Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Tuesday, February 2 at 02:46 PM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Resplendent Quetzal,©BirdQuest

2 Feb Re: Returning Birds [Joseph Morlan ] 28 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews -- Ontario [Alan Wormington ] 28 Jan Virginia's Warbler records in the East -- Ontario [Alan Wormington ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Dan Singer ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Ned Keller ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [William Rowe ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Mark Stevenson ] 25 Jan "Ad hoc" reviews [Martin Meyers ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East [Adam Byrne ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East [knights ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 20 Jan Virginia's Warbler records in the East [Giff Beaton ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Milt Moody ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Alan Wormington ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [William Rowe ] 12 Jan Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Martin Meyers ] 10 Jan An excellent article on exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins [Phil Davis ] 9 Jan Re: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds [Phil Davis ] 3 Jan New Year's Resolutions [Phil Davis ] 24 Dec Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds [Steven Mlodinow ] 18 Dec Re: Returning Birds [Martin Meyers ] 18 Dec BirdChat discussion on bird records committees [Ted Floyd ] 12 Dec Re: Returning Birds [Phil Davis ] 9 Dec New Academia.edu feature for BRCF-L [Richard Price ] 9 Dec Returning Birds [Joseph Morlan ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Steven Mlodinow ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Chris Elphick ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Martin Meyers ] 19 Sep Fwd: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Sheehan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans ["K. Dean Edwards" ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Andrew Kratter ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Mark Lockwood ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Whan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Donna Dittmann ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Phil Davis ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [William Rowe ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 17 Sep Trumpeter Swans [Tony White ] 14 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Charles Swift ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Paul A. Guris" ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Martin Meyers ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [knights ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [William Rowe ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Joseph Morlan ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Steven Mlodinow ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Alan Wormington ] 3 Sep BRC member residence? [] 30 Jul "North American Birds" now online on SORA [Joseph Morlan ] 30 Jun LBRC - new web updates [Donna Dittmann ] 28 Jun MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates [Phil Davis ] 9 May Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [Martin Meyers ] 9 May Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [William Rowe ] 9 May How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west [Martin Meyers ] 1 Apr Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Steven Mlodinow ] 1 Apr Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Chuck Otte ] 31 Mar Photos only and term limits [] 31 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [knights ] 31 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Martin Meyers ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Alan Wormington ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Andrew Kratter ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Joseph Morlan ] 30 Mar Re: Photographic documentation with no written details [Cliff and Lisa Weisse ] 30 Mar Photographic documentation with no written details [knights ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [William Rowe ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [Ned Keller ] 29 Mar Re: Concerning term limits [Phil Davis ] 29 Mar Concerning term limits [Martin Meyers ] 6 Mar correction [Nate Dias ] 6 Mar Re: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Nate Dias ] 6 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Alan Wormington ] 6 Mar Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Mark Stevenson ] 6 Mar Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question [Mel Cooksey ] Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:46:48 -0800 Thanks for all the suggestions and input on the problem of returning birds. At our recent CBRC meeting the following by-law addition was approved: "Accepted records of individual birds returning or continuing through subsequent years shall be treated the same as any other resubmission of an accepted record. A majority vote determines whether a record is to be treated as a resubmission of a returning or continuing bird." The main purpose of this bylaw change is to protect accepted records from having differing decisions in subsequent years. By treating them as resubmissions, a majority vote is required to overturn a previously accepted record. On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:35:39 -0800, Martin Meyers wrote: >The issues involved with returning and continuing rarities (as raised in >Joe's post from 12/09/09 and amplified in Phil's post from 12/12) are ones >the Nevada committee considered at our September/09 meeting. After the >discussion, I put together a draft procedure, which was subsequently >approved by the members, and the wording has been added to our bylaws. >Complete bylaws are available via a link on the NBRC home page, >http://gbbo.org/nbrc > >I'll include the exact wording of this section of our bylaws at the end of >this post, but first, a couple of comments: > >From Joe's post: > >>In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >>assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >>a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >>lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >>applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >>although it could apply to breeding birds as well. >> >>As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >>abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >>have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? > >For "returning" birds," our policy is very similar to California's as to >circulation and (initial) ID number, but with one small difference if the >majority considers it a repeat occurrence. We will add the letter "R" to >the (unique) identification number for any of the subequent occurrences. >And within the database, we will include a field that links the record(s) to >the original occurrence. This is only partially successful at accomplishing >what I'd like. The database is not readily available to the public >(although somewhat abridged copies are kept with the archives at the >University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Barrick Museum, and these are available for >vieweing on site.) What is readily available is a website which includes at >least some information about every record -- ID number, species, date, >location, submitters (for accepted records), committee decision/status, and >links to photos when available. > >The problem, then, is that while a record might have an ID number like >2009-001R, indicating that it is a "repeat" occurrence, it will require a >little effort for a user of the website to determine just which record(s) >are repeats of which records. (It's not all that hard -- the records can be >displayed sorted by species, so a very quick look at locations and dates >would allow a very good guess.) So in answer to Joe's question, do we have >a "clear procedure", the answer is "not really." But it's a start. > > > >As to Joe's next issue: >>Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >>is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >>in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >>subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >>rejected because of the subsequent year's action? >> > >Our procedure here is, at least, "clear" even if not perfect. If there is a >different decision on a record that is deemed to be a repeat (or continuing) >occurrence, we do not join the records in any way, e.g., no "R" appended for >repeats. (However, comments in the database will certainly note the fact). >And then: >"... on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be >re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D >(Reconsideration of previously completed records.)" > > >As to the question of how to handle what appears to be the same bird showing >up at widely different locations, we didn't deal specifically with that. >But it would seem that it would be up to the secretary (at least on the >first cut) to add a place for comment and vote under the same rules as the >"repeat/continuing" situation. The voting would be by the same rules. (And >if not "caught" by the secretary, who is, alas, fallible, any member could >just bring it up for additional consideration.) > > >As to the issue of "continuing" presence, Joe says: >>Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >>vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >>successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >>they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >>single record? > >I think there's more to it than just birds which remain to breed, too. We >added a procedure that essentially says that if a later record is thought to >represent the same bird (or birds) as a previous record, the committee must >determine (guess?) by vote whether it is "continuing" or "repeat". If it is >decided that the bird (most likely) never left, it is handled one way, if it >returned (for example, to breed, but after leaving, as in the case of >migration, or the more typical winterer), it is a "return". If the >committee decides a bird is "continuing", whether reviewed together with >other records for that bird or at some later time, we will eliminate the new >ID number and lump the record (physically) with the earlier submission. So >the lower ID number will include both (all) of the records. (Again, only if >both records received the same decision.) > >So, up to a point, we at least have a procedure, clear or otherwise. > >Joe's final issue is one we are facing right now, and nothing went into the >bylaws to cover it. We have a pair of White-tailed Kites in the Pahranagat >Valley of southeastern Nevada that have bred succesfully (probably twice, >although actual offspring were only noted this year.) We have submissions >for two, three, and four birds over a period of three years. The "two >birds" are covered by the "continuing" clause. But I haven't got a clue >what we'll do about the young birds. My inclination is to lump all the >records that include at least one of the presumed parents into a single >record with a single ID number, (assuming, of course, that the committee >votes to consider the pair to be "continuing".) > >One final clarification: In all cases, the fundamental committee review >process is largely unchanged. For every record, the vote/comments as to >acceptance proceed as if it were a new record. Only after that do the >questions of "new", "repeat", or "continuing" get officially dealt with if >warranted. > > > >For your amusement, here's our official wording. Constructive criticism is >always welcome. > >G. Records considered to represent repeat or continued occurrences of the >same individual as one previously reviewed: > >1. Determination that a new record represents a repeat or continued >occurrence of a previously reviewed record shall be by majority of members >voting, or by plurality should three considerations be involved ("new", >"repeat", "continued"). This vote may occur during the review process at >the discretion of the secretary, or it may require an additional special >circulation whose only purpose will be determination of repeat or continued >occurrence if requested by any voting member. Tie votes will result in the >most conservative interpretation, consisting of "new", "repeat", "continued" >in that order. However, in order to formally recognize a record as a repeat >or continued occurrence, both the current and former record must have >received the same decision, i.e., accept, non-accept (identification), >non-accept (origin). > >2. For any record determined to represent a repeat occurrence, that record >shall retain its regular assigned NBRC Identification Number, but the letter >"R" shall be appended to the record number for the additional occurrence. >The official database entry for repeat records shall be annotated with the >specifics of the determination. > >3. For records where the occurrence is determined to be a continuing >individual (as opposed to one which has left Nevada and returned at some >subsequent time), the two (or more) such records shall be handled by >combining the records into a single numbered record, using the ID Number of >the earliest record. > >4. Should the voting members decide by majority vote that a record >represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previous record, but the >decision on acceptance differs for the two records, the records will not be >combined or designated as a repeat occurrence. However, on recommendation >from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the >voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously >completed records.) > >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 -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews -- Ontario From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:02:26 -0500 Martin and all, Ontario never officially reviews a record unless the species is on the Review List. Occasionally we receive requests to assess a non-review species, and we do indeed review the record but the results are returned only to the person who originally submitted the record. The decision does not appear in our Annual Report. Not mentioned by others, but the OBRC actively promotes the idea that documentation of rarities NOT on the Review List be sent for archiving directly to the Royal Ontario Museum (ornithology Department) and / or local compilers (who in turn send them in to North American Birds for publication, or are used for other purposes). The point here being that many observations should be thoroughly documented, not just those species on the official OBRC Review List. And this might include any number of significant sightings, such as local rarities, out-of-season observations, significant CBC sightings, out-of-range breeding records, etc. Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:28:58 -0800 Martin Meyers writes: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to > allow > more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs > which does > not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that > sighting > has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly > noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to > be > reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, > and the > particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support > on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid > Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think > such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just > don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a > regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to > the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding > out how > others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > 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 > "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Virginia's Warbler records in the East -- Ontario From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:47:13 -0500 Giff and all, Ontario has 5 accepted records of Virginia Warbler: Northern Ontario: August 29, 2001: one immature male, Thunder Cape, Thunder Bay District Southern Ontario: May 3-4, 1975: one, Point Pelee National Park, Essex County May 9-11, 1974: one, Pelee Island, Essex County May 14, 2003: one male, Port Lambton, Lambton County May 16, 1958: one male, Point Pelee National Park, Essex County Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:25:16 -0500 Giff Beaton writes: > Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's > Warbler > visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our > second > record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from > Eastern > North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list > below. > If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get > any info > you have. Thanks very much! > > > > Giff Beaton > > Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee > > > > PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. > > > > > > Eastern VIWA Records > > > > Spring: > > > > 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen > > 10 May 1974 photo > > May 1975 > > > > 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 > > Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) > > > > 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama > > > > > > > > Summer? > > > > MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) > > > > > > > > Fall: > > > > 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 > > 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park > > > > 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan > > > > 1 NS no data > > > > 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay > > > > 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta > > > > > > > > Winter: > > > > WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder > > > > GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Dan Singer <dsg2 AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:23:25 -0800 Hi all, In California our by-laws preclude us from reviewing such records: "(6) Records concerning forms that are only locally or temporally rare in California will not be treated." We have occasionally discussed modifying this by-law, but there has never been much enthusiasm for doing so. I think many or most members in CA agree that this function is better served by the NAB regional editors, who by and large handle this task very well. Dan Singer Pacifica, CA ________________________________ From: Martin Meyers To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 10:28:58 PM Subject: "Ad hoc" reviews I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others would handle it first. Thanks, 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: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:50:23 -0500 In Ohio, our bylaws permit the editor of our state journal to request review of records of species which are not on the review list. In practice, the Secretary (currently me, but the practice goes back to before my time) sends out a couple of non-review-list records each year. Amend your bylaws if you think you need to; meanwhile, just send it out. Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to > allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs > which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but > that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it > particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that > sighting to be reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and > the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid > Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think > such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we > just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It > is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a > change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested > in finding out how others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > 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 > > -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:42:46 -0600 The LBRC Bylaws do address such records: ³(7) Records concerning species that are only locally or seasonally rare in Louisiana may be reviewed at the LBRC's discretion.