Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Saturday, September 19 at 10:29 PM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Calliope Hummingbird,©Shawneen Finnegan

19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Steven Mlodinow ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Chris Elphick ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Martin Meyers ] 19 Sep Fwd: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Sheehan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans ["K. Dean Edwards" ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Andrew Kratter ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Mark Lockwood ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Whan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Donna Dittmann ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Phil Davis ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [William Rowe ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 17 Sep Trumpeter Swans [Tony White ] 14 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Charles Swift ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Paul A. Guris" ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Martin Meyers ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [knights ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [William Rowe ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Joseph Morlan ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Steven Mlodinow ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Alan Wormington ] 3 Sep BRC member residence? [] 30 Jul "North American Birds" now online on SORA [Joseph Morlan ] 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 ] Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:29:58 -0400 Greetings All I sent my original post just to Tony, but since we are all chiming in. Jewett et al (1953) stated "no records in recent years" for WA. In the late 1960s, a small population (of about 30) birds was detected in Skagit County, in nw WA. Numbers stayed at about this level for 10 years, but thereafter started to increase dramatically in w. Washington. Wintering numbers in nw. WA are probably now in the 3000-5000 range (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and King Counties) with a few hundred elsewhere in w. WA, more so in the n. than the s. I know in nw. Oregon, there is one location now getting tallies in the hundreds, but just very small numbers are found elsewhere.? There was an attempt to introduce Trumpeter Swans into e. WA at Turnbull NWR (there is no clear evidence the species ever bred in WA). This attempt failed, except one elderly female (I believe in her 30s, maybe 40) finally attracted a mate and raised young this year. There is a small introduced population in se. Oregon. All w. WA birds are of wild origin from the n. A small number also migrate through (with a few wintering) e. WA. Peak movement there is in March and November. In w. WA, a few arrive in Oct and linger into April, but most are present from Nov-Mar.? Cheers Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Chris Elphick <elphick AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:13:12 -0700 --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Martin Meyers wrote: Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Martin et al., Although my memory of the references is hazy, I believe that reintroduced is correct for Nevada.  Below is the text from the Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas, and I remember putting in quite a bit of time fact checking details for this species.  Linsdale is available electronically.  If anyone is interested, I think I have a complete pdf (but you can probably find it on-line). Chris Distribution The Trumpeter Swan was widespread in western and central North America prior to its dramatic range retraction and population declines. The bird was apparently native to the eastern half of the Great Basin, including eastern Nevada (Ryser 1985) and John Muir's reference to swans at Mono Lake in June 1875 (Wolfe 1979) suggests that they may have occurred in the western Great Basin as well. By the early twentieth century, however, the species was completely extirpated from the state (see Linsdale 1936).  Trumpeter swans were reintroduced during the 1940s and 1950s, when birds were transplanted from Montana to the Ruby Valley (Banko 1960). Both Banko (1960) and Ryser (1985) provided substantial detail on this reintroduction project, and Alcorn (1988) gives a fragmentary record of known occurrences (of migrants or winterers) elsewhere in the state.   Trumpeter Swans continue to breed at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, but have not spread elsewhere in the state.  Two incidental records from the Ruby Valley were received during the atlas project.  Both records were of confirmed breeders in freshwater marshes.  The Ruby Valley breeders are part of a growing, but still highly disjunct, population of Trumpeter Swans in western North America. Beyond the state borders, the nearest breeding populations are in southern Oregon and Idaho (Mitchell 1994, Contreras 1999, Adamus et al. 2001). Chris Elphick Storrs, CT elphick AT sbcglobal.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:18:26 -0500 Since I'm on the road for the next few weeks and don't have access to all of my resources, this will be less complete than I'd like, but I think I can provide at least some information on the Trumpeter Swan situation in Nevada. We have an introduced population (in the Ruby Valley in central Nevada) which has been present since the mid-1950's and is considered "established". The species is on our checklist based on that population. For the most part, the flock is sedentary -- these birds do not typically wander around the state although there is some discussion as to whether some have recently migrated north with Tundra Swans. The species is exempt from committee review in the Ruby Valley. Outside that area, the NBRC has no accepted records (with one non-accepted record, rejected on identification grounds.) Alcorn's Birds of Nevada lists a nesting pair on the Mary's River in 1974, which I'd suggest is almost certainly from the Ruby project. He also states that "...seven were reported at Carson City on 2/5/84." If those were correctly identified (a big "if" -- there is no documentation that I know of), they would probably be from a non-Ruby population, as Carson City is quite far from the Ruby Valley. Since "wild" Trumpeters occur occasionally in California (a reviewable rarity in the state), and many of those records are from the interior, it is pretty reasonable to assume that wild vagrants do occur in Nevada, and more birder coverage might turn one up every few years. (Some years ago, a banded bird from the Harriman (Idaho) population showed up in southeast California. One might assume it flew across some part of Nevada.) So, in direct answer to Tony's question, the multiple choice answer is probably "f: none of the above." Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Again, if I had my copy of Linsdale with me, I might modify my answer. I'll post again in a few weeks if I uncover any additional useful information when I get home. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). 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: Fwd: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Sheehan <lsheehan AT MAINE.RR.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:28:07 -0400 Hi Tony, Trumpeter Swan is included as a Hypothetical species on Maine's list.  Its inclusion is based upon an account of a sighting in Scarborough, Maine sometime prior to 1868 by a reliable reporter.  Palmer (1949) included this record in his Maine list. The Maine Bird Records Committee has yet to review this historical record. There are no recent reports for this species in Maine (30+ years). Cheers Bill Sheehan, Secretary Maine Bird Records Committee On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have > included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for > that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, > please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more > than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are  established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: "K. Dean Edwards" <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0400 The Tennessee Bird Records Committee has just completed a review of Trumpeter Swans so this is timely. TRUS has been on the state checklist with a status of 'Extirpated' based on sightings by JJ Audubon. There were a few reports of re-introduced birds in the early 2000s primarly in West TN: Jan 2001, a single banded bird found dead in Shelby Co, TN traced back to be a released bird from Iowa Jan 2002, a family group of 3 (adults banded) in Lauderdale Co determined to be 3rd and 4th generation wild-born birds from Wisconsin. Two of them were eventually shot by a hunter with the immature dying as a result. Jan 2003, a single bird in Sullivan Co (only one from East TN) that was traced to Ontario The Records Committee did not address any of these reports at the time. In Jan 2009, 2 birds were found in Dyer Co, TN, which were determined to be wild born birds from Wisconsin. This report was submitted to the Committee and we accepted it in our spring round of voting based on the birds being wild-born and the Wisconsin Records Committee treating the re-introduced population there as 'established'. So using your notation... for TN, b - historic (nonbreeding) records but native population extirpated e - migrants/winter residents from re-introduced populations Dean Edwards Secretary/Chair, Tennessee Bird Records Committee On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:40:35 -0400 The FOSRC recently had a Trumpeter Swan record (photograph). We do not have any historical records. Here is the synopsis from our Minutes: This adult with its head plumage stained rusty shows the distinct features of Trumpeter Swan, such as the long, all black, bill with a straight culmen, the straight angular border to the base of the upper mandible (opposed to vertical or convex border of the Tundra Swan, C. columbianus), and the entire inclusion of the eye within the facial skin (Pyle 2008). The status of Trumpeter Swans in eastern North America is not settled however. In the past few decades, birds have been introduced into the Great Lakes region, with breeding in that area. Vagrant birds, presumably from these reintroduced populations, have shown up in several states along the east coast, but not all records committees (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina) have considered the populations sufficiently established to add the species to their official state lists. Other records committees (e.g., North Carolina) have apparently regarded them as vagrants from established populations. The Maryland Records Committee considered a pre-1950 record a wild vagrant, but recent birds were not from established populations. The FOSRC accepted the identification of the Okeechobee Co. bird as a Trumpeter Swan, but did not accept that it was from an established population. The Committee would like to see more widespread acceptance that populations in the northeast are established before accepting the species to the Florida list. In addition, I think that to consider the populations established, they would have to meet the FOSRC definition of an established population, which can be found in Appendix A of our Rules and Procedures (see http://www.fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/RulesAndProcedures.aspx). One point is that the populations must be stabilized/growing by natural reproduction. Are Trumpeter Swans still being reintroduced in the Great Lakes region? Andy -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:34:14 -0500 Dear Tony, In Texas we have a somewhat convoluted situation. We have come to a resolution as far as state records are concerned that is somewhat unsatisfactory, but without collecting birds I do not know any other solution. 1) We have one record of a wire strike bird that was banded in Wyoming in the nest (specimen at Texas Tech University). This bird was picked up in the western Panhandle. 2) We have five occurrences of birds from Minnesota and Iowa with neck collars that have been documented (not considered state records) 3) We have five records of unmarked birds since 2000 (three from the Panhandle, one from Lubbock, one on the upper coast) that have been accepted as state records 4) We have a record of an unmarked bird from Falcon Dam from prior to the reintroduction/introduction projects in the Midwest (accepted as a state record) There is no way to know if the unmarked birds from nw. Texas since 2000 came from the northwest or from the Midwest because by then Minnesota and Wisconsin (at least) had quit marking birds. As a result, the TBRC decided to accept records of unmarked birds as valid state records. Unlike what Bill describes in Ohio, these few birds (most records involve one or two birds) are found on a small lake and they behave like wintering Tundra Swans, so there is no behavioral or other clues as to origin. The neck-collared birds mentioned above were found in the Panhandle and eastward across nc. Texas which raises the possibility that some (or all) of these birds came from those populations. I have thought Texas would have seen an influx of those birds by now, but since they do not migrate as expected perhaps the recent records are all from the natural population in the Northwest. As is the case in Louisiana, Trumpeter Swan is reported to have wintered on the Texas Coast in the late 1800's and early 1900's but there is no physical evidence to support that claim. 