Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Friday, January 13 at 11:05 PM EST The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Trumpeter Swan,©Mimi Hoppe Wolf

13 Jan Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist [William Rowe ] 10 Jan Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist [Joseph Morlan ] 10 Jan Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist [Phil Davis ] 10 Jan Question 2 -- Age / Plumage terminology [Alan Wormington ] 10 Jan Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist [Alan Wormington ] 24 Dec . [Matt Heindel ] 24 Dec .. [Matt Heindel ] 13 Dec Re: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? ["James F. Flynn Jr." ] 13 Dec Re: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? [William Rowe ] 13 Dec Historical bird sighting records 1884-1924 [Phil Davis ] 13 Dec Re: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? [Matt Garvey ] 13 Dec Re: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 13 Dec Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? [Phil Davis ] 28 Nov Re: European Greenfinch in Maryland ["Geoffrey A. Williamson" ] 28 Nov Re: European Greenfinch in Maryland ["Geoffrey A. Williamson" ] 28 Nov Re: European Greenfinch in Maryland [William Rowe ] 28 Nov European Greenfinch in Maryland [Phil Davis ] 3 Sep Re: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. [Phil Davis ] 2 Sep Re: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. [William Rowe ] 2 Sep Re: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. [Steven Mlodinow ] 2 Sep Re: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. [Alan Wormington ] 2 Sep Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. [Joseph Morlan ] 25 Aug Re: Contributors of non-accepted records [Martin Meyers ] 25 Aug Re: Contributors of non-accepted records [Phil Davis ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Chuck Otte ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Joseph Morlan ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Martin Meyers ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Charles Swift ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Andrew Kratter ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Chuck Otte ] 25 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Milt Moody ] 24 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Phil Davis ] 24 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Ned Keller ] 24 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [William Rowe ] 24 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Steven Mlodinow ] 24 Aug Re: Contributers of non-accepted records [Brad Bumgardner ] 24 Aug Contributers of non-accepted records [Joseph Morlan ] 21 Aug Fwd: Vega Gull records in eastern North America [Phil Davis ] 8 Aug Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Phil Davis ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Marshall Iliff ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Phil Davis ] 22 Jul Unsubscribe [Joe Burgiel ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Phil Davis ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Don Gorney ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Bill Whan ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Andrew Kratter ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi ["K. Dean Edwards" ] 22 Jul Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [William Rowe ] 22 Jul Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi [Phil Davis ] 25 Jun Fw: Re: Subject: Two procedural questions ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 25 Jun Re: Subject: Two procedural questions [Phil Davis ] 16 Jun Re: Subject: Two procedural questions [William Rowe ] 16 Jun Two procedural questions [Martin Meyers ] 9 Jun Green Heron - Indianapolis [Roger Stitt ] 11 May MD/DC Records Committee web updates [Phil Davis ] 28 Mar Policy on geo- or radio-tracked birds? [Paul Hess ] 18 Feb Fwd: Follow-up to "Lost Art?..." piece just posted to the BirdFellow.com journal [Phil Davis ] 13 Feb Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [] 13 Feb Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [Dave Irons ] 8 Feb Fwd: A Lost Art?: Writing Descriptions of Rare Birds [Phil Davis ] 4 Feb Fwd: Amusing video for birders who have been challenged by records committee members on their sightings (or folks who have been ON records committees) [Phil Davis ] 20 Jan Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [Larry Semo ] 20 Jan Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [Matt Garvey ] 19 Jan Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [William Rowe ] 19 Jan Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [Charles Swift ] 19 Jan Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought [Martin Meyers ] 19 Jan Crested Caracara Records Sought ["Bumgardner, Brad" ] 12 Dec Re: Advice sought RE credibility of documentation [Phil Davis ] 12 Dec Re: Advice sought RE credibility of documentation [Joseph Morlan ] 12 Dec Advice sought RE credibility of documentation [Cliff and Lisa Weisse ] 9 Dec Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? [Skye Haas ] 24 Nov Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? [Steven Mlodinow ] 24 Nov Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? [Phil Davis ] 23 Nov Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? [Skye Haas ] Subject: Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:56:02 -0600 Alan: I believe this question came up last year, but I"m happy to answer again: The only example of this sort of thing currently on our list is perhaps a bit extreme: Little/Red-necked Stint, on the basis of a single bird that was photographed (not well) and circulated to several reviewers world-wide with no definite conclusion except that it was certainly one of these two. But a more "normal" example would be Rufous/Allen's Hummingbird. If we had only one or a few records of birds of this pair, not identifiable to species, we would certainly accept the pair and have it on our list that way. (As it happens, we have a lot of Rufous records and a single proven Allen's.) So in general we have no problem with listing a species pair if that is as close as the evidence allows. We would also be willing to list genus only (e.g., Fregata sp.) if a record happened to turn out that way. Aside from our state checklist, we will also happily accept individual records that way -- for example, we reviewed a recent midwinter dowitcher report and accepted it as "dowitcher, sp." (It was almost certainly a Long-bill, but the evidence didn't allow for certainty.) Bill Rowe Missouri On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Alan Wormington wrote: > Everyone, > > I have two questions for everyone. > > Here is question one: > > Do any provinces / states put species-pairs on their checklist? > > For example, here in Ontario we used to have "Tropical / Couch's > Kingbird" on the official checklist. Then a confirmed Tropical > showed up > so we then dropped the species pair. > > Would be interested to know. > > > Alan Wormington > Leamington, Ontario > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:44:32 -0800 On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:23:10 -0500, Alan Wormington wrote: >Do any provinces / states put species-pairs on their checklist? California did it in the past after Hawaiian and Galapagos Petrels were split. We already had Dark-rumped Petrel on the checklist based on accepted records, so after the split it got converted to Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel. After we accepted some records of Hawaiian Petrel, the slash category was removed from the checklist but is retained on the review list. However I believe that our by-laws have no provision for such species-pairs on the checklist, although there are mechanisms by which they may be added to the review list. We currently have review records of the following species pairs and hybrids: Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia/Pterodroma sandwichensis Masked/Nazca Booby Sula dactylatra/Sula granti Blue-winged X Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus X V. chrysoptera We are having our annual meeting this weekend, and the subject will be raised with respect to Taiga/Tundra Bean-Goose. I believe it will require a by-law change to add that to the checklist, although the committee has already approved adding it to the review list. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Feb 7 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:42:08 -0500 Hi Alan: Yes, and no. In MD /DC we have not done pairs, but we have done "complexes" or "groups." For example, In MD we have "guillemot, species (Cepphus sp.)" on the Maryland list and hope to someday upgrade it to Black Guillemot ... or whatever . On our DC list, we have "frigatebird species (Fregata sp.)" with the hopes of also one day upgrading it. Before we finally took Rufous Hummingbird off of our review list and simplified our lives, we used to track somewhat problematic "complexes" such as the multiple genera "Rufous/Allen's/Broad-tailed/Calliope Hummingbird complex." Whew! Thank goodness most of that is behind us! Hope this helps ... Phil At 20:23 01/10/2012, Alan Wormington wrote: >Everyone, > >I have two questions for everyone. > >Here is question one: > >Do any provinces / states put species-pairs on their checklist? > >For example, here in Ontario we used to have "Tropical / Couch's >Kingbird" on the official checklist. Then a confirmed Tropical showed up >so we then dropped the species pair. > >Would be interested to know. =================================================== 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: Question 2 -- Age / Plumage terminology From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:31:58 -0500 Everyone, Here is question two: To describe age and plumage of accepted reports, what terminology do you use in Annual Reports? In Ontario we list plumages only, based on Humphrey and Parkes (1959). In recent reports we have not provided any age indicators, avoiding the use of terms such as "adult" and "immature." Thanks for input. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Question 1 -- Species Pairs on checklist From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:23:10 -0500 Everyone, I have two questions for everyone. Here is question one: Do any provinces / states put species-pairs on their checklist? For example, here in Ontario we used to have "Tropical / Couch's Kingbird" on the official checklist. Then a confirmed Tropical showed up so we then dropped the species pair. Would be interested to know. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: . From: Matt Heindel <mtheindel AT AOL.COM> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:23:06 -0500 You must know! http://cpmta.it/55folderwww/yttq1ytq1.php?jhopprofileID=29 Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:23:06 __________________ "Our hundred-foot steel tape line is at your service, Mr." (c) Ardine wal99a -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: .. From: Matt Heindel <mtheindel AT AOL.COM> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:22:03 -0500 Hi, ok, no problem! http://sebastienlarousse.teria.org/55folderwww/yttq1ytq1.php?hjpreedonly=29 Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:22:03 ______________ "I am sure you can carry on the work, as you say." (c) CAMERON whiteldy -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? From: "James F. Flynn Jr." <jim.flynn AT MINDSPRING.COM> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:04:44 -0500 PRFA is on the GA Checklist & Records Committee Hypothetical List (i.e., not on the Regular List, chiefly due to questions of origin). Here is the text from the most recent Annotated Checklist of GA Birds (Beaton/Sykes/Parrish, 2003): "Birds have been observed near Duluth, Gwinnett, early Dec 1975 to Jan 1976 (Moore 1981a); north of Atlanta 5 Apr 1976 (Moore 1981a); Lookout Plateau 5 Feb 1977 (WB 3 (3):3); Chattahoochee NF, 5 Aug 1977 (Moore 1981a); adult 4 km NNE of Colbert, Madison, 29 Jan, 22 and 29 Feb 1992 (Sykes and White 1992, GCRC 1992-2); and a bird misidentified as a Peregrine Falcon, found unable to fly at Roswell, Fulton, 22 Jun 1998 was taken to Chattahoochee Nature Center, where it was rehabilitated and released at Stone Mountain Park, DeKalb, 22 Jun 1998 (photographed and videotaped in hand and flying) (Anon. 1998). Origins of these falcons are unknown." There have not been any further reports submitted to the GCRC since 2004. Take care. Jim Flynn Forsyth Co., GA http://gos.org/ http://atlantaaudubon.org/ *************************** From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Davis Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:04 AM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: [BRCF] Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? Hi BRCF-L: This request is on behalf of someone who is doing research on the PA Prairie Falcon(s). Maryland has two reports, see below. Sibley's (2000) range map shows eastern records in MA, SC, GA, AL, MS, TN, OH, IN, and MI. National Geographic's Complete Guide (Alderfer 2005) indicates records for WI, IL, and KY. Are there any other reports or records from the east? Or, can anyone elaborate on these eastern records? Thanks! Phil Prairie Falcon. We have two "reports" from Maryland: ============================ MD/2010-134 Prairie Falcon Frederick, Frederick County, MD Date: 10/15/1950 Observer: Sigwald_SF (Sigwalt was primarily a raptor bander from the early 1950s. PCD) Status: Reviewable (Theoretically; however, it looks like no documentation exists, so this will be changed to "Unreviewable" in our database when our historical canvass is complete. PCD) One immature female. Bird was banded. Band # 54-711546. "Experimental." "This bird was shipped in from the west to a boy in Bethesda who lost interest in it." ======================== MD/1994-027 Prairie Falcon Location: Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary, Lothian, Anne Arundel County, MD Date: 02/14/1994 Observer: Chris Swarth (Director of Jug Bay and familiar with this species from the west. PCD) Status: Not Accepted One bird. The Committee did not accepted this report. While many committee members did feel the bird was a Prairie Falcon, some felt that the possibility of a Prairie x Peregrine hybrid (as a raised by many falconers) could not be ruled out. Also, one member noted that the bird's flight pattern (soaring high) and the habitat where it was observed (the Jug Bay wetlands) was not typical of the bird's normal habitat (even in documented mid-eastern vagrancy situations). Since a pattern of vagrancy to the middle Atlantic area has not been established for this species, the committee judged that this bird is of "questionable origin". In a related note, the committee tracked down and confirmed a report of a breeding female Prairie Falcon that was lost by a falconer in Virginia seven months earlier. This fact also persuaded some of the committee members that this sighting could not be accepted as a Maryland "first record". While the ID of the species was never in question, the committee felt that there is no pattern of vagrancy that supports anything other than an escapee. ====================== =================================================== 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: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:01:41 -0600 Phil: Prairie Falcon is rare but regular as a migrant and winter resident in both Missouri and Illinois. Here at St. Louis, right on the border between the two states, I would guess that we get about one bird every year or two on average, some of which seem to establish a winter territory. I have also checked the Kentucky literature and find that, while it is rarer there, they do have a small series of records starting in 1988, mostly in western Kentucky. There is little or no doubt about the wild provenance of the birds that occur out in this part of the country. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Dec 13, 2011, at 1:03 AM, Phil Davis wrote: > Hi BRCF-L: > > This request is on behalf of someone who is doing research on the > PA Prairie Falcon(s). Maryland has two reports, see below. > > Sibley's (2000) range map shows eastern records in MA, SC, GA, AL, > MS, TN, OH, IN, and MI. National Geographic's Complete Guide > (Alderfer 2005) indicates records for WI, IL, and KY. > > Are there any other reports or records from the east? Or, can > anyone elaborate on these eastern records? > > Thanks! > > Phil > > > > Prairie Falcon. We have two "reports" from Maryland: > ============================ > MD/2010-134 > Prairie Falcon > Frederick, Frederick County, MD > Date: 10/15/1950 > Observer: Sigwald_SF (Sigwalt was primarily a raptor bander from > the early 1950s. PCD) > Status: Reviewable (Theoretically; however, it looks like no > documentation exists, so this will be changed to "Unreviewable" in > our database when our historical canvass is complete. PCD) > One immature female. > Bird was banded. Band # 54-711546. "Experimental." "This bird was > shipped in from the west to a boy in Bethesda who lost interest in > it." > > ======================== > MD/1994-027 > Prairie Falcon > Location: Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary, Lothian, Anne Arundel County, MD > Date: 02/14/1994 > Observer: Chris Swarth (Director of Jug Bay and familiar with this > species from the west. PCD) > Status: Not Accepted > One bird. > The Committee did not accepted this report. While many committee > members did feel the bird was a Prairie Falcon, some felt that the > possibility of a Prairie x Peregrine hybrid (as a raised by many > falconers) could not be ruled out. Also, one member noted that the > bird's flight pattern (soaring high) and the habitat where it was > observed (the Jug Bay wetlands) was not typical of the bird's > normal habitat (even in documented mid-eastern vagrancy > situations). Since a pattern of vagrancy to the middle Atlantic > area has not been established for this species, the committee > judged that this bird is of "questionable origin". > > In a related note, the committee tracked down and confirmed a > report of a breeding female Prairie Falcon that was lost by a > falconer in Virginia seven months earlier. This fact also persuaded > some of the committee members that this sighting could not be > accepted as a Maryland "first record". > > While the ID of the species was never in question, the committee > felt that there is no pattern of vagrancy that supports anything > other than an escapee. > > ====================== > > > =================================================== > 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: Historical bird sighting records 1884-1924 From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:16:30 -0500 BRCF: Earlier this year, Sam Droege (USGS, Beltsville, MD) and I were researching some historical Maryland and DC records and our pursuit lead us to the Fish and Wildlife Service records that are stored at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) facility in College Park, MD. We were originally looking for the old "lighthouse/lightstation records" from the late 1800s. We found these records but also found that lots of other migration and observation records were included in the storage boxes. However, there was not a finding aid to help one navigate through the 93 boxes of documents. So, I created a finding aid that can be downloaded from our MD/DCRC resources page here ... http://mddcrc-resources.posterous.com/finding-aid-bird-migration-schedules-1884-192 [this apparent link truncation of the year 1924 is OK] This project was just one task of our MD/DC Records Committee historical canvass initiatives. Elements of this canvass are beginning to be completed and will be announced as they are finished. These NARA records may be of interest to other state/province ornithological historians. Unfortunately, these observation records, in this form/format, are not digitized and are not on-line, so access requires a trip to the NARA facility. Additional details are on our web page, above. 