[mou] Records Committees

Sun Jul 22 22:32:54 CDT 2007

I think that this has been an interesting thread, and I would like to weigh 
in on it.

Science is Science.

Science is cold, objective, and unfeeling.  It deals with truth and and the 
pursuit thereof.

Birding, as a hobby, is extremely fulfilling and one's observations and 
interpretations of birds seen is an exciting part of that hobby.   
Certainly, no harm could come of keeping one's own list of birds seen or 
pretty-sure-to-have-been-seen.

Please note that that last sentence is in no way meant to diminish anybody's 
birding experience.  Identifying birds is challenging and mistakes get made. 
  Period.  I've made them.  We've all made them.   No harm done, right?

Right!..........UNTIL we begin to enter those sightings into official state 
records.  That's where hobby crosses into that cold, unfeeling  area of 
Science.

Nobody should need to feel intimidated about submitting a sighting for 
review by the records committee.  But, neither, should that person feel 
slighted or ashamed if that report is rejected.   Without high standards, 
the state list would be suspect and would be vulnerable to criticism by all 
and---ultimately---would itself be tainted.

It's not a matter of arrogance; or elitist attitudes; or "High priest" ism.  
It's a matter of scientific documentation.  Many people of every level of 
expertise have seen unusual birds.  I will go to my grave knowing I've seen 
a couple of birds that were dismissed on the listservs and would certainly 
have been rejected by the records committee. .  Did I document them 
correctly?  NO!  And, thus, they do not deserve to be listed.  Do I feel 
badly about this?  No, because I will, again, go to my grave enjoying the 
knowledge that I sighted these birds (OK, one was not that uncommon).

So, how to alleviate this problem?  My own approach (and, Pastor Al, this 
finally provides a response to your query), is to use a microcassette (or 
digital) recorder in the field.  As you view a bird, DESCRIBE it into the 
recorder.  Describe every single detail (feather edges [which feathers?], 
proportions (tail length vs body length, bill length vs head length, etc.), 
color (rufus, tan, cream, cinnamon, etc.),  behavior, location, habitat, 
etc., etc.

I think many people would benefit greatly  (and enjoy birding more) by 
re-reading the first 20 pages of their field guides to re-learn bird 
topography, the various feather tracts, tips on ID'ing, songs, etc.

Don't feel hurt or slighted if a report is rejected.  That's the nature of 
science.  It seeks to propel us toward the truth.

OK, so what is to prevent someone from reading all the field marks of a 
bird, then submitting a detailed report of the bird?  This is a rhetorical 
question that addresses the challenges the Records Committee faces on a 
daily basis.  Not neccessarily fraud, but an observation that was 
"augmented" by info from field guides.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but if you wish to submit a record, then 
support your observation with detailed, objective information.

From: Richard Wood <rwoodphd at yahoo.com>
To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net, mou-net at moumn.org
Subject: Re: [mou] Records Committees
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:31:53 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all,

I, for one, question Al's thoughts on "focusing on on my ID & documentation 
skills, not the perception
that "there is a pecking order" or "high priesthood"."  Several of you have 
mentioned getting phone calls or emails from someone having seen a bird and 
not knowing what is it, such as this email I received:

"Dr. Wood,
   Do you know what kind of bird
this is: it is almost all white with red eyes; it is about the size of
a robin but it looks more like a mourning dove. We are in Eagan near
I-35E and Cliff Road."

It occurs to me that birders (and record keepers) order us based on how well 
they know us, which in turn, gives us a certain credibility, and that all of 
us "new" birders are treated as much as one would treat the sender of this 
email that I received; thus, the newer we are, the lower our "credibility 
rating".  You may not call it a pecking order, but I don't know what else 
you would call it.  That is why if I reported a Loggerhead Kingbird in my 
yard, I'd be laughed at, cecause I am an unknown, yet if someone more 
familiar as a birder to you reported it, say the president of the MOU or the 
the head of the MOU record committee, they wouldn't be questioned.

Hearing others "supporting" the work of records committees makes me cringe, 
as I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, as well as with the 
friends of members of the committees.  It seems to me that if I as a birder 
have to work on my ID and record documenting skills, then the committee 
members and their friends should also have to work on how they respond to 
reports, and should also try and bite their tongues (or fingers) when the 
urge to question someone's sightings arises.  Try working on not saying, or 
writing, to someone, "you couldn't have seen a Ring-collared Dove in 
Minnesota..."  Who is hurt if one (the reporter) is allowed to think that 
they did?

I had a person that was on an outing I went to at Spring Lake Park tell me, 
when I told her I lived in Maryland, near Baltimore, that she had been there 
and had seen a Yellow-green Vireo while birding with someone.  I just looked 
at her and said, "that's a nice find..."  I didn't say anything else, 
because I figure, what's the point?

To me, this is an issue that can't, and shouldn't, be swept under the rug.  
You may say to me, "we have a tough job, try putting yourself in our shoes". 
  To this I say, "would you like to be embarrassed in public by the record 
keepers concerning a report you submitted?"  Put yourself in my shoes, or in 
the shoes of the above woman.  Would I go to the trouble to submit a report 
if I wasn't certain the bird I'm reporting is what I think it is?  No.  
Would I send an email report to a bird list saying I saw I Connecticut 
Warbler if I thought it was a Common Yellowthroat?  No.  Would said report 
describe a Common Yellowthroat and yet call it a Connecticut Warbler?  No.  
I know that "beginners" sometimes make a mistake; I also think it's a 
mistake to assume that we are all beginners when we submit a report, which 
is what one is doing when they question a person's sightings.

I understand that we (or I) may not provide enough documentation to support 
a report.   However, I also feel that some of us were upset about people 
using recordings and pishing to lure in the Yeoolw-breasted Chat that was 
seen at Black Dog Lake (I was just there yesterday, and saw the additional 
"paths" created by the other birders in their quest to see the Chat).  If 
recordings and pishing upset us, shouldn't birders carrying cameras also 
upset us?  I've never been one to carry a camera, as I already carry my 
binocs, and a bag with my notebook and two field guides, and a back pack 
that has food and other items, as I feel it's just an additional burden.   I 
also don't carry a camera because the one time I carried a camera to 
document a sighting and submit a report, my report with photo was turned 
down (ironically, the six accepted records for this species in the state of 
reporting didn't have any supporting photos).  So, I guess I feel what is 
the point
  of my submitting MORE documentation?  It still won't be enough if the 
committee doesn't find me credible, which harks back to my saying that there 
is a birding pecking order.

I'm sure you all know the story of the Arizona woman that traveled many 
times to Arkansas in search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and had a web 
site devoted to her search.  Her sightings were not accepted until a 
graduate student in the area heard them.  Then Cornell got involved and the 
rest is history...

Good birding to all,
Richard

Richard L. Wood, Ph. D.
Hastings, MN
rwoodphd at yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----
From: Pastor Al Schirmacher <pastoral at princetonfreechurch.net>
To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net; mou-net at moumn.org
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:50:58 AM
Subject: [mou] Records Committees

Somehow, the thread on ID & documentation
skills became a thread on records committees - perhaps a natural
progression.

However, I wish to be personally clear.  I
support the work of records committees - and while I suffer the same 
frustration
that many do when documentation is rejected -  have come to the conclusion
that I need to focus on my ID & documentation skills, not the perception
that "there is a pecking order" or "high priesthood."

Just wanted to be clear.  Many thanks to Peder
and his team for the services they perform.

Good birding to all!

Al Schirmacher

Princeton, MN

Mille Lacs & Sherburne Counties

____________________________________________________________________________________Ready 
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/