[mou] Re: [mou] Accidental? No, we're not kidding (very long)

[KarlBardon@aol.com]

--part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

 I would like to reply to Bob Russell's comments. I write as a former=20
Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee member who assisted in the author=
ship of=20
the 2004 checklist, but I did not confer with my fellow MORC members, so thi=
s=20
is not an official MORC response.

Most of the concerns addressed by Russell and others can be found in the=20
checklist itself. The Accidental, Casual, and Regular status terms are clear=
ly=20
defined on the first page of the 2004 MORC checklist; an Accidental species=20=
is=20
one "for which there are Accepted records in two, one, or no years out of th=
e=20
last ten years." Thus, designating a species as Accidental only refers to it=
s=20
yearly occurrence in the last ten years.

The idea that an Accidental species is one which is "not likely to occur=20
again" has never appeared on any official MORC checklist (1978 to 2004). Not=
e that=20
Russell has apparently taken this definition from Green and Janssen (1975),=20
who define Accidental as "not likely to occur again, or only at very infrequ=
ent=20
intervals" Also note that he has conveniently left out the very important=20
latter part of the definition! Janssen (1987), which is an update of Green a=
nd=20
Janssen (1975), defines Accidental the same way MORC does, without the langu=
age=20
used by Green and Janssen (1975). In summary, Russell has complained about t=
he=20
status of King Rail becoming Accidental based on an out of date and=20
incomplete definition!

Either way, I think that Accidental clearly defines the current status of=20
King Rail in Minnesota=E2=80=94a species which has not been seen since 1992=20=
and is likely=20
to occur again only at very infrequent intervals. When MORC completed the=20
1999 checklist, King Rail had been seen in only three of the last ten years,=
 but=20
we erred on the side of positivity, and defined this species as Casual. The=20
last nesting attempt was in 1983 and the last positive breeding was in 1976.=
=20
This species has not been Regular since the 1978 edition of our checklist, s=
o a=20
move to Accidental is not at all unexpected or surprising. What alternative=20
status does Russell suggest for King Rail? Casual? Regular? Extirpated? Exti=
nct?=20
These are the only choices.

Russell acts surprised that King Rail has changed status in the last 20 or 3=
0=20
years, but think of all the species which have changed significantly in that=
=20
amount of time (on the 1978 checklist, House Finch was considered=20
Hypothetical, Baird's Sparrow was Regular but is now Accidental, and Lesser=20=
Black-backed=20
Gull did not even occur on the checklist even thought it is now Regular).

Russell claims King Rails may breed in South Dakota, but the current status=20
of this species in South Dakota is Accidental (!), with only two breeding=20
records, the last in 1974 (Tallman, Swanson and Palmer, 2002). Although Russ=
ell=20
also claims King Rails breed in Iowa and Wisconsin, a quick internet check s=
howed=20
this species to be both Endangered and Casual in Iowa, and to be rare in=20
Wisconsin with Special Concern or "imperiled" breeding status (the current=20
Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas does not show any confirmed breeding reports).=
 Thus, he=20
has painted a picture of King Rails breeding all around Minnesota based on=20
faulty information.

Note that the new Minnesota checklist contains annotations for each species.=
=20
These were drafted specifically for the purpose of avoiding the type of=20
confusion that has resulted concerning the status of King Rail. The annotati=
on for=20
King Rail clearly states: "Former summer resident. Last recorded in 1992. St=
ate=20
designation: Endangered." Other species that Russell may consider Acccidenta=
l=20
by his own definition (not MORC's), such as Fieldfare, are annotated with th=
e=20
single record. How does defining King Rail as Accidental in Minnesota make i=
t=20
similar to a species such as South Polar Skua in North Dakota? Who suggested=
=20
all species considered to be Accidental were similar? Are all Regular specie=
s=20
similar? Since both House Sparrow and Lesser Black-backed Gull are Regular,=20
does this mean their occurrence in the state is similar? Definitely not!