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: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? From: Matt Garvey <mattpgarvey AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:18:36 -0500 The one Massachusetts record is currently under review by the Massachusetts Avian Records Committee. The specimen is in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, where Jeremiah Trimble found it mislabeled as a Gyrfalcon. The bird is accredited to Reginald Heber Howe, Jr., and the location and date on the specimen tag read "Mass. coast 15 (?) Jan 1898." There's no reference to the specimen (under Prairie or Gyrfalcon) in Howe's 1901 Birds of Massachusetts with Glover Allen. There's been no question about the id as Prairie Falcon in the review process--it's what to do about the lack of precise location, date and other details regarding the collection that the committee is mulling over. If anyone has any clues on this bird, please let me know! Best, Matt Garvey Secretary, Massachusetts Avian Records Committee maavianrecords.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:27 AM, wormington AT juno.com wrote: > There are several records for Ontario, and they are considered wild. > > One record in particular was rejected, since it was learned that a Prairiie Falcon had escaped a few weeks earlier. > > Alan Wormington > Leamington, Ontario > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:27:36 GMT There are several records for Ontario, and they are considered wild. One record in particular was rejected, since it was learned that a Prairiie Falcon had escaped a few weeks earlier. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Records of Prairie Falcon in the east? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:03:52 -0500 Hi BRCF-L: This request is on behalf of someone who is doing research on the PA Prairie Falcon(s). Maryland has two reports, see below. Sibley's (2000) range map shows eastern records in MA, SC, GA, AL, MS, TN, OH, IN, and MI. National Geographic's Complete Guide (Alderfer 2005) indicates records for WI, IL, and KY. Are there any other reports or records from the east? Or, can anyone elaborate on these eastern records? Thanks! Phil Prairie Falcon. We have two "reports" from Maryland: ============================ MD/2010-134 Prairie Falcon Frederick, Frederick County, MD Date: 10/15/1950 Observer: Sigwald_SF (Sigwalt was primarily a raptor bander from the early 1950s. PCD) Status: Reviewable (Theoretically; however, it looks like no documentation exists, so this will be changed to "Unreviewable" in our database when our historical canvass is complete. PCD) One immature female. Bird was banded. Band # 54-711546. "Experimental." "This bird was shipped in from the west to a boy in Bethesda who lost interest in it." ======================== MD/1994-027 Prairie Falcon Location: Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary, Lothian, Anne Arundel County, MD Date: 02/14/1994 Observer: Chris Swarth (Director of Jug Bay and familiar with this species from the west. PCD) Status: Not Accepted One bird. The Committee did not accepted this report. While many committee members did feel the bird was a Prairie Falcon, some felt that the possibility of a Prairie x Peregrine hybrid (as a raised by many falconers) could not be ruled out. Also, one member noted that the bird's flight pattern (soaring high) and the habitat where it was observed (the Jug Bay wetlands) was not typical of the bird's normal habitat (even in documented mid-eastern vagrancy situations). Since a pattern of vagrancy to the middle Atlantic area has not been established for this species, the committee judged that this bird is of "questionable origin". In a related note, the committee tracked down and confirmed a report of a breeding female Prairie Falcon that was lost by a falconer in Virginia seven months earlier. This fact also persuaded some of the committee members that this sighting could not be accepted as a Maryland "first record". While the ID of the species was never in question, the committee felt that there is no pattern of vagrancy that supports anything other than an escapee. ====================== =================================================== 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: European Greenfinch in Maryland From: "Geoffrey A. Williamson" <geoffrey.williamson AT COMCAST.NET> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:36:39 -0600 Phil: There are also the following relatively recent sightings from Indiana. * one in Allen County, IN, March 2004 (Bob Walton), see https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0403&L=IN-BIRD-L&P=R10358 * male in Ogden Dunes, Porter county, IN, 6 Apr 2004 (Jeff McCoy), see https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0404&L=IN-BIRD-L&P=R3966 Best, Geoff At 04:48 PM 11/28/2011, you wrote: >BRCF-L: > >Maryland has had its second European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris) encounter. > >I know that this species can be sold in pet stores. I saw one on the >web priced at about $60. > >If anyone has any knowledge about the current status of this species >in the pet trade, please prefer to my posting below on the MD/DCRC >blog. I have already sent this message to several of the pet bird >dealers in our region to see if I can learn anything that might have >a bearing on this encounter. > > http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/european-greenfinch-sightings > >Also, if anyone knows of other recent sightings in North America, >please let me know. > >Thanks. > >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 Geoffrey A. Williamson geoffrey.williamson AT comcast.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: European Greenfinch in Maryland From: "Geoffrey A. Williamson" <geoffrey.williamson AT COMCAST.NET> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:27:19 -0600 Dear Phil: I personally have seen a European Greenfinch in Chicago's Lincoln Park on the following dates: 19 May 2004, 14 Apr 2005, 10 May 2009 Published records going back to 1991 in the Illinois journals include the following (including all my sightings above). * One seen 9 May 2004, Chicago's Jackson Park (Paul R. Clyne et al.), Meadowlark, vol. 13 no. 4, p. 158. * One seen 19 May 2004, Chicago's Lincoln Park (Geoffrey A. Williamson), Meadowlark, vol. 13 no. 4, p. 158. * One male seen 14 Apr 2005, Chicago's Lincoln Park (Geoffrey A. Williamson), Meadowlark, vol. 14 no. 4, p. 160. * One female, evidently carrying nesting material, Chicago's Jackson Park (Paul R. Clyne), Meadowlark, vol. 14 no. 4, p. 160. * One seen 9-10 May 2009, Chicago's Lincoln Park (Phyllis Petrilli, Geoffrey A. Williamson), Meadowlark, vol. 18 no. 4, p. 160. You may also want to consult http://www.rrbo.org/conservation-science/research/bird-population-monitoring/eurobirds/ if you haven't already, including the references to North American Birds articles therein. In Chicago's lakefront parks we have had Great Tit, Eurasian Jay, Hooded Crow, and Chaffinch as well, plus eastern forms of European Goldfinch in addition to the usually occurring variety of European Goldfinch. The nesting Great Tits that Bill Rowe mentions were actually in McHenry County, rather than Chicago. Blue Tit has occurred, also in McHenry County, and European Goldfinches are breeding in northeast Illinois. At 04:48 PM 11/28/2011, you wrote: >BRCF-L: > >Maryland has had its second European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris) encounter. > >I know that this species can be sold in pet stores. I saw one on the >web priced at about $60. > >If anyone has any knowledge about the current status of this species >in the pet trade, please prefer to my posting below on the MD/DCRC >blog. I have already sent this message to several of the pet bird >dealers in our region to see if I can learn anything that might have >a bearing on this encounter. > > http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/european-greenfinch-sightings > >Also, if anyone knows of other recent sightings in North America, >please let me know. > >Thanks. > >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 Geoffrey A. Williamson geoffrey.williamson AT comcast.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: European Greenfinch in Maryland From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:54:43 -0600 Phil: Missouri had a fairly recent Greenfinch, as noted in the "Not Accepted" section of our last annual report: GREENFINCH (Chloris chloris), 2010-12: Male, 25 January 2010, near Easley, Boone Co. This bird, well described and photographed, was clearly a Greenfinch, and almost certainly an escaped bird. The committee has processed and archived the record in case it is needed for future studies of exotic passerine records. This doesn't explain the entire background for our area (Missouri, Illinois, etc.). Let me cite an earlier record, of a Chaffinch, and you can see what we said then: COMMON CHAFFINCH (Fringilla coelebs), 2005-71: Male, 18-28 November 2005, Cedar Hill, Jefferson Co. This bird was well observed and photographed; there was no doubt about its identification. The Committee voted unanimously not to accept it, however, on grounds of origin. Since 2002, there have been well over 200 reports of Eurasian passerines (primarily European Goldfinches, but also many other species including Common Chaffinch) in the upper Midwest, apparently a result of releases into the wild by a Chicago bird importer who went out of business. Moreover, there is no clear pattern of vagrancy for the Common Chaffinch in North America that might outweigh the likelihood that it was a released bird. For a full analysis, see Craves and McKenzie, “Common Chaffinch in Missouri, with comments on its status in North America,” Bluebird, Vol. 73, No. 2 (June 2006). In 2006 we also had a European Goldfinch and a Linnet to evaluate; we attributed them also as most likely products of the Chicago release. Obviously we don't put much stock in any records of European passerines around here. I might add that in Chicago they actually had a pair of nesting Great Tits! Bill Rowe MBRC On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Phil Davis wrote: > BRCF-L: > > Maryland has had its second European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris) > encounter. > > I know that this species can be sold in pet stores. I saw one on > the web priced at about $60. > > If anyone has any knowledge about the current status of this > species in the pet trade, please prefer to my posting below on the > MD/DCRC blog. I have already sent this message to several of the > pet bird dealers in our region to see if I can learn anything that > might have a bearing on this encounter. > > http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/european-greenfinch- > sightings > > Also, if anyone knows of other recent sightings in North America, > please let me know. > > Thanks. > > 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: European Greenfinch in Maryland From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:48:41 -0500 BRCF-L: Maryland has had its second European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris) encounter. I know that this species can be sold in pet stores. I saw one on the web priced at about $60. If anyone has any knowledge about the current status of this species in the pet trade, please prefer to my posting below on the MD/DCRC blog. I have already sent this message to several of the pet bird dealers in our region to see if I can learn anything that might have a bearing on this encounter. http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/european-greenfinch-sightings Also, if anyone knows of other recent sightings in North America, please let me know. Thanks. 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: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 01:32:02 -0400 Hi Joe, et al. I indicated that MD/DC Accept-Group is "another story" ... I guess I better play out the story, since you asked ... We have our own rules and our policies and procedures have evolved on this matter over the years. We started out allowing records to be accepted to the genus-level. The first such cases for the committee were Fregata, sp. to allow for the (unlikely, but conceivable) possibility of Greater or Lesser Frigatebirds when dealing with reports of Magnificents where the submitted details did not nail down age/sex. We also initially accepted Rufous/Allen's candidates as Selasphorus, species; however, we later realized that the South American species of Selasphorus were really not in the running, so we got more specific and accepted "groups" or "complexes" that could be defined by the voting members, depending on the details submitted ... for example, Rufous/Allen's, Rufous/Allen's/Broad-tailed, or even Rufous/Allen's/Broad-tailed/Calliope ... the later, of course, not even being a Selasphorus! So we changed our "Accept-Genus" to "Accept-Group" where the group of candidate species is identified by the member on the ballot/comment form. A group could still be defined by a member as a genus (such as Aechmophorus, sp. for a Western/Clark's Grebe) or a "complex" such as the Black/Pigeon Guillemot complex. However, each member of the defined "group" must be reviewable in the location where observed. For example, a member cannot vote for a submitted Ash-throated Flycatcher to be accepted as a Myiarchus, sp., since Great Crested is not reviewable in Maryland or DC. However, they could vote to Accept-Group with the group defined as Ash-throated/Nutting's. Note: we use the following nomenclature for our voting results ... A-N-O where A=Accept votes, N=Not Accept votes, and O=Other votes, one being Accept-Group (the others deal with origin issues). Acceptance is a bit problematic. We consider Accept-Group votes to be equivalent to Accept votes at the first level for determining if a report needs to be recirculated or not. For example, a vote of 5 Accepts and 4 Accept-Groups (5-0-4), would be nominally treated as 9 "Accepts" and the report would be accepted ... EXCEPT ... we will recirculate mixed or split "group" votes one more time to allow members to see each others votes and comments and re-vote. Then on the last round, a majority of the votes cast will determine HOW the report is accepted, either as "Accept" or "Accept-Group." In the example, above, if the votes on the last circulation were to come in as 5-0-4, the report would be Accepted; if it came back as 4-0-5, it would be "Accepted-Group." If, however, the definition of the "group" varies among the members on the final round, the broadest group prevails. So, if a final vote were 4-0-5 and the five "group" votes were split between Rufous/Allen's and Rufous/Allen's/Broad-tailed, the final group would be R/A/BT (despite the numbers of votes in the mix) since it is the broadest group. Observers can submit reports as groups (for example, Aechmophorus, sp.) or our voting members can take a report that was submitted as a species, such as Magnificent Frigatebird, and arrive at a group decision, such as Fregata, sp. We will add Accept-Group decision on our MD or DC Official Lists if the group is not already represented on this list. For example, Fregata, sp. is on the DC Official List. If we accept a Magnificent, we will upgrade or replace the existing entry. Other than the hummingbirds, all other cases of "groups" in our database deal with pelagic birds, except for a single European/Vega Gull that is sitting in our queue. The bottom line is that all of this does get quite complicated. When you factor in mixed votes of Accept, Accept-Group, AND Not Accepts, things get even more dicey! Hope this helps ... Phil At 21:13 09/02/2011, Joseph Morlan wrote: >On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:22:47 -0400, Phil Davis >wrote: > > > Our decision categories are: Accepted, Not Accepted, ID > >OK/Questionable Origin, and ID OK/Exotic Origin (plus, Accept-Group, > >for genera or complex level, but that's another story). =================================================== 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: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:03:44 -0500 Joe: Answering for Missouri. See below. On Sep 2, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > Do other committees have a mechanism for accepting species pairs, > superspecies or > genera to their state checklists. The only example of this sort of thing currently on our list is perhaps a bit extreme: Little/Red-necked Stint, on the basis of a single bird that was photographed (not well) and circulated to several reviewers with no definite conclusion except that it was one of these two. But a more "normal" example would be Rufous/Allen's Hummingbird. If we had only one or a few records of birds of this pair, not identifiable to species, we would certainly accept the pair and have it on our list that way. (As it happens, we have a lot of Rufous records and a single proven Allen's.) There is no special mechanism. We would do it ad hoc. > > For example, suppose a state gets documentation of a frigatebird, > but it's > not possible to tell which species. If you have no other frigatebird > records in your state, do you reject it as unidentified to species or > accept it as Fregata sp. I'm sure we would accept Fregata sp. > > > If you accept taxa other than species on your state list, what > mechanism to > have to do so. I.e. how is your state list defined in your > bylaws? Do you > follow ABA, AOU or have your own rules? We follow AOU taxonomy and nomenclature. Taxa other than species also include subspecies. We do NOT include those on our state list, but we do review them occasionally if they are both rare and "reviewable" -- i.e., distinctive enough to be certainly identified through regular documentation. Most recent example is a Gray-headed Junco (caniceps) last winter. We review such forms if they come to our attention, and they are included in the annual report even though not on the checklist. In this case, there is also the aspect that caniceps could potentially be raised to species rank some day. Bill Rowe MBRC St. Louis > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:39:11 -0400 Greetings All, In WA, we do not currently have any pairings that would represent only state records. For instance, we have accepted records as Murphy's Petrel and as Murphy's/Solander's. Similarly, we have a number of Tropical Kingbird records, and some Tropical/Couch's... and so on. We have no formal rule on this, so I guess it would be possible for Dusky/Radde's Warbler to appear on our state list. We vote on birds in Washington before the ABA or AOU gets around to ruling on them. We might reconsider these records if the AOU/ABA took a contrary position, evaluating why they did so... but in the end, as with Ontario, we abide by our decision in the end. Fortunately, we have no such conflicts at this time, though one re: a record of Solander's Petrel from the 1970s may be looming on the horizon. Cheers. Steven Mlodinow (now of Longmont, CO) -----Original Message----- From: Alan Wormington To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Fri, Sep 2, 2011 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. Joseph, First off, there are provinces in North America in addition to states. In Ontario we had Tropical / Couch's Kingbird on the provincial list, until a Tropical Kingbird was confirmed. We have just accepted a record of Sooty / Short-tailed Shearwater, and this species pair will appear on the next checklist. As for individual records, we accept "unidentified frigatebird" in our Annual Reports. (Magnificent Frigatebird is already on the Ontario checklist.) As for conforming to ABA or AOU, it wouldn't happen in Ontario. If by some chance a species new to North America were to be found and documented in Ontario, the OBRC would not be influenced by any ABA or AOU criteria. If valid, the record would be accepted and immediately placed on our checklist. cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:13:21 -0700 Joseph Morlan writes: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:22:47 -0400, Phil Davis > wrote: > > > Our decision categories are: Accepted, Not Accepted, ID > >OK/Questionable Origin, and ID OK/Exotic Origin (plus, > Accept-Group, > >for genera or complex level, but that's another story). > > The current ABA Checklist