² Aside from some records of former Review List Species submitted after they were removed from the Review List, and review was primarily a courtesy to the observer who made the effort to submit record, we have not reviewed non-Review List Species. The concept of a non-Review List review by the LBRC has now morphed into ³if the observer requests the LBRC to do so, then we will review such records,² and that hasnıt happed! At various times in the past, we have discussed adding outrageous seasonal records such as winter Long-tailed Jaeger or Scarlet Tanager, but have always opted not to complicate the review list with seasonal records and leaving that domain to American Birds-North American Birds seasonal editors. Donna L. Dittmann, Secretary Louisiana Bird Records Committee On 1/26/10 12:28 AM, "Martin Meyers" wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow > more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does > not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting > has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly > noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be > reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the > particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support > on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how > others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > 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: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:00:51 -0600 Martin: In Missouri we routinely do review out-of-season reports. They get documented just like any other rarity. The basis for an observer to decide whether to document (and for me as secretary to decide whether to send a report on for committee review) is the state checklist, which we maintain at www.mobirds.org (top item in the MBRC menu). If you take a look, you'll see that every species has seasonal status and abundance symbols. So, for instance, we have a pending record this winter of Baltimore Oriole, which we will review because its status is "WR ca," casual winter resident (or visitor). We review all species that are listed as casual or accidental in winter; if the designation is merely "rare," we don't review it. The list is up there for all Missouri birders to consult, and we make some alterations to it every year as the data change. We also have a version printed as a field card that gets revised and reprinted every few years -- still useful for some people. This works well for us overall, with just a couple of issues: (1) We also do approximate geographic division for some species -- e.g., House Wren now occurs with some regularity in the southeast part of the state in winter, so we list it as "r (se), ca (elsewhere)" and thus no longer ask for documentation in the southeast. As you can imagine, this occasionally raises questions as to where the southeast begins and ends, but that is usually clear and, when it isn't, it falls to me to make a judgment call. (2) Some people still don't consult the list or not very carefully, and therefore submit reports that don't need review. This is no big deal -- I just archive in a separate place and send a brief email thanking them and explaining why the record won't circulate. We also maintain a Review List (viewable on the same site) but that is only for species that are casual or accidental (and thus documentable) at all times of year. I would say that out-of-season review gives us a strong database of well-documented records of this type and helps us understand seasonal occurrence better. We also want to review earliest-ever and latest- ever records, and if you look at our annual reports (also up on the same web site) you will see a number of these -- e.g., the earliest Yellow-bellied Flycatcher record for Missouri on 3 May 2008. I would also have no problem deciding that a record was so unusual for some other odd reason that it ought to be reviewed. Your Baird's Sandpiper sounds like a great place to start -- unusual not only in Nevada but nationally. We had a winter record not long ago, substantiated with photos, and I think it was one of very N. Am. midwinter records. Hope this helps, Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure > to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting > occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be > reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual > enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in > place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, > and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be > handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and > there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at > Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite > intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and > deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in > the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the > state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow > such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others > would handle it first. > > Thanks, > 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: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:25:36 -0700 Martin, Here in AZ there is nothing in the by-laws to cause or prevent such a review. Review of the documented occurrence of extremely rare bird events seems entirely within the purview of a BRC so it's hard for me to imagine a BRC schemata so rigid that it *prevents* review of species (and archiving of the data) that aren't on a specified list. Here the secretary may choose to put through such documentation or another member (or even the observer) could request review for the purpose of archiving an exceptional occurrence. Cheers, Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Meyers" To: Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 11:28 PM Subject: "Ad hoc" reviews >I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow >more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which >does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that >sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly >noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be >reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and > the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out > how others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:28:58 -0800 I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others would handle it first. Thanks, 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: Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: Adam Byrne <byrnea AT MSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:54:50 -0500 Giff, Michigan has three records: 13 May 1993 at Dearborn, Wayne Co. (banded) 20-21 May 1997 at Paradise, Chippewa Co. 25 June 2006 in Kalamazoo Co. (banded). Adam M. Byrne Secretary, Michigan Bird Records Committee -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:44:10 -0600 Giff, Currently MS has no record of VIWA. Gene Knight MBRC Chair ----- Original Message ----- From: Giff Beaton To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Virginia's Warbler records in the East Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's Warbler visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our second record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from Eastern North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list below. If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get any info you have. Thanks very much! Giff Beaton Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. Eastern VIWA Records Spring: 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen 10 May 1974 photo May 1975 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama Summer? MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) Fall: 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan 1 NS no data 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta Winter: WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder -------------------------------------------------- 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: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:07:42 GMT there are 2 more Ontario records and also a record for Labrador. I will supply these when I return home in a week Alan Wormington (currently in TX) -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: Giff Beaton <giffbeaton AT MINDSPRING.COM> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:25:16 -0500 Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's Warbler visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our second record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from Eastern North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list below. If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get any info you have. Thanks very much! Giff Beaton Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. Eastern VIWA Records Spring: 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen 10 May 1974 photo May 1975 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama Summer? MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) Fall: 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan 1 NS no data 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta Winter: WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:28:57 -0800 I agree a lot with Bill Rowe and would add that it's not so much the word that are used (although we should consider that), but it's more in how we treat the records. In Utah we have taken maybe a little different tack. We used to list the "Accepted" records together with the names of the observers at the top of the committee reports and at the bottom the "Not Accepted" records without the names of the observers -- probably a pretty common format. The possible interpretation of that arrangement (worst case scenario maybe) could be that the "Accepted" records are correct and valuable and that the "Not Accepted" records are probably bad sightings and are NOT valuable and that the observers should be embarrassed to have their names on the records (obviously something we don't intend to convey). For the past 6 years or so we've listed the records in taxonomic order and included all observer names, and at the end of each record list the results of the review in an unobtrusive yet certainly visible manner (e.i., 5Y-2N). The records are treated pretty much the same whether they are accepted by the committee or not. We post all records on the internet as they are being reviewed by the committee and they can be accessed through links on several lists of sightings after the review process, so that anyone who is really interested can check out the records and see for themselves whether they think they are "good sightings" or not. Here's a link to our comprehensive list of sightings for example: http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/RareBirdsIndex.html I like this arrangement because it treats all records with a degree of importance due to any record that someone took the time to create and send in. There are still people who feel bad when their records are "not accepted" or "rejected" or "not endorsed" but I think this approach tends to make them feel a little better about it. Milt Moody UBRC webmaster and past secretary --- On Tue, 1/12/10, William Rowe wrote: > From: William Rowe > Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:12 PM > Martin: > > Since I am hard at work trying to write this year's annual > report, with its plethora of Accepted records and some Not > Accepted, I will be brief.  I don't think it > matters.  I see your point about the connotations of > "accept" but I think any other word you substitute is going > to be perceived exactly the same by our constituents.  > Nobody out there is going to feel any better when a record > of theirs is "not endorsed" than when it was "not > accepted."  Everybody knows what happened no matter > what you call it.  If the observer is the kind who > takes things personally, it will be "That  > !! AT X?**X!!  committee didn't endorse my record." > > (As a side point, I assume we all use Not Accepted instead > of Rejected, since the latter sounds really harsh.) > > Best, > > Bill Rowe > Missouri > > > > > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Martin Meyers wrote: > > > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many > of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, > so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. > > > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the > words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts > to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on > records.  In formal communications, we use the terms > "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of > "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not > relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in > our bylaws. > > > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term.  > If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if > you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a > "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." > > > > But that's not what we do with records.  If > someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, > published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the > Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say > "No thanks" and give it back.  In fact, we actively > solicit all such records.  We happily "accept" > them!  Thanks very much! > > > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not > the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., > establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for > now.)   I don't have to get into a discussion > of that with any of you on this list.  You've all been > placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, > yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a > (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just > not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to > "accept" the record. > > > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case > adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we > still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website > (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name > in such cases.)  We include it in our annual > report.  We store it in our archives.  Somebody > may find it useful at some time in the future.  (In > fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records > or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it > might very well be that the same documentation would have > been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from > now, after a dozen other records for the species have come > through and been "accepted.") > > > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two > counts: > > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept > the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we > accept it, and > > 2) it is counterproductive.  It's hard enough to > get people to submit records.  The better we can make > them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission > and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to > submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has > given us is insulting. > > > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC > members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, > similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not > Endorse".)  Since the words are in our bylaws, it will > require a formal decision. > > > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical > publications, proclamations, etc.?  (I've checked a > handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem > to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a > few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in > annual reports.)  Can you provide any reason why it > would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as > "Accept"?  Might it be a better term?  Does it > make any difference? > > > > Thanks, > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: sanmigbird AT AOL.COM Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:23:50 -0500 Martin, For years I have used the term "endorsed" because I much prefer it over accepted. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Martin Meyers To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 5:43 pm Subject: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have come through and been "accepted.") So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to submit records. The better we can make them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given us is insulting. I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? Thanks, 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: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:17:42 -0500 Martin, I have been a long-term member of the Ontario Bird Records Committee (and sometimes Secretary). Not sure what started this discussion, but I must say that using said terminology "Endorse" and "Not Endorse" does sound more reasonable that what most committees currently use. If you can get your committee to "Endorse" your proposal, go for it! On a slightly different slant, I sometimes have to explain to observers if their record is rejected (ie., "not accepted"). I explain that a "rejection" of a record is a process that actually occurs commonly all the time involving entities other than bird records committees, just that it goes (mostly) unnoticed. For example, an author writing a book on some subject may choose to NOT use a record of yours, and by doing so he/she is in fact "rejecting" it (via the silent treatment). Committees, in contrast, sometimes get heckled for rejecting a record because the process is OUT IN THE OPEN (ie., the rejection is published in an Annual Report). This happens because our process is formalized, but believe me it happens all the time in many other situations, but it largely goes unnoticed. Something to think about. Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:43:25 -0800 Martin Meyers writes: > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will > shrug and > say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea > out for > your opinions. > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use > in annual > reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada > committee's > decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms > "Accepted" > and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", > identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this > discussion.) > These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives > you a > gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the > giver.) > That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." > > But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a > record, and it > meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the > species is on > the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No > thanks" > and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. > We > happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the > documentation given > to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification > (let's ignore > origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that > with any of > you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying > to > explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was > > probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is > just not > sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the > record. > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we > mark the > record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we > display it > on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's > name in > such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in > our > archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. > (In > fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or > records of > particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be > that the > same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were > submitted ten > years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have > come > through and been "accepted.") > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. > We might > not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and > 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to > submit > records. The better we can make them feel about the process, > without > sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll > continue > to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given > us is > insulting. > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to > replace the > word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not > Accept" with > "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require > a formal > decision. > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, > proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, > and so > far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, > > although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in > annual > reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very > least, > be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does > it make > any difference? > > Thanks, > 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 > "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:12:49 -0600 Martin: Since I am hard at work trying to write this year's annual report, with its plethora of Accepted records and some Not Accepted, I will be brief. I don't think it matters. I see your point about the connotations of "accept" but I think any other word you substitute is going to be perceived exactly the same by our constituents. Nobody out there is going to feel any better when a record of theirs is "not endorsed" than when it was "not accepted." Everybody knows what happened no matter what you call it. If the observer is the kind who takes things personally, it will be "That !! AT X?**X!! committee didn't endorse my record." (As a side point, I assume we all use Not Accepted instead of Rejected, since the latter sounds really harsh.) Best, Bill Rowe Missouri On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Martin Meyers wrote: > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will > shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd > put an idea out for your opinions. > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use > in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the > Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, > we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two > categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's > not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our > bylaws. > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives > you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind > insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, > a "Not Accept." > > But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a > record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our > case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State > Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we > actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! > Thanks very much! > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the > documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the > identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get > into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all > been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, > yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in > the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to > allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we > mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In > fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to > leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in > our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find > it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to > set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly > unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same > documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted > ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species > have come through and been "accepted.") > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. > We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and > 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to > submit records. The better we can make them feel about the > process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the > more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" > something someone has given us is insulting. > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to > replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to > replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in > our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, > proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee > websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the > "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not > all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason > why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as > "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? > > Thanks, > 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: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:43:25 -0800 This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have come through and been "accepted.") So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to submit records. The better we can make them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given us is insulting. I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? Thanks, 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: An excellent article on exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:09:05 -0500 BRCF-L: I was recently researching some local records committee issues dealing with presumed exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins when I discovered, on-line, an excellent article in the Fall 2009 issue of the LOS News by Donna Dittmann, Secretary of the Louisiana Birds Records Committee. Her article, which is based on a letter from a state birder and a thorough response by her and the LBRC, can be found here, on pages 3 - 10 ... http://losbird.org/news/0909_218_news.pdf I highly recommend this as "required reading" by all records committee members. I also highly encourage all records committees to post, here on BRCF-L, new committee information or links to updates to your web sites, decision reports, new policies, etc. One of the primary objectives of BRCF-L when Laurie Larson of NJ and I formed it, was to share "best practices." Thanks and Happy New Year. 