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 Tony White Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:31 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Trumpeter Swans Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:15:39 -0400 Bill and all, At least for all (or almost all) of the East, the Trumpeter Swan situation can easily be filed into two distinct categories: 1--Wild birds have been extirpated for a very long time (100+ years). State/provincial records committees can and should review whatever few records exist, if they are based on extant specimens. The only hope of proving that a bird from the west has wandered to the east in modern times would be via a band recovery (ie. salvaged by a hunter or whatever) proving that the bird originated from wild/native populations in the west. 2--Introduced population (if they remain established) should now be treated in a vein similar to Mute Swan. They are an introduced (or re-introduced) species. I note that each state/province is struggling with the issue in deciding if the species is now established in their area as an introduced species. If introduction programs have now stopped, a viewpoint should be established as to if these introduced populations AS A WHOLE have been successful (rather than each state/province struggling with the idea). Cheers, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Bill Whan writes: > Tony-- > In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state > list based > only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the > most > recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear > to > mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of > wild > trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have > been > one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable > historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or > provinces to > the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, > despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run > "reintroduction" projects. > We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. > We do see > swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others > from > nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they > eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned > the > practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records > is > becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no > long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our > region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or > geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims > that > such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would > require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received > documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only > discernible > regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly > irregular > movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial > feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such > movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the > > contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles > east > to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see > trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water > freezes at > a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years > ago. > Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of > > fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often > noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban > > park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. > Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. > I wonder if any records committee in this region has > received a report > of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding > population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in > their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in > some > odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of > monk > parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in > determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. > I > believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) > there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in > our > state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) > the > new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral > repertoires > (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild > populations; > 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five > years > of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of > independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of > > population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant > to > consider establishment. > Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have > survived, > though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some > > decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the > mute > swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to > regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local > phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same > criteria > we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is > my > own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this > detail. > Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee > received > acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred > > here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its > fairly > recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't > know, > of course. > This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some > information > and argument for further thought is available on a web site put > together > by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at > http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html > I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" > projects > are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for > acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate > > wild behaviors. > I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear > from others > on this vexed topic. > Bill Whan > Columbus, OH > > p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The > history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, > really > hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the > status of so many seemingly contradictory records. > > > Tony White wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states > > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces > > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the > following > > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. > Wild > > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > > established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.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 > "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Whan <billwhan AT COLUMBUS.