Birding coverage of Minnesota is far more extensive than it was 20 or 30=20
years ago, which makes the disappearance of King Rail all the more perplexin=
g. I=20
really doubt that observers in Minnesota are substantially different from th=
e=20
observers in neighboring states that report breeding King Rails. There    HA=
VE=20
been surveys in Minnesota within the last ten years that have searched for=20
King Rails by canoe and by foot (such as the DNR's Minnesota County Biologic=
al=20
Survey, which I participated in). Hundreds of observers report other species=
 of=20
rails from throughout the state, why not King Rails? It would be great if=20
extensive surveys of marshes in Minnesota turned up a King Rail or two, but=20=
it is=20
quite clear that this species does not occur in numbers anything close to wh=
at=20
it did formerly.

As with his concerns about King Rail, Russell uses illogical reasoning to=20
suggest that Gyrfalcon should in fact be Regular in Minnesota. Gyrfalcon was=
=20
considered Casual on an official Minnesota checklist as recently as 1993, an=
d it=20
has always maintained a barely Regular status (average of only 3.4 records p=
er=20
year in the last 40 years). Gyrfalcon was voted Casual by MORC for the 2004=20
checklist because there were no reports in 1995 and 1999.

How do the 20 records in Illinois in the last 35 years support Regular statu=
s?
=E2=80=94this is evidence for Gyrs in a maximum of only 57% of all years, bu=
t records=20
in at least 80% of all years is required for Regular status! Why would a=20
hawkwatch at Grand Portage net more Gyrfalcons than at Hawk Ridge?

How does the regular occurrence of Gyrs in South Dakota translate into=20
Minnesota observers missing this species? Note that the area where Gyrfalcon=
s are=20
seen most often in South Dakota is west of the Missouri River, 150 miles fro=
m=20
Minnesota. This area is substantially different from any part of Minnesota i=
n=20
many respects: vegetationally, climatically, ornithologically. As a birder w=
ho=20
used to explore South Dakota, Russell knows this. Hundreds of species change=
=20
significantly in status in a range of 150 miles: west of the Missouri River,=
=20
species such as Lark Bunting, Lazuli Bunting, Bullock's Oriole, Long-billed=20
Curlew, Burrowing Owl, etc. all breed regularly, but all of which have less=20=
than=20
Regular status in Minnesota. Is Russell suggesting all these species be=20
considered Regular in Minnesota because they occur regularly within 150 mile=
s?

Russell asks: "Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN?" Many=20
observers bird in western Minnesota and report hundreds of Greater=20
Prairie-Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse each season, including this past wi=
nter when many=20
observers have noted Short-eared Owls and other raptors in the same areas as=
=20
all those "chickens." Many regular seasonal report contributors live in=20
western areas such as Fergus Falls, Fargo-Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Crooks=
ton, and=20
Thief River Falls=E2=80=94and these observers regularly report "chickens" an=
d raptors=20
(such as Prairie Falcons).

I am a disbeliever in the theory that Gyrfalcons are Regular in northwestern=
=20
Minnesota. I have made at least one trip to northwestern Minnesota every=20
winter since 1992, specifically looking for Gyrfalcons (I haven't seen a Gyr=
 there=20
since 1994), and I know Peder Svingen birds in that part of the state even=20
more often that I do. Finally, Russell's suggestion that we are missing=20
Gyrfalcons in northwestern Minnesota where there are relatively few observer=
s is=20
contradicted by his evidence that Gyrs occur regularly in South Dakota, and=20=
that=20
Illinois has 20 records in the last 35 years; by this logic, Gyrs should be=20
capable of occurring anywhere in the state, not just northwestern Minnesota!

In my opinion, Russell has insulted the entire birding population of=20
Minnesota (especially BBS surveyors) by suggesting we are not finding the bi=
rds that=20
HE thinks are out there, and he has insulted the birders in neighboring stat=
es=20
by mis-representing the status of King Rails outside our borders. Lastly, ev=
en=20
if King Rails and Gyrfalcons are occurring in Minnesota more often than MOU=20
records indicate, how is this a fault of MORC? We have simply defined each=20
species based on the data that was available. Is Russell suggesting we give=20=
these=20
species a status which is based on something other than the available data?

Karl Bardon

Literature cited

Green, Janet C. and Robert B. Janssen 1975. Minnesota Birds: Where, When, an=
d=20
How Many. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Janssen, Robert B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press,=20
Minneapolis.

