage "Species currently considered... >MP: Basically we are referring to the version of the authority's list that we >use, accepting that it may differ from the official one for reasons >mentioned above. I've reworded this (again for MD and DC, and will retrofit >others), e.g.: "The BUBO Listing Maryland species list, based on the MD/DCRC >list (official list last accessed on 2 February 2009), is shown below.". I'd >welcome any clearer and succinct suggestions for the wording. > > > I don't think use of the MOS logo is appropriate. >MP: We use the logo to highlight the link back to the MOS (or more >specifically >the MD/DCRC pages of the MOS website). I'm interested that you feel it is >not appropriate since we have communicated with all authorities that we use >giving them a link to the page we have created for them and asked for >comments back. I realise you can't speak for the MOS as a whole, and we >haven't had any replies from a few authorities, but this is the first >objection we've had. In fact we have had the opposite comment from some in >that they would like the authority logo to be displayed more prominently >throughout BUBO Listing, e.g. when a user is viewing someone's list that >uses the authorities. > >MP: I hope these responses are satisfactory to you but please do not >hesitate to >get back to me on any of them, or other concerns you have. We have tried to >ensure that we work amicably with all authorities that we use and we do >indeed welcome comments from all parties with an interest in BUBO Listing. > >MP: I realise I will have spoken via direct email to a number of >other people on >the BRCF list forum. If anyone else has any concerns or suggestions about >BUBO Listing then I'm very happy to hear them. > >Cheers >-- Mike -- > >Record, share and compare with BUBO Listing at www.bubo.org > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Davis [mailto:pdavis AT ix.netcom.com] >Sent: 02 February 2009 11:22 >To: Mike Prince; BRCF-L AT listserv.indiana.edu >Subject: Re: BUBO Listing - a website for listers globally > >Mike and BRCF-L: > >Mike, I would like to renew the concerns that I had expressed to you >last year concerning your BUBO web site. I am also copying the Bird >Records Committee Forum-Listserver as an FYI since I feel that other >records committees officials may share my same concerns. > >In summary, I had expressed concerns (but not formal objections) that >your web site may either purport or appear to reflect the official >data of the MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC), which, in actuality, >it does not. Furthermore, I indicated that I just did not have the >time or inclination to take it upon myself to ensure that our ongoing >MD/DCRC updates were communicated to you. We post our data so that >others may "pull" the information; we are not in the business of >"pushing" data out to others. Your message to BIRDCHAT also implied >that your data is "official" with respect to local records committees. > >Since you just sent a message to Birdchat touting your services, I >checked the versions of the MD and DC lists that you use on BUBO and >found that your totals are significantly in disagreement our MD/DCRC >totals: you show 433 for MD and 329 for DC, whereas our official >totals (that have been posted on our MD/DCRC web site since October >2008) indicate 435 and 329, respectively. Furthermore, your web site, >presents our Maryland Ornithological Society (MOS) logo which appears >to give your web site additional imprimatur, which it really doesn't >deserve. > >I realize that you are a commercial enterprise, and as I indicated in >my previous messages to you, our data is public and I don't object at >all to people or other web site linking to our data and our web site, >including BUBO; however, I really do not want it to appear to the >average BUBO web user that we have an ongoing relationship or that we >are in any way sponsoring BUBO or that your data is, in fact, our >official data. > >I am not seeking to enjoin you from using our data, but I think at a >minimum, you should: > >1. Indicate an "as of" date from when you last downloaded our data. > >2. Clarify your verbiage "Species currently considered as comprising >the MD/DCRC Maryland List for BUBO Listing purposes are shown below." >The word "currently" is inaccurate with regard to the official >MD/DCRC data and I (and probably others) don't understand what is >meant by "for BUBO listing purposes." > >3. I don't think use of the MOS logo is appropriate. > > >I look forward to your response. If you are not subscribed to BRCF-L, >I can cross-post your response. > >Thank you. > >Phil Davis > > >At 06:37 01/29/2009, Mike Prince wrote [to BIRDCHAT]: > >Firstly, thanks to the moderators for allowing me to post this. I'd like to > >bring your attention to a website aimed at all listers worldwide. BUBO > >Listing www.bubo.org allows people to record lists for any world location > >and compare them with other users. Lists can be life lists, year lists >etc.; > >locations can be regions, countries, states, counties, individual sites and > >even your local patch or yard: if it's not on BUBO Listing currently you >can > >add it yourself. There is a "targets" facility to show the "easiest" >missing > >species from any list. BUBO Listing is unique in that we use the most > >appropriate taxonomic "authority" available for a location. Thus a World > >list may use Clements as a base; a North and Middle America list the AOU; > >Lower 48 the ABA, and individual states the appropriate state >ornithological > >society checklist. Hence the most authoritative list for any location is > >used and we remain independent by abiding by decisions of each authority > >regarding taxonomy and species status. > > > >You can view any list on BUBO Listing without registering, but must >register > >to add your own; just go to www.bubo.org and click on Register. We started > >in the UK but have expanded worldwide: we now have all US states and > >counties live and have 3035 different lists online. > > > >Note that BUBO Listing does not need you to enter all your sightings. > >Instead you choose which lists you are interested in and then only enter > >records relevant to those. Thus it is quick to use and does not duplicate > >major record keeping initiatives such as eBird (which we encourage everyone > >to contribute to). Whilst the overall data we build up will allow us to > >produce accurate site checklists for any location in the world, I should > >emphasise that our focus is more the fun side of birding than the > >scientific! > > > >Of course, keeping lists is not to everyone's tastes but if you enjoy > >listing as a fun part of your birding then check out BUBO Listing! We > >welcome your comments: please send them off this group to listing AT bubo.org > >or post in our forums at http://www.bubo.org/listing/Forum/. > > > >Cheers > > > >-- Mike -- > > > >Mike Prince (Bangalore, India) and Andy Musgrove (Norfolk, UK) > >=================================================== >Phil Davis, Secretary >MD/DC Records Committee >2549 Vale Court >Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA >301-261-0184 >mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com > >MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html >=================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BUBO Listing - a website for listers globally From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:52:10 -0500 Mike and BRCF-L: Mike, I would like to renew the concerns that I had expressed to you last year concerning your BUBO web site. I am also copying the Bird Records Committee Forum-Listserver as an FYI since I feel that other records committees officials may share my same concerns. In summary, I had expressed concerns (but not formal objections) that your web site may either purport or appear to reflect the official data of the MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC), which, in actuality, it does not. Furthermore, I indicated that I just did not have the time or inclination to take it upon myself to ensure that our ongoing MD/DCRC updates were communicated to you. We post our data so that others may "pull" the information; we are not in the business of "pushing" data out to others. Your message to BIRDCHAT also implied that your data is "official" with respect to local records committees. Since you just sent a message to Birdchat touting your services, I checked the versions of the MD and DC lists that you use on BUBO and found that your totals are significantly in disagreement our MD/DCRC totals: you show 433 for MD and 329 for DC, whereas our official totals (that have been posted on our MD/DCRC web site since October 2008) indicate 435 and 329, respectively. Furthermore, your web site, presents our Maryland Ornithological Society (MOS) logo which appears to give your web site additional imprimatur, which it really doesn't deserve. I realize that you are a commercial enterprise, and as I indicated in my previous messages to you, our data is public and I don't object at all to people or other web site linking to our data and our web site, including BUBO; however, I really do not want it to appear to the average BUBO web user that we have an ongoing relationship or that we are in any way sponsoring BUBO or that your data is, in fact, our official data. I am not seeking to enjoin you from using our data, but I think at a minimum, you should: 1. Indicate an "as of" date from when you last downloaded our data. 2. Clarify your verbiage "Species currently considered as comprising the MD/DCRC Maryland List for BUBO Listing purposes are shown below." The word "currently" is inaccurate with regard to the official MD/DCRC data and I (and probably others) don't understand what is meant by "for BUBO listing purposes." 3. I don't think use of the MOS logo is appropriate. I look forward to your response. If you are not subscribed to BRCF-L, I can cross-post your response. Thank you. Phil Davis At 06:37 01/29/2009, Mike Prince wrote [to BIRDCHAT]: >Firstly, thanks to the moderators for allowing me to post this. I'd like to >bring your attention to a website aimed at all listers worldwide. BUBO >Listing www.bubo.org allows people to record lists for any world location >and compare them with other users. Lists can be life lists, year lists etc.; >locations can be regions, countries, states, counties, individual sites and >even your local patch or yard: if it's not on BUBO Listing currently you can >add it yourself. There is a "targets" facility to show the "easiest" missing >species from any list. BUBO Listing is unique in that we use the most >appropriate taxonomic "authority" available for a location. Thus a World >list may use Clements as a base; a North and Middle America list the AOU; >Lower 48 the ABA, and individual states the appropriate state ornithological >society checklist. Hence the most authoritative list for any location is >used and we remain independent by abiding by decisions of each authority >regarding taxonomy and species status. > >You can view any list on BUBO Listing without registering, but must register >to add your own; just go to www.bubo.org and click on Register. We started >in the UK but have expanded worldwide: we now have all US states and >counties live and have 3035 different lists online. > >Note that BUBO Listing does not need you to enter all your sightings. >Instead you choose which lists you are interested in and then only enter >records relevant to those. Thus it is quick to use and does not duplicate >major record keeping initiatives such as eBird (which we encourage everyone >to contribute to). Whilst the overall data we build up will allow us to >produce accurate site checklists for any location in the world, I should >emphasise that our focus is more the fun side of birding than the >scientific! > >Of course, keeping lists is not to everyone's tastes but if you enjoy >listing as a fun part of your birding then check out BUBO Listing! We >welcome your comments: please send them off this group to listing AT bubo.org >or post in our forums at http://www.bubo.org/listing/Forum/. > >Cheers > >-- Mike -- > >Mike Prince (Bangalore, India) and Andy Musgrove (Norfolk, UK) =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Stable isotope analysis as a tool for records committees From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:19:20 -0700 I think this technique was applied to the Thick-billed Parrot in New Mexico, though I don't know the results. In my state of Arizona, it would not have been helpful for the Yuma Double-striped Thick-knee that was intentionally flown up in a plane from Guatemala to Yuma. Fortunately, the story of its origin came out but not until after many people had travelled to see the bird. If it were applied to the Sungrebe found in NM last week (and still present at Bosque del Apache NWR today) stable isotope analysis suggesting Central American/Mexican origin would be clouded by possible intentional transport as with the Thick-knee. If it showed origin from the US it wouldn't exclude the possibility that the bird had been somewhere along the Rio Grande river in the US undetected for years. Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Whan" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:13 PM Subject: Stable isotope analysis as a tool for records committees > Even when an unusual species record is well documented, legitimate > questions often remain about its wild origin. Appropriately conservative > attitudes usually demand that wild status be demonstrated before a record > is accepted. A conservative approach, while it serves to reduce error, may > nevertheless misrepresent the actual status of certain rarities. Methods > to establish wild origin have been very difficult to achieve. Because it > has often been impossible to prove that a certain rarity is not an > escape/release from captivity, we may have had to settle for distortions > in certain bird records. > Certain data adduced to support wild origin for vagrants—-coincidence with > known migratory movements of wild populations, association with other > congeners known to be wild, lack of reports of escapes/releases from > captivity in a given area, etc.---are not always wholly persuasive, even > if in the aggregate they have understandably led committees to accept > records. > Records committees can often use knowledge about a bird's previous > whereabouts to make wise decisions about its local status. This knowledge > has come from observations of companion migratory species, bands, > inferences from weather conditions, etc., but one resource has yet to be > exploited fully—-stable isotope analysis. This involves scans for > radioactive elements in bird tissue from food they've consumed. Resulting > values differ quantitatively over regions in which birds feed and ingest > isotopes. If a hunter shoots a barnacle goose in Virginia, or even if a > dropped feather or guano is examined, it can be determined if this bird is > an individual who summered in Greenland. Costs for laboratory > determinations of such values are not onerous, as far as I can see. > Ohio recordkeepers have taken samples from a number of barnacle geese and > one lesser white-fronted goose, all collected in the state and properly > documented otherwise, as our first stable-isotope tests to determine if > these species deserve a place on the state list. > We hope that our findings can add to the overall picture of the wild > occurrence of these species in North America. We have other museum > specimens whose pedigrees might be tested to learn more. We suggest this > to other committees as a way to solve some persistent problems, and to > broaden our knowledge about bird distribution. > Bill Whan > Columbus, OH > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Stable isotope analysis as a tool for records committees From: Bill Whan <billwhan AT COLUMBUS.RR.COM> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:13:38 -0500 Even when an unusual species record is well documented, legitimate questions often remain about its wild origin. Appropriately conservative attitudes usually demand that wild status be demonstrated before a record is accepted. A conservative approach, while it serves to reduce error, may nevertheless misrepresent the actual status of certain rarities. Methods to establish wild origin have been very difficult to achieve. Because it has often been impossible to prove that a certain rarity is not an escape/release from captivity, we may have had to settle for distortions in certain bird records. Certain data adduced to support wild origin for vagrants—-coincidence with known migratory movements of wild populations, association with other congeners known to be wild, lack of reports of escapes/releases from captivity in a given area, etc.---are not always wholly persuasive, even if in the aggregate they have understandably led committees to accept records. Records committees can often use knowledge about a bird's previous whereabouts to make wise decisions about its local status. This knowledge has come from observations of companion migratory species, bands, inferences from weather conditions, etc., but one resource has yet to be exploited fully—-stable isotope analysis. This involves scans for radioactive elements in bird tissue from food they've consumed. Resulting values differ quantitatively over regions in which birds feed and ingest isotopes. If a hunter shoots a barnacle goose in Virginia, or even if a dropped feather or guano is examined, it can be determined if this bird is an individual who summered in Greenland. Costs for laboratory determinations of such values are not onerous, as far as I can see. Ohio recordkeepers have taken samples from a number of barnacle geese and one lesser white-fronted goose, all collected in the state and properly documented otherwise, as our first stable-isotope tests to determine if these species deserve a place on the state list. We hope that our findings can add to the overall picture of the wild occurrence of these species in North America. We have other museum specimens whose pedigrees might be tested to learn more. We suggest this to other committees as a way to solve some persistent problems, and to broaden our knowledge about bird distribution. Bill Whan Columbus, OH -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Arizona Bird Committee News From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:58:00 -0500 BRCF-L: Forwarded with permission from Gary Rosenberg ... Phil >From: Gary Rosenberg >To: Phil Davis >Subject: Re: Arizona Bird Committee News >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:40:43 -0700 > >Hi Phil, > >Feel free to post this to BRCF-L. >(snip) >Best, > >Gary >On Nov 17, 2008, at 5:53 PM, Phil Davis wrote: >>Hi Gary: >> >>I hope all is well .. >> >>Would you mind either posting your message, below, to BRCF-L or >>authorize me to cross-post it. I'm always striving to share records >>committee best practices on BRCF-L, and this is certainly an >>excellent example for all to learn more about. >> >>Thanks! >> >>Phil >> >>------------------------------ >>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:47:52 -0700 >>From: Gary Rosenberg >><ghrosenberg AT COMCAST.NET> >>Subject: Arizona Bird Committee News >> >>Hi Everyone, >> >>I thought I would bring everyone up to date on a few ABC happenings. >>First, the ABC held their annual election process - with Mark >>Stevenson and Kurt Radamaker rotating off the committee (for at least >>one year), and Molly Pollock and myself both elected (and re-elected >>in my case) to serve a four year term beginning in 2009. I want to >>take this opportunity to thank both Mark and Kurt for their excellent >>work on the committee these past four years - Mark has become >>instrumental with regard to record keeping of Arizona bird records >>(both for North American Birds and the ABC), and Kurt has been the >>driving force (along with Michael Moore and Pierre Deviche) behind >>developing the online reporting system for rarities and photos >>submitted to the AZFO site and the ABC, which has led to a newly >>implemented online voting process for records submitted to the ABC - >>my next bit of exciting news! >> >>Beginning with the Sinaloa Wren record, the ABC has now implemented an >>online voting process. Our hope and intent is to quicken the entire >>process - from submission of records to the committee voting on >>records to the publishing of results in an ABC Report in Western >>Birds. We are currently part way through 2008 records, and I hope to >>have the remainder of the 2008 records (up to today) ready for the >>committee to evaluate very soon. This will mean that we hope to >>evaluate records pretty much as they are reported. The Sinaloa Wren >>report was a test case, and the ABC successfully voted on this record >>- and the good news (and not a big surprise) is that it has been >>accepted. Normally this process ay have taken up to a year to >>complete, and now it has been voted on and accepted in a bout one month! >> >>The public can now view the status of records submitted to the ABC and >>track the results of the committee directly from the AZFO home page at: >> >>http://azfo.org/ABCVote/_ABCReports_Public_View_list.aspx >> >>We hope that by involving the observers more in the process by >>allowing them to track the progress of their records through the >>committee, this will stimulate more birders to submit their sightings >>and photos of rarities in Arizona and feel more appreciated. >> >>Good Birding, >> >>Gary >> >>Gary H. Rosenberg >>Tucson, AZ >>ghrosenberg AT comcast.net >> >>http://www.wingsbirds.com >>http://azfo.org/ArizonaBirdCommittee/index.html >>------------------------------ >> >>=================================================== >>Phil Davis, Secretary >>MD/DC Records Committee >>2549 Vale Court >>Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA >>301-261-0184 >>mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com >> >>MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html >>=================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee - updated web products From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:40:35 -0400 MD Osprey / BRCF-L: We have updated a number of the data products on our MD/DCRC web page. Our home page is here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html Direct links to recent updates are provided below ... all data products are PDF documents ... Official List of the Bird of Maryland. This update includes the Montgomery County Say's Phoebe that I inadvertently left off during the latest update cycle (thanks, Rob Hilton!) and the Southern Lapwing was moved off the main list, again due to an earlier mistake by your humble secretary. The MD list now stands at 435 species. http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf Official List of the Bird of DC. Nothing new has been added since the Post-Ernesto Long-tailed Jaeger. The list total remains at 329. http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf Updated Review Lists are here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf Updated Abridged Databases of all records, reports, etc. are here ... (these are large searchable PDF files ... suggest you do not print them) ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf Chronologies of species added to the MD and DC lists are tabulated here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdchron.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcchron.pdf Our index/bibliography of reference and identification articles is here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf And finally, a summary of our recent and current review packages is here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcpackages.pdf Thanks to Taylor McLean for posting these. Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Identification Guide to North American Birds Part II - now available From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:14:22 -0400 BRCF-L: FYI. Part II of Peter Pyle's Identification Guide to North American Birds is now available. Our MD/DC Records Committee frequently references species accounts from Part 1 in our records deliberations. Information on the book is here ... http://www.buteobooks.com/archives/pyle2.html The publisher's web page is here ... but it also available from many of the regular birding book sources. http://www.slatecreekpress.com/orderIDG.htm Usual disclaimers. Hope this helps. Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: technology and BRCs From: "K. Dean Edwards" <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:34:36 -0400 We have actually had a few reports come in from folks that aren't really even casual birders who just saw an odd bird, grabbed their digital camera, went online and found the TOS website, and emailed the photo to us to ID. One such instance was an odd bird coming to a lady's feeder which turned out to be the first winter record of Painted Bunting for the state and first accepted record for East TN anytime of the year. This bird has now returned to the same area three winters in a row and has been seen by several folks. Just this morning we got a similar report (no photos this time) of a Swallow-tailed Kite (Review-list species) in Knoxville. Unfortunately, another trend we're seeing is report forms coming in with the only thing written under "Description:" being "See photo" ... sometimes even from folks that know better. Dean Edwards Chair/Secretary, Tennessee Bird Records Committee -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: technology and BRCs From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:26:15 -0500 Mark et al.: I concur, although I'm not sure that the percentage of reports we are getting with photographs is quite as high as yours—still, it's higher than in the past for sure. Our two most recent additions to the state list—Mew Gull in April, Broad-tailed Hummingbird in June—both came in with a nice set of photographs that left no doubt. Echoing Alan's point, in the case of the Mew Gull the photos were taken by someone other than the observer, someone who might not have made it there had the report not been called in and posted on line quickly. I'm not sure that the average quality of written descriptions has gone down. It wasn't all that high to begin with. There has always been a disparity between the minority who really get how to describe a bird and expend the effort to do it well, and the majority who either don't quite get it or don't put in the effort. Again, in the case of the Mew Gull, we got a thorough, detailed writeup from the finder in addition to the good photos from someone else. Best of both worlds. Bill Rowe St. Louis, Missouri On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Mark Lockwood wrote: > Dear all, > > > > With all of this discussion about certainly and uncertainty, I do > know one thing with what I think is a 100% certainty. That is that > the advent of digital cameras have changed the way the Texas BRC > works in a very short time. I was looking at the uncirculated > records before the TBRC and to my amazement 28 out of the next 33 > records that are ready to go into circulation have at least one > associated photo. I am sure we can all recall when that number was > closer to, if not below, 50%. As time goes by I am also seeing an > increase in the overall quality of the images provided as well. > This has resulted in an upward shift in the percentage of accepted > records since for some records it shifts the burden away from the > reporter’s ability to provide detailed descriptions that eliminate > congerers and other similar species. It would be nice, but > probably too much to ask, for digital audio recorders and higher > quality microphones to become available at more reasonable process > as well. > > > > This is not anything revolutionary or anything, but it was kind of > a moment when I looked at folders and saw all of the photos lined up. > > > > Mark > > > > > > Mark Lockwood > > Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee > > 402 E. Harriet Ave. > > Alpine, Texas 79830 > > mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us > > > > Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ > > TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/ > 2004/lockwood.htm > > TOS Occ. Publications at http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/ > occasional.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: technology and BRCs From: "George L. Armistead" <georgearmistead AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:39:53 -0400 All, I think it was Al Jaramillo who told me that some study showed that no new technological device has been so readily accepted and adopted by the American public as the digital camera. Much faster than say computers, cell phones, mp3 players, etc. (Hopefully folks will come around on recording equipment. I love my new Sony PCM D50 which runs about $600, and is real easy to use.) Alan is absolutely right that fewer written descriptions make it into committee member hands as used to be the case. Mostly, I don't think that is a bad thing. As he indicates committee efficiency (and perhaps veracity?) have been improved w/ the technological improvements. Certainly there are instances where submitters don't realize the value of a written description. We've all seen what are probably solid records go unaccepted b/c the photos aren't diagnostic or as supportive as the observer thinks they are. Especially with tough ID situations, with few or no words to back them up, they don't leave voting members with much to work with. Mostly though we are coming out ahead. I can think of several observers who can't write to save their lives, but they can sure take photos, and since they've gotten cameras they've become more valuable contributors. Prior to that nobody was quite sure what to make of their reports, given their writing. The digital age has allowed them to contribute more productively and solidify their reputations. Best, -George George L. ArmisteadPhiladelphia, PAgeorgearmistead AT hotmail.comhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/seabirder/Field Guides, Inc.Birding Tours Worldwidehttp://www.fieldguides.com/ ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:41:26 -0400 > From: wormington AT JUNO.COM > Subject: Re: technology and BRCs > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > > Mark and all, > > I could not agree more. > > I have in front of me the soon-to-be-published 2007 Annual Report of the > Ontario Bird Records Committee. > > Of 122 records that are accepted, 77 records (63%) have photos as part of > the documentation. This equates to almost 2/3 of all records having > photos! > > For comparative purposes, I randomly pulled out the OBRC Annual Report > for 1986. In that report there are 132 accepted records, of which only > 37 (28%) include photographs. > > So Mark's observation is certainly real -- more people own cameras than > ever before. Despite this, I believe there is yet another variable as to > why more rarities are being photographed. And that reason is the > following: in this age of instant communication, word gets out much > faster about the presence of a rarity. The result is that a rarity is > likely to be observed by many more individuals than compared to the past > -- more individuals, more likely the bird will be photographed. I can > easily compare this modern scenario to the past, where many rarities were > seen by the finder only. After all, that person had to drive home to > make telephone calls, and there was no guarantee that others would even > be home to take the call. So a whole day might go by before anyone else > looks for the bird, assuming it is even still present. > > Despite the blessing of more records with photographs, in contrast I have > seen a different (but depressing) trend over the years. And that > pertains to written reports that are clearly of much poorer quality > compared to those of the past. Today a records committee is lucky to get > a single paragraph of description. In the past it was not unusual to get > multiple pages of written description to document a rarity. Why this is > happening could be debated, but I think the core reason is that most of > the newer, somewhat less-experienced birders nowadays just don't see the > big picture. Or they are more interested in bird listing rather than > bird study. Who knows. > > Cheers, > > Alan Wormington > Assistant to the OBRC Secretary > > > ************************** > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:35:05 -0500 Mark Lockwood > writes: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> With all of this discussion about certainly and uncertainty, I do >> know >> one thing with what I think is a 100% certainty. That is that the >> advent of digital cameras have changed the way the Texas BRC works >> in a >> very short time. I was looking at the uncirculated records before >> the >> TBRC and to my amazement 28 out of the next 33 records that are >> ready to >> go into circulation have at least one associated photo. I am sure >> we >> can all recall when that number was closer to, if not below, 50%. >> As >> time goes by I am also seeing an increase in the overall quality of >> the >> images provided as well. This has resulted in an upward shift in >> the >> percentage of accepted records since for some records it shifts the >> burden away from the reporter's ability to provide detailed >> descriptions >> that eliminate congerers and other similar species. It would be >> nice, >> but probably too much to ask, for digital audio recorders and higher >> quality microphones to become available at more reasonable process >> as >> well. >> >> >> >> This is not anything revolutionary or anything, but it was kind of a >> moment when I looked at folders and saw all of the photos lined up. >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> >> >> Mark Lockwood >> >> Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee >> >> 402 E. Harriet Ave. >> >> Alpine, Texas 79830 >> >> mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us >> >> >> >> Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at >> >> http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ >> >> TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at >> >> http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm >> >> TOS Occ. Publications at >> http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 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 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: technology and BRCs From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:41:26 -0400 Mark and all, I could not agree more. I have in front of me the soon-to-be-published 2007 Annual Report of the Ontario Bird Records Committee. Of 122 records that are accepted, 77 records (63%) have photos as part of the documentation. This equates to almost 2/3 of all records having photos! For comparative purposes, I randomly pulled out the OBRC Annual Report for 1986. In that report there are 132 accepted records, of which only 37 (28%) include photographs. So Mark's observation is certainly real -- more people own cameras than ever before. Despite this, I believe there is yet another variable as to why more rarities are being photographed. And that reason is the following: in this age of instant communication, word gets out much faster about the presence of a rarity. The result is that a rarity is likely to be observed by many more individuals than compared to the past -- more individuals, more likely the bird will be photographed. I can easily compare this modern scenario to the past, where many rarities were seen by the finder only. After all, that person had to drive home to make telephone calls, and there was no guarantee that others would even be home to take the call. So a whole day might go by before anyone else looks for the bird, assuming it is even still present. Despite the blessing of more records with photographs, in contrast I have seen a different (but depressing) trend over the years. And that pertains to written reports that are clearly of much poorer quality compared to those of the past. Today a records committee is lucky to get a single paragraph of description. In the past it was not unusual to get multiple pages of written description to document a rarity. Why this is happening could be debated, but I think the core reason is that most of the newer, somewhat less-experienced birders nowadays just don't see the big picture. Or they are more interested in bird listing rather than bird study. Who knows. Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to the OBRC Secretary ************************** On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:35:05 -0500 Mark Lockwood writes: > Dear all, > > > > With all of this discussion about certainly and uncertainty, I do > know > one thing with what I think is a 100% certainty. That is that the > advent of digital cameras have changed the way the Texas BRC works > in a > very short time. I was looking at the uncirculated records before > the > TBRC and to my amazement 28 out of the next 33 records that are > ready to > go into circulation have at least one associated photo. I am sure > we > can all recall when that number was closer to, if not below, 50%. > As > time goes by I am also seeing an increase in the overall quality of > the > images provided as well. This has resulted in an upward shift in > the > percentage of accepted records since for some records it shifts the > burden away from the reporter's ability to provide detailed > descriptions > that eliminate congerers and other similar species. It would be > nice, > but probably too much to ask, for digital audio recorders and higher > quality microphones to become available at more reasonable process > as > well. > > > > This is not anything revolutionary or anything, but it was kind of a > moment when I looked at folders and saw all of the photos lined up. > > > > Mark > > > > > > Mark Lockwood > > Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee > > 402 E. Harriet Ave. > > Alpine, Texas 79830 > > mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us > > > > Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at > > http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ > > TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at > > http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm > > TOS Occ. Publications at > http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 Subject: Re: technology and BRCs From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:04:20 -0700 Hi all, The other side of the coin is definitely sound. With the advent and popularity of MP3 players, there is probably a decreased number (and definitely a decreased percentage) of people carrying recording equipment into the field. Still, the rarities whose documentation most benefits from being recorded often get recorded. We are seeing the occasional recording made on a digital voice recorder like the Olympus DS-30 or made on a video recording where the image is marginal and the sound is useful. You can get a DS-30 (that interfaces with a computer) for a not-unreasonable price and make surprisingly good recordings without an expensive external mic if the sound level is not too low. Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Lockwood To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:35 PM Subject: technology and BRCs Dear all, With all of this discussion about certainly and uncertainty, I do know one thing with what I think is a 100% certainty. That is that the advent of digital cameras have changed the way the Texas BRC works in a very short time. I was looking at the uncirculated records before the TBRC and to my amazement 28 out of the next 33 records that are ready to go into circulation have at least one associated photo. I am sure we can all recall when that number was closer to, if not below, 50%. As time goes by I am also seeing an increase in the overall quality of the images provided as well. This has resulted in an upward shift in the percentage of accepted records since for some records it shifts the burden away from the reporter's ability to provide detailed descriptions that eliminate congerers and other similar species. It would be nice, but probably too much to ask, for digital audio recorders and higher quality microphones to become available at more reasonable process as well. This is not anything revolutionary or anything, but it was kind of a moment when I looked at folders and saw all of the photos lined up. Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm TOS Occ. Publications at http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: technology and BRCs From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:35:05 -0500 Dear all, With all of this discussion about certainly and uncertainty, I do know one thing with what I think is a 100% certainty. That is that the advent of digital cameras have changed the way the Texas BRC works in a very short time. I was looking at the uncirculated records before the TBRC and to my amazement 28 out of the next 33 records that are ready to go into circulation have at least one associated photo. I am sure we can all recall when that number was closer to, if not below, 50%. As time goes by I am also seeing an increase in the overall quality of the images provided as well. This has resulted in an upward shift in the percentage of accepted records since for some records it shifts the burden away from the reporter's ability to provide detailed descriptions that eliminate congerers and other similar species. It would be nice, but probably too much to ask, for digital audio recorders and higher quality microphones to become available at more reasonable process as well. This is not anything revolutionary or anything, but it was kind of a moment when I looked at folders and saw all of the photos lined up. Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm TOS Occ. Publications at http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Richard Heil <rsheil AT COMCAST.NET> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:25:11 -0400 Since Ted won't let it rest: At 07:06 PM 7/13/2008, Ted Floyd wrote: >Sorry to have been unclear. but you're missing my point. I was >stating, in an absolute sense, my assignment of a probability to >that particular flycatcher. Since there is no certainty, how can you possibly assign a probability to the unknown? > > Since both the actual observation and the assignment of > probability are being made by the observer, > >You're *definitely* missing my point! (And, again, sorry to have >been unclear.) I have been assuming, for the sake of argument, that >my assignment of probability is somehow absolute. Somehow, indeed! Again using a concept in the attempt to deny it. > I am treating the matter hypothetically. I'm a naturally > "subjunctive," conditional, hypothetical sort of person, who > frequently writes in a voice that I have recently learned is termed > "free indirect discourse." I have further been told that such > writing is inscrutable to engineers, doctors, airplane pilots, and > computer programmers. Hey, those are great people, and much more > valuable in this life than I am, but they often miss my point. As > far as I know, I rarely state anything literally. Where would be > the fun in that? The logic in all of this is so convoluted as to be incomprehensible. Gibberish, as I said in an earlier post. Hypothetically, if that there's a wall I'm speeding towards at 80 mph, well, then, hypothetically, I'd better start applying my brakes. Whadya think? >Meanwhile, Richard Heil writes: > > > If your main point in this entire discussion was merely > > that often there is uncertainty regarding records ... > >Yes, that is the basic gist of what I was saying. > > > then of course, obviously, that is true, and I agree. > > But you went much farther. You said that certainty > > never exists: "there is no certainty." > >We're definitely in the realm of semantics now, but, yes, I am >basically comfortable with the preceding. We used to live in a >yes/no, black/white, good/evil, right/wrong, us/them, accept/reject >world. That is the world of Plato. We do not live in that world >anymore. Check that: The vast majority of us cheerfully go about our >business living in that world! But science and philosophy have not >been there for close to 150 years. Accept/reject is a dichotomy that >has been rejected--heh!--by the scientific establishment for 150 >years, and, in many respects, for 400 years. Science and philosophy >assure us that we live in a world of uncertainty, that our world is >colored in shades of gray, that there is no certainty. In terms of >my own health and happiness, I'm very happy that engineers, doctors, >airplane pilots, and computer programmers have not heeded those >lessons. But I believe that those lessons apply well to BRCs. Ted, you've ignored my earlier points regarding the dichotomies and contradictions inherent in the idea of "absolute uncertainty" and have continued blithely on. Your points are so full of contradictions it's hard to know where to begin. You make declarative statements and write in certainties and absolutes all the while denying their existence. You state declaratively that the world is one of moral relativism and scientific subjectivism, a world with no truths, no good or evil, and no right or wrong (and I was accused of exaggerating your subjectivism earlier!). However, intellectually you aren't true to your ideas at all. You abandon your own stated philosophy faster than light ... as needed. You don't believe in truths and certainties, you claim, but you are happy that those that you actually depend upon for your happiness, safety, and life do!!! You live this contradiction because you really know your ideas to be false. Scientists, doctors, engineers, and pilots, contrary to your declarations, do indeed believe in a yes/no, black/white, right/wrong world, at least if their behavior is any measure of their beliefs. They have to. They make these sorts of decisions all day long. Lives depend upon it, including theirs. You take possible quantum and other particle uncertainties and inappropriately apply them to the macro-world. Big macro mistake. Somehow, particle uncertainty becomes "there is no yes/no or right/wrong or good/evil or accept/reject in your mind. I'm not getting this giant leap. I don't see the connection ... at all. To get back to bird records, as I stated earlier, but ignored, any quantum or other micro-uncertainties are IRRELEVANT to bird observations and records committees analysis of them. That's a certainty. Finally, if I were to adhere to your philosophy, how can I trust or even know that anything you say is true since there are no truths? Furthermore, how can you begin to make any kind of argument in the first place? This will be my last post on the subject. I've had enough of the nonsense, literally. Can't take no more, hypothetically speaking of course. Richard S. Heil S. Peabody, MA rsheil AT comcast.net Massachusetts Avian Records Committee P.S. Ted, you might consider moving to a lower elevation. -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:06:14 -0700 Hi, all. Sorry for my delay in jumping back into this thread. We're kinda in the realm of semantics right now, and I suppose that's familar territory for a lot of BRC'ers, but here goes. First, Paul Guris says: > So you say your probability is very high, but less than > 100% so you didn't submit it. I said it was greater than 50%. I wouldn't call that "very high." > Looking at the above, do you wish to argue that the > probability of Ivory-billed still existing is much higher > than the probability that you saw an Alder Flycatcher? > After all, there are multiple observers who are more > certain than you are of their ID's. Sorry to have been unclear. but you're missing my point. I was stating, in an absolute sense, my assignment of a probability to that particular flycatcher. > If you wouldn't argue that point, my question would be "why not?" They're just not comparable. Apples and oranges. There are whopping differences, for example, in prior likelihood of occurrence. By the way, that word, "prior," presents the opportunity for me to encourage BRCs to consider using Bayesian methods of inference in evaluating records. Indeed, I would say that the whole Bayeseian paradigm is splendidly suited to the overall enterprise of committee work. > Since both the actual observation and the assignment of probability are being made by the observer, You're *definitely* missing my point! (And, again, sorry to have been unclear.) I have been assuming, for the sake of argument, that my assignment of probability is somehow absolute. I am treating the matter hypothetically. I'm a naturally "subjunctive," conditional, hypothetical sort of person, who frequently writes in a voice that I have recently learned is termed "free indirect discourse." I have further been told that such writing is inscrutable to engineers, doctors, airplane pilots, and computer programmers. Hey, those are great people, and much more valuable in this life than I am, but they often miss my point. As far as I know, I rarely state anything literally. Where would be the fun in that? > 2) Data SHOULD have a quality threshold. That's not a > bug, it's a feature. You are not confident enough to say > that your conclusion is correct, so you don't submit. > Isn't this how science is supposed to work in general? No doubt this will reveal my pettiness, but I didn't submit because, at some level, I didn't want to get rejected. But, more to the point, I didn't submit because of my belief that the accept/reject dichotomy just wouldn't work in the case of my presumptive Alder Flycatcher. As to how science works, no, I hope it doesn't work the way you're describing it! We report our results, we report our p-values, and that's that. > I'm not sure how other records committees work, but > I think "preponderance of evidence" is often used for > regularly occurring rarities, while "beyond a reasonable > doubt" would be used for extreme rarities, first state > records, birds assumed to be extinct, etc. In NJ, an > Ash-throated Flycatcher report in Cape May in November > would require a vastly lower threshold than any Eskimo > Curlew, and rightly so. I'm aware of this distinction, and I think it's improperly applied. Let's say I'm 85% certain that a 0.1-meter object will hit the earth; and let's say I'm also 85% certain that a 10-kilometer object will hit the earth. If my only criterion is accuracy, then I report both results with equal gusto. If I have practical concerns, then I ascribe greater importance to the 10-km object than to the 0.1-m object. Shouldn't it be the same with BRCs? If all we seek is accuracy (and that's fine, as human lives, honestly, aren't at stake), then we should have the same thresholds for megas as for regular vagrants. But if we see practical value in our work (and that's fine, too), then we should be especially careful about the danger of Type II errors with megas. Incorrectly rejecting a November Ash-throated Flycatcher is no big deal, but incorrectly rejecting an Eskimo Curlew record, anywhere, could be a big mistake. > The assumption that the record would not be accepted > is yours and yours alone, though perhaps not without > cause. Perhaps they would have felt that what you observed > was diagnostic and accepted the record. Good point, and I've wondered about this. Specifically, I have a question for anybody (Kimball?) out there on the California committee. If an observer indicates that he or she is not certain of the ID, how does that affect the committee's deliberations? I assume that it is a huge blow against the submission, akin to confessing "guilty" before a judge, but maybe I am wrong. (Note: If you missed it earlier, the California form has--or, at least, it used to have--a place for indicating whether you're certain of the identification of the species you're reporting.) Meanwhile, Richard Heil writes: > If your main point in this entire discussion was merely > that often there is uncertainty regarding records ... Yes, that is the basic gist of what I was saying. > then of course, obviously, that is true, and I agree. > But you went much farther. You said that certainty > never exists: "there is no certainty." We're definitely in the realm of semantics now, but, yes, I am basically comfortable with the preceding. We used to live in a yes/no, black/white, good/evil, right/wrong, us/them, accept/reject world. That is the world of Plato. We do not live in that world anymore. Check that: The vast majority of us cheerfully go about our business living in that world! But science and philosophy have not been there for close to 150 years. Accept/reject is a dichotomy that has been rejected--heh!