[mou] MOU Comments - Long

[Carl Greiner]

Hi folks,
	I am sure none of you know me because I am generally as secretive as a King
Rail in Minnesota. As I was sitting here enjoying the snow falling outside
my window and reading the wonderful discourse on the latest MOU checklist I
became a little opinionated on 3 of the articles.

The first seemed rather angry that this discussion was being debated on this
group and why can't everyone be happy and watch birds. A valid wish but also
falls into that dreaded word "censorship". I for one am learning a great
deal about the MOU and its members, gyrfalcon distribution, king rail
distribution, and human discourse. Clearly these messages are on topic for
the group thus I would prefer the author uses their right to press the
delete key if the topic is not of interest rather than persuading others not
to post.

The second and third articles that I took umbrage to are pasted below. I am
puzzled by the degree of emotions that have arisen over a disagreement on
how the MORC determines the status of birds in the state. It seems to me by
looking at the checklist that the criteria is logical, fair, and as
objective as is possible in such a endeavor. They clearly list their
criteria and definitions. So why the angst? If the authors are that upset
about the status of the King Rail, go out and find some, document them
correctly, share the information, and present it to the MORC according to
their criteria. If they then reject your presentation I may join you in your
revolution.

As to the phrases "down grading the status of MOU from scientific
organization to hard core hobbyists" and "change of focus from MOU as a
legitimate ornithological society to a birding club" , I find it necessary
to inform the authors that there is no organization grading society that
lists organizations as legitimate, ornithological, scientific, or birding
clubs. A organization is defined by its members. If your organization (or
its members) participates in using systematic methods to gain knowledge on a
subject (preferably through experimentation) resulting in a peer-reviewed
publications than you can certainly claim your organization is a scientific
organization. If your organization is a scientific organization where the
subject is birds than your organization is ornithological organization. If
your organization contains among its membership people who practice the
hobby of birding and the organization supports that hobby then your
organization is a birder's club. I think the MOU is all of the above.
Legitimacy on the other had is earned through the activities of the members
and the leadership of the organization and is to a certain extent also up to
those that are judging the organization. Within it's own membership ranks is
the only place I have observed the MOU's legitimacy being questioned.

	I have in my life been a member of many scientific organizations other than
the MOU (american association of blood banks, american society of
microbiologists, international society for cellular therapy, american
society of medical technologists, the wildlife society, american association
for the advancement of science, SigmaXi, etc...). Ornithology is unique in
that the amateurs are so advanced as to often approach if not surpass the
professionals in their knowledge of the subject. To the credit of the
professional (e.g. paid & published) ornithologists in the country they have
recognized this fact and have untilized amateurs to conduct "citizen
science" that benefits both groups and the birds. So before you change the
charter, retitle the organization, and throughly divide the membership, at
least have an argument.
		-How does the Iowa, Wisconsin, New York, California, etc...
ornithologist's unions make their record determinations (e.g. whats their
criteria)?
		-Can you provide objective evidence that the King Rail, Bobwhite,
Gyrfalcon, etc... are incorrectly classified?
		-What objective criteria would you use?
		-Plan a study and apply for MOU funds - another scientific organizaition
endeavor
		-How does the shift in observations in Minnesota compare to the data for
other states, nationally, internationally?
		-What is the data show from BBS?
		-What is the status by Audobon, Nature Conservancy, ABA, surrounding
states, USFWS, etc...

	Yet I ramble, saw a Meadowlark spp. in Dodge County yesterday.

Carl Greiner
Chatfield, MN

P.S. I enjoyed Mr. Bardon's message. I did not see it as sarcastic, rather
he provided data supported arguments with citations to refute Mr. Russell's
criticisms.


Perhaps we may have to consider down grading the status of MOU
from scientific organization to hard core hobbyists. It's a shame,  MOU
should be able to support both. Each group has so much to offer the
other. With a little mutual support and positive input, these two groups

could be working together for better birding, greater knowledge, and
conservation measures that keep pace with growing need.

Kelly Larson

The change in definition for "accidental" status of birds in Minnesota
between Green & Janssen's original book and Janssen's updated book is in
keeping with the change of focus from MOU as a legitimate ornithological
society to a birding club.  Defining accidental by how many of the past
years a species has been reported by a birder is indeed useful to birders in
predicting the likelihood of adding a particular species to their lists, but
is not a useful classification ornithologically.   Perhaps it is difficult
to come to a consensus about the proper status designations for Minnesota
birds, but Bob's points deserve more consideration than Karl's sarcastic
response.

For MOU to live up to its name, a majority of the people on MOURC should be
ornithologists.  If MOU is indeed changing direction from an ornithological
union to a birding club, that change should be reflected in the name of the
organization.

Laura Erickson