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: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:42:39 -0500 Hi Steve, et al.: Comments below (preceded by "PCD") ... You can see how our MD state list is organized here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf Happy New Year to everyone on BRCF-L. Phil At 01:05 AM 12/24/2009, Steven Mlodinow wrote: >Greetings to All > >So, we in the WA BRC (Dennis Paulson to be specific) is putting all >of our reports into a grand master list; belated, yes. >We've had this in workable bits and pieces, but nothing that could >be put on a website, for instance > >He has raised the question regarding what to do with several >categories of birds > >1) White-breasted Wood-Wren and Black Woodpecker. Both rather >absurd, especially after reading the descriptions. We DID vote on >them, and they were unanimously rejected. Do other BRCs keep these >records on their databases as "not accepted based on inadequate >documentation" or just not include them at all. If they are tossed >into the trash forever, how does one define "outrageous?" PCD: We show all Not Accepts in our on-line database (but not on our State List, of course). >2) Mandarin Duck and Mute Swan. Both of these are actually seen, >probably, too often to be reviewed, and are entirely escapees as far >as we can tell (One might argue Mute Swans occasionally wander down >from the Vancouver Island population, but that population is stable >in size and not very large.) In any case, other birds such as >Egyptian Geese, Nutmeg Munia, Red (or is it Orange?) Bishop could >probably be tossed into this category for WA, though they have been >seen less often. Do any BRCs review these birds other than to >determine if populations are established? PCD: I am a personal proponent of reviewing species such as these, but people have various opinions on this subject, of course. I try to track down documentation for almost anything that flies. All of these "presumed exotics" are in our queue, but at the lowest priority. I would like to see our committee review them some day and perhaps get them added onto our checklist in the section called "Identification OK/Questionable Origin" or "Identification OK/Exotic Origin." The difference between the the two is subtle ... if the majority of the nine voting members feel that there is "no question" that a particular bird is exotic (for example, the essentially non-migratory Black Swan), then it would go into the "Exotic Origin" category. If a majority of the members cast their vote that there is at some question in their mind that the bird could be either exotic or wild (or something else ... human assisted, etc.) then it would go into the "Questionable Origin" category (such as a European Greenfinch). So, the difference is primarily one of confidence. It makes for a lot of lively debates, for sure ... >3a) Extirpated species once established. Sky Lark. Still established >on nearby Vancouver Island from which the species formerly colonized >San Juan Island. Keep on list because our population, now >extirpated, was part of another population still extant (with >possibility for possible future vagrancy/colonization)? I'd think >keep it on list as extirpated....? PCD: Greater Prairie Chicken is on our MD list as an extirpated species. We would gladly review one, if presented . Trumpeter Swan is also on our MD list as extirpated, but the reintroduced birds are now present. We have to deal with them soon ... >3b) Introduced and Truly Gone. Like Scaled Quail. This bird was once >established but is now gone and was never reviewable by the BRC. Do >we just wipe it off list without mention? What do other BRCs do? PCD: Our MD list includes extinct species such as Passenger Pigeon. >4) Birds that have been seen that have a smidgen of a chance of >being wild, but unlikely to varying degrees. This would include RB >Goose, Barnacle Goose, PF Goose, Verdin. We've voted on some of >these (eg, Verdin and PF Goose) and accepted them as to ID but >rejected them as to origin. This category again brings up the >question of where does one draw the line. >-- Verdin. Highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but also >essentially unknown as cage bird >-- PF Goose. Seemingly highly unlikely to wander here on its own, >but is actually surprisingly rare in captivity in North America, and >if one takes their usual fall migration route, goes 180 degrees in >the other direction one eventually hits the WA coast. So, there is >some possibility of natural vagrancy, and it seems worth keeping the >bird in the "ID Correct, Origin Questionable" category. >-- Stretch that farther. RB Goose. Not so rare in captivity and >populations plummeting in the wild. I believe the CBRC has voted on, >and rejected (due to origin) a couple sightings. >-- So, if RB Goose is voted on and kept on "ID correct, Origin >questionable," how about Barnacle Goose? Or Bar-headed Goose? Etc? PCD: I think I covered most of this above. However, it is interesting to note that these cases can change with time. For example, Barnacle Goose is currently on the MD list as "ID OK/Questionable Origin" however, we are getting ready to reopen the original report and all of the subsequent sightings (~15 or so). This review will include all of the temporal and geographic distribution information that we now know about this species. I cannot predict what the members will do; however, a different outcome is certainly possible now, in view of the knowledge of the current patterns of vagrancy. >Sorry, I am incredibly tired at the moment, so this email is not as >coherent as I'd like > >Let me rephrase: > >There is a set of birds not rare in captivity (Red and Orange >Bishop, Mandarin Duck, Egyptian Goose, various munias, many >parrots/parakeets) that have essentially zero chance of getting to >WA on their own. Does any BRC keep these birds on any list, or vote >on any reports, other than to judge if a population is established? > >There is another set of birds, also common in captivity, that have >at least a vague chance arriving on their own power (RB Goose); my >assumption is that records of these birds are usually reviewed and >kept in the "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. True? > >Then there are birds exceptionally unusual in captivity AND >essentially impossible vagrants to WA (Black Woodpecker, >White-breasted Wood-Wren). Are reports of these types mentioned in >any list by most BRCs under any category? > >And there are birds that are rather unexpected vagrants but also >unusual in captivity (eg Verdin); I'd assume most such birds are >listed as "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. > >And finally, introduced somewhat successfully but now gone. >Mentioned under some category? For us, Scaled Quail would land here, >but there have been failed introductions of several other species >(including a tinamou) that seemed to take for a brief while and are >now gone... and none of these have been reviewed by our BRC except >to address established vs not established. Do most BRCs mention >these types of birds anywhere on their lists? > >Insights and Thoughts Desired >Steve Mlodinow =================================================== 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: New Year's Resolutions From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 02:45:18 -0500 By popular demand, I've reposted my offering of a set of New Year's Resolutions for the birding community, from a Records Committee Secretary. I originally posted these a few years ago. (OK, you caught me, actually, no one requested that I repost them, except me!) You can find my "top ten" resolutions here ... http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/new-years-resolutions-from-a-records-committe My personal favorite is #7 ... Have a Happy and Rarity-filled New Year!!! 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: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:05:37 -0500 Greetings to All So, we in the WA BRC (Dennis Paulson to be specific) is putting all of our reports into a grand master list; belated, yes. We've had this in workable bits and pieces, but nothing that could be put on a website, for instance He has raised the question regarding what to do with several categories of birds 1) White-breasted Wood-Wren and Black Woodpecker. Both rather absurd, especially after reading the descriptions. We DID vote on them, and they were unanimously rejected. Do other BRCs keep these records on their databases as "not accepted based on inadequate documentation" or just not include them at all. If they are tossed into the trash forever, how does one define "outrageous?" 2) Mandarin Duck and Mute Swan. Both of these are actually seen, probably, too often to be reviewed, and are entirely escapees as far as we can tell (One might argue Mute Swans occasionally wander down from the Vancouver Island population, but that population is stable in size and not very large.) In any case, other birds such as Egyptian Geese, Nutmeg Munia, Red (or is it Orange?) Bishop could probably be tossed into this category for WA, though they have been seen less often. Do any BRCs review these birds other than to determine if populations are established? 3a) Extirpated species once established. Sky Lark. Still established on nearby Vancouver Island from which the species formerly colonized San Juan Island. Keep on list because our population, now extirpated, was part of another population still extant (with possibility for possible future vagrancy/colonization)? I'd think keep it on list as extirpated....? 3b) Introduced and Truly Gone. Like Scaled Quail. This bird was once established but is now gone and was never reviewable by the BRC. Do we just wipe it off list without mention? What do other BRCs do? 4) Birds that have been seen that have a smidgen of a chance of being wild, but unlikely to varying degrees. This would include RB Goose, Barnacle Goose, PF Goose, Verdin. We've voted on some of these (eg, Verdin and PF Goose) and accepted them as to ID but rejected them as to origin. This category again brings up the question of where does one draw the line. -- Verdin. Highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but also essentially unknown as cage bird -- PF Goose. Seemingly highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but is actually surprisingly rare in captivity in North America, and if one takes their usual fall migration route, goes 180 degrees in the other direction one eventually hits the WA coast. So, there is some possibility of natural vagrancy, and it seems worth keeping the bird in the "ID Correct, Origin Questionable" category. -- Stretch that farther. RB Goose. Not so rare in captivity and populations plummeting in the wild. I believe the CBRC has voted on, and rejected (due to origin) a couple sightings. -- So, if RB Goose is voted on and kept on "ID correct, Origin questionable," how about Barnacle Goose? Or Bar-headed Goose? Etc? Sorry, I am incredibly tired at the moment, so this email is not as coherent as I'd like Let me rephrase: There is a set of birds not rare in captivity (Red and Orange Bishop, Mandarin Duck, Egyptian Goose, various munias, many parrots/parakeets) that have essentially zero chance of getting to WA on their own. Does any BRC keep these birds on any list, or vote on any reports, other than to judge if a population is established? There is another set of birds, also common in captivity, that have at least a vague chance arriving on their own power (RB Goose); my assumption is that records of these birds are usually reviewed and kept in the "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. True? Then there are birds exceptionally unusual in captivity AND essentially impossible vagrants to WA (Black Woodpecker, White-breasted Wood-Wren). Are reports of these types mentioned in any list by most BRCs under any category? And there are birds that are rather unexpected vagrants but also unusual in captivity (eg Verdin); I'd assume most such birds are listed as "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. And finally, introduced somewhat successfully but now gone. Mentioned under some category? For us, Scaled Quail would land here, but there have been failed introductions of several other species (including a tinamou) that seemed to take for a brief while and are now gone... and none of these have been reviewed by our BRC except to address established vs not established. Do most BRCs mention these types of birds anywhere on their lists? Insights and Thoughts Desired Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:35:39 -0800 The issues involved with returning and continuing rarities (as raised in Joe's post from 12/09/09 and amplified in Phil's post from 12/12) are ones the Nevada committee considered at our September/09 meeting. After the discussion, I put together a draft procedure, which was subsequently approved by the members, and the wording has been added to our bylaws. Complete bylaws are available via a link on the NBRC home page, http://gbbo.org/nbrc I'll include the exact wording of this section of our bylaws at the end of this post, but first, a couple of comments: From Joe's post: >In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >although it could apply to breeding birds as well. > >As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? For "returning" birds," our policy is very similar to California's as to circulation and (initial) ID number, but with one small difference if the majority considers it a repeat occurrence. We will add the letter "R" to the (unique) identification number for any of the subequent occurrences. And within the database, we will include a field that links the record(s) to the original occurrence. This is only partially successful at accomplishing what I'd like. The database is not readily available to the public (although somewhat abridged copies are kept with the archives at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Barrick Museum, and these are available for vieweing on site.) What is readily available is a website which includes at least some information about every record -- ID number, species, date, location, submitters (for accepted records), committee decision/status, and links to photos when available. The problem, then, is that while a record might have an ID number like 2009-001R, indicating that it is a "repeat" occurrence, it will require a little effort for a user of the website to determine just which record(s) are repeats of which records. (It's not all that hard -- the records can be displayed sorted by species, so a very quick look at locations and dates would allow a very good guess.) So in answer to Joe's question, do we have a "clear procedure", the answer is "not really." But it's a start. As to Joe's next issue: >Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >rejected because of the subsequent year's action? > Our procedure here is, at least, "clear" even if not perfect. If there is a different decision on a record that is deemed to be a repeat (or continuing) occurrence, we do not join the records in any way, e.g., no "R" appended for repeats. (However, comments in the database will certainly note the fact). And then: "... on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously completed records.)" As to the question of how to handle what appears to be the same bird showing up at widely different locations, we didn't deal specifically with that. But it would seem that it would be up to the secretary (at least on the first cut) to add a place for comment and vote under the same rules as the "repeat/continuing" situation. The voting would be by the same rules. (And if not "caught" by the secretary, who is, alas, fallible, any member could just bring it up for additional consideration.) As to the issue of "continuing" presence, Joe says: >Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >single record? I think there's more to it than just birds which remain to breed, too. We added a procedure that essentially says that if a later record is thought to represent the same bird (or birds) as a previous record, the committee must determine (guess?) by vote whether it is "continuing" or "repeat". If it is decided that the bird (most likely) never left, it is handled one way, if it returned (for example, to breed, but after leaving, as in the case of migration, or the more typical winterer), it is a "return". If the committee decides a bird is "continuing", whether reviewed together with other records for that bird or at some later time, we will eliminate the new ID number and lump the record (physically) with the earlier submission. So the lower ID number will include both (all) of the records. (Again, only if both records received the same decision.) So, up to a point, we at least have a procedure, clear or otherwise. Joe's final issue is one we are facing right now, and nothing went into the bylaws to cover it. We have a pair of White-tailed Kites in the Pahranagat Valley of southeastern Nevada that have bred succesfully (probably twice, although actual offspring were only noted this year.) We have submissions for two, three, and four birds over a period of three years. The "two birds" are covered by the "continuing" clause. But I haven't got a clue what we'll do about the young birds. My inclination is to lump all the records that include at least one of the presumed parents into a single record with a single ID number, (assuming, of course, that the committee votes to consider the pair to be "continuing".) One final clarification: In all cases, the fundamental committee review process is largely unchanged. For every record, the vote/comments as to acceptance proceed as if it were a new record. Only after that do the questions of "new", "repeat", or "continuing" get officially dealt with if warranted. For your amusement, here's our official wording. Constructive criticism is always welcome. G. Records considered to represent repeat or continued occurrences of the same individual as one previously reviewed: 1. Determination that a new record represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previously reviewed record shall be by majority of members voting, or by plurality should three considerations be involved ("new", "repeat", "continued"). This vote may occur during the review process at the discretion of the secretary, or it may require an additional special circulation whose only purpose will be determination of repeat or continued occurrence if requested by any voting member. Tie votes will result in the most conservative interpretation, consisting of "new", "repeat", "continued" in that order. However, in order to formally recognize a record as a repeat or continued occurrence, both the current and former record must have received the same decision, i.e., accept, non-accept (identification), non-accept (origin). 2. For any record determined to represent a repeat occurrence, that record shall retain its regular assigned NBRC Identification Number, but the letter "R" shall be appended to the record number for the additional occurrence. The official database entry for repeat records shall be annotated with the specifics of the determination. 3. For records where the occurrence is determined to be a continuing individual (as opposed to one which has left Nevada and returned at some subsequent time), the two (or more) such records shall be handled by combining the records into a single numbered record, using the ID Number of the earliest record. 4. Should the voting members decide by majority vote that a record represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previous record, but the decision on acceptance differs for the two records, the records will not be combined or designated as a repeat occurrence. However, on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously completed records.) 