--by the scientific establishment for 150 years, and, in many respects, for 400 years. Science and philosophy assure us that we live in a world of uncertainty, that our world is colored in shades of gray, that there is no certainty. In terms of my own health and happiness, I'm very happy that engineers, doctors, airplane pilots, and computer programmers have not heeded those lessons. But I believe that those lessons apply well to BRCs. Ted Floyd tedfloyd57 AT hotmail.com Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado _________________________________________________________________ The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Richard Heil <rsheil AT COMCAST.NET> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:15:12 -0400 Ted, If your main point in this entire discussion was merely that often there is uncertainty regarding records ... then of course, obviously, that is true, and I agree. But you went much farther. You said that certainty never exists: "there is no certainty." That's what I responded to, pointing out the contradictions and paradoxes associated with such a statement, and tried to explain why this and other micro-uncertainties that may exist are irrelevant in the real macro world that we all live in. Thanks, Richard S. Heil S. Peabody, MA rsheil AT comcast.net Massachusetts Avian Records Committee At 08:11 AM 7/3/2008, Ted Floyd wrote: >Hello, everybody. Just 2 quick points. 1. Richard Heil keeps >returning to quantum uncertainty, but that's not where I, >personally, have been trying to take this. Recent (post-1859) >scientific and philosophical ideas about uncertainty go well beyond >quantum uncertainty. Yes, I cited Schroedinger's famous 1927 >discovery, but I also cited other examples of general >indeterminacy/incompleteness/relativism/etc. Here's a nice >discussion of uncertainty that doesn't, so far as I can tell, in any >way appeal to quantum uncertainty: >http://sibleyguides.blogspot.com/search/label/Ivory-billed%20Woodpecker >2. Laurent Raty's broad take on Type I and Type II errors looks to >be spot-on. I was thinking only of BRC errors in the narrow context >of birds that are actually detected and reported to records >committees. In those instances, I believe it is still correct that a >shift from a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a >"preponderance of evidence" would result in a lower overall error >rate. Indeed, that is, by definition, the goal of the standard of a >"preponderance of evidence," namely, What is the most likely >explanation? Thanks, all. Fun conversation. All best, --Ted Ted >Floyd tedfloyd57 AT hotmail.com Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado > >---------- >Don't get caught with egg on your face. >Play >chicktionary! -------------------------------------------------- >Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: "Paul A. Guris" <paul AT PAULAGICS.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:24:04 -0400 Ted- A number of points (sorry for the length): 1) It's interesting that you selected David Sibley's post that is highly related to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Let's look at that example and compare it to your Alder Flycatcher, and how it would work in your system: - Your report is from a single observer. Multiple people would swear on a stack of Bibles that they saw an Ivory-billed. - Part of your ID is call note. Multiple people swear that they have heard what they deem to be diagnostic calls and drums. - Your report is of a species that is one of the most difficult ID problems in North America. Ivory-billed is a slam-dunk. - Your report is out of range. Most Ivory-billed reports are well within their historic range. So you say your probability is very high, but less than 100% so you didn't submit it. Looking at the above, do you wish to argue that the probability of Ivory-billed still existing is much higher than the probability that you saw an Alder Flycatcher? After all, there are multiple observers who are more certain than you are of their ID's. If you wouldn't argue that point, my question would be "why not?" Are you simply better than them? [That last one is sooooo unfair and I don't mean it. I'm just hoping to get a snicker out of you. ;-) ] Since both the actual observation and the assignment of probability are being made by the observer, the probability portion of the data is pretty much useless. It's merely a subjective measure of "how confident am I?", but is based on nothing but each person's own interpretation which can be skewed by their abilities, what they saw, how much they want that bird for a state list, who they're birding with, etc. Actually, I can't imagine how you could create a data model that is more subjective. With the number of errors made by people who believe their sightings to be definite, I think any attempt to go to finer granularity is pretty much useless. As I said before, it gives the illusion of greater accuracy, but does not, in fact, deliver it. 2) Data SHOULD have a quality threshold. That's not a bug, it's a feature. You are not confident enough to say that your conclusion is correct, so you don't submit. Isn't this how science is supposed to work in general? If you have data points that are subjective, open to interpretation, and/or incomplete, do you publish a paper on them and say "I know my data is questionable, but here's my conclusion IF it's correct?" If we published every suspicion that every birder ever had, you wouldn't be able to find the wheat(ear) for the chaf(finch). Yes, different people have different personal quality thresholds for submitting a record, but adding even more subjectivity to the system is hardly the solution. 3) You state the following: > I believe it is still correct that a shift from a standard of > "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a "preponderance of evidence" > would result in a lower overall error rate. I'm not sure how other records committees work, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is often used for regularly occurring rarities, while "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be used for extreme rarities, first state records, birds assumed to be extinct, etc. In NJ, an Ash-throated Flycatcher report in Cape May in November would require a vastly lower threshold than any Eskimo Curlew, and rightly so. Difficulty of ID is also used as part of the decision making process, so Hammond's Flycatcher might require a higher threshold than a Swallow-tailed Kite. Again, features, not bugs. 4) You seem to be projecting a lot of personal opinions onto records committees. Looking at your example where you were not 100% confident so did not submit the Alder Flycatcher: - The decision not to submit was yours, so really does not have anything to do with the records committee. You could have submitted and noted your lack of assuredness and why, very valuable information. - The assumption that the record would not be accepted is yours and yours alone, though perhaps not without cause. Perhaps they would have felt that what you observed was diagnostic and accepted the record. - The view that not having your record accepted would render your data useless is yours and yours alone, unless the Colorado committee told you explicitly not to bother turning it in or throws away all unaccepted reports. Had you submitted, I assume anybody doing research on out of range Alder Flycatchers could have had access to your details and determined for themselves whether or not they felt it was a valid data point. The committee isn't the end all, be all in assessing data quality. Again, sorry for the long-winded response, but I find my disagreements to be with your base assumptions. For me, your process arguments are moot until the issues with your assumptions are addressed. -PAG Paul A. Guris Green Lane, PA www.paulagics.com paul AT paulagics.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 05:11:11 -0700 Hello, everybody. Just 2 quick points. 1. Richard Heil keeps returning to quantum uncertainty, but that's not where I, personally, have been trying to take this. Recent (post-1859) scientific and philosophical ideas about uncertainty go well beyond quantum uncertainty. Yes, I cited Schroedinger's famous 1927 discovery, but I also cited other examples of general indeterminacy/incompleteness/relativism/etc. Here's a nice discussion of uncertainty that doesn't, so far as I can tell, in any way appeal to quantum uncertainty: http://sibleyguides.blogspot.com/search/label/Ivory-billed%20Woodpecker 2. Laurent Raty's broad take on Type I and Type II errors looks to be spot-on. I was thinking only of BRC errors in the narrow context of birds that are actually detected and reported to records committees. In those instances, I believe it is still correct that a shift from a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a "preponderance of evidence" would result in a lower overall error rate. Indeed, that is, by definition, the goal of the standard of a "preponderance of evidence," namely, What is the most likely explanation? Thanks, all. Fun conversation. All best, --Ted Ted Floyd tedfloyd57 AT hotmail.com Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_feb -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Richard Heil <rsheil AT COMCAST.NET> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:43:14 -0400 At 08:18 AM 7/1/2008, Ted Floyd wrote: >And as to straight-out certainty, I'm just not buying it. Not since >1859. We now know that we live in a universe that is evolutionary >(1859), relativistic (1905), uncertain (1927), impermanent (1929), >incomplete (1931), chaotic (1961), entangled (1982), and otherwise >fuzzy, blurry, and indeterminate. That's not political correctness >or some "cult of uncertainty." That's 149 years of scientific >progress. Old ideas die hard. A lot of folks still cling to >Platonistic ideals of certainty, truth, and beauty. But not >scientists. Not since 1859. > >We now know that it is better to say p=0.35, or p=0.99, or even >p~1.00. But not p=1.00. Indeed, it is in the realm of those very >small (p~0.00) and very large (p~1.00) probabilities where some of >the most surprising of mathematical and philosophical issues play >out. A fine introduction, in my opinion, is Brian Greene's Fabric of >the Cosmos (Knopf, 2004). An important sub-theme--and it is one that >runs throughout Fabric of the Cosmos--is that it is a mistake to >equate near-certainty with certainty. The best we can say about the >universe around us is that it is a continuum of uncertainties; and >the best we can do is describe reality in probabilistic terms. For >sure, that is a complete repudiation of Plato. But it does seem to >be where modern science has taken us. Ted et al., I'm not sure that there is unanimous agreement among physicists or philosophers either on the nature of reality or to what extent quantum features undermine it. The universe may be an inseparable entity because of interactions but to a very close approximation it may be divided up into lots of quasi-autonomous little things whose separate identity is rarely questioned in daily life. An observed Chestnut-sided Warbler is only infinitesimally different from an unobserved Chestnut-sided Warbler. It's essential identifying characteristics, what makes it what it is, and differentiates it from all other things (a tree, a can opener, or a Bay-breasted Warbler) is unchanged. Epistemologically only its non-essential are altered very slightly. Consider that there is an inherent paradox in the statement "all things are uncertain" which has not been addressed. Absolute uncertainty is an oxymoron. "There are no certainties" is a contradiction. QT is about particles, not existence as a whole. The primacy of existence is the axiom that existence exists and that things have an identity. One cannot argue against existence or certainty (=identity) because you must use and therefore accept the concept in any attempt to deny it. The fact that things change helps confirm identity/certainty because change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what. Without the concept of identity/certainty, change is meaningless. Similarly paradoxical is the fact that quantum theory science uses classical concepts of science and experimental apparatus that are themselves discredited by quantum theory. Furthermore, if all things are imbued with absolute uncertainty, how exactly does one calculate the probability of the unknown? If there is no certain thing as an Alder Flycatcher, how do calculate the probability that your sighting is of an Alder Flycatcher? Honestly, all