[mou] MOU
Richard Hoyme
RHoyme@msn.com
Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:08:36 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0783_01C3F7D4.2D86EB10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ornithology is rather unique in the science world in it's use of =
amateurs. I'm an engineer and we would never consider letting a bunch of =
un-trained or at least under-trained amateurs design an electronics box. =
But as someone in a previous post said, there are not enough =
professionals doing field work, so they make due with the inputs from =
the hobby community.=20
This also goes to a criticism that I have heard many times of MOURC, =
mainly rejected submissions. I think that many of the rejections are not =
because the submitter didn't see the bird, but rather didn't write it up =
well enough. Just look at the minutes from the MOURC meetings. Many =
rejections are for poor write-ups. I believe that there are a lot of us =
birders that really don't know what to put on the form. What should we =
look for when viewing a casual or accidental?=20
I think that there is a lack of training out there and I include myself =
here. I think it would benefit the hobby and science if there were some =
kind of training made available. First, a written tutorial would be =
helpful. Maybe it could be made available on the MOU web page. Second =
some kind of seminar that would possibly use slides to look at some of =
the species that need documentation. Go through want to look for. What =
are "under-tail coverts"? How do you locate primaries, secondaries, etc. =
Include other topics about external bird anatomy. And finally how to =
write it up in a way that is acceptable to MOURC.=20
If science and hobby are to coexist and the data is commingled, then =
science needs to train hobby.=20
Unfortunately this is a big project that needs people that are both =
knowledgeable and can teach. Maybe this idea could be discussed at what =
ever committee is appropriate.
We can either sit at our computers and have a flame war (which has =
destroyed other list servers) or we can try to make things better. =
Anyone else have some ideas on how to make things better?
Rick Hoyme
------=_NextPart_000_0783_01C3F7D4.2D86EB10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DMailContainerBody=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; =
COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: =
normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; =
BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: =
none"=20
leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 acc_role=3D"text" CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20
name=3D"Compose message area"><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"v" =
/><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"o" />
<DIV>Ornithology is rather unique in the science world in it's use of =
amateurs.=20
I'm an engineer and we would never consider letting a bunch of =
un-trained or at=20
least under-trained amateurs design an electronics box. But as someone =
in a=20
previous post said, there are not enough professionals doing field work, =
so they=20
make due with the inputs from the hobby community. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This also goes to a criticism that I have heard many times of =
MOURC, mainly=20
rejected submissions. I think that many of the rejections are not =
because the=20
submitter didn't see the bird, but rather didn't write it up well =
enough. Just=20
look at the minutes from the MOURC meetings. Many rejections are for =
poor=20
write-ups. I believe that there are a lot of us birders that really =
don't know=20
what to put on the form. What should we look for when viewing a casual =
or=20
accidental? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think that there is a lack of training out there and I include =
myself=20
here. I think it would benefit the hobby <U>and </U>science if there =
were some=20
kind of training made available. First, a written tutorial would be =
helpful.=20
Maybe it could be made available on the MOU web page. Second some kind =
of=20
seminar that would possibly use slides to look at some of the species =
that need=20
documentation. Go through want to look for. What =
are "under-tail=20
coverts"? How do you locate primaries, secondaries, etc. Include =
other=20
topics about external bird anatomy. And finally how to write it up =
in a way=20
that is acceptable to MOURC. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If science and hobby are to coexist and the data is commingled, =
then=20
science needs to train hobby. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Unfortunately this is a big project that needs people that are both =
knowledgeable and can teach. Maybe this idea could be discussed at what =
ever=20
committee is appropriate.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We can either sit at our computers and have a flame war (which has=20
destroyed other list servers) or we can try to make things better. =
Anyone else=20
have some ideas on how to make things better?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Hoyme</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0783_01C3F7D4.2D86EB10--