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: BirdChat discussion on bird records committees From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:32:38 -0800 Hey, all. They're talking about the California Bird Records Committee over on BirdChat. Scoot on over and see for yourself... http://www.birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CHAT.html Seasons greetings, y'all! All best, Ted Floyd Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:13:12 -0500 Hi Joe, et al.: You raise a number of good questions ... The MD/DC Records Committee policy on returning bird is as follows: 4.4.5 Multiple Versus Single Records Policy The Secretary will organize sighting reports into contiguous blocks of time that are indicative of the period when a bird or flocks of birds were within a jurisdiction (Maryland or DC). Specifically, reports of wintering birds returning for multiple seasons (such as when indicated by banding data) will be considered as one report for each season that bird is present. The challenge, of course, is does one ever know, for certain, that a bird is the same individual? The probabilities may be quite high, but for certain??? So, this brings up the question that our policy addresses of what IS a bird record? I think I raised this issue on BRCF-L years ago but wasn't led to a conclusion, so I adopted the position, above. I also couldn't find any ornithological guidance on the web. So, my approach is that a "record" is a sighting on a single date or a beginning and ending date pair of when the bird in question was [most likely] in our jurisdiction. For example, the Maryland Kelp Gull was likely in Maryland for an extended multi-year period, hence one record that spans multiple years. On the other hand, we actually have a case where a Harris's Sparrow was banded in a yard during the winter and then returned for two more winters, so we know it was the same bird. However, we have still treated this case as three records, one for each of the winters. A single record that spans three years wouldn't really describe the conditions this returning bird. I guess a better way to handle this would be to have one master record, with three daughter records, but I am not prepared to implement this (from a data processing standpoint), especially just for this single case. We recently just accepted several Black-bellied Whistling Duck records for Maryland. One flock of eight birds was reported on the Patuxent River separately by three people at three different locations. We circulated this as one report (my decision) and it was accepted as such ... no committee member voiced any concern that there might be two flocks of eight birds in this same area. A reasonable position, I think. A second record was accepted three days earlier for a flock of up to ten birds at a lake in Montgomery County, over 40 miles away. While some members commented in their ballots that this MAY be the same flock, no one could say for sure. Hence, two separate Maryland records were accepted for these sightings. As usual, the key activity here is to encourage comments from the voting members and be sure the comments are captured for posterity in the committee's archives for the benefit of any future research efforts. We have not run into the other cases that you describe, so we have no positions on these situations. I guess we might first have to deal with the nesting bird question when we find that a pair of Eurasian Collared-Doves has raised a brood; however, we are close to removing this species from our review list and I think that action would probably happen first (how's that for avoiding the issue?). Phil At 01:11 PM 12/09/2009, Joseph Morlan wrote: >I am interested in how different committees handle returning birds or the >same bird persisting over multiple years. > >In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >although it could apply to breeding birds as well. > >As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? > >Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >rejected because of the subsequent year's action? > >More problematic are similar looking birds showing up at widely different >localities. E.g. a Snow Bunting from San Diego is believed by some to be >the same individual seen weeks later in Monterey. How do other committees >handle probable same birds seen in different localities over different >dates? > >Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >single record? =================================================== 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: New Academia.edu feature for BRCF-L From: Richard Price <richardp AT ACADEMIA.EDU> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:35:02 -0800 Dear BRCF-L members, I wanted to tell the list about a new feature on Academia.edu. Academia.edu launched 12 months ago and now helps 300,000 academics a month answer the question 'who's researching what?' There are now 29 people on Academia.edu listing Ornithology as their research interest. We have built a dedicated page on Academia.edu for the mailing list: http://lists.academia.edu/See-members-of-BRCF-L This page will show you fellow members of BRCF-L already on Academia.edu. You can see their papers, research interests, and other information. Visit the link below, sign up with Academia.edu, and share your research interests with fellow members of BRCF-L. http://lists.academia.edu/See-members-of-BRCF-L Richard Dr. Richard Price, post-doc, Philosophy Dept, Oxford University. Founder of Academia.edu -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Returning Birds From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:11:43 -0800 I am interested in how different committees handle returning birds or the same bird persisting over multiple years. In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, although it could apply to breeding birds as well. As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically rejected because of the subsequent year's action? More problematic are similar looking birds showing up at widely different localities. E.g. a Snow Bunting from San Diego is believed by some to be the same individual seen weeks later in Monterey. How do other committees handle probable same birds seen in different localities over different dates? Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a single record? Thanks in advance. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:29:58 -0400 Greetings All I sent my original post just to Tony, but since we are all chiming in. Jewett et al (1953) stated "no records in recent years" for WA. In the late 1960s, a small population (of about 30) birds was detected in Skagit County, in nw WA. Numbers stayed at about this level for 10 years, but thereafter started to increase dramatically in w. Washington. Wintering numbers in nw. WA are probably now in the 3000-5000 range (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and King Counties) with a few hundred elsewhere in w. WA, more so in the n. than the s. I know in nw. Oregon, there is one location now getting tallies in the hundreds, but just very small numbers are found elsewhere.? There was an attempt to introduce Trumpeter Swans into e. WA at Turnbull NWR (there is no clear evidence the species ever bred in WA). This attempt failed, except one elderly female (I believe in her 30s, maybe 40) finally attracted a mate and raised young this year. There is a small introduced population in se. Oregon. All w. WA birds are of wild origin from the n. A small number also migrate through (with a few wintering) e. WA. Peak movement there is in March and November. In w. WA, a few arrive in Oct and linger into April, but most are present from Nov-Mar.? Cheers Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Chris Elphick <elphick AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:13:12 -0700 --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Martin Meyers wrote: Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Martin et al., Although my memory of the references is hazy, I believe that reintroduced is correct for Nevada.  Below is the text from the Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas, and I remember putting in quite a bit of time fact checking details for this species.  Linsdale is available electronically.  If anyone is interested, I think I have a complete pdf (but you can probably find it on-line). Chris Distribution The Trumpeter Swan was widespread in western and central North America prior to its dramatic range retraction and population declines. The bird was apparently native to the eastern half of the Great Basin, including eastern Nevada (Ryser 1985) and John Muir's reference to swans at Mono Lake in June 1875 (Wolfe 1979) suggests that they may have occurred in the western Great Basin as well. By the early twentieth century, however, the species was completely extirpated from the state (see Linsdale 1936).  Trumpeter swans were reintroduced during the 1940s and 1950s, when birds were transplanted from Montana to the Ruby Valley (Banko 1960). Both Banko (1960) and Ryser (1985) provided substantial detail on this reintroduction project, and Alcorn (1988) gives a fragmentary record of known occurrences (of migrants or winterers) elsewhere in the state.   Trumpeter Swans continue to breed at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, but have not spread elsewhere in the state.  Two incidental records from the Ruby Valley were received during the atlas project.  Both records were of confirmed breeders in freshwater marshes.  The Ruby Valley breeders are part of a growing, but still highly disjunct, population of Trumpeter Swans in western North America. Beyond the state borders, the nearest breeding populations are in southern Oregon and Idaho (Mitchell 1994, Contreras 1999, Adamus et al. 2001). Chris Elphick Storrs, CT elphick AT sbcglobal.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:18:26 -0500 Since I'm on the road for the next few weeks and don't have access to all of my resources, this will be less complete than I'd like, but I think I can provide at least some information on the Trumpeter Swan situation in Nevada. We have an introduced population (in the Ruby Valley in central Nevada) which has been present since the mid-1950's and is considered "established". The species is on our checklist based on that population. For the most part, the flock is sedentary -- these birds do not typically wander around the state although there is some discussion as to whether some have recently migrated north with Tundra Swans. The species is exempt from committee review in the Ruby Valley. Outside that area, the NBRC has no accepted records (with one non-accepted record, rejected on identification grounds.) Alcorn's Birds of Nevada lists a nesting pair on the Mary's River in 1974, which I'd suggest is almost certainly from the Ruby project. He also states that "...seven were reported at Carson City on 2/5/84." If those were correctly identified (a big "if" -- there is no documentation that I know of), they would probably be from a non-Ruby population, as Carson City is quite far from the Ruby Valley. Since "wild" Trumpeters occur occasionally in California (a reviewable rarity in the state), and many of those records are from the interior, it is pretty reasonable to assume that wild vagrants do occur in Nevada, and more birder coverage might turn one up every few years. (Some years ago, a banded bird from the Harriman (Idaho) population showed up in southeast California. One might assume it flew across some part of Nevada.) So, in direct answer to Tony's question, the multiple choice answer is probably "f: none of the above." Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Again, if I had my copy of Linsdale with me, I might modify my answer. I'll post again in a few weeks if I uncover any additional useful information when I get home. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Sheehan <lsheehan AT MAINE.RR.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:28:07 -0400 Hi Tony, Trumpeter Swan is included as a Hypothetical species on Maine's list.  Its inclusion is based upon an account of a sighting in Scarborough, Maine sometime prior to 1868 by a reliable reporter.  Palmer (1949) included this record in his Maine list. The Maine Bird Records Committee has yet to review this historical record. There are no recent reports for this species in Maine (30+ years). Cheers Bill Sheehan, Secretary Maine Bird Records Committee On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have > included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for > that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, > please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more > than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are  established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee > Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: "K. Dean Edwards" <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0400 The Tennessee Bird Records Committee has just completed a review of Trumpeter Swans so this is timely. TRUS has been on the state checklist with a status of 'Extirpated' based on sightings by JJ Audubon. There were a few reports of re-introduced birds in the early 2000s primarly in West TN: Jan 2001, a single banded bird found dead in Shelby Co, TN traced back to be a released bird from Iowa Jan 2002, a family group of 3 (adults banded) in Lauderdale Co determined to be 3rd and 4th generation wild-born birds from Wisconsin. Two of them were eventually shot by a hunter with the immature dying as a result. Jan 2003, a single bird in Sullivan Co (only one from East TN) that was traced to Ontario The Records Committee did not address any of these reports at the time. In Jan 2009, 2 birds were found in Dyer Co, TN, which were determined to be wild born birds from Wisconsin. This report was submitted to the Committee and we accepted it in our spring round of voting based on the birds being wild-born and the Wisconsin Records Committee treating the re-introduced population there as 'established'. So using your notation... for TN, b - historic (nonbreeding) records but native population extirpated e - migrants/winter residents from re-introduced populations Dean Edwards Secretary/Chair, Tennessee Bird Records Committee On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:40:35 -0400 The FOSRC recently had a Trumpeter Swan record (photograph). We do not have any historical records. Here is the synopsis from our Minutes: This adult with its head plumage stained rusty shows the distinct features of Trumpeter Swan, such as the long, all black, bill with a straight culmen, the straight angular border to the base of the upper mandible (opposed to vertical or convex border of the Tundra Swan, C. columbianus), and the entire inclusion of the eye within the facial skin (Pyle 2008). The status of Trumpeter Swans in eastern North America is not settled however. In the past few decades, birds have been introduced into the Great Lakes region, with breeding in that area. Vagrant birds, presumably from these reintroduced populations, have shown up in several states along the east coast, but not all records committees (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina) have considered the populations sufficiently established to add the species to their official state lists. Other records committees (e.g., North Carolina) have apparently regarded them as vagrants from established populations. The Maryland Records Committee considered a pre-1950 record a wild vagrant, but recent birds were not from established populations. The FOSRC accepted the identification of the Okeechobee Co. bird as a Trumpeter Swan, but did not accept that it was from an established population. The Committee would like to see more widespread acceptance that populations in the northeast are established before accepting the species to the Florida list. In addition, I think that to consider the populations established, they would have to meet the FOSRC definition of an established population, which can be found in Appendix A of our Rules and Procedures (see http://www.fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/RulesAndProcedures.aspx). One point is that the populations must be stabilized/growing by natural reproduction. Are Trumpeter Swans still being reintroduced in the Great Lakes region? Andy -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:34:14 -0500 Dear Tony, In Texas we have a somewhat convoluted situation. We have come to a resolution as far as state records are concerned that is somewhat unsatisfactory, but without collecting birds I do not know any other solution. 1) We have one record of a wire strike bird that was banded in Wyoming in the nest (specimen at Texas Tech University). This bird was picked up in the western Panhandle. 2) We have five occurrences of birds from Minnesota and Iowa with neck collars that have been documented (not considered state records) 3) We have five records of unmarked birds since 2000 (three from the Panhandle, one from Lubbock, one on the upper coast) that have been accepted as state records 4) We have a record of an unmarked bird from Falcon Dam from prior to the reintroduction/introduction projects in the Midwest (accepted as a state record) There is no way to know if the unmarked birds from nw. Texas since 2000 came from the northwest or from the Midwest because by then Minnesota and Wisconsin (at least) had quit marking birds. As a result, the TBRC decided to accept records of unmarked birds as valid state records. Unlike what Bill describes in Ohio, these few birds (most records involve one or two birds) are found on a small lake and they behave like wintering Tundra Swans, so there is no behavioral or other clues as to origin. The neck-collared birds mentioned above were found in the Panhandle and eastward across nc. Texas which raises the possibility that some (or all) of these birds came from those populations. I have thought Texas would have seen an influx of those birds by now, but since they do not migrate as expected perhaps the recent records are all from the natural population in the Northwest. As is the case in Louisiana, Trumpeter Swan is reported to have wintered on the Texas Coast in the late 1800's and early 1900's but there is no physical evidence to support that claim. Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm ________________________________ From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony White Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:31 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Trumpeter Swans Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:15:39 -0400 Bill and all, At least for all (or almost all) of the East, the Trumpeter Swan situation can easily be filed into two distinct categories: 1--Wild birds have been extirpated for a very long time (100+ years). State/provincial records committees can and should review whatever few records exist, if they are based on extant specimens. The only hope of proving that a bird from the west has wandered to the east in modern times would be via a band recovery (ie. salvaged by a hunter or whatever) proving that the bird originated from wild/native populations in the west. 2--Introduced population (if they remain established) should now be treated in a vein similar to Mute Swan. They are an introduced (or re-introduced) species. I note that each state/province is struggling with the issue in deciding if the species is now established in their area as an introduced species. If introduction programs have now stopped, a viewpoint should be established as to if these introduced populations AS A WHOLE have been successful (rather than each state/province struggling with the idea). Cheers, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Bill Whan writes: > Tony-- > In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state > list based > only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the > most > recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear > to > mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of > wild > trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have > been > one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable > historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or > provinces to > the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, > despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run > "reintroduction" projects. > We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. > We do see > swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others > from > nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they > eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned > the > practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records > is > becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no > long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our > region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or > geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims > that > such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would > require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received > documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only > discernible > regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly > irregular > movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial > feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such > movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the > > contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles > east > to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see > trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water > freezes at > a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years > ago. > Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of > > fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often > noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban > > park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. > Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. > I wonder if any records committee in this region has > received a report > of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding > population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in > their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in > some > odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of > monk > parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in > determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. > I > believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) > there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in > our > state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) > the > new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral > repertoires > (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild > populations; > 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five > years > of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of > independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of > > population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant > to > consider establishment. > Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have > survived, > though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some > > decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the > mute > swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to > regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local > phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same > criteria > we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is > my > own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this > detail. > Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee > received > acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred > > here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its > fairly > recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't > know, > of course. > This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some > information > and argument for further thought is available on a web site put > together > by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at > http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html > I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" > projects > are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for > acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate > > wild behaviors. > I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear > from others > on this vexed topic. > Bill Whan > Columbus, OH > > p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The > history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, > really > hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the > status of so many seemingly contradictory records. > > > Tony White wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states > > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces > > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the > following > > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. > Wild > > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > > established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.com > > > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > > Committee Forum archives: > > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Whan <billwhan AT COLUMBUS.