of this has almost nothing to do with records committees deciding whether a given record has sufficient evidence to be accepted or not. For birders identifying birds, and for committees evaluating records, any quantum uncertainty is infinitesimal and therefore irrelevant. For a birder or a committee it matters little whether p=1 or p~1. For practical purposes close to certainty is certainty. Of course, many records or even most records are not certain, but as Buford Myers said earlier: "what bird records committee has ever stated or even implied that its decisions are expressions of certainty." This is right to the point. Thanks, Richard S. Heil S. Peabody, MA rsheil AT comcast.net Massachusetts Avian Records Committee -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports (RESEND) From: laurent raty <l_raty AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:28:47 +0200 Hi Ted, > Our Type I error rates would go up slightly, but our Type II error rates would go down substantially. I'm not sure to see why the opposite could not also happen... I.e., your Type I error rates could increase rather dramatically, while your Type II error rates might in practice go down very little. If you consider the entire process of bird detection/identification, there is little doubt that Type II error rates are often huge, particularly for drab and hard-to-identify species, like your Alder Flycatcher. Not because of RCs' policies... But simply because, each time an Alder Flycatcher enters Colorado but does not choose to perch right in the front of a knowledgeable birder, you get a Type II error - a bird was there, but it's not going to be accepted. Changing the standards of acceptance would have no effect on this; even if we lowered them substantially, the Type II error rates would still remain very high. On the other hand, (as I know you know,) for a rare bird confusable with common species, the actual probability of an ID being correct is conditional to its relative rarity. If this species is really rare, even very suggestive (but non-diagnostic) evidence can produce very high rates of false positives. The extreme situation being that the "rare" bird is in fact not there at all, in which case using "preponderance of evidence" instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", you could end up building a whole body of data in which the Type I error rate would be, unavoidably, 100%... Cheers, Laurent - -- Laurent Raty Brussels, Belgium l_raty AT hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports (RESEND) From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:50:16 -0700 SORRY! THESE LESS-THAN AND GREATER-THAN SYMBOLS ARE TOO VEXING FOR HOTMAIL. I'M RESENDING WITHOUT THE SYMBOLS! --TED Hello, Everybody. Thanks for the recent responses from Mac Myers, Paul Guris, David Christie, and Laurent Raty. Here's a real-life anecdote that I think gets at many of the points we've been dicussing here. Earlier this year, I observed two interesting birds within about 100 feet of one another. I reported one as a Prairie Warbler, which is a review species in Colorado (27 accepted records for the state). I reported the other as a possible Alder Flycatcher, also a review species (18 accepted records for the state). I right away submitted extensive written documentation for the Prairie Warbler, which I saw and heard at close range. Although there were a few problems (it was raining, the plumage of the bird was ambiguous), the documentation was, I suspect, pretty straightforward. I saw an easy-to-identify bird, I described its plumage and structure, I noted various aspects of its behavior, and I heard its vocalizations. In qualitative terms, I'd say I was nearly certain that the bird was a Prairie Warbler, or p~1.00 in quantitative terms. As to the possible Alder Flycatcher, I wasn't so sure. Here, we're dealing with three probabilities: the probability that the bird was an Empidonax flycatcher, the probability that it was a "Traill's" flycatcher, and the probability that it was an Alder Flycatcher. Let's call those 3 probabilities p(1), p(2), and p(3). I'd assign them the following values: p(1)~1.00, p(2)=0.99, p(3)[greater than]0.50. (Actually, we could probably set the second probability at 0.999, but let's keep it to 2 sig figs, just for consistency's sake.) If you pressed me on p(3), and I'm specifically thinking of Paul Guris's question now, I'd haveta say: 0.50[less than]p(3)[less than]0.99. That's about the best I can say. The most likely "outcome," as statisticians say, is that the bird was an Alder Flycatcher. There is a "preponderance of evidence" that it was "guilty" (now I'm thinking of what Laurent Raty wrote) of being an Alder Flycatcher; but there was not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," to keep this tortured legal metaphor going. Now here's where it gets tricky, and here's where BRCs come into play. I did not submit documentation of this possible Alder Flycatcher to the Colorado Bird Records Committee (CBRC). A few weeks later, the CBRC chairman politely and solicitously asked me if I would be submitting documentation, and I declined. My reasoning: I wasn't sure. My own personal standard--and, truly, this is merely a personal standard--comes fairly close to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." I strongly suspect--indeed, I know--that many of you out there hold up similar standards. Unless you're nearly certain (but never completely certain, because, as we all know, there is no such thing as certainty), you don't bother with a submission to a BRC. (Why waste all the time and paper, as Alan Wormington says.) I assume we all see the problem here? It probably *was* an Alder Flycatcher. But the CBRC won't be evaluating the report. It won't even be "rejecting" the report. Simply, there is no report at all. And that's a pity. It's a pity, in particular, because, this past spring, there appears to have been an unusually strong flight of Alder Flycatchers across the western Great Plains. (Getting a little off subject, there was a strong westerly push of boreal breeders in general: Alder and Yellow-bellied Flycatchers, Philadelphia Vireo, Gray-cheeked Thrush, and especially Blackpoll Warbler.) Any sort of quantitative assessment of the Alder Flycatcher flight this past spring is basically invalidated by the fact that merely "possible" records are being excluded from the data. Like it or not, if an observer suspects that a report will be "rejected" by a BRC, then that observer is considerably less likely to report than if he or she is reasonably confident of "acceptance." Which brings me to an especially thorny angle here. Given what I know of the literature on Alder and Willow Flycatchers, and given, to a lesser extent, what I know of the composition of the CBRC, I could have produced documentation that would likely result in "acceptance," despite my own misgivings about the report. (No need to go into the details, but I could have over-emphasized the call-note, which I heard repeatedly, and which was perfect for Alder; I could have over-emphasized the field marks that were good for Alder; and I could have downplayed the field marks that were suggestive of Willow.) No matter how neutral or impartial we strive to be, we humans do an excellent (?) job of telling stories, providing witness testimony, and, yes, describing birds in ways that are consistent with the outcomes that we desire. My conundrum in a nutshell: 1. There was, in my opinion, a preponderance of evidence (0.50[less than]p[less than]0.99) that the bird was an Alder Flycatcher. 2. My guess was that a mere preponderance of evidence would not be good enough for the CBRC. 3. I didn't want to submit a somehow dishonest report that implied p~.99. 4. So there is no report at all. 5. And a potentially interesting phenomenon (unusually strong flight of Alder Flycatcher) goes undocumented. One final thought. I'm a realist, and I accept that the accept/reject dichotomy isn't going to go away anytime soon. But what if we moved away from what I sense is a "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" mentality for accepting records, and instead settled on a "preponderance of evidence" standard? It would certainly be more accurate. Our Type I error rates would go up slightly, but our Type II error rates would go down substantially. Plus, reports such as my Alder Flycatcher would actually get evaluated by BRCs, as opposed to languishing in my field notebook. Ted Floyd tedfloyd57 AT hotmail.com Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado P.s. I hope I haven't come across, in any way at all, as critical of the CBRC, which I think does magnificent work. In the areas of timeliness, thoroughness, accuracy, professionalism, fairness, competency, and even wisdom (have I missed anything?), the CBRC is exemplary. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. Enter for your chance to win. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:35:46 -0700 Hello, Everybody. Thanks for the recent responses from Mac Myers, Paul Guris, David Christie, and Laurent Raty. Here's a real-life anecdote that I think gets at many of the points we've been dicussing here. Earlier this year, I observed two interesting birds within about 100 feet of one another. I reported one as a Prairie Warbler, which is a review species in Colorado (27 accepted records for the state). I reported the other as a possible Alder Flycatcher, also a review species (18 accepted records for the state). I right away submitted extensive written documentation for the Prairie Warbler, which I saw and heard at close range. Although there were a few problems (it was raining, the plumage of the bird was ambiguous), the documentation was, I suspect, pretty straightforward. I saw an easy-to-identify bird, I described its plumage and structure, I noted various aspects of its behavior, and I heard its vocalizations. In qualitative terms, I'd say I was nearly certain that the bird was a Prairie Warbler, or p~1.00 in quantitative terms. As to the possible Alder Flycatcher, I wasn't so sure. Here, we're dealing with three probabilities: the probability that the bird was an Empidonax flycatcher, the probability that it was a "Traill's" flycatcher, and the probability that it was an Alder Flycatcher. Let's call those 3 probabilities p(1), p(2), and p(3). I'd assign them the following values: p(1)~1.00, p(2)=0.99, p(3)>0.50. (Actually, we could probably set the second probability at 0.999, but let's keep it to 2 sig figs, just for consistency's sake.) If you pressed me on p(3), and I'm specifically thinking of Paul Guris's question now, I'd haveta say: 0.50 Subject: Black-bellied Whistling-Duck sighting request From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 02:55:31 -0400 Hi Chatters and BRCF-L: Ian McLaren and I have been discussing some issues related to Black-bellied Whistling Duck vagrancy. Ian is not currently subscribed to Birdchat, so I am forwarding a message from him, below. If anyone has any information related to this flock, including one bird with a distinctive deformed bill, please advise and please copy Ian on any replies. Thanks. Phil >Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:47:38 -0300 >From: "Ian A. McLaren" >To: Phil Davis >Subject: BB Whistling-Duck posting > >I wonder if there have been any further sightings of (or searches >for) the flock >of ten Black-bellied Whistling Duck that occurred 25 May-4 June in >Nova Scotia? >Nine of them then appeared briefly 6 June at Ipswich, MA, as confirmed by a >distinctive abnormal bill growth on one bird. Everything about this flock >suggests that it was of wild origin - no bands, unclipped hind toes, and its >apparent return trajectory (towards FL?). If the bird with the bill growth is >found in a flock further southeast, this might add to the picture. > >See photos of the birds in NS and MA, including the one with the abnormal bill >growth at: > > http://www.nebirdsplus.org/BBWDuck.htm > >Cheers, Ian M. > >Ian A. McLaren >Biology Department >Dalhousie University >Halifax, NS Canada B3H 4J1 =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Buford Myers <bmyers990 AT EARTHLINK.NET> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:37:42 -0500 Ted, Others have pointed out some problems with your arguments. It seems to me that there is a fundamental error in your assumptions and subsequent analysis. What bird records committee has ever stated or even implied that its decisions are expressions of certainty? When a committee votes to accept or not accept a record, it is simply evaluating the evidence as best it can. Nobody believes this is error-free. Nobody believes it is a truth for the ages. And it is most certainly not a statement about the sighting itself. Rather, it is a statement about the evidence produced in support of the purported sighting. Bird record committees are not list police. But when it comes time to write a book about the birds of Colorado or do a checklist of the birds of Louisiana, somebody is going to make decisions about what to include and what to exclude. I have yet to see one that lists a whole bunch