Tallman, Dan A., David=C2=A0 L. Swanson and Jeffrey S. Palmer. 2002. The Bir=
ds of=20
South Dakota, Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen.

In a message dated 2/18/04 12:18:52 AM, Wildchough@aol.com writes:


> I think this Minnesota rarities committee has been locked up in a=20
> Koochiching cabin way too long this winter.=C2=A0 Let the suns shine in me=
n and women!! To=20
> call a King Rail "accidental" is to treat records of this species like som=
e=20
> of the truly accidental records that dot the annals of the birding world,=20
> great records like a Slender-billed Curlew in New York or a Skua in North=20=
Dakota=20
> or a Manx Shearwater on a lawn in Michigan.=C2=A0 Accidental means not lik=
ely to=20
> occur again, an "accident" of nature.=C2=A0 The great Ontario birder Alan=20
> Wormington says there is no such thing as "accidental."=C2=A0 History will=
 repeat itself=20
> eventually.=C2=A0 A record of King Rail in Minnesota which breeds in Wisco=
nsin,=20
> breeds in Iowa, may breed in South Dakota and definitely breeds in Nebrask=
a is=20
> hardly an "accident."=C2=A0 For crying outloud like a nocturnal petrel, th=
is is a=20
> rail folks!=C2=A0 Rails can populate the most remote islands in the far re=
aches of=20
> the world's oceans so for a King Rail to appear again in Minnesota is hard=
ly=20
> accidental.=C2=A0 How does a bird go from breeding in the state within the=
 past 2=20
> or 3 decades to accidental?=C2=A0 Did it suddenly change its nature?=C2=
=A0 So it's=20
> gotten rarer but the continued possibilities of future records is relative=
ly=20
> high.=C2=A0 And then there's the detectability issue.=C2=A0 How many birde=
rs in this state=20
> ever get out of their SUVs and walk more than 200 yards from the car?=C2=
=A0 How=20
> many boat, canoe, kayak records have birders turned in recently? Almost no=
ne.=C2=A0=20
> Does anyone go out and walk through marshes, as any thorough check of the=20=
big=20
> Mississippi marsh south of LaCrescent been made by boat recently?=C2=A0 Ha=
ve the=20
> marshes of Lac qui Parle been checked other than a brief drive down the ro=
ads=20
> that lead through the refuge.=C2=A0 Have tapes been played regularly in th=
e early=20
> morning and evening?=C2=A0 Is the aged BBS birding population even capable=
 of=20
> hearing a distant "bup, bup?"=C2=A0 And there's the gyr demoted to casual.=
=C2=A0 Let's see=20
> 20 records in Illinois in the past 35 years.=C2=A0 Did all these birds jus=
t fly=20
> around Minnesota.=C2=A0 How many folks sit at Grand Portage for 2 months d=
oing a=20
> real hawklookout, who birds Koochiching and Kittson and Lake of the Woods=20=
on a=20
> regular basis?=C2=A0 Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN=
?=C2=A0 South=20
> Dakota gets multiple gyrs every year and most of these records are 200 mil=
es=20
> south of Minnesota's Canadian border.=C2=A0 Certainly there are gyrs in Mi=
nnesota=20
> every year.=C2=A0 What good does it do the list to periodically downgrade=20=
a=20
> species every decade or so and then put it back on the regular list when a=
 series=20
> of records demands it?=C2=A0 Why not calm down, admit that species like=20
> Red-throated Loons, jaegers, gyrs, and many other boreal/arctic species ar=
e cyclic and=20
> go with the flow rather than trying to pigeonhole these birds which still=20=
are=20
> "regular" over a period of, say 50-60 years or more.=C2=A0 Not every invas=
ion=20
> occurs every 2 years or even every 10 years in boreal ecosystems.=C2=A0 We=
 have much=20
> to learn of northern invasions and it makes no sense to change their statu=
s=20
> just to make work for the records committee although it does keep this rec=
ords=20
> committee out of the woods and out of our hair for extended periods and I=20
> guess that's good.=C2=A0 I feel better now.=C2=A0 We'll make Bobwhite comm=
ents later!=C2=A0 Bob=20
> Russell, Dakota County, proud home to at least 2 records committee members=
.