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Tony-- In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state list based only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the most recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear to mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of wild trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have been one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or provinces to the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run "reintroduction" projects. We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. We do see swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others from nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned the practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records is becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims that such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only discernible regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly irregular movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles east to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water freezes at a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years ago. Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. I wonder if any records committee in this region has received a report of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in some odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of monk parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. I believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in our state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) the new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral repertoires (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild populations; 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five years of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant to consider establishment. Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have survived, though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the mute swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same criteria we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is my own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this detail. Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee received acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its fairly recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't know, of course. This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some information and argument for further thought is available on a web site put together by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" projects are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate wild behaviors. I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear from others on this vexed topic. Bill Whan Columbus, OH p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, really hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the status of so many seemingly contradictory records. Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.com > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Donna Dittmann <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:43:02 -0500 Tony, There is a brief summation of the Louisiana situation in our most recent newsletter: http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/newsletter2009.pdf. We have not yet re-addressed its status on our State List. Donna Donna L. Dittmann LBRC, Secretary On 9/17/09 6:31 PM, "Tony White" wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included > the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that > inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell > me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can > apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee > Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:12:06 -0400 Hi Tony: MD and DC status is below. Phil At 07:31 PM 09/17/2009, Tony White wrote: >Hi all, > >I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states >and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces >have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the >basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter >Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the >following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. >a. Continuing presence of wild birds. MD/DC - No >b. Based on historical records only. MD - Yes, accepted onto the Official MD List as an extripated species based on historical descriptions of the species on the lower Potomac River in the 1700s. DC - Not on the official list. >c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. MD/DC - No >d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. MD - ??? A number of unbanded Trumpeters have been recorded in the state, including family groups. Provenance unknown. DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the >state or province. MD - Yes, from neck band identification (Ontario reintroduction population). DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >f. Other reasons (please explain). MD - The MD/DCRC has a batch of MD Trumpeter Swan reports from over the years that have been held as one of our "problem species." Now that neck banded birds have been recorded, we plan to soon circulate the entire batch, along with the official status of the species in other Eastern states/provinces and try to arrive at a determination of the current status of this species in MD. >Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to >share the results of this inquiry with others. > >Best wishes, > >Tony White >spindalis AT aol.com =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:24:01 -0500 See responses below. Trumpeter Swan is now fully accepted in Missouri as a current wild species (as opposed to an historical memory), but this took us a while because we waited until we felt that the introduced populations in MN and WI, from which our wintering birds come, were well established and self-sustaining. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and > what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has > Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of > the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a > single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. No, if wild means from original, natural populations. > b. Based on historical records only. Not "only,", but a strong historical record: breeding bird until at least 1850; transient until 1900 (last record, per Robbins and Easterla, Birds of Missouri) > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. No, not as breeding birds. Very recent breeding record may have involved birds from non-established populations to our north. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. No. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the > state or province. Yes, mainly from MN and WI. Those breeding populations are deemed to be established, and so we have accepted our wintering birds as such. The largest group, at Riverlands Migratory Bird Sanctuary in the St. Louis area, has grown to over 350, and small numbers now occur with increasing frequency elsewhere around the state. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:53:04 -0400 ONTARIO STATUS: a. Continuing presence of wild birds. ONTARIO: no; former migrant and probable breeders extirpated by 1884. b. Based on historical records only. ONTARIO: no, see below c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. ONTARIO: In southern Ontario a release program began in 1982, which I believe stopped a few years ago. They are now considered to be established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: No. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: Birds occasionally seen (and nesting?) in northern Ontario COULD be from the southern Ontario introductions, but more likely they originate from other nearby introduction programmes such as maybe Minnesota or Wisconsin? f. Other reasons (please explain). ONTARIO: There has been some recent literature published on the subject in Ontario, I would suggest contacting Glenn Coady (glenn_coady AT hotmail.com). Bill Whan in Ohio has also published extensively on the subject. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Trumpeter Swans From: Tony White <spindalis AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:31:15 -0400 Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Charles Swift <chaetura AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:26:44 -0700 I just wanted to echo Martin Meyers recent comments (which I discussed with him at the recent WFO mtg in Boise). Idaho has a very small population (1.5 million) with a small birding community. One of our voting members lives in La Grande, OR (he also happens to be the NAB regional editor for Idaho & w. MT) and another recent member and formerly our web master lives in Alaska. Needless to say we have nothing in our bylaws about residency requirements. We are hard-pressed to find even potential members so we can have some periodic rotation of new people into the committee - but we are trying! thanks, Charles. -- Charles Swift Moscow, ID chaetura AT gmail.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:31:46 -0500 The Louisiana Bird Records Committee policy with regards to committee membership: B.        Qualifications. Anyone is eligible to become a Member if, in the estimation of the existing Members, that person has demonstrated the ability to logically and objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the LBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Louisiana Ornithological Society. There is no official residency requirement in our Bylaws, however we encountered/anticipated future record circulation problems with members who moved out of state or country. This of course if minimized now with electronic circulation, but regardless, the LBRC policy has for years been that members who plan to leave the state resign from the committee. Personally, I think that from a Louisiana observer's perspective, it is better PR for the LBRC to only enlist membership from individuals who reside in the state, and thus are active contributors to the local process. Donna Dittmann, LBRC Secretary On 9/3/09 10:10 PM, "Martin Meyers" wrote: > The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over > as secretary in 2007, state: > > C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: > Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that > person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field > identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats > of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. > Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting > Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on > the committee is limited to two at any one time. > > At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San > Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a > Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition > to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) > > Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency > requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in > Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. > > Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very > small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership > is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want > people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why > one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the > people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that > portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that > public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) > > Martin > > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: "Paul A. Guris" <paul AT PAULAGICS.COM> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:33:24 -0400 I live in Pennsylvania and serve on the New Jersey Bird Records Committee. At least one other member is from New York. The bylaws state that any committee member shall be "knowledgeable regarding New Jersey birds and a competent field observer", so no residency requirement exists. There is, however, a requirement to make a certain number of our semi-annual meetings, which could make it logistically difficult for somebody to serve who was not within reasonable driving distance of the state. I've also served on the Pennsylvania Ornithological Records Committee in the past, but I don't know what their official policy is. When asked if I'd like to serve, I did tell them first that I spent more of my birding time in NJ than PA, in case they felt this was a disqualifier. I was told that this was fine, as my experience with coastal and seabirds would be helpful for the types of rarities that often appear in a non-coastal state like Pennsylvania. -PAG Paul A. Guris See Life Paulagics P.O. Box 161 Green Lane, PA 18054 www.paulagics.com 215-234-6805 paul AT paulagics.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:10:36 -0700 The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over as secretary in 2007, state: C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on the committee is limited to two at any one time. At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:34:51 -0500 BRFC Members, Like CA here in MS we only require that a member be in good standing in the state OS. Our bylaws state that one can be a member of the records committee if.... "in the estimation of the existing Voting Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability to objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the MBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Mississippi Ornithological Society". This works for us and we currently have a member on our committee that lived in MS for several years and now resides in Iowa. Gene Knight MS MBRC Chiar Oxford, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:19 AM Subject: BRC member residence? Folks, Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida panhandle. A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? Thanks, Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:26:07 -0500 As in California, Missouri BRC members are required to hold membership in the parent association, the Audubon Society of Missouri, but there is no residency requirement. We are left free to elect our own members from wherever. I can only recall one or two members, or potential members, who lived out of state (both Kansas), but they were familiar with Missouri and had done a lot of birding here. No current member is from out of state. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:19 AM, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > Folks, > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a > resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western > Florida panhandle. > > A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" > > Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > Thanks, > > Steve McConnell > ABRC Secretary > Hartselle, AL > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:23:08 -0700 On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > >Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? > California requires that committee members also be members in good standing of our parent organization (Western Field Ornithologists). Otherwise there is no residency requirement. If you have a strict residency requirement, members who move out of state before their term expires would have to be replaced as soon as they move. Currently such members may resign, but if they want to continue service until their term expires, they can. In most recent cases, members have chosen to continue serving. There are other potential issues, such as members who maintain a residence in one state or province but have another seasonal residence elsewhere. I might be wrong on this, but I think California recently elected a member (actually a former member who had moved out of California) from another state but who was in the process of moving back to California at the time of election. Otherwise, we normally chose from California residents. Maybe Martin will reply about the situation in Nevada. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Sept. 15 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:47:22 -0400 Greetings All The WBRC (that would be Washington, not Wyoming, Wilmington, nor World) members discussed this on several occasions, and opinions were fairly well split, but in the end, we always found someone in WA that we felt was quite suitable, negating any necessity to look elsewhere. Our parent organization, which has not really supported us in any way, recently dictated that all WBRC members had to be residents of WA AND active in the WA birding community. This means, leading field trips, writing for our state newsletter, etc.? To me, personally, it seems that the WBRC (or any BRC) is here to do a job, and therefore, anyone who would make a good BRC member in general (knowledgeable about bird ID, distribution, willingness to do research, etc....) and is well-familiarized with the avifauna (including status and distribution) of WA should be within consideration. There are a large number of excellent birders in Portland OR and Vancouver BC, basically within sight of WA, whom would make excellent WBRC members but are now excluded from consideration. This seems, to me, counter-productive to the underlying purpose of a BRC.? Best wishes Steven Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Alan Wormington To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2009 8:18 am Subject: Re: BRC member residence? Everyone, I live in a province (not a state) but will still respond to this question. No real reason why someone from outside a province / state could not serve on a rarities committee. Obviously the person would be highly qualified, otherwise that person would not get elected in the first place. But I do see one potential pitfall, and that being a perception problem. For those submitting reports to a committee, how would they feel if a record is rejected and one of the members lived out of province or state? It could potential generate some bad feelings. Other than that single situation, why not? Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 swmavocet AT AOL.COM writes: > > Folks, > > > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident > of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida > panhandle.?? > > > > A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" > > > > Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve McConnell > > ABRC Secretary > > Hartselle, AL > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:18:25 -0400 Everyone, I live in a province (not a state) but will still respond to this question. No real reason why someone from outside a province / state could not serve on a rarities committee. Obviously the person would be highly qualified, otherwise that person would not get elected in the first place. But I do see one potential pitfall, and that being a perception problem. For those submitting reports to a committee, how would they feel if a record is rejected and one of the members lived out of province or state? It could potential generate some bad feelings. Other than that single situation, why not? Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 swmavocet AT AOL.COM writes: > > Folks, > > > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident > of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida > panhandle.?? > > > > A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" > > > > Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve McConnell > > ABRC Secretary > > Hartselle, AL > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: BRC member residence? From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:19:45 -0400 Folks, Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida panhandle.?? A challenge to this was recently raised:??"why can't?otherwise qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird frequently in Alabama,??be considered as members?" Question:? What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? Thanks, Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: "North American Birds" now online on SORA From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:33:11 -0700 A colleague suggested I post this here. I noticed that the journal "North American Birds" is now online in searchable PDF format at: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/NAB/index.php Included are Volumes 27-61 from 1973 to 2008. I expect this will be an extremely important research tool for bird records committees. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Sept. 15 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: LBRC - new web updates From: Donna Dittmann <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:03 -0500 Dear Bird Records Committee Forum, Phil's post prompted me to update you with regards to the Louisiana Bird Records Committee website, which is accessed through the Louisiana Ornithological Society's webpage: http://losbird.org/ or directly: http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/lbrc.htm At our site you can see the LBRC's newsletters (now two), state and review lists, bylaws, pending reports, documentary photos, and previous reports of the committee (although I have to apologize the pdfs are not very good), etc. Corrections, suggestions, or improvements always appreciated. Donna L. Dittmann LBRC, Secretary On 6/28/09 8:33 PM, "Phil Davis" wrote: > MD Osprey, MD Birds, and BRCF-L: > > Due to some web technical difficulties, it's been > a while since we have posted any updates to the > MD/DC Records Committee web pages. A new batch of > PDF web products is now available. Here are the highlights and a summary: > > 1. Members. Since our last posting three members > have rotated off the committee and we thank them > very much for their service; they are: Tyler > Bell, Ellen Lawler, and Marcia Watson. The three > new members that were elected to the committee > for three-year terms are: Gwen Brewer (Charles > County), Mikey Lutmerding (Prince George's and > Allegany Counties), and Dave Ziolkowski (Harford County). > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcmembers.pdf > > 2. Review Lists. The latest MD and DC review lists are posted here ... > > MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf > > 3. Official Lists. The current Official Lists of > the Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia are posted here ... > > MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf > > 4. MD/DCRC Databases. Updates to the abridged > versions of the MD/DCRC databases of reports and records are here ... > > MD > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf > (a very large document - you can search it but > you probably do not want to print it!) > DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf > > 5. Minutes of the MD/DCRC 2009 Annual Meeting and > Annual Business Report. This detailed document can be found here ... > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2009.pdf > > 6. Skins Workshop Minutes. Species accounts, with > photographs, of taxa studied during the MD/DCRC > Skins Workshops at the Smithsonian Institution > for 2008 and 2009 have been posted: > > The 2008 report covers the following taxa: > Nelsonıs Sharp-tailed Sparrows ­ all 3 > subspecies; Broad-tailed, Calliope, Allenıs and > Rufous Hummingbird ­ including the 2004 MD Calliope > specimen; California Gulls ­ all ages; > remeasurement and photographs of the 1842 DC > Leachıs Storm-Petrel specimens: and measurement > and photographs of the circa 1842 DC Long-billed > Curlew skull skeleton specimen, comparing it with a Eurasian Curlew skull. > > 2008 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2008.pdf > > The 2009 report covers the following taxa: DC > Band-rumped Storm Petrels - in preparation for a > future split, Eastern/Western Meadowlarks; Lark > Bunting winter plumages; Mountain/Eastern > Bluebirds; Thayer's/Kumlien's Gull; and Western/EasternWood Pewee. > > 2009 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2009.pdf > > 7. The updated MD/DCRC index of identification > and reference articles can be found here ... > > http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf > (another large document - again, you probably do not want to print it!) > > Hope this helps ... > > Phil > > =================================================== > Phil Davis, Secretary > MD/DC Records Committee > 2549 Vale Court > Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA > 301-261-0184 > mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com > > MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html > =================================================== > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:33:18 -0400 MD Osprey, MD Birds, and BRCF-L: Due to some web technical difficulties, it's been a while since we have posted any updates to the MD/DC Records Committee web pages. A new batch of PDF web products is now available. Here are the highlights and a summary: 1. Members. Since our last posting three members have rotated off the committee and we thank them very much for their service; they are: Tyler Bell, Ellen Lawler, and Marcia Watson. The three new members that were elected to the committee for three-year terms are: Gwen Brewer (Charles County), Mikey Lutmerding (Prince George's and Allegany Counties), and Dave Ziolkowski (Harford County). http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcmembers.pdf 2. Review Lists. The latest MD and DC review lists are posted here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf 3. Official Lists. The current Official Lists of the Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia are posted here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf 4. MD/DCRC Databases. Updates to the abridged versions of the MD/DCRC databases of reports and records are here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf (a very large document - you can search it but you probably do not want to print it!) DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf 5. Minutes of the MD/DCRC 2009 Annual Meeting and Annual Business Report. This detailed document can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2009.pdf 6. Skins Workshop Minutes. Species accounts, with photographs, of taxa studied during the MD/DCRC Skins Workshops at the Smithsonian Institution for 2008 and 2009 have been posted: The 2008 report covers the following taxa: Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrows – all 3 subspecies; Broad-tailed, Calliope, Allen’s and Rufous Hummingbird – including the 2004 MD Calliope specimen; California Gulls – all ages; remeasurement and photographs of the 1842 DC Leach’s Storm-Petrel specimens: and measurement and photographs of the circa 1842 DC Long-billed Curlew skull skeleton specimen, comparing it with a Eurasian Curlew skull. 2008 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2008.pdf The 2009 report covers the following taxa: DC Band-rumped Storm Petrels - in preparation for a future split, Eastern/Western Meadowlarks; Lark Bunting winter plumages; Mountain/Eastern Bluebirds; Thayer's/Kumlien's Gull; and Western/EasternWood Pewee. 2009 http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2009.pdf 7. The updated MD/DCRC index of identification and reference articles can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf (another large document - again, you probably do not want to print it!) Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:10:58 -0700 Sorry. Bill is certainly correct -- I should not have included "midwest" in my question. I really meant to aim the question at those states and provinces for which Gray-cheeked Thrush is a reviewable rarity, which probably means the far west (Alaska exempt, of course), inter-mountain west, and, perhaps, some or all of the Rocky Mountain west. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Rowe" To: "Martin Meyers" Cc: Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 7:24 PM Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west > Martin: > > Not sure which states you mean by mid-western. In Missouri, Gray- cheeked > Thrush is a fairly common migrant, and there is no record of Bicknell's, > nor do I know of a record in any of the states that border us. All > records of this type are presumed Gray-cheeked. To claim a Bicknell's > here might require a specimen. > > Bill Rowe > St. Louis, MO > > > > On May 9, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > >> I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid- >> western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. Since >> it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or photographed records, >> for that matter) can be safely differentiated from Bicknell's Thrush, >> what do you do with a record that seems acceptable as a Gray-cheeked >> "type" but lacks sufficient information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare >> Bird of California", the publication by the California committee, states >> that, "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North >> America." >> >> Martin >> >> -- >> Martin Meyers, Secretary >> Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) >> email: nbrc AT gbbo.org >> website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html >> > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 21:24:46 -0500 Martin: Not sure which states you mean by mid-western. In Missouri, Gray- cheeked Thrush is a fairly common migrant, and there is no record of Bicknell's, nor do I know of a record in any of the states that border us. All records of this type are presumed Gray-cheeked. To claim a Bicknell's here might require a specimen. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On May 9, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid- > western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. > Since it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or > photographed records, for that matter) can be safely differentiated > from Bicknell's Thrush, what do you do with a record that seems > acceptable as a Gray-cheeked "type" but lacks sufficient > information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare Bird of California", > the publication by the California committee, states that, > "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North > America." > > Martin > > -- > Martin Meyers, Secretary > Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: How to deal with Gray-cheeked Thrush records in the west From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 00:04:24 -0500 I am curious about the approach taken by various western (and mid-western) committees regarding submissions for Gray-cheeked Thrush. Since it seems very unlikely that most sight records (or photographed records, for that matter) can be safely differentiated from Bicknell's Thrush, what do you do with a record that seems acceptable as a Gray-cheeked "type" but lacks sufficient information to eliminate Bicknell's? "Rare Bird of California", the publication by the California committee, states that, "Bicknell's has yet to be recorded in central or western North America." Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:01:49 -0400 Greetings All Martin's summary/response really is quite good. I would like to highlight some points, mostly those brought up by Joe Morlan. To some extent, this returns us to a discussion of a year or so ago, so I don't know how far it is worth pursuing. It is hard to over-estimate the impact of a photo, or even a drawing, on reviewers. These seem to entrance us (I am guilty as well) whereas analysis of a written description seems so much less compelling/impelling.?Like Joe, I have (multiple times) seen written data almost totally ignored whilst fuzzy distant photos are analysed pixel-by-pixel. And, so, I do agree that photo-only records of rather obvious?species/plumages, particularly ones that are semi-regular (barely on review list) seems acceptable (this statement assumes date, location, AND observer), the cry and hew for written descriptions falls increasingly on deaf ears as observers/reporters find their written notes relatively ignored. I think it is encumbent on us as a community to try to educate observers in our state/province on HOW to document birds (I once saw a splendid example of this, on Joe's website, I believe) -- and then we need to force ourselves (me included) to really give some weight to a written description (especially from a known and trusted observer). And as a personal bug-a-boo... Drawings. These tend to have the same emotional impact as an actual photos, and I find myself having to force myself to look at the drawing and think, "What could the observer actually have seen at the stated, distance, duration of observation, etc." Has the artist noted what he/she is certain of, and what was drawn in just so the bird doesn't have blank spaces. Many drawings are honest, but there is this inherent need to make it a complete bird that is hard to resist, and unless the observation prolonged and the drawing done at (or quite close) to the time of observation, the room for bias sneaking in is at least as high as that in a written description. Yet... The impact on reviewers tends to be far more potent than a well-written description. This is not said to discourage drawings, but to implore reviewers to view them as a visual form of a written description, not as something inherently more accurate or "real." Cheers Steven Mlodinow -----Original Message----- From: Martin Meyers To: Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details First, I want to thank all of you who responded (via the list and via some personal communications) to my questions about term limits. Your opinions have been very helpful.? ? Now, as to photos...? ? This is a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit. The Nevada committee will review records that consist of as little as a photo with location, date, species name, and photographer's name. Generally, less that that would be unacceptable, although on one occasion, we even reviewed a record where the observer/photographer preferred to remain anonymous. We received the photo, with date, location, and species name from a friend of the observer -- the person who forwarded the photo happened to be a former committee member, which helped a bit. I was pretty uncomfortable with that one, but we reviewed it anyway (and it was accepted).? ? If a single photo is absolutely diagnostic (a male Hooded Warbler), we'll probably endorse the record. Otherwise, multiple photos would probably be necessary. But assuming the photo(s) convince the committee members that the bird is what it is purported to be, and there is no reason to suspect some sort of accidental or intentional misrepresentation as to location/date, the record will almost certainly be accepted.? ? Very brief digression:? I think the issue of intentional manipulation of digital photos to make them into something they are not is, for the most part, a red herring in the discussion. (Not in THIS discussion -- that has not been an issue raised in the current thread.) But I'd just suggest that if people are going to intentionally lie, it's even easier to lie in a written description than in a manipulation of a photo.? ? Back to the topic at hand:? Of course, we'd much prefer some additional written documentation, and I try to get it if possible, but it is not always possible. However, I actually prefer NOT to get an extensive written description of the bird, when that description consists entirely of details readily observable in (and rather obviously written from) the photo(s). What I ask for when I contact the submitter is any information not readily available in the photo. I suggest that vocalizations, behavior, weather conditions, habitat, etc. would be very helpful to the committee's task and to the eventual archived collection of data. Also that any observed descriptive details which do not show up in the photos would be very welcome. And I always ask about how they arrived at the identification, i.e., how similar species were eliminated.? ? But more often than not, I get very little, if any, additional information.? ? This leaves what I think is a relevant question. Just what is it that we, as records committees, are trying to accomplish? If the primary (although not the only) purpose is to try to gain a better understanding of what species visit our state or province, how often, when, and where, then I can't come up with any reason that a diagnostic photo (with the date and location) should be unwelcome as a submission.? ? So I'm certainly not saying we should be suggesting to our "audience" that all we want is photos. And, conversely, I do think it's very important to communicate to the birding public that photos are NOT necessary -- that many records receive committee endorsement based on well-written, thorough descriptions. I regularly hear from people I've contacted (perhaps as a result of a listserv post) that they didn't, or won't, submit the sighting to the committee because they "didn't get a picture."? ? In short, I'd argue that we should encourage detailed written documentation, but we should be darned happy with a couple of good photos with the listed required information.? ? I sometimes wonder (uh, oh, this is going to sound controversial, and I don't want to start anything like that) whether some of the preferences expressed for written description aren't based, at least a little, on "that's the way we've always done it". And while I'm a bit of a Luddite on a number of things, digital photography is not one of those things. The fact that many more birders have cameras available while birding has been an incredible boon for what it is we (as committees) are trying to accomplish. (And don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that if there wasn't a dead "bird in the hand".. well, enough said.)? ? Martin? ----------------------------------------------? Martin Meyers? Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee? website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc? email: nbrc AT gbbo.org? ? --------------------------------------------------? Bird Records Committee Forum archives:? http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html? -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Chuck Otte <cotte AT KSU.EDU> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:43:17 -0500 What Kansas has on their website for submissions is that a good photography augments a well written report, but still doesn't replace it. With that said, we still have people that send in very definitivie photos with nominal documentation. Informally, we have decided that as long as we have date, place, observers and photographer, we'll go ahead and accept it. But some photos have obviously not been as definitive as the submitter thought they were. We've run them through a vote and when they are not accepted, the secretary (me) get's to explain that the photo(s) were not sufficient to verify identify of the bird and without further documentation, i.e. a well written description, the committee had no choice but to not accept it. Chuck ----- Chuck Otte cotte AT ksu.edu County Extension Agent, Ag & Natural Resources Geary County Extension Office, PO BOX 28 785-238-4161 Junction City, Kansas 66441-0028 FAX 785-238-7166 http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/geary -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Photos only and term limits From: BlkVulture AT AOL.COM Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:53:10 EDT Hola, Figured I would kill two birds with one email. I've been on the Virginia records committee for seven years or so, and the topic of photo-only documentation has been discussed internally within our committee (VARCOM). Within our review process, we can accept birds at various levels, which I presume many other committees can do as well. Our "Category One" acceptance if for birds with some sort of physical documentation. That could include video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, or a specimen. I'm probably forgetting something in that category as well. For us, nearly all of these birds have been photographed. Some of these images only come with essentially demographic information, such as date, photographer, location, et cetera. "Category Two" is reserved for birds with only written details. Species that have only been accepted as Category Two are listed as hypothetical on the state list that VARCOM and our governing body, the Virginia Society of Ornithology, maintain. We have other categories, but they deal with provenance, historic, and other things not currently being discussed. During the review process, some committee members have objected to these image submissions with less-than-pithy details, and have actually not accepted them in the first round of voting solely because of the lack of a written description. I don't know if I agree with this approach. While having thorough written documentation is ideal, and I don't mean to sound like a smart ass here, but a picture can be worth a thousand words. A swallow-tailed kite that is well-photographed is an easy bird for me to accept with photos only. Many other birds fit that bill as well. Clearly there is room for error with image-only submissions, and a couple issues have been mentioned during this thread. In those cases, hopefully prudence would triumph and those birds would not get accepted. Where we also have some gray area is whether an image always needs to stand alone, or whether a marginal image with solid written details can be accepted as Category One. That seems a bit of the reverse of images lacking solid written documentation not being accepted for various reasons. As for term limits, VARCOM has them for voting members, but not for the non-voting secretary and chair. We are a committee of seven, and each of our terms is four years. We must rotate off the committee for at least one year before being eligible to be put back on. We loosely try to represent the various regions of the state, though that is not formal policy, nor is it always adhered to. Our secretary and chair are one year terms, and eligible for reelection until the end of time. Cheers, Todd --------------------------------- Todd Michael Day Jeffersonton, Virginia Culpeper County, USA blkvulture AT aol.com --------------------------------- **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:40:25 -0500 Thanks Martin and all that have put their two cents in about this issue, You are exactly right in your comments Martin. I hasn't been long that a record was a detailed report which non of us ever cherished writing but it was the only thing that could be done to verify our rare sightings. AND if by chance a photo was submitted along with it came a written report. That written report was required for more than one reason, one being that it told the story about the sighting as well as gave a detailed description of the bird. Also, in those not so far away days it stood up by itself just in case the photo/s were lost, damaged or deterioated in time. NOW, with all the archival CD's available to store our photos will these photos be around for eternity to represent this record? Or should we not worry about this happeneing and let the next committe chairs/secretarys handle the dilema? Gene Knight MBRC Chair Oxford, MS -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:00:23 -0700 First, I want to thank all of you who responded (via the list and via some personal communications) to my questions about term limits. Your opinions