has the following entries: > > Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia/sandwichensis) > Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel (Pterodroma feae/madeira) > > These appear to be the only species pairs on the ABA list. Do other > committees have a mechanism for accepting species pairs, > superspecies or > genera to their state checklists. > > For example, suppose a state gets documentation of a frigatebird, > but it's > not possible to tell which species. If you have no other frigatebird > records in your state, do you reject it as unidentified to species or > accept it as Fregata sp. > > Or consider the Hawk Mountain Pterodroma claimed to be a Kermadec. > > http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v073n03/p0262-p0267.pdf > > However, many consider the photo to be inconclusive and argue Herald > Petrel > is not eliminated. Does Pennsylvania have Kermadec/Herald on its > state > list? That combo is not accepted by ABA, but is it really any > different > than the two combinations the ABA does accept? > > In California, we had Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel on our State List > for a > while. It was grandfathered in after the split because we had > accepted > records of the former "Dark-rumped Petrel. However, we follow AOU > in all > matters of taxonomy and the presence of this species pair on our > list was > not in compliance with our own bylaws in my opinion. More recently > we > removed it after accepting a number of records of Hawaiian Petrel. > Thus we > currently have a bird on our State List that is not on the ABA list. > > > If you accept taxa other than species on your state list, what > mechanism to > have to do so. I.e. how is your state list defined in your bylaws? > Do you > follow ABA, AOU or have your own rules? > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:29:32 -0400 Joseph, First off, there are provinces in North America in addition to states. In Ontario we had Tropical / Couch's Kingbird on the provincial list, until a Tropical Kingbird was confirmed. We have just accepted a record of Sooty / Short-tailed Shearwater, and this species pair will appear on the next checklist. As for individual records, we accept "unidentified frigatebird" in our Annual Reports. (Magnificent Frigatebird is already on the Ontario checklist.) As for conforming to ABA or AOU, it wouldn't happen in Ontario. If by some chance a species new to North America were to be found and documented in Ontario, the OBRC would not be influenced by any ABA or AOU criteria. If valid, the record would be accepted and immediately placed on our checklist. cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:13:21 -0700 Joseph Morlan writes: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:22:47 -0400, Phil Davis > wrote: > > > Our decision categories are: Accepted, Not Accepted, ID > >OK/Questionable Origin, and ID OK/Exotic Origin (plus, > Accept-Group, > >for genera or complex level, but that's another story). > > The current ABA Checklist has the following entries: > > Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia/sandwichensis) > Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel (Pterodroma feae/madeira) > > These appear to be the only species pairs on the ABA list. Do other > committees have a mechanism for accepting species pairs, > superspecies or > genera to their state checklists. > > For example, suppose a state gets documentation of a frigatebird, > but it's > not possible to tell which species. If you have no other frigatebird > records in your state, do you reject it as unidentified to species or > accept it as Fregata sp. > > Or consider the Hawk Mountain Pterodroma claimed to be a Kermadec. > > http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v073n03/p0262-p0267.pdf > > However, many consider the photo to be inconclusive and argue Herald > Petrel > is not eliminated. Does Pennsylvania have Kermadec/Herald on its > state > list? That combo is not accepted by ABA, but is it really any > different > than the two combinations the ABA does accept? > > In California, we had Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel on our State List > for a > while. It was grandfathered in after the split because we had > accepted > records of the former "Dark-rumped Petrel. However, we follow AOU > in all > matters of taxonomy and the presence of this species pair on our > list was > not in compliance with our own bylaws in my opinion. More recently > we > removed it after accepting a number of records of Hawaiian Petrel. > Thus we > currently have a bird on our State List that is not on the ABA list. > > > If you accept taxa other than species on your state list, what > mechanism to > have to do so. I.e. how is your state list defined in your bylaws? > Do you > follow ABA, AOU or have your own rules? > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Accepting species pairs, genera or complex groups. From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:13:21 -0700 On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:22:47 -0400, Phil Davis wrote: > Our decision categories are: Accepted, Not Accepted, ID >OK/Questionable Origin, and ID OK/Exotic Origin (plus, Accept-Group, >for genera or complex level, but that's another story). The current ABA Checklist has the following entries: Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia/sandwichensis) Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel (Pterodroma feae/madeira) These appear to be the only species pairs on the ABA list. Do other committees have a mechanism for accepting species pairs, superspecies or genera to their state checklists. For example, suppose a state gets documentation of a frigatebird, but it's not possible to tell which species. If you have no other frigatebird records in your state, do you reject it as unidentified to species or accept it as Fregata sp. Or consider the Hawk Mountain Pterodroma claimed to be a Kermadec. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v073n03/p0262-p0267.pdf However, many consider the photo to be inconclusive and argue Herald Petrel is not eliminated. Does Pennsylvania have Kermadec/Herald on its state list? That combo is not accepted by ABA, but is it really any different than the two combinations the ABA does accept? In California, we had Galapagos/Hawaiian Petrel on our State List for a while. It was grandfathered in after the split because we had accepted records of the former "Dark-rumped Petrel. However, we follow AOU in all matters of taxonomy and the presence of this species pair on our list was not in compliance with our own bylaws in my opinion. More recently we removed it after accepting a number of records of Hawaiian Petrel. Thus we currently have a bird on our State List that is not on the ABA list. If you accept taxa other than species on your state list, what mechanism to have to do so. I.e. how is your state list defined in your bylaws? Do you follow ABA, AOU or have your own rules? Thanks. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributors of non-accepted records From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:54:10 -0500 In Nevada, we do not publish names for "origin uncertain" records, but I'll be darned if I can come up with any rationale for that. Never really gave it enough thought, I'd guess. Something I think we'll consider at our biannual meeting, this September. We do not put the names of submitters on the website for pending records -- it seems to me that if we actually think that submitters for non-endorsed records should not be identified, then the logical extension of that is to avoid publishing submitters' names until after a record is endorsed. As to that making it difficult for people to track the progress of their records, I'm not sure -- I expect if I were to submit a record, I could quickly identify that record on the website list based on species, location, and date even without my name showing. Of course, Nevada doesn't have anywhere near the number of total records California has. 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: Contributors of non-accepted records From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:22:47 -0400 Hi Joe: In MD/DC, we don't "reject" records due to questionable or exotic origin. Our decision categories are: Accepted, Not Accepted, ID OK/Questionable Origin, and ID OK/Exotic Origin (plus, Accept-Group, for genera or complex level, but that's another story). So, we basically treat the "ID/OK ..." decisions similar to "accepts" and we do published names. In other words, the first level of our acceptance is on the identification (Y/N) with a second level that goes to origin (basically in a range from natural, to questionable, to exotic). Phil At 15:06 08/25/2011, Joseph Morlan wrote: >Thanks for the helpful information. > >For those committees that suppress the names of observers or contributors >of non-accepted records, does the policy apply to all non-accepted records >or is there a difference between records rejected because of questionable >identification vs. questionable natural occurrence? > =================================================== 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Chuck Otte <cotte AT KSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:43:53 -0500 In Kansas it doesn't matter the reason for "non-acceptance", names are omitted UNLESS the record is accepted. 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.geary.ksu.edu/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:06:36 -0700 Thanks for the helpful information. For those committees that suppress the names of observers or contributors of non-accepted records, does the policy apply to all non-accepted records or is there a difference between records rejected because of questionable identification vs. questionable natural occurrence? Frankly I'm having a hard time seeing a rationale for suppressing the names of the observers and photographers of the California Demoiselle Crane whose identification was accepted, but whose natural occurrence was judged questionable. It appears that for those committees with transparent web tracking, contributor names are available for new records without a decision, but may be removed after the record is rejected. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me as we move towards allowing observers to track the progress of their records through the committee via a web interface. However I also think it's important to convey the lesson that a non-accepted record is not to be interpreted as a rejection of a person's skills or integrity. Virtually all members of the California Committee have had one or more records rejected at one time or another. By suppressing the names of contributors whose records are not accepted, are we not playing into the notion that having a record rejected is indeed something to be ashamed of? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:16:54 -0500 Like Louisiana, our bylaws were patterned on the California committee's. And like most of the committees that have responded, we do not publish identification of submitter for non-endorsed records in our annual report, nor do we display them on the website. It's even a bit more awkward when it comes to photos. We link one documentation photo to each web-displayed record, but only if the record is endorsed (since we certainly would have to provide credit to photographers, and hence the conflict for non-endorsed records.) As some others have stated, we send a personal message to every submitter (record endorsed or not) at the completion of every packet review, and, for non-endorsed records, I try to explain not only why the record was not endorsed but also how important it is, with or without endorsement. While I fully agree that birders should not be embarrassed by having their name associated with a non-endorsed record (and yes, I've had records rejected -- damn you, California!), the fact is that there are birders who do, and who will always, interpret a non-endorsement as something akin to the committee saying, "You stupid jerk, how could you possibly have made such a dumb mistake," and these people do not want to see their alleged "failures" displayed to the whole world. I guess the decision comes down to a balancing act -- is it better to keep a few from getting madder than to acknowledge the (I hope) many who understand the nature of committee decisions? Tough choice, actually. (And since I've gotten in trouble over the years with misunderstood attempts at humor in email, let me state emphatically that I really don't want the entire California committee to face eternal damnation.) 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:10:32 -0500 Louisiana employs the same policy - in fact, the founding LBRC used CBRC bylaws as the foundation of our bylaws. Personally, I think this is the best approach; the LBRC has always maintained this protocol and not identified individuals whose records were not accepted. Donna Dittmann LBRC Secretary On 8/24/11 5:47 PM, "Joseph Morlan" wrote: > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Charles Swift <chaetura AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:02:34 -0700 Here in Idaho we are somewhat like Utah. Records acted upon by the IBRC dating back 2006 are online and accessible to anyone (see: http://www.idahobirds.net/ibrc/archive/ibrcarchive.html). This includes the report itself, the observer information, voting comments and the disposition of each record (including accepted, not accepted, ready, and in-process records). To the best of my knowledge we have had no problems with this approach and it does not appear to have affected our submission rate. Likewise we maintain a comprehensive list of records of review species, reviewed or not, here: http://www.idahobirds.net/ibrc/reviewspecies.html. I agree with Milt that these "non-accepted" records are important and observers should not feel embarrassed to have their reports in this category. In fact if you look on our list you will see reports from our own committee members that have not been accepted so hopefully this will ameliorate some concerns. In this age of transparency this seems like a good way to go. (Of course the birding communities in Utah and Idaho may be quite different from those in some other states!). As an aside this seems to be a good model for any BRC's contemplating going to a web based system. (And perhaps something for further discussion would be jointly developing a shared web/database system for managing BRC records.) thanks, Charles. On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -- Charles Swift Moscow, Idaho 46°43′54″ N, 116°59′50″ W email: chaetura AT gmail.com skype: charles.swift google voice: 208-991-2473 twitter: chasimoto -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:22:53 -0400 The Florida Committee (FOSRC) is like the California Committee. We have a list of all contributors at the beginning of the report. For each accepted records, we give initials of those who submitted. I try to include the person who found the bird, regardless of whether or not they submitted a report. This is a change from a few years ago when we included only those who had records accepted in the list of contributors. For non-accepted submissions no initials are given. I feel that all submissions are noteworthy and the submitters should be acknowledged, but not embarrassed. I haven't received any negative (or positive for that matter) comments regarding this practice. Andy Kratter > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 On 8/25/11 9:28 AM, Chuck Otte wrote: > Kansas also does not publish names of un-accepted records. But anyone can > go and read the actual reports a year or two later. Usually, thanks to discussion > lists, everyone knows who saw a particular bird because it was usually posted > on "the list". > > 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.geary.ksu.edu/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Chuck Otte <cotte AT KSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:28:06 -0500 Kansas also does not publish names of un-accepted records. But anyone can go and read the actual reports a year or two later. Usually, thanks to discussion lists, everyone knows who saw a particular bird because it was usually posted on "the list". 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.geary.ksu.edu/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:39:24 -0700 Greetings to all, Since 2004 we in Utah have changed from listing non-accepted records separately and removing the names of the observers from the record, to listing all records in taxonomic order and de-emphasizing whether they were accepted or not.  We keep two "rare bird  sightings lists", one is a "comprehensive" list (with all hotline sightings, as well as those with records -- accepted or not -- reviewed by the committee) and the other a "documented sights" list with sighting  that have been reviewed and accepted by the committee.  both lists have links to the actual sight records that were review by the committee or for earlier one, to the committee reports, and, on the comprehensive list, there is a symbol indicating that a sighting has been accepted by the committee.  (All records since about 2000 are posted on-line so anyone interested can look them up and evaluate the records themselves -- record committee comments are available upon request). There have been people who have felt bad that their records were not accept before the change and after the change, but we're trying (who knows if successfully) to send the message that all records that are submitted are valuable even if all field marks were not seen well or there was no physical evidence obtained for that sighting.  It's hard to tell if this policy has been positive or negative (the average number of records has more than double since 2000 but it might be for other reasons), but we've eliminated the possibility that someone could infer from names being withheld from non-accepted records that maybe they SHOULD be embarrassed if their record was not accepted (I don't know how often they might come to that conclusion, but it seems logical that they might). So we've gone that way and it seems to be working fine. Milt Moody past secretary and present webmaster of the UBRC P.S.  For those interested, here is a link to the "comprehensive list" and to the "documented sightings" list: http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/RareBirdsIndex.html http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/UBRC_SightingsIndex.html --- On Wed, 8/24/11, William Rowe wrote: From: William Rowe Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011, 6:34 PM Joe: Same answer for Missouri: no, we do not publish names of observers for non-accepted records, although it can be pretty obvious in some cases since the date and location are published.  For accepted records, we do publish the names of all who documented the bird, not just the initial observer. I would not want to change this practice.  I do think it would be an embarrassment to the observers, at least in some instances. Bill Rowe St. Louis On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report.  Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same?  For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. > --Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA     jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14    http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:12:53 -0400 Hi Joe, et al. For MD/DC ... 