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Tony-- In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state list based only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the most recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear to mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of wild trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have been one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or provinces to the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run "reintroduction" projects. We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. We do see swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others from nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned the practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records is becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims that such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only discernible regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly irregular movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles east to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water freezes at a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years ago. Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. I wonder if any records committee in this region has received a report of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in some odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of monk parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. I believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in our state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) the new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral repertoires (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild populations; 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five years of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant to consider establishment. Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have survived, though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the mute swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same criteria we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is my own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this detail. Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee received acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its fairly recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't know, of course. This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some information and argument for further thought is available on a web site put together by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" projects are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate wild behaviors. I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear from others on this vexed topic. Bill Whan Columbus, OH p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, really hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the status of so many seemingly contradictory records. Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: Donna Dittmann <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:43:02 -0500 Tony, There is a brief summation of the Louisiana situation in our most recent newsletter: http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/newsletter2009.pdf. We have not yet re-addressed its status on our State List. Donna Donna L. Dittmann LBRC, Secretary On 9/17/09 6:31 PM, "Tony White" wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included > the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that > inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell > me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can > apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:12:06 -0400 Hi Tony: MD and DC status is below. Phil At 07:31 PM 09/17/2009, Tony White wrote: >Hi all, > >I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states >and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces >have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the >basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter >Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the >following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. >a. Continuing presence of wild birds. MD/DC - No >b. Based on historical records only. MD - Yes, accepted onto the Official MD List as an extripated species based on historical descriptions of the species on the lower Potomac River in the 1700s. DC - Not on the official list. >c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. MD/DC - No >d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. MD - ??? A number of unbanded Trumpeters have been recorded in the state, including family groups. Provenance unknown. DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the >state or province. MD - Yes, from neck band identification (Ontario reintroduction population). DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >f. Other reasons (please explain). MD - The MD/DCRC has a batch of MD Trumpeter Swan reports from over the years that have been held as one of our "problem species." Now that neck banded birds have been recorded, we plan to soon circulate the entire batch, along with the official status of the species in other Eastern states/provinces and try to arrive at a determination of the current status of this species in MD. >Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to >share the results of this inquiry with others. > >Best wishes, > >Tony White >spindalis AT aol.com =================================================== 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: Trumpeter Swans From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:24:01 -0500 See responses below. Trumpeter Swan is now fully accepted in Missouri as a current wild species (as opposed to an historical memory), but this took us a while because we waited until we felt that the introduced populations in MN and WI, from which our wintering birds come, were well established and self-sustaining. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and > what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has > Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of > the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a > single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. No, if wild means from original, natural populations. > b. Based on historical records only. Not "only,", but a strong historical record: breeding bird until at least 1850; transient until 1900 (last record, per Robbins and Easterla, Birds of Missouri) > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. No, not as breeding birds. Very recent breeding record may have involved birds from non-established populations to our north. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. No. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the > state or province. Yes, mainly from MN and WI. Those breeding populations are deemed to be established, and so we have accepted our wintering birds as such. The largest group, at Riverlands Migratory Bird Sanctuary in the St. Louis area, has grown to over 350, and small numbers now occur with increasing frequency elsewhere around the state. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.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: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:53:04 -0400 ONTARIO STATUS: a. Continuing presence of wild birds. ONTARIO: no; former migrant and probable breeders extirpated by 1884. b. Based on historical records only. ONTARIO: no, see below c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. ONTARIO: In southern Ontario a release program began in 1982, which I believe stopped a few years ago. They are now considered to be established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: No. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: Birds occasionally seen (and nesting?) in northern Ontario COULD be from the southern Ontario introductions, but more likely they originate from other nearby introduction programmes such as maybe Minnesota or Wisconsin? f. Other reasons (please explain). ONTARIO: There has been some recent literature published on the subject in Ontario, I would suggest contacting Glenn Coady (glenn_coady AT hotmail.com). Bill Whan in Ohio has also published extensively on the subject. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Trumpeter Swans From: Tony White <spindalis AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:31:15 -0400 Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Charles Swift <chaetura AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:26:44 -0700 I just wanted to echo Martin Meyers recent comments (which I discussed with him at the recent WFO mtg in Boise). Idaho has a very small population (1.5 million) with a small birding community. One of our voting members lives in La Grande, OR (he also happens to be the NAB regional editor for Idaho & w. MT) and another recent member and formerly our web master lives in Alaska. Needless to say we have nothing in our bylaws about residency requirements. We are hard-pressed to find even potential members so we can have some periodic rotation of new people into the committee - but we are trying! thanks, Charles. -- Charles Swift Moscow, ID chaetura AT gmail.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:31:46 -0500 The Louisiana Bird Records Committee policy with regards to committee membership: B.        Qualifications. Anyone is eligible to become a Member if, in the estimation of the existing Members, that person has demonstrated the ability to logically and objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the LBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Louisiana Ornithological Society. There is no official residency requirement in our Bylaws, however we encountered/anticipated future record circulation problems with members who moved out of state or country. This of course if minimized now with electronic circulation, but regardless, the LBRC policy has for years been that members who plan to leave the state resign from the committee. Personally, I think that from a Louisiana observer's perspective, it is better PR for the LBRC to only enlist membership from individuals who reside in the state, and thus are active contributors to the local process. Donna Dittmann, LBRC Secretary On 9/3/09 10:10 PM, "Martin Meyers" wrote: > The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over > as secretary in 2007, state: > > C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: > Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that > person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field > identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats > of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. > Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting > Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on > the committee is limited to two at any one time. > > At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San > Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a > Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition > to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) > > Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency > requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in > Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. > > Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very > small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership > is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want > people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why > one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the > people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that > portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that > public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) > > 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: BRC member residence? From: "Paul A. Guris" <paul AT PAULAGICS.COM> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:33:24 -0400 I live in Pennsylvania and serve on the New Jersey Bird Records Committee. At least one other member is from New York. The bylaws state that any committee member shall be "knowledgeable regarding New Jersey birds and a competent field observer", so no residency requirement exists. There is, however, a requirement to make a certain number of our semi-annual meetings, which could make it logistically difficult for somebody to serve who was not within reasonable driving distance of the state. I've also served on the Pennsylvania Ornithological Records Committee in the past, but I don't know what their official policy is. When asked if I'd like to serve, I did tell them first that I spent more of my birding time in NJ than PA, in case they felt this was a disqualifier. I was told that this was fine, as my experience with coastal and seabirds would be helpful for the types of rarities that often appear in a non-coastal state like Pennsylvania. -PAG Paul A. Guris See Life Paulagics P.O. Box 161 Green Lane, PA 18054 www.paulagics.com 215-234-6805 paul AT paulagics.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:10:36 -0700 The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over as secretary in 2007, state: C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on the committee is limited to two at any one time. At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) 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: BRC member residence? From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:34:51 -0500 BRFC Members, Like CA here in MS we only require that a member be in good standing in the state OS. Our bylaws state that one can be a member of the records committee if.... "in the estimation of the existing Voting Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability to objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the MBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Mississippi Ornithological Society". This works for us and we currently have a member on our committee that lived in MS for several years and now resides in Iowa. Gene Knight MS MBRC Chiar Oxford, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:19 AM Subject: BRC member residence? Folks, Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida panhandle. A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? Thanks, Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -------------------------------------------------- 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: BRC member residence? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:26:07 -0500 As in California, Missouri BRC members are required to hold membership in the parent association, the Audubon Society of Missouri, but there is no residency requirement. We are left free to elect our own members from wherever. I can only recall one or two members, or potential members, who lived out of state (both Kansas), but they were familiar with Missouri and had done a lot of birding here. No current member is from out of state. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:19 AM, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > Folks, > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a > resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western > Florida panhandle. > > A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" > > Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > Thanks, > > Steve McConnell > ABRC Secretary > Hartselle, AL > -------------------------------------------------- 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: BRC member residence? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:23:08 -0700 On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > >Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? > California requires that committee members also be members in good standing of our parent organization (Western Field Ornithologists). Otherwise there is no residency requirement. If you have a strict residency requirement, members who move out of state before their term expires would have to be replaced as soon as they move. Currently such members may resign, but if they want to continue service until their term expires, they can. In most recent cases, members have chosen to continue serving. There are other potential issues, such as members who maintain a residence in one state or province but have another seasonal residence elsewhere. I might be wrong on this, but I think California recently elected a member (actually a former member who had moved out of California) from another state but who was in the process of moving back to California at the time of election. Otherwise, we normally chose from California residents. Maybe Martin will reply about the situation in Nevada. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Sept. 15 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: BRC member residence? From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:47:22 -0400 Greetings All The WBRC (that would be Washington, not Wyoming, Wilmington, nor World) members discussed this on several occasions, and opinions were fairly well split, but in the end, we always found someone in WA that we felt was quite suitable, negating any necessity to look elsewhere. Our parent organization, which has not really supported us in any way, recently dictated that all WBRC members had to be residents of WA AND active in the WA birding community. This means, leading field trips, writing for our state newsletter, etc.? To me, personally, it seems that the WBRC (or any BRC) is here to do a job, and therefore, anyone who would make a good BRC member in general (knowledgeable about bird ID, distribution, willingness to do research, etc....) and is well-familiarized with the avifauna (including status and distribution) of WA should be within consideration. There are a large number of excellent birders in Portland OR and Vancouver BC, basically within sight of WA, whom would make excellent WBRC members but are now excluded from consideration. This seems, to me, counter-productive to the underlying purpose of a BRC.? Best wishes Steven Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Alan Wormington To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2009 8:18 am Subject: Re: BRC member residence? Everyone, I live in a province (not a state) but will still respond to this question. No real reason why someone from outside a province / state could not serve on a rarities committee. Obviously the person would be highly qualified, otherwise that person would not get elected in the first place. But I do see one potential pitfall, and that being a perception problem. For those submitting reports to a committee, how would they feel if a record is rejected and one of the members lived out of province or state? It could potential generate some bad feelings. Other than that single situation, why not? Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 swmavocet AT AOL.COM writes: > > Folks, > > > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident > of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida > panhandle.?? > > > > A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" > > > > Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve McConnell > > ABRC Secretary > > Hartselle, AL > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: BRC member residence? From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:18:25 -0400 Everyone, I live in a province (not a state) but will still respond to this question. No real reason why someone from outside a province / state could not serve on a rarities committee. Obviously the person would be highly qualified, otherwise that person would not get elected in the first place. But I do see one potential pitfall, and that being a perception problem. For those submitting reports to a committee, how would they feel if a record is rejected and one of the members lived out of province or state? It could potential generate some bad feelings. Other than that single situation, why not? Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 swmavocet AT AOL.COM writes: > > Folks, > > > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident > of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida > panhandle.?? > > > > A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" > > > > Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve McConnell > > ABRC Secretary > > Hartselle, AL > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: BRC member residence? From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 Folks, Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida panhandle.?? A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? Thanks, Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: "North American Birds" now online on SORA From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:33:11 -0700 A colleague suggested I post this here. I noticed that the journal "North American Birds" is now online in searchable PDF format at: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/NAB/index.php Included are Volumes 27-61 from 1973 to 2008. I expect this will be an extremely important research tool for bird records committees. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Sept. 15 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: 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: > Nelsonąs Sharp-tailed Sparrows ­ all 3 > subspecies; Broad-tailed, Calliope, Allenąs and > Rufous Hummingbird ­ including the 2004 MD Calliope > specimen; California Gulls ­ all ages; > remeasurement and photographs of the 1842 DC > Leachąs 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