have been very helpful. Now, as to photos... This is a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit. The Nevada committee will review records that consist of as little as a photo with location, date, species name, and photographer's name. Generally, less that that would be unacceptable, although on one occasion, we even reviewed a record where the observer/photographer preferred to remain anonymous. We received the photo, with date, location, and species name from a friend of the observer -- the person who forwarded the photo happened to be a former committee member, which helped a bit. I was pretty uncomfortable with that one, but we reviewed it anyway (and it was accepted). If a single photo is absolutely diagnostic (a male Hooded Warbler), we'll probably endorse the record. Otherwise, multiple photos would probably be necessary. But assuming the photo(s) convince the committee members that the bird is what it is purported to be, and there is no reason to suspect some sort of accidental or intentional misrepresentation as to location/date, the record will almost certainly be accepted. Very brief digression: I think the issue of intentional manipulation of digital photos to make them into something they are not is, for the most part, a red herring in the discussion. (Not in THIS discussion -- that has not been an issue raised in the current thread.) But I'd just suggest that if people are going to intentionally lie, it's even easier to lie in a written description than in a manipulation of a photo. Back to the topic at hand: Of course, we'd much prefer some additional written documentation, and I try to get it if possible, but it is not always possible. However, I actually prefer NOT to get an extensive written description of the bird, when that description consists entirely of details readily observable in (and rather obviously written from) the photo(s). What I ask for when I contact the submitter is any information not readily available in the photo. I suggest that vocalizations, behavior, weather conditions, habitat, etc. would be very helpful to the committee's task and to the eventual archived collection of data. Also that any observed descriptive details which do not show up in the photos would be very welcome. And I always ask about how they arrived at the identification, i.e., how similar species were eliminated. But more often than not, I get very little, if any, additional information. This leaves what I think is a relevant question. Just what is it that we, as records committees, are trying to accomplish? If the primary (although not the only) purpose is to try to gain a better understanding of what species visit our state or province, how often, when, and where, then I can't come up with any reason that a diagnostic photo (with the date and location) should be unwelcome as a submission. So I'm certainly not saying we should be suggesting to our "audience" that all we want is photos. And, conversely, I do think it's very important to communicate to the birding public that photos are NOT necessary -- that many records receive committee endorsement based on well-written, thorough descriptions. I regularly hear from people I've contacted (perhaps as a result of a listserv post) that they didn't, or won't, submit the sighting to the committee because they "didn't get a picture." In short, I'd argue that we should encourage detailed written documentation, but we should be darned happy with a couple of good photos with the listed required information. I sometimes wonder (uh, oh, this is going to sound controversial, and I don't want to start anything like that) whether some of the preferences expressed for written description aren't based, at least a little, on "that's the way we've always done it". And while I'm a bit of a Luddite on a number of things, digital photography is not one of those things. The fact that many more birders have cameras available while birding has been an incredible boon for what it is we (as committees) are trying to accomplish. (And don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that if there wasn't a dead "bird in the hand".. well, enough said.) Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:48:11 -0400 Everyone, I don't think one should quibble as to the format of a record. As long as one has the basic info re date, location, observer, etc., its obviously enough to process and publish the record. Even if this information was not obtained directly from the actual photographer. In a similar vein, what if a rare specimen were dropped off at your local museum but there was no corresponding Rare Bird Report, just date, location and finder written on a specimen label or a scrap of paper? As long as you have confidence in the info received (even though scant) its obviously enough to process the record. Here in Ontario photographers often post their rarity shots on the OFO web site. I know the Secretary in the past regularly contacted the photographer for both permission and additional details, but often got poor responses or no responses. More recently it was decided that the OBRC Secretary could just lift the photos off the site at will, since the OBRC is a committee of OFO. Thus some records are "photo only" but when circulated they always have the basic info re location, date, etc., which is not only easy to obtain (because we already know about the record), but the photos on the web site already have such labelling. "Photos only" with no documentation is a trend that I suspect will continue to expand in the future. I have found that many photographers will go to great lengths to display or promote their "fabulous" photos, but they are not necessarily inclined to properly document the record. They're just not interested. Another typical scenario is that the actual finder of the bird does not submit a Rare Bird Report, but various photographers come along and obtain numerous photos of the bird. Then the finder says "lots of photos were taken" so no need to write a Rare Bird Report. And the photographers will say "but I'm not the finder of the bird." Not an uncommon situation, and not much you can do about it. Cheers, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:25:57 -0600 Cliff and Lisa Weisse writes: > I'll take this question a step further. In Idaho we have several > good > photos of Review Species but some include no written report at all. > I'm > curious if other states regard a photo as a record? If so what are > the > minimum required details? Date, location, name of > photographer/observer, etc. Is a written report required by any > BRCs? Thanks in advance. > > Cliff > > knights wrote: > > BRCF Members, > > > > I am new to this forum and have recently been elected to the Chair > > > position of the MS Bird Records Committee. I have been a Member > for > > years since the MBRC was organized. Getting full documentation on > a > > rare bird has always been a task no matter what state is > represented. > > Now that the latest technology in digital cameras has dominated > the > > documentation aspect of keeping records my question is this. What > are > > other state's doing to compensate this lack of written > documentation > > that should accompany a photo? Are we giving in to the situation > and > > forgetting where we started years ago demanding all the little > > pertinent details? And are we tweeking our defintions of a record > to > > compensate the situation? > > > > Thanks for any comments on this subject? I have read the thread > back > > in July 2007 that addressed some of this but haven't seen what the > > > record committees around the US are doing if anything. > > > > > > Gene Knight > > MBRC Chair > > Oxford, MS > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > > Committee Forum archives: > > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -- > Cliff and Lisa Weisse > Island Park, Idaho > cliffandlisa AT octobersetters.com > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:55:18 -0400 This is one of the trickier issues for current record committees to contend with, especially since photos of review species can be posted on the internet but never submitted to the RCs. In Florida, we require at least a minimal submission. If a photos of a review species are posted, but not submitted to the RC, the Committee, usually the Secretary, contacts photographer and asks if the photographer can submit the photo for the RC to assess. I then give them the options: an online FOSRC form; submit the photos by email without the form, or, minimally, give us permission to assess the online photo. In this way we have a person who is acknowledging that the photo was taken at the time and place indicated. I make pleas to the list serves about 2x/year requesting submission of review species, and list individual birds for which we have not received submissions. I also try to make it known that submissions with details are more likely to be accepted. Andy Kratter Secretary, FOSRC Cliff and Lisa Weisse wrote: > I'll take this question a step further. In Idaho we have several good > photos of Review Species but some include no written report at all. > I'm curious if other states regard a photo as a record? If so what > are the minimum required details? Date, location, name of > photographer/observer, etc. Is a written report required by any > BRCs? Thanks in advance. > > Cliff > > knights wrote: >> BRCF Members, >> >> I am new to this forum and have recently been elected to the Chair >> position of the MS Bird Records Committee. I have been a Member for >> years since the MBRC was organized. Getting full documentation on a >> rare bird has always been a task no matter what state is represented. >> Now that the latest technology in digital cameras has dominated the >> documentation aspect of keeping records my question is this. What are >> other state's doing to compensate this lack of written documentation >> that should accompany a photo? Are we giving in to the situation and >> forgetting where we started years ago demanding all the little >> pertinent details? And are we tweeking our defintions of a record to >> compensate the situation? >> >> Thanks for any comments on this subject? I have read the thread back >> in July 2007 that addressed some of this but haven't seen what the >> record committees around the US are doing if anything. >> >> >> Gene Knight >> MBRC Chair >> Oxford, MS >> -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records >> Committee Forum archives: >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -- > Cliff and Lisa Weisse > Island Park, Idaho > cliffandlisa AT octobersetters.com > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:38:49 -0700 On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:52 -0500, knights wrote: >What are other state's doing to compensate this lack of written documentation that should accompany a photo? Other than urging additional written description be submitted, I'm not sure there's much a committee can do to change the nature of their contributions. However, I think the voting process can be used to encourage or discourage certain types of documentation. As far as California goes, I would say that members are not happy with "photo only" documentation. We require a minimum of additional information including the name of the observer, the species, claimed, the date and the location. Even with a minimum of additional written information, voting members may be wary of records documented only by a single photo. There are a number of infamous cases where a single photo was misleading enough that it nearly passed committee review when it should not have. Having been burned by misleading photos in the past, members may be extra-cautious when there is little or no additional documentation. On the other hand photos often tend to be given much more weight than extensive written descriptions. Lets face it. Photos are more compelling and usually easier to evaluate than feather-by-feather descriptions. Busy committee members may make their decision based solely on their interpretation of the photos while ignoring or giving minimal weight to the accompanying written description. From time to time I've seen this happen to the detriment of the decision-making process. In some cases, I believe the written documentation alone would have probably passed committee review, but because crappy or misleading photos were included with the documentation, the record failed. The discussion during circulation tends to focus on what members have said about the photos while the written description gets lost in the process. If we publicly deplore the lack of detailed written descriptions, we could encourage them by giving them more weight when photos are ambiguous or seem to contradict the written descriptions. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Mar 24 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Photographic documentation with no written details From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <CliffandLisa AT OCTOBERSETTERS.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:25:57 -0600 I'll take this question a step further. In Idaho we have several good photos of Review Species but some include no written report at all. I'm curious if other states regard a photo as a record? If so what are the minimum required details? Date, location, name of photographer/observer, etc. Is a written report required by any BRCs? Thanks in advance. Cliff knights wrote: > BRCF Members, > > I am new to this forum and have recently been elected to the Chair > position of the MS Bird Records Committee. I have been a Member for > years since the MBRC was organized. Getting full documentation on a > rare bird has always been a task no matter what state is represented. > Now that the latest technology in digital cameras has dominated the > documentation aspect of keeping records my question is this. What are > other state's doing to compensate this lack of written documentation > that should accompany a photo? Are we giving in to the situation and > forgetting where we started years ago demanding all the little > pertinent details? And are we tweeking our defintions of a record to > compensate the situation? > > Thanks for any comments on this subject? I have read the thread back > in July 2007 that addressed some of this but haven't seen what the > record committees around the US are doing if anything. > > > Gene Knight > MBRC Chair > Oxford, MS > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -- Cliff and Lisa Weisse Island Park, Idaho cliffandlisa AT octobersetters.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Photographic documentation with no written details From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:52 -0500 BRCF Members, I am new to this forum and have recently been elected to the Chair position of the MS Bird Records Committee. I have been a Member for years since the MBRC was organized. Getting full documentation on a rare bird has always been a task no matter what state is represented. Now that the latest technology in digital cameras has dominated the documentation aspect of keeping records my question is this. What are other state's doing to compensate this lack of written documentation that should accompany a photo? Are we giving in to the situation and forgetting where we started years ago demanding all the little pertinent details? And are we tweeking our defintions of a record to compensate the situation? Thanks for any comments on this subject? I have read the thread back in July 2007 that addressed some of this but haven't seen what the record committees around the US are doing if anything. Gene Knight MBRC Chair Oxford, MS -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:47:31 -0500 Martin: Missouri has a seven-member committee that includes the secretary and the chairperson as voting members. Members have four-year terms, renewable indefinitely—i.e., no term limits. So far, periodic voluntary departures have allowed a reasonable turnover; in fact, just this past summer, three out of seven members rolled off for various reasons, so we were able to put three new people on, two of whom had already been on our short list of good prospects. The other was nominated by members of the Audubon Society of Missouri in a lengthy and persuasive letter. As mentioned by Phil and Ned, we do give some consideration to geography. We have talked about instituting term limits, but I am still leery of the idea, for two reasons: (1) Unlike the situation in many states, but probably as you describe for Nevada, the pool of qualified people here is not comfortably large. It's gradually growing, but I don't feel that it is there yet. (2) Some of our long-time members are invaluable in preserving the committee's scientific and historical perspective. One in particular is an active and nationally known museum ornithologist who co-authored our state bird book; we also have a couple of other people who are in some way associated with professional ornithology or wildlife conservation. These people provide important balance to the skilled amateurs who make up the rest of the committee; we could not easily replace their experience, knowledge, and network of connections. So we will probably continue talking about term limits, and we may actually do it one of these days -- but I'm in no hurry. Bill Rowe Secretary, MBRC rowe at tjs.org On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I was wondering how many North American committees have member term > limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and > how you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in > how attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's > birding population. > > In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re- > elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he > or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one > year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members > certainly has had positive effects within the committee. > Nonetheless, considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders > both qualified and willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I > think of forcing out a member who is performing his/her duties > admirably. > > Thanks, > Martin > > -- > Martin Meyers, Secretary > Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:46:58 -0400 Ohio currently has seven members, and we're looking at expanding to nine. The secretary, who votes, is elected annually, without term limits. Other members have a three-year term, and must sit out a year after their term. We unofficially try to keep a geographic mix, as well as a mix of returning and new members. We are fortunate to have a large enough pool of qualified possibilities that we have had no problem with this system. Martin Meyers wrote: > I was wondering how many North American committees have member term > limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how > you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how > attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding > population. > > In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re-elected > for one more three-year term. After that second term, he or she must > leave the committee for a period of not less than one year. This has > worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members certainly has had > positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, considering the > size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and willing to serve, > I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a member who is > performing his/her duties admirably. > > Thanks, > Martin > -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Concerning term limits From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:14:03 -0400 Hi Martin, et al. On our Maryland/DC committee, our nine voting member terms are three years each and members must rotate off of the committee for at least one year before being eligible to be reelected. Unofficially, we also try to balance our membership from across the state (Eastern Shore, central, southern, northern, Western Maryland, and DC.) Our Secretary is a non-voting member on records, but votes on procedural issues; our Chair can be either one of our voting members or a separate non-voting member (again non-voting on records, but votes on procedural matters). We are fortunate to have a relatively large field of experienced and qualified birders to select from. Historically, we have also had ornithological organizations to draw upon (including Patuxent Research Refuge, the Smithsonian, National Geographic, educational institutions, and others). I think our approach seems to work well for us here in MD/DC. Phil At 01:02 03/29/2009, Martin Meyers wrote: >I was wondering how many North American committees have member term >limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how >you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how >attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding >population. > >In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be >re-elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he >or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one >year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members >certainly has had positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, >considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and >willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a >member who is performing his/her duties admirably. > >Thanks, >Martin > >-- >Martin Meyers, Secretary >Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) >email: nbrc AT gbbo.org >website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Concerning term limits From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:02:29 -0500 I was wondering how many North American committees have member term limits, what sort of term limits you have if you do have them, and how you all feel about such limits. I'm particularly interested in how attitudes relate to the size of your state or province's birding population. In Nevada, each member serves for three years and then may be re-elected for one more three-year term. After that second term, he or she must leave the committee for a period of not less than one year. This has worked reasonably well, and bringing in new members certainly has had positive effects within the committee. Nonetheless, considering the size of the pool of Nevada birders both qualified and willing to serve, I get a bit queasy when I think of forcing out a member who is performing his/her duties admirably. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: correction From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:41 -0800 I should have said: "So wise *organizations* avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval. " instead of: "So wise BRCs avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval." Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Nate Dias <offshorebirder AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:12:15 -0800 Mel: when I said "gets published in a higher journal" - I meant a higher ornithological journal than the state journal. Not that a national journal has more 'authority' on bird records within a given state than that state's BRC (methinks you "BRC Uber Alles" folks seem a tad insecure). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, The Auk, The Condor, etc. are all higher journals than state ornithological journals. For what it's worth, some state journals are considered 'higher' than others - The Florida Field Naturalist is more respected than the CHAT for example. An example you requested: North American Birds published an article of mine a couple of years back on "Pelagic Birds of South Carolina" and some of the review species mentioned were not accepted by our state's BRC. In similar fashion, there will soon be a well-documented note on "Range Expansion of the Bronzed Cowbird (Molothrus aeneus aeneus) into the Atlantic Coastal Plain north of Florida: a First South Carolina Record" that will be published in a 'higher' journal that the local rag. And the state BRC will not have accepted (or reviewed) that. Mel said: "BRCs are not in the business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit reports of their findings, and publish them as required" -- That is the problem. Science deserves an *open* peer review process, complete with the opportunity to rebut faulty publications (in this case BRC decisions). What other scientific discipline has "closed-loop committees" issuing final pronouncements, which can prevent publication, where there is no opportunity for further rebuttal (peer review)? That is most unscientific! So wise BRCs avoid this by not making publication of first state records dependent on BRC approval. Georgia is an interesting case - they require a BRC submission for first state records, but they do not require BRC approval in order to publish. It's more of a co-notification rule, and I don't see a problem with that. Alan said: "Regardless of the format, a records committee is going to ultimately review the record (if photos or description exist)." -- Actually South Carolina's Committee will not review material that is not formally submitted to them, even if it is published elsewhere. I have been told that: "The SCBRC doesn't recognize reports that are not submitted to them, even if they are published in a journal." Again, not the best policy, especially considering they did exactly that to build the state list from bird records in the years prior to the BRC's existance. Alan also touches on a point at the heart of the matter - namely, that state BRCs are a recent invention that have inserted themselves into the scientific process (at the state level). An eminent ornithologist recently summed it up to me in excellent fashion: "In ornithology and other areas of science, researchers traditionally publish their records first, then let others decide on the merits of their findings. The journal editors are meant to send articles out for review, so pre-screening by a records committee is redundant, and just stymies the whole process." Again - BRCs should not be able to censor the scientific literature. Especially since BRCs are often composed of non-scientists and laymen and their members are often chosen by non-experts. In the rare cases where a BRC disputes a published note on a first state record, they should publish a rebuttal in the same journal. * That is how it works in 'higher' journals and it should be how it works in state journals too. If BRCs cannot compose a coherent rebuttal, then they do not have a leg to stand on and their decision is suspect. Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:32:12 -0500 Everyone, If by chance American Birds is considered a "higher journal" then the reported Nutting's Flycatcher was handled correctly by the Arizona Records committee. This situation is probably not that rare. Well before the establishment of various records committees, some first state or first provincial records were undoubtedly published in various journals. If such articles contain photos and / or descriptions of the bird, the current records committee is at liberty to review such records even if no other evidence exists. Regardless of the format, a records committee is going to ultimately review the record (if photos or description exist). Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:19:24 -0700 Mark Stevenson writes: > A event similar but not identical to the posited situation occurred > in > Arizona. > > A ratty bird identified in the hand in Arizona as a Nutting's > Flycatcher was > published as a Nutting's in "American Birds" and, as far as I know, > not even > submitted to the AZ BRC (=ABC). The ABC recently reviewed the bird > based on > the published article and photos in American Birds and rejected it. > > Mark Stevenson > Tucson, AZ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mel Cooksey" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:33 AM > Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > > > Nathan, > > > > You wrote.. > > > > "What if a first state record and associated material gets > published in a > > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not > exactly make > > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as > the > > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so > forth. > > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is > objective. > > Open is open." > > > > > > > > > > Nate, > > > > I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an > example of > > a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any > state > > or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a > paper on a > > legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been > accepted by > > the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have > been a > > very, very few cases in which first state records that have also > been > > first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist > Committee. > > The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a > hobby/sport > > organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward > the > > state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting > any > > proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution > in its > > periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of > those > > organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC > is the > > standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the > record is > > re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not > in the > > business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely > submit > > reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this > is as it > > should be. > > > > Mel Cooksey > > > > Corpus Christi, Tx. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nate Dias" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM > > Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > > > > >> Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the > discretion > >> of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or > others, > >> according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC > decisions. > >> > >> We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals > have > >> different purposes, as well as different criteria for > >> acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the > ABA > >> Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and > oranges. > >> > >> Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state > records' > >> here - not all records. > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "If both the committee and journal are part of the same > organization, if > >> you allow the publication of a record without committee > acceptance, then > >> you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the > other." > >> > >> -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state > records) > >> from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is > it? Or, > >> by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least > salvage the > >> journal... > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a > record in > >> the journal without first having the record accepted by the > committee?" > >> > >> -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records > Committees > >> also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of > these are > >> not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for > 'review > >> species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' > included > >> in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first > state > >> records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. > >> > >> Alan Wormington said: > >> "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a > record in > >> the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a > red flag? > >> Or what if the record gets published and then later it is > rejected by the > >> committee? Then what?" > >> > >> -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state > BRC, > >> but if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. > It's > >> simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, > chemistry, > >> and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with > input from > >> advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals > may > >> then be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. > >> > >> So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by > physical > >> evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' > approval for > >> publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - > then the > >> BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. > To which > >> the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + > others' > >> approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then > respond > >> (given editors' + others' approval). > >> > >> That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process > (an > >> important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. > That seems > >> more in line with how other disciplines operate. > >> > >> I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical > evidence with > >> good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person > submitted it to > >> the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, > then it > >> should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend > to get > >> published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. > >> > >> * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has > happened and > >> will happen again before long: > >> What if a first state record and associated material gets > published in a > >> HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not > exactly > >> make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then > as the > >> process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And > so forth. > >> After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is > objective. > >> Open is open. > >> > >> Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:19:24 -0700 A event similar but not identical to the posited situation occurred in Arizona. A ratty bird identified in the hand in Arizona as a Nutting's Flycatcher was published as a Nutting's in "American Birds" and, as far as I know, not even submitted to the AZ BRC (=ABC). The ABC recently reviewed the bird based on the published article and photos in American Birds and rejected it. Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Cooksey" To: Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > Nathan, > > You wrote.. > > "What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. > Open is open." > > > > > Nate, > > I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an example of > a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any state > or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a paper on a > legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been accepted by > the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have been a > very, very few cases in which first state records that have also been > first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee. > The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a hobby/sport > organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward the > state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting any > proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution in its > periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of those > organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC is the > standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the record is > re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not in the > business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit > reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this is as it > should be. > > Mel Cooksey > > Corpus Christi, Tx. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nate Dias" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM > Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > > >> Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the discretion >> of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or others, >> according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC decisions. >> >> We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals have >> different purposes, as well as different criteria for >> acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the ABA >> Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and oranges. >> >> Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state records' >> here - not all records. >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if >> you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then >> you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other." >> >> -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state records) >> from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is it? Or, >> by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least salvage the >> journal... >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in >> the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee?" >> >> -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records Committees >> also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of these are >> not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for 'review >> species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' included >> in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first state >> records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. >> >> Alan Wormington said: >> "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in >> the journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? >> Or what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the >> committee? Then what?" >> >> -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state BRC, >> but if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. It's >> simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, chemistry, >> and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with input from >> advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals may >> then be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. >> >> So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by physical >> evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' approval for >> publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - then the >> BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. To which >> the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + others' >> approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then respond >> (given editors' + others' approval). >> >> That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process (an >> important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. That seems >> more in line with how other disciplines operate. >> >> I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical evidence with >> good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person submitted it to >> the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, then it >> should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend to get >> published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. >> >> * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has happened and >> will happen again before long: >> What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a >> HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly >> make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the >> process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. >> After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. >> Open is open. >> >> Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fw: Even worse Re: Procedural Question From: Mel Cooksey <cooksey AT STX.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:33:59 -0600 Nathan, You wrote.. "What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. Open is open." Nate, I can't get my mind around your questions here. Can you give an example of a journal that would be HIGHER than the BRC's authority within any state or province? Or an example in which a journal has published a paper on a legitimate first state or provincial record that had NOT been accepted by the BRC? I am not sure how this could or would occur. There have been a very, very few cases in which first state records that have also been first US records have not been accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee. The perennial argument there is that the ABA represents a hobby/sport organization, not a purely scientific one. The AOU looks toward the state/provincial committees, as well as the ABA CLC, in accepting any proposals for records that would reflect changes in distribution in its periodic checklist, such as a first US record. But regardless of those organization's stance on the record, the state or provincial BRC is the standard of authority, and their decision stands, unless the record is re-reviewed upon discovery of new knowledge or data. BRCs are not in the business of making statements or publishing rebuttals. They merely submit reports of their findings, and publish them as required. And this is as it should be. Mel Cooksey Corpus Christi, Tx. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nate Dias" To: Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:13 PM Subject: Re: Even worse Re: Procedural Question > Jim Stasz is quite right. Publication should be solely at the discretion > of the state journal editor(s) and possibly an advisory panel or others, > according to a journal's rules - without regards to state BRC decisions. > > We should all keep in mind that BRCs and ornithological journals have > different purposes, as well as different criteria for > acceptance/publication. As do BRCs and organizations like the ABA > Checklist Committee, AOU Checklist Committee, etc. Apples and oranges. > > Alan should also remember that we are talking of 'first state records' > here - not all records. > > Alan Wormington said: > "If both the committee and journal are part of the same organization, if > you allow the publication of a record without committee acceptance, then > you are allowing one entity to undermine the function of the other." > > -- If a BRC can't take critique (of its decisions on first state records) > from a scientific journal and outside peer review, what good is it? Or, > by inference, the organization backing it? I say: at least salvage the > journal... > > Alan Wormington said: > "Why have a records committee at all, if someone can publish a record in > the journal without first having the record accepted by the committee?" > > -- Because besides approving first state records, Bird Records Committees > also evaluate all reports concerning 'review species'. Most of these are > not going to be able to be published. So BRCs are referees for 'review > species', as to a lesser degree is a 'seasonal rarities report' included > in most state or territory journals. Voting on potential first state > records is only a percentage of the BRC's work. > > Alan Wormington said: > "Or looking at it another way, if someone tries to publish a record in the > journal without committee acceptance, does this not raise a red flag? Or > what if the record gets published and then later it is rejected by the > committee? Then what?" > > -- It will be rare that the journal editors disagree with a state BRC, but > if it happens, the process should play out in the literature. It's > simple. The ornithological journals should operate like math, chemistry, > and physics journals do: the journal editors (sometimes with input from > advisory panels or others) decide what gets published. Rebuttals may then > be submitted and published, as may responses, etc. > > So if someone submits a putative first state record backed by physical > evidence with good provenance, then it meets the editors' approval for > publication in the journal, and then a BRC rejects the record - then the > BRC decision gets published in the same journal as a rebuttal. To which > the original publisher, or others, may respond (given editors' + others' > approval). And whose response I suppose the BRC could then respond (given > editors' + others' approval). > > That subjects the BRC decisions to an *open* peer-review process (an > important distinction), with public rebuttals and responses. That seems > more in line with how other disciplines operate. > > I suppose if someone submitted a report backed by physical evidence with > good provenance, and a BRC rejected it - then the person submitted it to > the journal, and it met with the editors' and others' approval, then it > should be published as a rebuttal to the BRC decision (which tend to get > published in these journals). To which the BRC could respond. > > * In closing, let me outline an alternate scenario that has happened and > will happen again before long: > What if a first state record and associated material gets published in a > HIGHER journal, but a BRC had not accepted it? That does not exactly make > the BRC or the organization backing it look good. But: then as the > process exists, the BRC can attempt to publish a rebuttal. And so forth. > After all, with the higher journal: fair's fair. Objective is objective. > Open is open. > > Nathan Dias - Charleston, SC > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html