1. We capture on all observers (actually the submitters of documentation) including associated comments regarding the number of images submitted, length of video clips, specimen # and collector, etc. The finder gets highlighted and if the finder did not submit documentation, he/she gets a call out in the comments. For long-staying birds, we often note the observer who reported the last date in the comments field. We also capture citations for all published references (journal articles, seasonal reports in Maryland Birdlife, North American Birds, etc.) 2. For Not Accepted reports, no names are published. No negative effects that we are aware of. Hope this helps. Phil On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: >>The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for >>non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their >>names are listed with all other contributors at the end of the >>report, but their >>initials are not attached to any particular record unless the >>record is accepted. >> >>The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing >>observers whose sightings are not accepted. >> >>Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the >>names of all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside >>to the practice. > >=================================================== >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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:02:10 -0400 Ohio does not publish the names of observers of non-accepted records. We do send them a letter thanking them for their reports, and explaining why the record was not accepted. On 8/24/2011 6:47 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Contributers of non-accepted records From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:34:36 -0500 Joe: Same answer for Missouri: no, we do not publish names of observers for non-accepted records, although it can be pretty obvious in some cases since the date and location are published. For accepted records, we do publish the names of all who documented the bird, not just the initial observer. I would not want to change this practice. I do think it would be an embarrassment to the observers, at least in some instances. Bill Rowe St. Louis On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their > names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the > record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing > observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the > names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside > to the > practice. > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:50:02 -0400 Greetings The WA BRC does not publish names of non-accepted records.... Cheers Steve Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Morlan To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 4:47 pm Subject: Contributers of non-accepted records The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is accepted. The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers whose sightings are not accepted. Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the practice. Thanks. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ -------------------------------------------------- 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Brad Bumgardner <bumgbj01 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:39:23 -0500 Indiana practices the same procedure. Names of observers for non-accepted records do not appear anywhere in the annual report, but have been mentioned in annual emails thanking folks that have submitted. Brad Bumgardner Chair, Indiana BRC > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:47:16 -0700 > From: jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM > Subject: Contributers of non-accepted records > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > > The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for > non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are > listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their > initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is > accepted. > > The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers > whose sightings are not accepted. > > Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of > all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the > practice. > > Thanks. > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Contributers of non-accepted records From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:47:16 -0700 The California Committee does not publish the names of observers for non-accepted records when it publishes its annual report. Their names are listed with all other contributors at the end of the report, but their initials are not attached to any particular record unless the record is accepted. The presumed purpose of this practice is to avoid embarrassing observers whose sightings are not accepted. Do other committees do the same? For committees who publish the names of all observers with non-accepted records have you found a downside to the practice. Thanks. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: Vega Gull records in eastern North America From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:51:59 -0400 Hi BRCF-L: Below is a thread that began with a message from Kirk Zufelt who is researching reports and records of Vega Herring Gulls from east of the Mississippi River. Any information from BRCF-L subscribers would be appreciated. I would also be interested in the responses, as I'm sure would others. So, replies to the list would be appropriate. Zurt, however, may not be subscribed to BRCF-L, so please copy him on any replies ... Kirk Zufelt Thanks. Phil >Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Vega Gull records in eastern North America >From: Kirk Zufelt >Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:45:49 -0400 >To: Phil Davis > >Phil >That would be great if you could cross post my query. Feel free to >include my E-mail for any off-list responses. >Thanks > >Kirk >On 2011-08-01, at 12:51 PM, Phil Davis wrote: > > > Hi Zirk: > > > > We do not have any confirmed/accepted records of Vegas here, > however, we do have two reports that have not been reviewed yet. > (We are doing an historical canvass of rarities and subspecies -- > as defined by the AOU (!) --- so Vegas are not that high on our > review priority list at this time. > > > > The two reports in our queue are: > > > > MD/2009-029 > > "Vega" Herring Gull > > 01/02/2009 > > MD Wicomico County Salisbury, Salisbury Landfill > > 01/02/2009 > > Johnson_TB > > Ready > > One first winter bird. > > NAB 63(2):239. > > Fifteen digital images by T Johnson; also a reference image of a > probably HEGUxLBBG hybrid. > > > > > > MD/2007-009 > > "European"/Vega Herring Gull > > MD Dorchester County, Beulah > > 02/08/2002 > > Iliff_MJ, Howell_S, et al. > > Ready > > One first winter bird. > > [Iliff checking with Howell to confirm date.] > > Five color images by M Iliff. Not published in Maryland Birdlife. > > > > > > As you can see, the second bird was submitted as "either" a Vega > or European (either would be reviewable in MD as forms/subspecies > unusual to our area.) > > > > I don't know what sort of response you got to your request, but > there is another listserver that might be of interest ... the Birds > Records Committee Forum-Listserv (BRCF-L). It's not a ID list, but > rather one for records committee questions, issues, information. I > am co-owner. If you are not subscribed and want me to cross-post > your request, just let me know. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Phil > > > > > > At 17:15 07/30/2011, you wrote: > >> Birder's > >> > >> I am writing a report on an adult Vega Gull that was seen in > Ontario last fall and subsequently > >> accepted by the OBRC. I have been searching for accepted/ well > documented records of Vega Gull for > >> east of the Mississippi. I am aware of Michael Brother's Florida > well documented adult record from > >> January 2009. I am also aware of the Texas(obviously west of the > Mississippi) records.I have been > >> unable to find any others that haven't remained in the possible category. > >> > >> If anyone has knowledge of any other confirmed/accepted eastern > records I would greatly appreciate > >> the details. > >> Thanks > >> > >> Kirk Zufelt > > > > =================================================== > > 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: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 01:04:55 -0400 Hi BRCF-L: Sorry this took a while ... I compiled the responses I received into a table. For states/provinces where no response was received but some related information was provided someone outside the state/province, I plugged in that information. The table can be found at the blog entry here ... http://mddcrc-resources.posterous.com/trumpeter-swan-status-eastern-north-america If anyone sends me any new or updated information, I'll update the table. Thanks. Phil At 01:40 07/22/2011, Phil Davis wrote: >BRCF-L: > >In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this >time, only as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of >these birds seen on the Potomac River in the 1700s. > >Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of >birds seen in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating >from the reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a >number of states have accepted these birds onto your >state/provincial lists. I I know which states/provinces have >accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally request comments >from other committees on the status of this species in your >jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free to >reply to the list or directly to me; regardless, I will summarize >and post the results. > >I have the population data and trends of the various North American >populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. > >Thanks, in advance. > >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: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:10:15 GMT Phil and all, The E-bird map of Trumpeter Swan says it all. The introduced population in the east is widespread and increasing. Each province and state will have to decide -- on their own -- as to when the species is "established" in their jurisdiction based on this expanding population. That said, records of true vagrants from the past could still be reviewed. Much like any species that is dropped from the Review List when the number of records exceeds the threshold. For example, in Ontario (for southern Ontario) we no longer review records of Laughing Gull, but we do continue to review records of the species prior to 1994. Same thing for Trumpeter Swan. We have never reviewed recent reports of the species (because it is now established and regular), but will continue to review historical ones as they are presented. And per Marshall's e-mail, please note that the species also occurs in various provinces in addition to U.S. states. cheers, Alan -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Marshall Iliff <miliff AT AOL.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:40:09 -0400 Phil, As chair of the Massachusetts Avian Records Committee, I can tell you that there is just one report for Massachusetts, in March 2004 at East Meadows, Hampshire Co., MA. The record was accepted to the provisional list, which in Massachusetts is reserved for species that are considered to have been possibly wild, but for which captive/non-established populations cannot be ruled out. Maine had its first record this year: a well-photographed bird seen ~8-15 April 2011 at Fortune's Rocks Beach, York Co., ME. I expect that the Maine Committee has yet to complete their review. I believe that New Hampshire has no records yet. The bigger picture of the species' status in the East is well-shown in eBird (www.ebird.org). For example, our global range maps show a good summary of the extent of their big picture distribution: http://ebird.org/ebird/map/truswa?eyr=&byr=&bmo=&emo=&neg=true&_neg=on The North American grid maps can show seasonality (Nov-Mar in the example) *http://tinyurl.com/44g26z7 *And point maps (which can be made for up to five states, New England in example) can be clicked on to get specifics for each report: *http://tinyurl.com/3wzlwkr *Our policy at eBird has been to NOT invalidate records of Trumpeter Swan, despite the non-acceptance by many state records committees. While we generally do ask our reviewers to follow the decisions of state BRCs, for expanding, introduced species like this (and Nutmeg Mannikin, etc.) we believe that eBird can be an effective tool for exploring the status, both seasonally and from year-to-year, and we encourage acceptance for any reports that for which the ID is established and the bird is free-flying. I would encourage state BRCs to make use of eBird to explore data on Trumpeter Swan and to encourage state birders to submit their sightings. While I obviously value the role of BRCs, in this case, large-scale reporting that is possible through eBird is one of the more effective ways to keep tabs on what is clearly a burgeoning population of an introduced/reintroduced species of waterfowl. The bird is here and is a biological reality that it is interacting with other birds and other species in the environment. In some respects, to be blunt, whether it "counts" on the state list or not is mostly just a trivial technicality of relevance to bird listers. That said, as chair of the MARC, we will need to consider whether our old record deserves re-evaluation and surely will have to deal with new records in the near future, given their explosion in nearby New York and the several recent records from nearby Connecticut and Rhode Island. When that time comes, we'd much rather have access to the entire body of reports in eastern North America. Best, Marshall On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Phil Davis wrote: > Thanks, Bill! > > You have been a key leader on this topic. I have all of your literature on > this subject and it will be circulated with the reports the members will be > reviewing. > > Thanks, again! > > Phil > > > At 10:28 07/22/2011, Bill Whan wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:28:31 -0400 >> From: Bill Whan >> >> To: Phil Davis >> CC: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi >> >> >> Phil— >> Your question is likely to persist until and unless introduced >> eastern populations are genuinely established. The criteria for >> establishment employed by various committees are generally similar, but in >> the case of the introduced populations of trumpeters their decisions are all >> over the map. Andy Kratter's reluctance to act on Florida appearances of >> this species without clarifications from their places of origin is >> well-taken. >> The status of this species in Ohio is much like its status in >> Maryland. Archaeological evidence and a couple of nineteenth-century >> specimens give adequate reason to include it on the Ohio list as a species >> extirpated two centuries ago. There is no satisfactory evidence this >> species ever nested here long ago, or in any of the improbable venues the >> swans-everywhere advocates—-and one must include the Trumpeter Swan Society >> among them—-have hypothesized. Colonies of breeding trumpeters are said, in >> published venues, to have nested on rocky islands off the New Brunswick >> coast, in lakes in the interior of the Carolinas, even on the Turks and >> Caicos islands. While the Society seldom invokes these preposterous >> theories these days, they have not abjured them, and they appear in their >> publications and in those of their board members and founders. >> An imaginative map of its former breeding range (which has been >> shrinking considerably recently in the face of objections) has enabled >> introductions of swans in many states where former breeding is not well >> substantiated. The most reliable maps show this swan to have been a breeder >> in a mostly boreal range that reached as far south as the north-central >> prairies of the US. I’m not aware of a good historical nesting record in >> Michigan, for example, and the evidence for Wisconsin is scanty and not very >> persuasive, as is that for Ontario. Mere hints of more suggestive evidence >> exist for Illinois and NW Indiana. For such reasons, US wildlife officials >> have largely avoided buying into trumpeter “reintroduction” plans, but >> certain state and provincial agencies have been more attracted to the notion >> that these attractive and hard-to-ignore creatures are “ambassadors for >> wetlands,” living proof of their stewardship of the landscape, and eagerly >> accept the most meager evidence for their former breeding status in order to >> proceed with introductions. That’s what happened here in Ohio. >> Its local range as a migrant and wintering bird has been difficult >> to ascertain. Specimens are few, as are persuasive sight records. Audubon >> himself apparently made misidentifications. Enthusiasts use questionable >> reports to place old wintering trumpeter flocks in Texas, Mexico, Florida, >> and southern California within the last few hundred years. Understandably, >> records committees don’t find decisions about such records so easy to make. >> The growing populations of introduced trumpeters, unlike those of >> wild birds, are not truly migratory. They do not move in predictable >> seasonal schedules or directions, but rather tend to wander about as >> singletons rather than family groups. The main discernible pattern is >> merely a tendency to retreat from frozen water in areas where they are not >> artificially assisted by feeding. Thus the nesting trumpeter swans at Seney >> NWR in Michigan regularly undertake a “migration” to a lake spillway a few >> miles away that stays open all winter. Efforts to teach trumpeters to >> migrate, using aircraft, etc., have failed. >> Trumpeter swans seen anywhere can be very difficult to distinguish >> from tundra swans when both are not present. Lacking vocalizations, often >> behavioral clues are the easiest to discern; local birders here have used >> the “potato-chip test,” in which trumpeters diagnostically approach when >> they see what might be handouts. Overall, the introduced trumpeters often >> look like tundra swans and behave like mute swans. >> While I'm a member, I don’t speak for the Ohio Committee, but I >> have done a lot of research on this and related issues: see voluminous >> materials accumulated by Gerry Rising and me at >> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~**insrisg/nature/swans.html. Old evidence may be found to add this species to state lists in the >> region, but applying rigorous establishment criteria (such as we all use for >> introduced species) makes sense for the new explosive growth of dependent >> non-migratory swans. Arguably these populations must be free of >> supplemental feeding, repeated releases, etc., and viable and increasing in >> numbers and range for a substantial period of time (several times the >> life-span of healthy adults, one would think), all verified by respectable >> research. One thinks it would also be proper to expect them to demonstrate >> wild behaviors like migration, wariness, etc. Otherwise, how different are >> they from mute swans, and how much do they resemble wild trumpeters? >> I have a related question. Some listers have added this species to >> their state accumulations, even if their state does not accept the modern >> introductions, based on evidence (such as wing tags, neck bands) that >> indicates the individuals observed in their locale came from a >> state/province that accepts the trumpeter swan. Individual lists are a >> trivial matter, but since listers rely on state/provincial RCs it might be >> worth clarifying. >> Bill Whan >> Columbus, OH >> > > ==============================**===================== > 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 > -- **************************** Marshall J. Iliff miliff AT aol.com West Roxbury, MA **************************** eBird/AKN Project Leader www.ebird.org www.avianknowledge.net Cornell Lab of Ornithology Ithaca, NY **************************** -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:42:42 -0400 Thanks, Bill! You have been a key leader on this topic. I have all of your literature on this subject and it will be circulated with the reports the members will be reviewing. Thanks, again! Phil At 10:28 07/22/2011, Bill Whan wrote: >Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:28:31 -0400 >From: Bill Whan >To: Phil Davis >CC: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU >Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi > >Phil— > Your question is likely to persist > until and unless introduced eastern populations > are genuinely established. The criteria for > establishment employed by various committees > are generally similar, but