--part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Gen=
eva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"> I would like to reply to Bob Russell's=
 comments. I write as a former Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee me=
mber who assisted in the authorship of the 2004 checklist, but I did not con=
fer with my fellow MORC members, so this is not an official MORC response.<B=
R>
<BR>
Most of the concerns addressed by Russell and others can be found in the che=
cklist itself. The Accidental, Casual, and Regular status terms are clearly=20=
defined on the first page of the 2004 MORC checklist; an Accidental species=20=
is one "for which there are Accepted records in two, one, or no years out of=
 the last ten years." Thus, designating a species as Accidental only refers=20=
to its yearly occurrence in the last ten years.<BR>
<BR>
The idea that an Accidental species is one which is "not likely to occur aga=
in" has never appeared on any official MORC checklist (1978 to 2004). Note t=
hat Russell has apparently taken this definition from Green and Janssen (197=
5), who define Accidental as "not likely to occur again, or only at very inf=
requent intervals" Also note that he has conveniently left out the very impo=
rtant latter part of the definition! Janssen (1987), which is an update of G=
reen and Janssen (1975), defines Accidental the same way MORC does, without=20=
the language used by Green and Janssen (1975). In summary, Russell has compl=
ained about the status of King Rail becoming Accidental based on an out of d=
ate and incomplete definition!<BR>
<BR>
Either way, I think that Accidental clearly defines the current status of Ki=
ng Rail in Minnesota=E2=80=94a species which has not been seen since 1992 an=
d is likely to occur again only at very infrequent intervals. When MORC comp=
leted the 1999 checklist, King Rail had been seen in only three of the last=20=
ten years, but we erred on the side of positivity, and defined this species=20=
as Casual. The last nesting attempt was in 1983 and the last positive breedi=
ng was in 1976. This species has not been Regular since the 1978 edition of=20=
our checklist, so a move to Accidental is not at all unexpected or surprisin=
g. What alternative status does Russell suggest for King Rail? Casual? Regul=
ar? Extirpated? Extinct? These are the only choices.<BR>
<BR>
Russell acts surprised that King Rail has changed status in the last 20 or 3=
0 years, but think of all the species which have changed significantly in th=
at amount of time (on the 1978 checklist, House Finch was considered Hypothe=
tical, Baird's Sparrow was Regular but is now Accidental, and Lesser Black-b=
acked Gull did not even occur on the checklist even thought it is now Regula=
r).<BR>
<BR>
Russell claims King Rails may breed in South Dakota, but the current status=20=
of this species in South Dakota is Accidental (!), with only two breeding re=
cords, the last in 1974 (Tallman, Swanson and Palmer, 2002). Although Russel=
l also claims King Rails breed in Iowa and Wisconsin, a quick internet check=
 showed this species to be both Endangered and Casual in Iowa, and to be rar=
e in Wisconsin with Special Concern or "imperiled" breeding status (the curr=
ent Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas does not show any confirmed breeding repor=
ts). Thus, he has painted a picture of King Rails breeding all around Minnes=
ota based on faulty information.<BR>
<BR>
Note that the new Minnesota checklist contains annotations for each species.=
 These were drafted specifically for the purpose of avoiding the type of con=
fusion that has resulted concerning the status of King Rail. The annotation=20=
for King Rail clearly states: "Former summer resident. Last recorded in 1992=
. State designation: Endangered." Other species that Russell may consider Ac=
ccidental by his own definition (not MORC's), such as Fieldfare, are annotat=
ed with the single record. How does defining King Rail as Accidental in Minn=
esota make it similar to a species such as South Polar Skua in North Dakota?=
 Who suggested all species considered to be Accidental were similar? Are all=
 Regular species similar? Since both House Sparrow and Lesser Black-backed G=
ull are Regular, does this mean their occurrence in the state is similar? De=
finitely not!<BR>
<BR>
Birding coverage of Minnesota is far more extensive than it was 20 or 30 yea=
rs ago, which makes the disappearance of King Rail all the more perplexing.=20=