of species and then assigns a probability (say, 0.01 through 0.99) for each, and I hope I never do. Mac Louisiana Bird Records Committee alternate and former voting member -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Questions for Ted on Records Probability From: "Paul A. Guris" <paul AT PAULAGICS.COM> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:23:27 -0400 Ted, this may be a bit of a bush league response, but I come from the IT field, not biology, so I may simply not have the background to understand your view. Please bear with me and feel free to knock down anything I say/ask. You said the following: "If pressed, they would say that there was a 6% chance that the bird was something other than a Golden-winged Warbler." Now in the computer world, we have an ancient (for computers) term called GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out. Looking at your argument, to me it seems based on an immensely faulty premise; that committee members can assign probability with anything remotely approaching this level of accuracy. Without first defining a detailed data model (i.e. defining the criteria that determine HOW probabilities are assigned), I think the process itself is useless. Think of it in significant figures. Can an individual reasonably assign a probability of 35%? Is their granularity really closer to +/-10%, i.e. rating a record from 1 to 10? Maybe it's more like +/-25%, i.e. rating a record from 1 to 4? Maybe it's different for every committee member? Now let's look at what it would take to define the data model. Because of the unquantifiable backgrounds of the committee members, as well as the unquantifiable differences between committee members, plus the enormous number of actual report variables, it appears to me that your system would be completely unworkable at the accuracy levels you're attempting to use. It would simply give the appearance of greater accuracy rather than an actual increase in accuracy. I also see distribution problems with your system. For example, think of a record where 11 members of the committee have assigned probabilities ranging from 20-90%? What do you do? Do you do "Olympic scoring", throwing out the high and low numbers? What if one of those outlying numbers is from the most knowledgeable person on that particular species? What happens when somebody assigns a value of 20%, then listens to the argument of the 90% person, and changes their "probability" to 75%? Is their "probability" rating really worth all that much? Doesn't their 75% differ vastly from the 75% assigned by a person coming from a totally different path and, if so, are both paths equally valid? Isn't a 20-90 split that averages out to, say 60, very different than a 50-70 split that also averages out to 60? Now think about the current system in use. In NJ, anyway, a record is not simply tagged accept/not accept. The vote tally is published with the record. A "not accept" vote of 0-11 is VERY different than one that is 6-5. That information is available to everybody. I think it does show "probability", and probably (no pun intended) at a significant figure level that is much more valid than the one you propose. The next question is, would it be a better system if votes were 1-4 rather than yes/no? Maybe more levels? Maybe fewer? I'd have to see the description of what each level meant before accepting any such system, but I imagine I could be talked into it, but I think I would absolutely reject the ability of committee members to reasonably assign probability at even 10% increments. FYI, Pennsylvania does use levels for both accept and not accept, and it seems like a reasonable approach to me. They can be found at: http://www.pabirds.org/PORC/PORC_Purpose.htm There is one other very important point where I think we disagree. You seem to feel the vote should be on the probability that the bird occurred. I have sat on Pennsylvania's committee and am currently on New Jersey's, and my view has always been that the I'm voting first on whether or not the documentation supports the ID, and second if the documentation is credible. Using your system, I would see the following examples (coming from a discussion literally days ago on the NJ committee): - A report of Ash-throated Flycatcher from Cape May, NJ in November would get a high probability, even with no written description. At that point it seems like I just believe every occurrence where time/place looks pretty good, with no actual documentation required. - A report of virtually anything by any number of world class birders would be assigned a high probability, even without a description. There are people in NJ that I would personally believe if they told me they saw just about anything. At that point, I would simply accept records by reputation. If I do that, how does somebody assess my vote in 100 years? Do I simply write "I give this record a 90% probability because Ace Q. Birder said he saw it, and he's really, really good?" I may be misinterpreting your stance, but it sure sounds to me like you're arguing for voting on the likelihood that the bird occurred, not necessarily on the quality of the documentation filtered through the likelihood that the bird occurred. As I said, feel free to school me where you feel I'm completely off base. Sorry for going on so long. I hope I didn't enter into the realm of Department of Redundancy Department. -PAG Paul A. Guris Green Lane, PA www.paulagics.com paul AT paulagics.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Acceptance/non-acceptance of records, Type I & II errors From: David Christie <maryspt AT NBNET.NB.CA> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:39:49 -0300 [This thread began as "Question on protocol in records committee journal reports" but recently discussion has turned to committees' review of records.] At 1:58 PM -0700 6/30/08, Ted Floyd wrote: >Many rejected reports are less clear-cut. Many rejected reports are, >in fact, probably correct. > >Committees can make two types of errors. They can falsely accept >incorrect data (Type I error), and they can falsely reject correcet >data (Type II error). > >Mathematically, logically, and philosophically speaking, Type I and >Type II errors are equally, well, erroneous. They're both mistakes, >plain and simple. In the New Brunswick Bird Records Committee, (in addition to considering the likelihood of natural occurrence) what we vote on is whether or not the documentation adequately supports the reported identification. In effect, this amounts to accepting adequately documented correct identifications as being correct, but not necessarily that inadequately documented ones are incorrect. Identification of the latter is considered "questionable," but "does not necessarily mean that... a mistake was made." (The wording for our voting categories is on the Web at http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/maryspt/BRC/Voting.html .) Ours is a small committee handling a small number of records. Out of curiosity I looked back at about a hundred records voted on during the late 1990s and early 2000s. 78% were accepted, 18% were not accepted because the identification was questionable, and 4% not accepted because natural occurrence was unlikely. Of those in the questionable identification category, the documentation of more than 12% (of total records) actually indicated a different identification than the one submitted (4 of them were dull Baltimore Orioles that had been reported as Bullock's), and a bit more than 5% might have been either the reported species or another one equally rare or more common. Some of these 5% could include the "egregious Type II errors" that Ted is concerned about. But honestly, most of the ones in this category were seen briefly or under marginal conditions or were reports where the observers apparently did not see the birds well enough or examine them critically enough to notice important features distinguishing them from similar species. I acknowledge that 2% might possibly be Type II errors but the quality of these reports is not what you would want for incorporation in a scientific study. The likelihood of Type 1 errors would be less than this because the documentation of accepted records is generally much better, imparting a higher certainty to the decisions. Therefore I believe that the total "error" rate in these hundred records is likely less than 3%. That seems quite acceptable. As others have stated, the non-accepted records are not rejected; they are mentioned in committee reports and archived so others can study them if desired. Indeed, occasionally one might be reconsidered and voted on again in light of additional information. We also receive some records each year of "review species" that have been documented by a single observer without any other supporting evidence (photo, video, audio, a feather, or a description from a confirming observer). We decline voting on these, and Ted might consider that equivalent to a Type II error, because most are possibly or probably correct identifications. Someone once wrote me that we are suppressing information by not voting on these records, but that's not true. We enumerate them in our published reports and archive the documentation. Most are also mentioned in seasonal reviews published in the N.B. Naturalist, and some in North American Birds. They simply do not meet our minimum requirement for voting. That requirement helps encourage most observers to make the effort to get photos and additional people to confirm their sighting and it doesn't put the committee in the position of having to make a judgment on the word of just one person. In addition to records voted on, our committee also receives documentation of twice as many records of less unusual occurrences, which we acknowledge and preserve without voting. >Would you want for, say, a climate change researcher to exclude from >analysis "rejected" reports of extralimital birds that really were >there? If he thinks it is useful, that researcher is free to examine the data and make his own judgment on what is valid. If using other criteria, one might come to somewhat different decisions than a records committee. Generally, however, I suspect there wouldn't be much difference. > >Let's go back to that Golden-winged Warbler.... > >Anyhow, the record is rejected 10-2, with the comment that the 2 >members felt that the report wasn't entirely conclusive. In many records committees I suspect that this vote would result in the record being accepted. If not, then it would be recirculated with each member seeing the reasons for the others' choice. >To make this less fanciful, I really do know a climate change >researcher who will not use BRC data because of their unacceptably >high Type II error rates. This person's conclusion is that BRC >deliberations are nice for policing recreational bird listing (and >there's nothing wrong with that) Which committees police recreational birding? I look at the role of a records committee as being to encourage observers to document unusual occurrences, to review the quality of the most unusual ones, and to preserve the data for study. This provides some order and a standard against which to compare the sometimes astonishing array of reports that surface on the Internet and elsewhere. I believe this does have some use to science. >, but that BRC deliberations are not relevant to science. Don't like >that? Then, at the very least, BRCs should strive for a balance >between Type I and Type II errors. And, honestly, where there >remains uncertainty, I'd say err on the side of including bad data, >rather than excluding good data. If correct identifications are poorly supported by evidence, we can't include them as "good data", except probably by also including as much "bad data." I don't think that's an improvement. >At 2:28 PM -0400 6/30/08, Phil Davis forwarded Ted Floyd's message >of Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:06:22 -0700: > > >>More to the point, though, how can a BRC possibly know? We live in >>a post-Heisenbergian world. Sheesh, we live in a post-Darwinian >>world. There is no certainty. We can assign various levels of >>probability ("likely," "very likely," "exceedingly likely," "not so >>likely," whatever), but we just cannot say "accept" or "reject." In >>most of my submissions to BRCs, I make a point of saying that I'm >>not certain of the identification. (I like how the California form >>specifically asks the question of certainty, and I typically say, >>No, I'm not certain.) I can see assigning probabilities but wonder whether the results would be much different. I suspect that votes would group at 80-100% (i.e. accepted) and at 30% or less (not accepted), with very few in between, except in cases where there is some question about natural occurrence. -- David Christie Mary's Point, Harvey, Albert Co., New Brunswick, Canada http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/maryspt/BRC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Laurent Raty <l_raty AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:21:07 +0200 Ted, > Practically speaking, Type II