in the case of the > introduced populations of trumpeters their > decisions are all over the map. Andy Kratter's > reluctance to act on Florida appearances of > this species without clarifications from their places of origin is well-taken. > The status of this species in Ohio is > much like its status in > Maryland. Archaeological evidence and a couple > of nineteenth-century specimens give adequate > reason to include it on the Ohio list as a > species extirpated two centuries ago. There is > no satisfactory evidence this species ever > nested here long ago, or in any of the > improbable venues the swans-everywhere > advocates—-and one must include the Trumpeter > Swan Society among them—-have > hypothesized. Colonies of breeding trumpeters > are said, in published venues, to have nested > on rocky islands off the New Brunswick coast, > in lakes in the interior of the Carolinas, even > on the Turks and Caicos islands. While the > Society seldom invokes these preposterous > theories these days, they have not abjured > them, and they appear in their publications and > in those of their board members and founders. > An imaginative map of its former > breeding range (which has been shrinking > considerably recently in the face of > objections) has enabled introductions of swans > in many states where former breeding is not > well substantiated. The most reliable maps > show this swan to have been a breeder in a > mostly boreal range that reached as far south > as the north-central prairies of the US. I’m > not aware of a good historical nesting record > in Michigan, for example, and the evidence for > Wisconsin is scanty and not very persuasive, as > is that for Ontario. Mere hints of more > suggestive evidence exist for Illinois and NW > Indiana. For such reasons, US wildlife > officials have largely avoided buying into > trumpeter “reintroduction” plans, but certain > state and provincial agencies have been more > attracted to the notion that these attractive > and hard-to-ignore creatures are “ambassadors > for wetlands,” living proof of their > stewardship of the landscape, and eagerly > accept the most meager evidence for their > former breeding status in order to proceed with > introductions. That’s what happened here in Ohio. > Its local range as a migrant and > wintering bird has been difficult to ascertain. > Specimens are few, as are persuasive sight > records. Audubon himself apparently made > misidentifications. Enthusiasts use > questionable reports to place old wintering > trumpeter flocks in Texas, Mexico, Florida, and > southern California within the last few hundred > years. Understandably, records committees > don’t find decisions about such records so easy to make. > The growing populations of introduced > trumpeters, unlike those of wild birds, are not > truly migratory. They do not move in > predictable seasonal schedules or directions, > but rather tend to wander about as singletons > rather than family groups. The main > discernible pattern is merely a tendency to > retreat from frozen water in areas where they > are not artificially assisted by feeding. Thus > the nesting trumpeter swans at Seney NWR in > Michigan regularly undertake a “migration” to a > lake spillway a few miles away that stays open > all winter. Efforts to teach trumpeters to > migrate, using aircraft, etc., have failed. > Trumpeter swans seen anywhere can be > very difficult to distinguish from tundra swans > when both are not present. Lacking > vocalizations, often behavioral clues are the > easiest to discern; local birders here have > used the “potato-chip test,” in which > trumpeters diagnostically approach when they > see what might be handouts. Overall, the > introduced trumpeters often look like tundra swans and behave like mute swans. > While I'm a member, I don’t speak for > the Ohio Committee, but I have done a lot of > research on this and related issues: see > voluminous materials accumulated by Gerry > Rising and me at > http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html > . Old evidence may be found to add this > species to state lists in the region, but > applying rigorous establishment criteria (such > as we all use for introduced species) makes > sense for the new explosive growth of dependent > non-migratory swans. Arguably these > populations must be free of supplemental > feeding, repeated releases, etc., and viable > and increasing in numbers and range for a > substantial period of time (several times the > life-span of healthy adults, one would think), > all verified by respectable research. One > thinks it would also be proper to expect them > to demonstrate wild behaviors like migration, > wariness, etc. Otherwise, how different are > they from mute swans, and how much do they resemble wild trumpeters? > I have a related question. Some listers > have added this species to their state > accumulations, even if their state does not > accept the modern introductions, based on > evidence (such as wing tags, neck bands) that > indicates the individuals observed in their > locale came from a state/province that accepts > the trumpeter swan. Individual lists are a > trivial matter, but since listers rely on > state/provincial RCs it might be worth clarifying. >Bill Whan >Columbus, OH =================================================== 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: Unsubscribe From: Joe Burgiel <burgiel AT OPTONLINE.NET> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:31:50 -0400 Please remove my name from the mailing list. -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:14:14 -0400 Thanks, Dean! Phil At 08:30 07/22/2011, kde AT angst.engr.utk.edu wrote: >Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:30:48 -0400 (EDT) >From: kde AT angst.engr.utk.edu >To: Phil Davis >cc: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU >Subject: Re: [BRCF] Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi > > >I recently rotated off the TN Records Committee but during the last >set of reviews while I was Chair, we removed 'extirpated' from the >status of Trumpeter Swan based on wintering records of banded, >wild-bred birds from Wisconsin where the species is accepted. We >have had several previous reports, some from unknown locations, >others from known breeding populations either 'accpected as wild' >or not (such as Ontario). > >Incidentally, Trumpeter Swan was originally on the TN list based on >a historical report by Audubon. > >Dean Edwards >former Chair of TN Bird Records Committee =================================================== 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: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Don Gorney <dongorney AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:48:34 -0700 Trumpeter Swan is on the Indiana checklist based on historical records.  The species was considered a wintering species and there are accounts of the bird breeding in the extensive marshes of northwest Indiana into the mid 1800's. The Indiana Bird Records Committee considers the species extirpated from the state even though we have had Trumpeters winter in Indiana for more than a decade.  In the early years, most of the wintering Trumpeters were from Wisconsin and that appears to still be the case.  We have winter flocks in Vermillion County (bordering Illinois) that number more than 200 birds at times.  There is also a large contingent, more Wisconsin birds, of Trumpeters that winter in Parke County Indiana.  And, there are wintering birds in smaller numbers along the Wabash River and other rivers and deep ponds in the state.  Indiana has also had collared birds from Michigan and Ohio.  We probably have had birds from other states as well but can't recall specifics off the top of my head.  The majority of current sightings involve un-collared birds.  The status of current Trumpeter Swan sightings has not been considered by the Indiana BRC.  While I was chair, we had some general discussions about the species, especially when Illinois and Michigan accepted the current populations.  However, my personal position, which the members generally agreed with, was that the birds from the state (re)-introduction affecting Indiana did not meet our definition of established.  The reasoning for acceptance of the species by nearby states was less than convincing for us, so we have maintained a wait-and-see position.  As of 2011, the Indiana BRC probably is ready to revisit the issue, especially as it pertains to the Trumpeter Swans from the Wisconsin population.  More time has passed allowing for a better understanding of reproductive success and other factors that would influence whether the population is established or not.  Don Gorney Amos W. Butler Audubon Society, President Lights Out Indy, Program Director 317.501.4212 cell Indianapolis, IN dongorney AT yahoo.com amosbutleraudubon.org lightsoutindy.org --- On Fri, 7/22/11, Phil Davis wrote: From: Phil Davis Subject: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Date: Friday, July 22, 2011, 1:40 AM BRCF-L: In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this time, only as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of these birds seen on the Potomac River in the 1700s. Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of birds seen in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating from the reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a number of states have accepted these birds onto your state/provincial lists. I I know which states/provinces have accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally request comments from other committees on the status of this species in your jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free to reply to the list or directly to me; regardless, I will summarize and post the results. I have the population data and trends of the various North American populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. Thanks, in advance. 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: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Bill Whan <billwhan AT COLUMBUS.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:28:31 -0400 Phil— Your question is likely to persist until and unless introduced eastern populations are genuinely established. The criteria for establishment employed by various committees are generally similar, but in the case of the introduced populations of trumpeters their decisions are all over the map. Andy Kratter's reluctance to act on Florida appearances of this species without clarifications from their places of origin is well-taken. The status of this species in Ohio is much like its status in Maryland. Archaeological evidence and a couple of nineteenth-century specimens give adequate reason to include it on the Ohio list as a species extirpated two centuries ago. There is no satisfactory evidence this species ever nested here long ago, or in any of the improbable venues the swans-everywhere advocates—-and one must include the Trumpeter Swan Society among them—-have hypothesized. Colonies of breeding trumpeters are said, in published venues, to have nested on rocky islands off the New Brunswick coast, in lakes in the interior of the Carolinas, even on the Turks and Caicos islands. While the Society seldom invokes these preposterous theories these days, they have not abjured them, and they appear in their publications and in those of their board members and founders. An imaginative map of its former breeding range (which has been shrinking considerably recently in the face of objections) has enabled introductions of swans in many states where former breeding is not well substantiated. The most reliable maps show this swan to have been a breeder in a mostly boreal range that reached as far south as the north-central prairies of the US. I’m not aware of a good historical nesting record in Michigan, for example, and the evidence for Wisconsin is scanty and not very persuasive, as is that for Ontario. Mere hints of more suggestive evidence exist for Illinois and NW Indiana. For such reasons, US wildlife officials have largely avoided buying into trumpeter “reintroduction” plans, but certain state and provincial agencies have been more attracted to the notion that these attractive and hard-to-ignore creatures are “ambassadors for wetlands,” living proof of their stewardship of the landscape, and eagerly accept the most meager evidence for their former breeding status in order to proceed with introductions. That’s what happened here in Ohio. Its local range as a migrant and wintering bird has been difficult to ascertain. Specimens are few, as are persuasive sight records. Audubon himself apparently made misidentifications. Enthusiasts use questionable reports to place old wintering trumpeter flocks in Texas, Mexico, Florida, and southern California within the last few hundred years. Understandably, records committees don’t find decisions about such records so easy to make. The growing populations of introduced trumpeters, unlike those of wild birds, are not truly migratory. They do not move in predictable seasonal schedules or directions, but rather tend to wander about as singletons rather than family groups. The main discernible pattern is merely a tendency to retreat from frozen water in areas where they are not artificially assisted by feeding. Thus the nesting trumpeter swans at Seney NWR in Michigan regularly undertake a “migration” to a lake spillway a few miles away that stays open all winter. Efforts to teach trumpeters to migrate, using aircraft, etc., have failed. Trumpeter swans seen anywhere can be very difficult to distinguish from tundra swans when both are not present. Lacking vocalizations, often behavioral clues are the easiest to discern; local birders here have used the “potato-chip test,” in which trumpeters diagnostically approach when they see what might be handouts. Overall, the introduced trumpeters often look like tundra swans and behave like mute swans. While I'm a member, I don’t speak for the Ohio Committee, but I have done a lot of research on this and related issues: see voluminous materials accumulated by Gerry Rising and me at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html . Old evidence may be found to add this species to state lists in the region, but applying rigorous establishment criteria (such as we all use for introduced species) makes sense for the new explosive growth of dependent non-migratory swans. Arguably these populations must be free of supplemental feeding, repeated releases, etc., and viable and increasing in numbers and range for a substantial period of time (several times the life-span of healthy adults, one would think), all verified by respectable research. One thinks it would also be proper to expect them to demonstrate wild behaviors like migration, wariness, etc. Otherwise, how different are they from mute swans, and how much do they resemble wild trumpeters? I have a related question. Some listers have added this species to their state accumulations, even if their state does not accept the modern introductions, based on evidence (such as wing tags, neck bands) that indicates the individuals observed in their locale came from a state/province that accepts the trumpeter swan. Individual lists are a trivial matter, but since listers rely on state/provincial RCs it might be worth clarifying. Bill Whan Columbus, OH On 7/22/2011 1:40 AM, Phil Davis wrote: > BRCF-L: > > In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this > time, only as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of > these birds seen on the Potomac River in the 1700s. > > Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of birds > seen in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating from the > reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a number of states > have accepted these birds onto your state/provincial lists. I I > know which states/provinces have accepted the species; however, I'd like > to formally request comments from other committees on the status of this > species in your jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel > free to reply to the list or directly to me; regardless, I will > summarize and post the results. > > I have the population data and trends of the various North American > populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. > > Thanks, in advance. > > Phil -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:26:47 -0400 The FOSRC recently dealt with one. Here is the excerpt from our 19th Report (Florida Field Naturalist 38:150-174). Andy Kratter Trumpeter Swan, /Cygnus buccinator. / 08-707.This adult was photographed 29 April 2007 along CR 724 near Basinger (Okeechobee Co.) and showed distinct features of Trumpeter Swan, including the rusty stained head plumage, 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 considers a pre-1950 record a wild vagrant, but recent birds are 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. >> BRCF-L: >> >> In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this time, only >> as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of these birds seen on >> the Potomac River in the 1700s. >> >> Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of birds seen >> in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating from the >> reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a number of states have >> accepted these birds onto your state/provincial lists. I I know which >> states/provinces have accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally >> request comments from other committees on the status of this species in your >> jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free to reply to the >> list or directly to me; regardless, I will summarize and post the results. >> >> I have the population data and trends of the various North American >> populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. >> >> Thanks, in advance. >> >> 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 > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: "K. Dean Edwards" <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:30:48 -0400 I recently rotated off the TN Records Committee but during the last set of reviews while I was Chair, we removed 'extirpated' from the status of Trumpeter Swan based on wintering records of banded, wild-bred birds from Wisconsin where the species is accepted. We have had several previous reports, some from unknown locations, others from known breeding populations either 'accpected as wild' or not (such as Ontario). Incidentally, Trumpeter Swan was originally on the TN list based on a historical report by Audubon. Dean Edwards former Chair of TN Bird Records Committee On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Phil Davis wrote: > BRCF-L: > > In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this time, only > as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of these birds seen on > the Potomac River in the 1700s. > > Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of birds seen > in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating from the > reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a number of states have > accepted these birds onto your state/provincial lists. I I know which > states/provinces have accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally > request comments from other committees on the status of this species in your > jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free to reply to the > list or directly to me; regardless, I will summarize and post the results. > > I have the population data and trends of the various North American > populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. > > Thanks, in advance. > > 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: Re: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:58:53 -0500 Phil: Missouri is on the wrong side of the Mississippi, but I'll reply anyhow. We accepted Trumpeter Swan a few years back, as the wintering population continued to grow, clearly coming from established, self-sustaining breeding populations to our north (MN,WI). So we have it on our checklist as an overall uncommon, localized winter resident -- but in certain spots it is common, as at Riverlands here at St. Louis, where the winter counts are now over 500. It is getting more frequent in other places, too, such as Squaw Creek NWR in the northwest. Statewide, I imagine we are getting close to 1000 birds wintering. Bill Rowe St. Louis On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Phil Davis wrote: > BRCF-L: > > In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this > time, only as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of > these birds seen on the Potomac River in the 1700s. > > Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of > birds seen in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating > from the reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a > number of states have accepted these birds onto your state/ > provincial lists. I I know which states/provinces have > accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally request > comments from other committees on the status of this species in > your jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free > to reply to the list or directly to me; regardless, I will > summarize and post the results. > > I have the population data and trends of the various North American > populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. > > Thanks, in advance. > > 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: Status of the Trumpeter Swan, east of the Mississippi From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:40:47 -0400 BRCF-L: In Maryland, the Trumpeter Swan is still on our state list, at this time, only as an extirpated species, based on published accounts of these birds seen on the Potomac River in the 1700s. Our committee has intentionally been slow to act on the reports of birds seen in our region over the past 20 years, likely originating from the reintroduction programs in the northeast. I know that a number of states have accepted these birds onto your state/provincial lists. I I know which states/provinces have accepted the species; however, I'd like to formally request comments from other committees on the status of this species in your jurisdictions, say, east of the Mississippi River. Feel free to reply to the list or directly to me; regardless, I will summarize and post the results. I have the population data and trends of the various North American populations from the Trumpeter Swan Society. Thanks, in advance. 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: Fw: Re: Subject: Two procedural questions From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:10:54 GMT Here is the Ontario perspective: REMOVAL OF SPECIES FROM REVIEW LIST: For quite some time we removed species based on hard numbers, ie. more than 25 records per a 5-year period. Some members balked at this, wanting some species to stay on and others added that probably exceeded that number. Since the hard numbers policy fell be the wayside, problems have arisen. Now we haven't taken hardly any action on what to delete since we have abandoned the hard numbers route! In the past, the Secretary simply tabled the numbers and announced what species needed to be deleted. It was automatic. Moral of the story .... stick with hard numbers! And to avoid future headaches, such as a species going on, going off, going on again, etc., stick to the following informal policy: a species should be hard to add to the review list, and a species should be hard to remove. NEW SPECIES TO CHECKLIST There are actually two parts to this: 1--when the committee formed back in the early 1980s, we simply "grandfathered" in the existing checklist at the time. Then, in a slow and somewhat ongoing process, we reviewed all documentation that supported the inclusion of those species with generally only one or two records. Of course we already had a good idea if the documentation available was substantial, so when the specific records were officially reviewed there were thus very few species added or deleted from the original checklist. One notable exception, however, was the removal of MacGillivray's Warbler which had been on the checklist for decades. Once we dug into the history of the specimen, it was clear that it was not from Ontario! 2--We allow a new species to be added to the Ontario checklist based on sight only, and by a single observer (or single documentation) only. Of course the documentation has to be substantial in such a case, and every voting member still has the option to vote "no" if they are not totally convinced. We thus have added several species to the Ontario checklist that are sight-only, single-documentation only -- Royal Tern (my sighting, actually!), Roseate Spoonbill, White-collared Swift, are a few examples. I think there are a couple of others. And there are still others where subsequent records have been accepted. cheers, Alan WormingtonAssistant to OBRC Secretary Hi Martin: Comments from the MD/DC committee are below (preceded by my initials, "PCD") ... At 21:44 06/16/2011, Martin Meyers wrote:I was hoping I could get some information on, and opinions about, two issues the Nevada committee will be discussing at its upcoming meeting (September/2011). Issue one concerns procedures/criteria for removal of species from the review list. While I'd certainly be interested in hearing responses from all states and provinces, I'm particularly interested in states and provinces that are physically large but with small populations (and correspondingly small birding populations), as is the case for Nevada. Our current bylaws state: B. State Review List 1. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State Review List, or change to the "exemption" status of any species, may be initiated at any time by any Member. The Member should forward to the Secretary a motion to add/remove the species or change the "exemption" status. That motion must be accompanied by written justification for the action. 2. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State Review List, or change to the regional "exemption" status of any species on the Review List, will be approved if the motion receives no more than one negative vote from the Voting Membership of the committee. In other words, we have no quantitative guidelines and make a purely subjective decision, relying on the knowledge and wisdom of the members. PCD: Our committee does not impose any quantitative guidelines, either. We share the same philosophy as Nevada. We have entertained implementing some on several occasions, but rejected the approach each time. We believe that hard and fast rules would not cover every case and we prefer to approach each case independently. Some quick summary examples ... We took Northern Shrike off our review list (virtually annual now), but added Loggerhead due to it's threatened status; we have not removed California Gull from our review list because the closing of landfills has caused this species to become more rare in our area in winter; years ago, we put White-winged Crossbill on the list since we had no reports in many years ... however, the next year there was an invasion and they were everywhere ... so we took it back off the list. The second issue concerns "first state/provincial records". Do you have specific (official) procedures/criteria for records that would add a species to the checklist? Or, in lieu of such criteria, do you have informal quidelines that are generally adhered to by the members? In Nevada, we have one slight additional complication to this issue. Since the committee founders adopted a currenly existing checklist when the committee was formed in 1994, there are still a number of "rare" species on the checklist for which the committee has never reviewed a record. In some of those cases, there is documentation in our pile of "pre-committee stuff" (which we have been diligently working through but still have a long way to go), but in several other cases, the species was placed on the pre-committee checklist (hence incorporated into our "official" checklist) based on anecdotal records (most published somewhere, but without details). So we have the concept of "establishing record", i.e., a record that would be the first record to be endorsed by the committee, but for a species currently on the checklist. If any other committees have similar situations, do you handle such records following the same procedures/criteria you would use for "first records"? PCD: We also operate from a baseline publication (Stewart and Robbins 1958). When we established the first committee "Official Lists" for MD and DC, we included only committee-accepted records or S&R accepted records. We did not include S&R hypotheticals. (Our committee does not have a "hypothetical" category ... taxa are either accepted or not.) (We have also worked through most of the historical S&R documented records and re-reviewed them; we currently consider S&R published sight records as "accepted.") So, our review list only includes a set of taxa from those that have been "accepted." Any taxon not on our MD and DC official lists are considered to be new and reviewable. BTW, we do not impose minimum acceptance criteria for first state records (such as photos or specimens). PCD: Hope that helps. Thanks very much for any light you might be able to shed on these topics. (NOTE: I'm sure someone out there is saying "Why don't you just remove all (rare) species from the checklist if they aren't sufficiently documented?" In time, we will do exactly that, but not until we've managed to track down as much information as possible for each. We're working on it.) =================================================== 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: Subject: Two procedural questions From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:30:37 -0400 Hi Martin: Comments from the MD/DC committee are below (preceded by my initials, "PCD") ... At 21:44 06/16/2011, Martin Meyers wrote: >I was hoping I could get some information on, and opinions about, >two issues the Nevada committee will be discussing at its upcoming >meeting (September/2011). > >Issue one concerns procedures/criteria for removal of species from >the review list. While I'd certainly be interested in hearing >responses from all states and provinces, I'm particularly interested >in states and provinces that are physically large but with small >populations (and correspondingly small birding populations), as is >the case for Nevada. > >Our current bylaws state: >B. State Review List >1. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State >Review List, or change to the "exemption" status of any species, may >be initiated at any time by any Member. The Member should forward >to the Secretary a motion to add/remove the species or change the >"exemption" status. That motion must be accompanied by written >justification for the action. >2. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State >Review List, or change to the regional "exemption" status of any >species on the Review List, will be approved if the motion receives >no more than one negative vote from the Voting Membership of the committee. > >In other words, we have no quantitative guidelines and make a purely >subjective decision, relying on the knowledge and wisdom of the members. PCD: Our committee does not impose any quantitative guidelines, either. We share the same philosophy as Nevada. We have entertained implementing some on several occasions, but rejected the approach each time. We believe that hard and fast rules would not cover every case and we prefer to approach each case independently. Some quick summary examples ... We took Northern Shrike off our review list (virtually annual now), but added Loggerhead due to it's threatened status; we have not removed California Gull from our review list because the closing of landfills has caused this species to become more rare in our area in winter; years ago, we put White-winged Crossbill on the list since we had no reports in many years ... however, the next year there was an invasion and they were everywhere ... so we took it back off the list. >The second issue concerns "first state/provincial records". Do you >have specific (official) procedures/criteria for records that would >add a species to the checklist? Or, in lieu of such criteria, do >you have informal quidelines that are generally adhered to by the members? > >In Nevada, we have one slight additional complication to this issue. >Since the committee founders adopted a currenly existing checklist >when the committee was formed in 1994, there are still a number of >"rare" species on the checklist for which the committee has never >reviewed a record. In some of those cases, there is documentation >in our pile of "pre-committee stuff" (which we have been diligently >working through but still have a long way to go), but in several >other cases, the species was placed on the pre-committee checklist >(hence incorporated into our "official" checklist) based on >anecdotal records (most published somewhere, but without >details). So we have the concept of "establishing record", i.e., a >record that would be the first record to be endorsed by the >committee, but for a species currently on the checklist. If any >other committees have similar situations, do you handle such records >following the same procedures/criteria you would use for "first records"? PCD: We also operate from a baseline publication (Stewart and Robbins 1958). When we established the first committee "Official Lists" for MD and DC, we included only committee-accepted records or S&R accepted records. We did not include S&R hypotheticals. (Our committee does not have a "hypothetical" category ... taxa are either accepted or not.) (We have also worked through most of the historical S&R documented records and re-reviewed them; we currently consider S&R published sight records as "accepted.") So, our review list only includes a set of taxa from those that have been "accepted." Any taxon not on our MD and DC official lists are considered to be new and reviewable. BTW, we do not impose minimum acceptance criteria for first state records (such as photos or specimens). PCD: Hope that helps. >Thanks very much for any light you might be able to shed on these topics. > >(NOTE: I'm sure someone out there is saying "Why don't you just >remove all (rare) species from the checklist if they aren't >sufficiently documented?" In time, we will do exactly that, but not >until we've managed to track down as much information as possible >for each. We're working on it.) =================================================== 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: Subject: Two procedural questions From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:26:09 -0500 Martin: I don't know if our experience is useful to you or not. Missouri is a medium-sized state with a medium-sized birding population, much of it concentrated in the larger cities. See below. Bill Rowe St. Louis On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I was hoping I could get some information on, and opinions about, > two issues the Nevada committee will be discussing at its upcoming > meeting (September/2011). > > Issue one concerns procedures/criteria for removal of species from > the review list. While I'd certainly be interested in hearing > responses from all states and provinces, I'm particularly > interested in states and provinces that are physically large but > with small populations (and correspondingly small birding > populations), as is the case for Nevada. > > Our current bylaws state: > B. State Review List > 1. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State > Review List, or change to the "exemption" status of any species, > may be initiated at any time by any Member. The Member should > forward to the Secretary a motion to add/remove the species or > change the "exemption" status. That motion must be accompanied by > written justification for the action. > 2. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State > Review List, or change to the regional "exemption" status of any > species on the Review List, will be approved if the motion receives > no more than one negative vote from the Voting Membership of the > committee. > > In other words, we have no quantitative guidelines and make a > purely subjective decision, relying on the knowledge and wisdom of > the members. We do not have such wording in the bylaws, and so the process is more informal -- but we do have a quantitative guideline to some extent. Our Review List (viewable along with the annotated checklist on line at www.mobirds.org) consists of all species that are listed on our checklist as "accidental" or "casual" throughout Missouri, or in a section of it. E.g., Tropical Kingbird is on it as accidental, Varied Thrush as casual, both statewide. These terms, however, have a quantitative basis, with "accidental" meaning fewer than 5 total occurrences and "casual" meaning fewer than 15. When a species surpasses the 15 mark, we will often take it off the Review List and no longer expect documentation of it. Most recent example is Black- bellied Whistling-Duck, with a spate of recent records including one of nesting, and no sign of slowing down. We removed it from the Review List at our meeting last summer. In some cases, however, even if the species gets beyond "casual" to just "rare", we will leave it on the Review List owing to possible identification problems and our interest in continuing to see documentation. Good example is Little Gull. We have included some rough geographic differentiation on the Review List. Some species are on the list (and need documentation) only for some parts of the state -- e.g., Glossy Ibis (western half only), Northern Shrike (southern half only), or Thayer's Gull (away from the St. Louis area). Such a restriction generally reflects that bird's status on the annotated checklist. Obviously there are occasional judgment calls needed as to whether a certain location is e.g. "east" or "west". So the numerical threshhold guides our decisions on the checklist status and therefore also on the Review List, but we use our judgment too. We revisit these lists at least once a year at our annual meeting, and anyone is free to suggest changes based on recent data. I might add that when a bird comes off the Review List, we still urge observers to submit all observations of that species to the seasonal report editor for our magazine,The Bluebird, so that they get into the record, seeing that the species is still rare. > > > > The second issue concerns "first state/provincial records". Do you > have specific (official) procedures/criteria for records that would > add a species to the checklist? Or, in lieu of such criteria, do > you have informal quidelines that are generally adhered to by the > members? > > In Nevada, we have one slight additional complication to this > issue. Since the committee founders adopted a currenly existing > checklist when the committee was formed in 1994, there are still a > number of "rare" species on the checklist for which the committee > has never reviewed a record. In some of those cases, there is > documentation in our pile of "pre-committee stuff" (which we have > been diligently working through but still have a long way to go), > but in several other cases, the species was placed on the pre- > committee checklist (hence incorporated into our "official" > checklist) based on anecdotal records (most published somewhere, > but without details). So we have the concept of "establishing > record", i.e., a record that would be the first record to be > endorsed by the committee, but for a species currently on the > checklist. If any other committees have similar situations, do you > handle such records following the same procedures/criteria you > would use for "first records"? We don't have to do this very much because our checklist was initially based on the very accurate Birds of Missouri, by Robbins and Easterla (1991). They vetted most records carefully. Just recently we reconsidered a few early records that they had included for completeness, and on that basis we actually struck a couple of species from the checklist (with the agreement of Robbins, who still sits on the committee!). But in general we do not have to worry about earlier records -- those authors took care of that job. > > Thanks very much for any light you might be able to shed on these > topics. > > (NOTE: I'm sure someone out there is saying "Why don't you just > remove all (rare) species from the checklist if they aren't > sufficiently documented?" In time, we will do exactly that, but not > until we've managed to track down as much information as possible > for each. We're working on it.) > > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://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: Two procedural questions From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:44:20 -0700 I was hoping I could get some information on, and opinions about, two issues the Nevada committee will be discussing at its upcoming meeting (September/2011). Issue one concerns procedures/criteria for removal of species from the review list. While I'd certainly be interested in hearing responses from all states and provinces, I'm particularly interested in states and provinces that are physically large but with small populations (and correspondingly small birding populations), as is the case for Nevada. Our current bylaws state: B. State Review List 1. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State Review List, or change to the "exemption" status of any species, may be initiated at any time by any Member. The Member should forward to the Secretary a motion to add/remove the species or change the "exemption" status. That motion must be accompanied by written justification for the action. 2. Addition or removal of any species to/from the official State Review List, or change to the regional "exemption" status of any species on the Review List, will be approved if the motion receives no more than one negative vote from the Voting Membership of the committee. In other words, we have no quantitative guidelines and make a purely subjective decision, relying on the knowledge and wisdom of the members. The second issue concerns "first state/provincial records". Do you have specific (official) procedures/criteria for records that would add a species to the checklist? Or, in lieu of such criteria, do you have informal quidelines that are generally adhered to by the members? In Nevada, we have one slight additional complication to this issue. Since the committee founders adopted a currenly existing checklist when the committee was formed in 1994, there are still a number of "rare" species on the checklist for which the committee has never reviewed a record. In some of those cases, there is documentation in our pile of "pre-committee stuff" (which we have been diligently working through but still have a long way to go), but in several other cases, the species was placed on the pre-committee checklist (hence incorporated into our "official" checklist) based on anecdotal records (most published somewhere, but without details). So we have the concept of "establishing record", i.e., a record that would be the first record to be endorsed by the committee, but for a species currently on the checklist. If any other committees have similar situations, do you handle such records following the same procedures/criteria you would use for "first records"? Thanks very much for any light you might be able to shed on these topics. (NOTE: I'm sure someone out there is saying "Why don't you just remove all (rare) species from the checklist if they aren't sufficiently documented?" In time, we will do exactly that, but not until we've managed to track down as much information as possible for each. We're working on it.) Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Green Heron - Indianapolis From: Roger Stitt <rogerstitt AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:34:22 -0400 Had nice opportunity for good views of Green Heron on NE side of Indy on edge of retention pond. I have now seen it with regularity for a week and a half. I have managed to even get some very nice photos with a point and shoot camera. From Shadeland Ave, go east on 75th St. Take the 1st right turn (south) on Shadeland Station Way. Divine Savior Lutheran Church is on corner. After turning on Shadeland Station Way, there will be a retention pond on the left side of the road. The heron tends to forage on the pond edge nearest the road, particularly near the culvert protective cage. I have also observed it to roost in trees between the pond and the back parking lot of the church. -Roger Stitt -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee web updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:21:32 -0400 BRCF-L: The MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) has just posted a batch of updates to our web page, located here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html Highlights include the following ... 1. DC Official List and related documents. The committee has accepted a Painted Bunting, observed at Hains Point on 05/15/2010. The number of species on the DC list now stands at 331. The newly updated Official DC List can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf 2. MD Review List changes. The committee the following changes to the MD Review List: a. Ross's Goose - is removed from the MD Review List. It is no longer reviewable anywhere in MD. It has become virtually annual on the Western Shore. b. Common Murre - is removed from the MD Review List. This species has become virtually annual on MD winter pelagics. c. Eurasian or "Common" [Green-winged] Teal. This subspecies was formerly reviewable anywhere in MD; now it is only reviewable if observed west of the Coastal Plain, except along the Susquehanna River [Code 4C]. Note: this taxon has still not yet been split by the AOU Checklist Committee. The revised MD Review List can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf The revised MD Subspecies Review List can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdsubrev.pdf 3. Minutes of the 2010 MD/DCRC Skins Workshop at the Smithsonian Institution. The committee's workshop minutes include species accounts by the following authors, including photographs, for the following taxa [Fred Shaffer's gull accounts are especially recommended!]: 1. Brown Booby [vs. Northern Gannet] - Bill Hubick 2. Pacific Loon [vs. Common and Arctic Loon] - Mikey Lutmerding 3. Mew Gull [L. c. canus, L. c. kamtschatschensis, L. c. brachyrhynchus, and Ring-billed Gull] - Fred Shaffer 4. Lesser White-fronted Goose - Leo Weigant 5. California Gull subspecies [nominate vs. albertaensis] - Fred Shaffer 6. Ivory Gull [specifics of the 1842 specimen only] - Phil Davis These minutes can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2010.pdf [warning - long, > 50 pages] Note: minutes of the 2011 workshop are still in preparation. 4. Minutes of the 2011 MD/DCRC Annual Meeting. The format of the middle section of our meeting minutes has been reorganized from previous years to better reflect the organization of material that will eventually be included in our planned publication, The Rare Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia (still years away!) Some of the topics of interest in these minutes include the following: a. Discussion of recent and future AOU Checklist changes related to our region. b. Comments on the status of Trumpeter Swan, in preparation for an MD/DCRC review of contemporary MD reports. c. A detailed section that summarized MD/DCRC "inputs" (sources of contemporary and historical records) that are key to our records canvass in preparation for The Rare Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Some of these historical source include: data from the earlier DC Bird Records Committee, the Smithsonian Institution (and other ornithological collections) specimens and databases, the Bird Banding Lab database and banding schedule files, the North American Bird Phenology Program (BPP) card files, PWRC nest record cards, the Breeding Bird Survey database, the Historic Ornithology project of Jim Ducey of Nebraska, a compilation of Historical Checklists, Christmas Bird Count results publications and database, other counts - such as Maryland "Gull Days," PWRC/Chan Robbins archives canvass, the Fish and Wildlife Service Lighthouse Records, and reconciliation with Bob Ringler's Maryland Birdlife database. d. Some interesting output products that described in our minutes, including: our on-line MD and DC databases, our identification and reference index, our rarities bibliography, our historical checklist compilation and integrated historical checklist projects, and our MD/DCRC resources blog. e. A summary is provided of the key journals and publications that have supplied sources of records, and the libraries and Internet sources that support our research. These 2011 Annual Meeting Minutes and Annual Business Report can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2011.pdf [warning - long, almost 50 pages] Thanks to John Christy for posting these updates! 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: Policy on geo- or radio-tracked birds? From: Paul Hess <phess AT SALSGIVER.COM> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:58:54 -0400 Hello, all. I received the following query from Jeff Gordon, American Birding Association president, in response to post I made to the ABA Blog today about a recent project involving geolocator tracking of Bermuda Petrels: "I can't help but pose a question about how this data might affect things like official state lists. Suppose one of those Bermuda Petrels can be shown to have crossed Virginia (or New York or....) waters from one of these data recorders, even though there were no human witnesses? In other words, if a bird flies through the forest and there is no one there to see or hear it, does it count? Have any state records committees or similar bodies made a ruling about this sort of thing?" Can anyone help me to answer that? It has been nearly 10 years since I've been on a state records committee, and I'm not up to date. In response to different question I asked on this forum last fall, Steve Mlodinow noted a somewhat analogous situation in which WA decided to accept Short-tailed Albatross records from radio-telemetry of birds banded on the breeding islands -- but that such records would have to be studied on a case-by-case basis Thanks for any information you may have. Incidentally, some of you may have seen this message on the ID-Frontiers list. I sent it there accidentally because it is not, of course, an identification question. Nevertheless, I thank those who replied from that list as well. Best regards Paul Paul Hess Natrona Heights, PA phess AT salsgiver.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: Follow-up to "Lost Art?..." piece just posted to the BirdFellow.com journal From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:12:52 -0500 BRCF-L: Dave Irons has a follow-up piece to his original post on documenting sightings. As an untrained artist who suffers from artistic inadequacy, I did discover long ago that forcing myself to try and make a sketch did improve both my observational skills and my documentation effectiveness. Again, good advice and food for thought. Thanks, Dave. Phil >From: David Irons >To: Phil Davis >Subject: Follow-up to "Lost Art?..." piece just posted to the >BirdFellow.com journal >Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:59:31 +0000 > >Greetings, > >I thought I would let you know that I just posted a follow-up piece >that offers a couple options to old-fashioned note-taking. Since the >original article was shared in a variety of forums, the feedback is, >as we might expect, many folks are still resistant to having to >write up reports, even if they understand the importance of doing >so. It occurred to me that there are some alternatives to written >descriptions. I actually think both of them (if done right) can be >at least, if not more effective in presenting one's case than a >traditional written description. Any way you slice it, we want to >encourage observers to think about what they are observing and as a >result become more trained observers. I haven't met a birder yet who >didn't want to improve their skills. > >Hopefully, this one will provoke similar >enthusiasm. >Lost >Art? Revisited: Alternatives to Taking Notes > >Good birding and documenting, > >Dave =================================================== 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:16:39 -0500 Alabama's 2nd record was found just last week, Feb 10, in Baldwin County on the gulf coast a mile or two from where our 1st one was briefly seen in 2001. Steve McConnell Hartselle, AL -----Original Message----- From: Dave Irons To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Sun, Feb 13, 2011 3:12 pm Subject: Re: Crested Caracara Records Sought Brad, Below is the list of accepted records for Oregon. For some reason our naccepted reports aren't currently available online. It seems that we had some arlier reports that were unaccepted "origin questionable." Dave Irons Crested Caracara Caracara cheriway 62‐90‐01 5 miles east of Gold Beach, Curry Co., 1 adult 10 February o 21 April 990 (CD). 62‐05‐02 Near Langlois, Coos Co., 1 bird 25‐29 April 2005 photos by DaL, video y OS). 62‐06‐03 Corvallis Airport, Benton Co., 1 bird 12‐14 April 006 (Details by BWi, hotos by oM, PaT, JW). 62‐07‐05 Myrtle Point, Coos Co., 1 bird on 21 April 2007 (photo by iB). 62‐08‐06 Frenchglen, Harney Co., 1 bird on 26 April 2008 (photo by Bu). -------------------------------------------------- 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: Dave Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:12:23 -0500 Brad, Below is the list of accepted records for Oregon. For some reason our unaccepted reports aren't currently available online. It seems that we had some earlier reports that were unaccepted "origin questionable." Dave Irons Crested Caracara Caracara cheriway 362‐90‐01 5 miles east of Gold Beach, Curry Co., 1 adult 10 February to 21 April 1990 (CD). 362‐05‐02 Near Langlois, Coos Co., 1 bird 25‐29 April 2005 (photos by DaL, video by OS). 362‐06‐03 Corvallis Airport, Benton Co., 1 bird 12&#8208;14 April 2006 (Details by BWi, photos by MoM, PaT, JW). 362‐07‐05 Myrtle Point, Coos Co., 1 bird on 21 April 2007 (photo by RiB). 362‐08‐06 Frenchglen, Harney Co., 1 bird on 26 April 2008 (photo by LBu). -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: A Lost Art?: Writing Descriptions of Rare Birds From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 04:03:12 -0500 BRCF-L: This is a cross-post from Birdchat. The blog author, Dave Irons, gave me permission to post it to BRCF-L. It reflects a trend that most of have recognized and provides some excellent documentation advice. Phil >Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:26:06 -0800 >From: "B.G. Sloan" >Subject: [BIRDCHAT] A Lost Art?: Writing Descriptions of Rare Birds >To: BIRDCHAT AT LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > >Interesting article from birdfellow: > >"Many of the reports our committee now receives include a photo or >series of photos accompanied by minimal if any written details. Most >of the time the absence of a written description isn't >problematic...However, there are occasions when a picture comes up a >few paragraphs short of the "thousand words" it is supposed to be >worth. When your photos don't tell the whole story, a detailed >written report can make all the difference in determining whether >your record gets accepted or is not accepted by the local records committee." > >See: http://bit.ly/hRtGIJ > >Bernie Sloan =================================================== 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: Fwd: Amusing video for birders who have been challenged by records committee members on their sightings (or folks who have been ON records committees) From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:33:29 -0500 BRCF-L: OMG! This made me LOL! (Excuse the teenager lingo ...) This is a MUST for records committee members! Enjoy! Phil >From: Joan Cwi >To: Phil Davis >Subject: Fwd: Amusing video for birders who have been challenged by >records committee members on their sightings (or folks who have been >ON records committees) >Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:43:23 -0500 > >Phil, > >Thought you might enjoy this piece! > >Joan Cwi >> >>http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8226531/ > >=================================================== >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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: Larry Semo <LSemo AT SWCA.COM> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:35:01 -0700 Hello Brad, Colorado has one accepted record and another record from this past fall that is currently in circulation (photographed). The accepted record was from September 29, 1997. It was an adult hit by a school bus near Trinidad, Las Animas County (south-central portion of the state) and was documented by Gail Evans. It was rehabilitated and released in southern Texas thereafter. More recently, a juvenile was photographed in Salida, Chaffee County (central mountain region of the state) on October 7, 2010 and was documented by Stephanie Thompson and is in circulation. I hope this helps, Sincerely, Larry Semo Chair, Colorado Bird Records Committee -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bumgardner, Brad Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:27 AM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Crested Caracara Records Sought Greetings, A most perplexing bird record recently occurred in Indiana, with the appearance and subsequent photograph of a Crested Caracara in a snow covered field (12 January 2011). As the Indiana Bird Records Committee works up this record, I'm seeking any information from other states on CRCA records outside it's normal range, and the outcome of such record. I am aware that Ontario has had at least three records, Minnesota has had one (outcome?) and Illinois had one such record that was not accepted due to concern over origin. Thanks for any info anyone can provide. Brad Bumgardner Indiana Bird Records Committee Chair bbumgardner AT dnr.in.gov -------------------------------------------------- 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: Matt Garvey <mattpgarvey AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:55:55 -0500 This reports gives the details and rationale for acceptance of Massachusetts's two records: http://www.maavianrecords.com/home/annual-reports/report-12 Matt Garvey Secretary, Massachusetts Avian Records Committee Brookline, MA mattpgarvey AT gmail.com On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Charles Swift wrote: > > Idaho had it's 2nd record Dec. 30-31, 2009. It was found on the Howe CBC in > Butte Co., ID which is in eastern Idaho. It was accepted by the IBRC > unanimously (7-0). Comments noted lack of any indications of captivity and > increasing records in the west (including the northwest) are now largely > being treated as being of natural origin (e.g. not escapees). > > -- > Charles E. Swift > Moscow, Idaho, USA > (north-central Idaho, 80 miles SE of Spokane, WA) > 46°43′54″ N, 116°59′50″ W > email: chaetura AT gmail.com > skype: charles.swift > voice: 208-991-2473 > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Bumgardner, Brad wrote: > >> Greetings, >> A most perplexing bird record recently occurred in Indiana, with the >> appearance and subsequent photograph of a Crested Caracara in a snow covered >> field (12 January 2011). >> >> As the Indiana Bird Records Committee works up this record, I'm seeking >> any information from other states on CRCA records outside it's normal range, >> and the outcome of such record. I am aware that Ontario has had at least >> three records, Minnesota has had one (outcome?) and Illinois had one such >> record that was not accepted due to concern over origin. >> >> Thanks for any info anyone can provide. >> >> Brad Bumgardner >> Indiana Bird Records Committee Chair >> bbumgardner AT dnr.in.gov >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:47:36 -0600 Brad: No records for Missouri. Bill Rowe On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Bumgardner, Brad wrote: > Greetings, > A most perplexing bird record recently occurred in Indiana, with > the appearance and subsequent photograph of a Crested Caracara in a > snow covered field (12 January 2011). > > As the Indiana Bird Records Committee works up this record, I'm > seeking any information from other states on CRCA records outside > it's normal range, and the outcome of such record. I am aware that > Ontario has had at least three records, Minnesota has had one > (outcome?) and Illinois had one such record that was not accepted > due to concern over origin. > > Thanks for any info anyone can provide. > > Brad Bumgardner > Indiana Bird Records Committee Chair > bbumgardner AT dnr.in.gov > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: Charles Swift <chaetura AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:57:52 -0800 Idaho had it's 2nd record Dec. 30-31, 2009. It was found on the Howe CBC in Butte Co., ID which is in eastern Idaho. It was accepted by the IBRC unanimously (7-0). Comments noted lack of any indications of captivity and increasing records in the west (including the northwest) are now largely being treated as being of natural origin (e.g. not escapees). -- Charles E. Swift Moscow, Idaho, USA (north-central Idaho, 80 miles SE of Spokane, WA) 46°43′54″ N, 116°59′50″ W email: chaetura AT gmail.com skype: charles.swift voice: 208-991-2473 On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Bumgardner, Brad wrote: > Greetings, > A most perplexing bird record recently occurred in Indiana, with the > appearance and subsequent photograph of a Crested Caracara in a snow covered > field (12 January 2011). > > As the Indiana Bird Records Committee works up this record, I'm seeking any > information from other states on CRCA records outside it's normal range, and > the outcome of such record. I am aware that Ontario has had at least three > records, Minnesota has had one (outcome?) and Illinois had one such record > that was not accepted due to concern over origin. > > Thanks for any info anyone can provide. > > Brad Bumgardner > Indiana Bird Records Committee Chair > bbumgardner AT dnr.in.gov > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:30:15 -0800 The Nevada committee has had only one submission for Crested Caracara. I originially found it on 9/20/08, and it continued for at least two more days and was seen by about two dozen birders. It was at Fish Lake Valley, one of Nevada's best desert migrant traps, located in western Nevada about halfway between Reno and Las Vegas. The community of Dyer is the center of the Fish Lake Valley. The valley is a ranching/farming area with a total population around 400, and, as you might expect, it is one of the few green spots in that part of Nevada. Tonopah, with a population around 3,000, is the nearest large (by Nevada standards) town in Nevada. It's about 50 miles away, as the Caracara flies. Bishop, CA (population 3500) is about 25 miles (again, direct measurement), on the other side of a mountain range. The location (both because of its ability to lure an amazing assortment of rarities and because of its distance from even a modest-sized community) was a factor in the committee decision to endorse this record. Identification was never in question (numerous excellent photos submitted.) Other factors mentioned by the voting members in their reviews included condition of plumage (no unusual wear) and behavior (which seemed typical of the species.) And, of course, the increase in number of sightings around the west and beyond in recent years played a part in the decision-making. The record, NBRC 2008-078, was endorsed unanimously. Alcorn's Birds of Nevada, published in 1988, lists no records. There was a report in about 2003 of a bird at Pahranagat NWR (eastern edge of the state, a hundred miles or so north of Las Vegas, and another place where a wild wanderer would be expected) but we never got any documentation on it. Had it been documented decently, I expect it would have been endorsed, for much the same reasons listed above for the Fish Lake bird. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Crested Caracara Records Sought From: "Bumgardner, Brad" <BBumgardner AT DNR.IN.GOV> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:27:08 -0500 Greetings, A most perplexing bird record recently occurred in Indiana, with the appearance and subsequent photograph of a Crested Caracara in a snow covered field (12 January 2011). As the Indiana Bird Records Committee works up this record, I'm seeking any information from other states on CRCA records outside it's normal range, and the outcome of such record. I am aware that Ontario has had at least three records, Minnesota has had one (outcome?) and Illinois had one such record that was not accepted due to concern over origin. Thanks for any info anyone can provide. Brad Bumgardner Indiana Bird Records Committee Chair bbumgardner AT dnr.in.gov -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Advice sought RE credibility of documentation From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:30:11 -0500 Hi Cliff, et al.: As the Secretary of the MD/DC Records Committee, I am not a voting member; however, I will offer a couple thoughts from my long-term perspective which may be of use to you ... I sometimes remind our members that they are voting on a "record" and not just an identification of species/taxon. The entire "record" includes a start and end date, a location, a set of observers, and a body of documentation, and sometimes, if possible, we try to refine or comment on the number of birds, age, sex, etc. So, I pull and include available documentation from all sources, especially from listservers and web sites; however, we do not use "material" (i.e., descriptive) documentation from indirect sources or provided by third-parties (such as bird count rarities reports) without the stated permission of the original observer who created the documentation. So, my view is that the body of evidence for your sighting should include the listserver emails. The the email is from someone who directly submitted other documentation (like a written report or images), it would probably never occur to me to ask that same person for permission to include their own emails in the body of evidence; I would do that automatically. Our policy of asking for permission to use documentation is generally used with observers who don't otherwise submit documentation to us. However, in this case, perhaps you might want to ask this observer for specific permission to include these emails in the review material. (If the observer declines that request, that action would set off some sort of red flag that would require some unique processing/handling ...) So, in summary, I think the emails are relevant and should be included in the member's deliberations. (My personal opinion.) The voting members then can consider all of the evidence. Hope that helps ... maybe ... Phil At 15:45 12/12/2010, Cliff and Lisa Weisse wrote: >All, > >I'm writing in hopes of getting some advice about how to handle a >situation that has arisen with a record submitted to the Idaho >BRC. It was brought to the BRC's attention by a local birder who is >not involved with the records committee. Without going into too >much detail, statements made in the original report to the local >listservs are directly contradicted in the documentation submitted >to IBRC (these statements and the report came from the same >person). This includes, but is not limited to, stating on the >listservs that it was foggy and snowing so photographs could not be >taken. Photographs were then submitted along with the written >report but there is no evidence of either fog or snow in the >photographs and the written report says "it wasn't snowing when I >observed the bird". > >Because of these contradictory statements the above mentioned local >birder has suggested that the photos may not have been taken during >the reported observation and we're obviously concerned about the >(actual and/or perceived) authenticity of those photographs. The >observer has been made aware of this and insists that we proceed >with voting on the record. We're still a fledgling organization and >have no experience with issues like this so we're hoping to get some >guidance on how to handle it from those who have been there/done >that. How do other states/provinces handle these situations? How >much do we make public? > >My instinct is to include the listserv posts in the documentation >for the record and go ahead and vote on it. That will necessarily >put on the record that the authenticity of the photos, and therefore >the integrity of the observer, is in question. I also feel the >suggestion of imporpriety makes the entire report suspect and I >think it should be rejected as a result. =================================================== 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: Advice sought RE credibility of documentation From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:09:56 -0800 On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:45:29 -0700, Cliff and Lisa Weisse wrote: >Because of these contradictory statements the above mentioned local >birder has suggested that the photos may not have been taken during the >reported observation and we're obviously concerned about the (actual >and/or perceived) authenticity of those photographs. I would check the EXIF data embedded in the photos to verify the date and time the photos were taken. If the EXIF is stripped, ask for the original photos. >Without going into too much detail, >statements made in the original report to the local listservs are >directly contradicted in the documentation submitted to IBRC (these >statements and the report came from the same person). This includes, >but is not limited to, stating on the listservs that it was foggy and >snowing so photographs could not be taken. Photographs were then >submitted along with the written report but there is no evidence of >either fog or snow in the photographs and the written report says "it >wasn't snowing when I observed the bird". The list-serve postings are matter of public record and are probably archived and available. The question I have is whether the original observation was at the same time and date as the one that was submitted. Did he/she go back on another day to get better views and photos? Or does the observer claim that it's only one observation on one day? Of course conflicting testimony from the observer should be considered in attempting to evaluate the record. If there were other observers, they should be consulted also. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb 8 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: Advice sought RE credibility of documentation From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <CliffandLisa AT OCTOBERSETTERS.COM> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:45:29 -0700 All, I'm writing in hopes of getting some advice about how to handle a situation that has arisen with a record submitted to the Idaho BRC. It was brought to the BRC's attention by a local birder who is not involved with the records committee. Without going into too much detail, statements made in the original report to the local listservs are directly contradicted in the documentation submitted to IBRC (these statements and the report came from the same person). This includes, but is not limited to, stating on the listservs that it was foggy and snowing so photographs could not be taken. Photographs were then submitted along with the written report but there is no evidence of either fog or snow in the photographs and the written report says "it wasn't snowing when I observed the bird". Because of these contradictory statements the above mentioned local birder has suggested that the photos may not have been taken during the reported observation and we're obviously concerned about the (actual and/or perceived) authenticity of those photographs. The observer has been made aware of this and insists that we proceed with voting on the record. We're still a fledgling organization and have no experience with issues like this so we're hoping to get some guidance on how to handle it from those who have been there/done that. How do other states/provinces handle these situations? How much do we make public? My instinct is to include the listserv posts in the documentation for the record and go ahead and vote on it. That will necessarily put on the record that the authenticity of the photos, and therefore the integrity of the observer, is in question. I also feel the suggestion of imporpriety makes the entire report suspect and I think it should be rejected as a result. However, I'm open to suggestions about any and all of my comments. Thanks in advance. Cliff Weisse / Idaho Bird Records Committee -- 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: Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? From: Skye Haas <theowlranch AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:06:15 -0500 Greetings all, I was just informed and wanted to relay that the Michigan Tropical Kingbird record was in fact accepted by the Michigan Bird Records Committee on the basis of both vocalizations (the bird was heard calling once while being pursued by a Northern Shrike) and mtDNA evidence. Many MBRC members cited that a combination of both vocalization and mtDNA evidence supported this record. ( http://www.michiganaudubon.org/research/recordscommittee/photo_gallery.html/title/tropical-kingbird ). ~Skye Haas On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Skye Haas wrote: > Greetings all, > > In October 2005, a Tropical Kingbird was confirmed in the Upper Peninsula > of Michigan by mitochondrial DNA analysis. I was able to collect a fecal > sample from the bird, and Dr. Alec Lindsay at Northern Michigan University > was able to extract mDNA from the sample. When compared against mDNA samples > isolated from numerous museum reference specimens, we were able to confirm > that the bird was a Tropical Kingbird rather then a Couch's Kingbird. We > believe it to be the first time a State/Provence record was able to be > confirmed by DNA analysis, as well as one of the few studies to use avian > feces for DNA analysis. > > This record has been accepted by the Michigan BRC, and a manuscript is in > preparation for publication on this record and process. > > ~Skye Haas > > -- > Skye Christopher G. Haas > Northern Michigan University > > http://keweenawraptorsurvey.org/ > > Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theowlranch/ > -- http://keweenawraptorsurvey.org/ Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theowlranch/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:44:40 -0500 Greetings All As part of a somewhat analogous circumstance, WA has decided to accept Short-tailed Albatross records from radio-telemetry of birds banded on the breeding islands. I think we'd take such evidence on a case-by-case basis, not accepting such birds if there seemed to be any reasonable chance of mis-identification of the collared bird. Cheers Steven Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Phil Davis To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? Hi Paul: I just read Skye Haas' account of the Tropical Kingbird ... We cannot claim an identification from Maryland, but have an "attempt" that might interest you. (I had presented this over on birdwg01 a few years ago ... The full story of the "possible" Maryland Western Wood-Pewees is too long to fully recount here in a listserver message; however, the executive summary of this saga is: 1. Two collected Maryland Wood-Pewee specimens in the Smithsonian been considered by some notable ornithologists to be Westerns. 2. Morphometrically, we have not been able to separate them from Easterns. 3. At our request, the Smithsonian conducted a DNA analysis. For one specimen, the analysis "did not work" and for the other the results were "puzzling" and could possibly involve a "cryptic species from elsewhere in the range (e.g., the Rocky Mountains)." For anyone who might be so inclined, you can follow the story details beginning on page 29 of this PDF document; Appendix 6 of the 2007 MD/DC Records Committee Annual Meeting minutes ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2007.pdf The MD/DCRC would welcome any comments. We are stuck. Also, years ago, a shed feather was salvaged from our Maryland Kelp Gull, but, as I recall, I don't think it had enough material on it for a DNA analysis. Phil At 14:52 11/19/2010, Paul Hess wrote: >I am writing an article about New Mexico's first Long-billed >Murrelet, which was confirmed only by DNA (article in the new issue >of Western Birds). > >Do you know of any other rarities, not necessarily first >state/provincial records but at least review species, which were >confirmed only by molecular analysis when morphological characters >were not sufficient? > >Secondarily, do you know of any that were "unconfirmed" such as the >retracted Brown Skua documentation in Wales a few years ago? > >Thank you for any information you can provide. =================================================== 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: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:37:15 -0500 Hi Paul: I just read Skye Haas' account of the Tropical Kingbird ... We cannot claim an identification from Maryland, but have an "attempt" that might interest you. (I had presented this over on birdwg01 a few years ago ... The full story of the "possible" Maryland Western Wood-Pewees is too long to fully recount here in a listserver message; however, the executive summary of this saga is: 1. Two collected Maryland Wood-Pewee specimens in the Smithsonian been considered by some notable ornithologists to be Westerns. 2. Morphometrically, we have not been able to separate them from Easterns. 3. At our request, the Smithsonian conducted a DNA analysis. For one specimen, the analysis "did not work" and for the other the results were "puzzling" and could possibly involve a "cryptic species from elsewhere in the range (e.g., the Rocky Mountains)." For anyone who might be so inclined, you can follow the story details beginning on page 29 of this PDF document; Appendix 6 of the 2007 MD/DC Records Committee Annual Meeting minutes ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2007.pdf The MD/DCRC would welcome any comments. We are stuck. Also, years ago, a shed feather was salvaged from our Maryland Kelp Gull, but, as I recall, I don't think it had enough material on it for a DNA analysis. Phil At 14:52 11/19/2010, Paul Hess wrote: >I am writing an article about New Mexico's first Long-billed >Murrelet, which was confirmed only by DNA (article in the new issue >of Western Birds). > >Do you know of any other rarities, not necessarily first >state/provincial records but at least review species, which were >confirmed only by molecular analysis when morphological characters >were not sufficient? > >Secondarily, do you know of any that were "unconfirmed" such as the >retracted Brown Skua documentation in Wales a few years ago? > >Thank you for any information you can provide. =================================================== 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: Rarities confirmed only by DNA? From: Skye Haas <theowlranch AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:35:23 -0500 Greetings all, In October 2005, a Tropical Kingbird was confirmed in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan by mitochondrial DNA analysis. I was able to collect a fecal sample from the bird, and Dr. Alec Lindsay at Northern Michigan University was able to extract mDNA from the sample. When compared against mDNA samples isolated from numerous museum reference specimens, we were able to confirm that the bird was a Tropical Kingbird rather then a Couch's Kingbird. We believe it to be the first time a State/Provence record was able to be confirmed by DNA analysis, as well as one of the few studies to use avian feces for DNA analysis. This record has been accepted by the Michigan BRC, and a manuscript is in preparation for publication on this record and process. ~Skye Haas -- Skye Christopher G. Haas Northern Michigan University http://keweenawraptorsurvey.org/ Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theowlranch/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html