I really doubt that observers in Minnesota are substantially different from=20=
the observers in neighboring states that report breeding King Rails. There&n=
bsp;&nbsp;  HAVE been surveys in Minnesota within the last ten years that ha=
ve searched for King Rails by canoe and by foot (such as the DNR's Minnesota=
 County Biological Survey, which I participated in). Hundreds of observers r=
eport other species of rails from throughout the state, why not King Rails?=20=
It would be great if extensive surveys of marshes in Minnesota turned up a K=
ing Rail or two, but it is quite clear that this species does not occur in n=
umbers anything close to what it did formerly.<BR>
<BR>
As with his concerns about King Rail, Russell uses illogical reasoning to su=
ggest that Gyrfalcon should in fact be Regular in Minnesota. Gyrfalcon was c=
onsidered Casual on an official Minnesota checklist as recently as 1993, and=
 it has always maintained a barely Regular status (average of only 3.4 recor=
ds per year in the last 40 years). Gyrfalcon was voted Casual by MORC for th=
e 2004 checklist because there were no reports in 1995 and 1999.<BR>
<BR>
How do the 20 records in Illinois in the last 35 years support Regular statu=
s?=E2=80=94this is evidence for Gyrs in a maximum of only 57% of all years,=20=
but records in at least 80% of all years is required for Regular status! Why=
 would a hawkwatch at Grand Portage net more Gyrfalcons than at Hawk Ridge?<=
BR>
<BR>
How does the regular occurrence of Gyrs in South Dakota translate into Minne=
sota observers missing this species? Note that the area where Gyrfalcons are=
 seen most often in South Dakota is west of the Missouri River, 150 miles fr=
om Minnesota. This area is substantially different from any part of Minnesot=
a in many respects: vegetationally, climatically, ornithologically. As a bir=
der who used to explore South Dakota, Russell knows this. Hundreds of specie=
s change significantly in status in a range of 150 miles: west of the Missou=
ri River, species such as Lark Bunting, Lazuli Bunting, Bullock's Oriole, Lo=
ng-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, etc. all breed regularly, but all of which=20=
have less than Regular status in Minnesota. Is Russell suggesting all these=20=
species be considered Regular in Minnesota because they occur regularly with=
in 150 miles?<BR>
<BR>
Russell asks: "Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN?" Many=20=
observers bird in western Minnesota and report hundreds of Greater Prairie-C=
hickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse each season, including this past winter when=
 many observers have noted Short-eared Owls and other raptors in the same ar=
eas as all those "chickens." Many regular seasonal report contributors live=20=
in western areas such as Fergus Falls, Fargo-Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Cro=
okston, and Thief River Falls=E2=80=94and these observers regularly report "=
chickens" and raptors (such as Prairie Falcons).<BR>
<BR>
I am a disbeliever in the theory that Gyrfalcons are Regular in northwestern=
 Minnesota. I have made at least one trip to northwestern Minnesota every wi=
nter since 1992, specifically looking for Gyrfalcons (I haven't seen a Gyr t=
here since 1994), and I know Peder Svingen birds in that part of the state e=
ven more often that I do. Finally, Russell's suggestion that we are missing=20=
Gyrfalcons in northwestern Minnesota where there are relatively few observer=
s is contradicted by his evidence that Gyrs occur regularly in South Dakota,=
 and that Illinois has 20 records in the last 35 years; by this logic, Gyrs=20=
should be capable of occurring anywhere in the state, not just northwestern=20=
Minnesota!<BR>
<BR>
In my opinion, Russell has insulted the entire birding population of Minneso=
ta (especially BBS surveyors) by suggesting we are not finding the birds tha=
t HE thinks are out there, and he has insulted the birders in neighboring st=
ates by mis-representing the status of King Rails outside our borders. Lastl=
y, even if King Rails and Gyrfalcons are occurring in Minnesota more often t=
han MOU records indicate, how is this a fault of MORC? We have simply define=
d each species based on the data that was available. Is Russell suggesting w=
e give these species a status which is based on something other than the ava=
ilable data?<BR>
<BR>
Karl Bardon<BR>
<BR>
Literature cited<BR>
<BR>