errors are often more egregious than > Type I errors. Would you want for your doctor to miss ("reject") a > cancer diagnosis? Would you want for a judge to imprison ("reject") > an innocent person? Would you want for, say, a climate change > researcher to exclude from analysis "rejected" reports of > extralimital birds that really were there? Any error could always conceivably have bad consequences, be them Type 1 or Type 2. Your doctor could also remove you a sane lung, the judge/jury could fail to imprison a serial killer and let him free in your immediate neighborhood, and incorrectly accepted records of a very rare bird could divert protection funds in favor of an area of little actual biological value, leaving more important places unprotected... Besides, although I've already seen the same comparison several times elsewhere, I believe the judge/jury case is not comparable to the other two in this way. Missing a cancer diagnosis or excluding an out-of-range bird record from an analysis are failures to reject the null hypothesis (the patient should normally not have a cancer; the bird should normally be whithin its range), and are indeed Type 2 errors. But this is /not/ true of a jury imprisoning an innocent person: here the null hypothesis is that this person is innocent and, if this gets wrongly rejected, this is a Type 1 error. If you want to compare a committee to a jury, it makes more sense to do it in the following way, in my opinion: - The committee is there to assess the possibility that an unusual/ unexpected behavior occurred in a bird, resulting in an out-of-range record. The jury is there to assess the possibilty that a deviant behavior occurred in a person, resulting in a crime. - The reporting of the presence of the bird at a given location and time by some observers is comparable to a witness testimony during a process. This should of course be presumed honnest/reliable unless there are good reasons to assume the opposite. But this honnesty/reliability is simply not the object of the verdict given by tha jury/committee. - The object of the verdict of the jury is the culpability of the accused person; in the case of the committee, the "accused" is the bird, and the "charge" is "vagrancy". - If declared guilty, the person goes to jail. If declared "guilty", the bird goes in the report. Cheers, Laurent - -- Laurent Raty l_raty AT hotmail.com Brussels, Belgium -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 05:18:56 -0700 Hi, all. Thanks for the great discussion. Richard Heil writes: > In Ted's later posts regarding Type I and Type II errors, he is of > course correct that both are equally erroneous, and that records > committees should be wary of making either type of error. However, > Ted then creates unrelated and irrelevant examples (juries sending > innocents to prison, patients dying) that are extremely amicable and > beneficial to his tenuous point that records committees rejecting > records with insufficient, poor, or even contrary (!) evidence is > somehow evil or unscientific, when actually the opposite is true. How so? That is, how is it that the opposite is true? Let's say I've determined with 35% certainty that a large meteor will strike the earth in the next 10 years, i.e., I am 65% certain that it will not. Shouldn't I report my discovery, even with a large (65%) certainty that I am wrong? And let's say that I'm only 35% certain of my identification of an out-of-range Golden-winged Warbler. Shouldn't I report my discovery? Mightn't the result be of interest to a climate change scientist, or a bird navigation expert, or just somebody with interest in the natural history of Golden-winged Warbler? Richard cited examples of near-certainty (straight-out photo of Spotted Redshank, juvenile Bobolink misidentified as Grasshopper Sparrow), but I am increasingly persuaded that there are many examples that fall into the 65%/35% range. Certainly, Golden-winged Warbler is one such example. In last week's ABA workshops on documenting birds, we actually, believe it or not, got into a fine discussion of ontology-vs.-epistemology vis-a-vis Golden-winged Warbler. The ontological problem with Golden-winged Warbler, of course, is that the very definition of Golden-winged Warbler is problematic: What do you call a bird that looks like a Golden-winged Warbler, but that has the genes of a Blue-winged Warbler? What IS it? The question goes beyond mere epistemology (what do we know?) and gets is into the realm of ontology (what is it?). Of course, there are examples of near-certainty: Richard's juvenile Bobolink, Alan Wormington's White-throated Sparrow, etc. But there are also many examples of decided uncertainty: flight calls of Ammodramus sparrows and Passerina buntings, adult Hermit Warblers and Golden-winged Warblers with yellow-tinged breasts, overexposed photos of Willow Flycatchers and Thayer's Gulls, Azure Gallinules and Red-footed Falcons that may have been ship-assisted, Pink-footed Geese and Northern Cardinals that may have escaped from captivity, etc., etc. In my experience with bird records committees, such examples are legion. And in my experience, such examples are best treated as uncertain. We just don't know. And as to straight-out certainty, I'm just not buying it. Not since 1859. We now know that we live in a universe that is evolutionary (1859), relativistic (1905), uncertain (1927), impermanent (1929), incomplete (1931), chaotic (1961), entangled (1982), and otherwise fuzzy, blurry, and indeterminate. That's not political correctness or some "cult of uncertainty." That's 149 years of scientific progress. Old ideas die hard. A lot of folks still cling to Platonistic ideals of certainty, truth, and beauty. But not scientists. Not since 1859. We now know that it is better to say p=0.35, or p=0.99, or even p~1.00. But not p=1.00. Indeed, it is in the realm of those very small (p~0.00) and very large (p~1.00) probabilities where some of the most surprising of mathematical and philosophical issues play out. A fine introduction, in my opinion, is Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos (Knopf, 2004). An important sub-theme--and it is one that runs throughout Fabric of the Cosmos--is that it is a mistake to equate near-certainty with certainty. The best we can say about the universe around us is that it is a continuum of uncertainties; and the best we can do is describe reality in probabilistic terms. For sure, that is a complete repudiation of Plato. But it does seem to be where modern science has taken us. Ted Floyd tedfloyd57 AT hotmail.com Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado _________________________________________________________________ Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_072008 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee web page updates and Review List changes From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:11:40 -0400 MD Osprey, MD Birds, BRCF-L: We have just updated a number of our MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) web site data products. Information highlights include: NEW SPECIES. No new species were added to the Maryland or DC Official Lists during this update cycle; however, potential new species under active consideration include: Maryland: Southern Lapwing, Cape Verde Shearwater, Western Meadowlark, Scopoli's (Cory's) Shearwater (subspecies) District of Columbia: Swainson's Warbler MARYLAND AND DC REVIEW LISTS. The following changes were made to the MD and DC Review Lists: Anhinga. There is a fairly even distribution of reports and records since the early 1990s; only one DC record. Removed from Maryland review list; retained on the DC review list. Sooty Tern. The pattern of displacement following hurricanes is well-established; however, only one accepted record for DC. Moved to Category 4B on MD list (reviewable if seen west of the coastal plain), retained in Category 2 on DC list (reviewable anywhere). Cave Swallow. Fall appearances since 2002 are well documented, no DC records. Removed from MD list. Painted Bunting. Averaging 3-4 reports and records per year for MD over the past 10 years; no records for DC. Removed from MD list. Trumpeter Swan. Although this taxon is on the Official List of Maryland Birds as an extirpated species, it has occurred in the region in recent years apparently as a result of reintroduction programs in the Northeast and upper Midwest. Other complications include possible escapes of hybrid "Trumpling Swans" from regional lakes and the Smithsonian research facility at Arlie, VA. The committee decided that it does want to continue to accept documentation of putative Trumpeter Swans, so the action is to add this species to MD review list. Since the species is not considered to be extirpated from DC and since there are no DC records, it would not be added to the DC Review List, but rather would be reviewed as a new species for DC, if observed there. Gambel's White-crowned Sparrow (subspecies). Reports have been averaging about 2 per year since 2000, with more reports in the 1990s; committee reviews of this taxon are backlogged, but most reports include images; no records for DC. Removed from the MD "Subspecies/Form" Review List. As with all unusual subspecies or forms, observers should continue to report sightings to MD Osprey and/or the seasonal editors of Maryland Birdlife and North American Birds. MD Review List: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC Review List: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf WEB DATABASES: Our historical canvass is nearing completion and many additional historical reports have been added to the MD and DC databases and further corrections made. For those keeping track, there are still a few taxa that need some work to verify earlier reports and dates, notable Le Conte's Sparrow. MD database: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf (a very large PDF document ... search, but do not print!!!) DC database: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf (ditto, but not as large) 2008 ANNUAL MEETING MINUTES. This detailed report is posted here … http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2008.pdf Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question on protocol in records committee journal reports From: Rick Fridell <rfridell AT BURGOYNE.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:26:45 -0600 Hello, Despite my best intentions, I usually can't find time to get involved in these discussions, however, this one is getting too interesting not to comment. The Utah Bird Records Committee has gradually (very gradually) been shifting away from the traditional role, and have been moving more towards several of the concepts expressed in Ted's post. The basic philosophy shift has been to put more emphasize on the submitted records rather than the committee's review and individual committee member opinions of the records. Primarily thanks to an active and innovative secretary, Milton Moody, we've increased our efforts on archiving and maintaining electronic records and copies of associated photos, recordings, etc. including scanning many early records and photos. We still vote on the records and document the votes in an annual write-up. Since 2003 we've published the committee report and summary of the records in Utah Birds (the Journal of the Utah Ornithological Society). In the write-up we give equal weight to all the records, list the records in taxonomic order, publish all observer names with the records, and include the committee's vote at the end. Here's an example of how we handled a traditional "non-accepted" / "rejected" record: "Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). 2003-13. One adult male was observed near a backyard bird feeder in Emigration Canyon, Salt Lake Co., on 8 May 2003 by Susan and Jeffrey Saffle. Documentation provided by S&JS. Although there was no question that this was indeed a Northern Bobwhite, this species is not established in Utah, and thus, this individual was most likely an introduced bird. First Rd. 0 Y - 7 N." (Fridell et al. 2003, Utah Birds 17:75-81). Obviously this example is a bit more straightforward than others, but we use the same approach on obvious mis-identifications (0-7 first round votes) and difficult reviews that go three rounds and result in a split committee vote of 3-4 or 4-3. Personally, I do agree with Ted that all submittals are important, and the long-term scientific / ornithological value lies with the record itself. While the committee's review or individual committee member opinions may be important factors for inclusion on a state/ county/ region/ or observer's list, these factors are only somewhat relevant in the hypothetical example, of say, a researcher looking at patterns of vagrancy in Golden-winged Warblers. Having access to the records and all submitted documentation allows an interested researcher to come to their own conclusions based on whatever parameters or current information they are using at the time. Thanks for your time, respectfully, Rick Fridell Hurricane, Utah -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html