Green, Janet C. and Robert B. Janssen 1975. Minnesota Birds: Where, When, an=
d How Many. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.<BR>
<BR>
Janssen, Robert B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press,=20=
Minneapolis.<BR>
<BR>
Tallman, Dan A., David=C2=A0 L. Swanson and Jeffrey S. Palmer. 2002. The Bir=
ds of South Dakota, Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen.<=
/FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2=
"><BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 2/18/04 12:18:52 AM, Wildchough@aol.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=20=
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE=3D"CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0=
00000" FACE=3D"Arial" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2">I think this Minnesota=
 rarities committee has been locked up in a Koochiching cabin way too long t=
his winter.=C2=A0 Let the suns shine in men and women!! To call a King Rail=20=
"accidental" is to treat records of this species like some of the truly acci=
dental records that dot the annals of the birding world, great records like=20=
a Slender-billed Curlew in New York or a Skua in North Dakota or a Manx Shea=
rwater on a lawn in Michigan.=C2=A0 Accidental means not likely to occur aga=
in, an "accident" of nature.=C2=A0 The great Ontario birder Alan Wormington=20=
says there is no such thing as "accidental."=C2=A0 History will repeat itsel=
f eventually.=C2=A0 A record of King Rail in Minnesota which breeds in Wisco=
nsin, breeds in Iowa, may breed in South Dakota and definitely breeds in Neb=
raska is hardly an "accident."=C2=A0 For crying outloud like a nocturnal pet=
rel, this is a rail folks!=C2=A0 Rails can populate the most remote islands=20=
in the far reaches of the world's oceans so for a King Rail to appear again=20=
in Minnesota is hardly accidental.=C2=A0 How does a bird go from breeding in=
 the state within the past 2 or 3 decades to accidental?=C2=A0 Did it sudden=
ly change its nature?=C2=A0 So it's gotten rarer but the continued possibili=
ties of future records is relatively high.=C2=A0 And then there's the detect=
ability issue.=C2=A0 How many birders in this state ever get out of their SU=
Vs and walk more than 200 yards from the car?=C2=A0 How many boat, canoe, ka=
yak records have birders turned in recently? Almost none.=C2=A0 Does anyone=20=
go out and walk through marshes, as any thorough check of the big Mississipp=
i marsh south of LaCrescent been made by boat recently?=C2=A0 Have the marsh=
es of Lac qui Parle been checked other than a brief drive down the roads tha=
t lead through the refuge.=C2=A0 Have tapes been played regularly in the ear=
ly morning and evening?=C2=A0 Is the aged BBS birding population even capabl=
e of hearing a distant "bup, bup?"=C2=A0 And there's the gyr demoted to casu=
al.=C2=A0 Let's see 20 records in Illinois in the past 35 years.=C2=A0 Did a=
ll these birds just fly around Minnesota.=C2=A0 How many folks sit at Grand=20=
Portage for 2 months doing a real hawklookout, who birds Koochiching and Kit=
tson and Lake of the Woods on a regular basis?=C2=A0 Who checks the chicken=20=
flocks regularly in western MN?=C2=A0 South Dakota gets multiple gyrs every=20=
year and most of these records are 200 miles south of Minnesota's Canadian b=
order.=C2=A0 Certainly there are gyrs in Minnesota every year.=C2=A0 What go=
od does it do the list to periodically downgrade a species every decade or s=
o and then put it back on the regular list when a series of records demands=20=
it?=C2=A0 Why not calm down, admit that species like Red-throated Loons, jae=
gers, gyrs, and many other boreal/arctic species are cyclic and go with the=20=
flow rather than trying to pigeonhole these birds which still are "regular"=20=
over a period of, say 50-60 years or more.=C2=A0 Not every invasion occurs e=
very 2 years or even every 10 years in boreal ecosystems.=C2=A0 We have much=
 to learn of northern invasions and it makes no sense to change their status=
 just to make work for the records committee although it does keep this reco=
rds committee out of the woods and out of our hair for extended periods and=20=
I guess that's good.=C2=A0 I feel better now.=C2=A0 We'll make Bobwhite comm=
ents later!=C2=A0 Bob Russell, Dakota County, proud home to at least 2 recor=
ds committee members.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></HTML>

--part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary--