If the rejection of a report was a personal rejection and thus a legitimate source of embarrassment, then I'd agree with Mike. But the ideal situation would be for us to look at bird reports as what they are--one birder's report of a bird that s/he believes is a particular thing, which can be true even if compelling evidence isn't available in the report--and the disposition of each report can provide a lot of valuable information for each of us, both in learning issues important in figuring out whether the report included convincing evidence that a particular rarity was the bird seen, and whether it completely excluded alternate possibilities, and whether a particular exceptional bird is more likely to be a real vagrant or one that escaped from captivity. Perhaps the most embarrassing sighting EVER was the one Tim Gallagher made of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. He saw the bird--I'm convinced of this after talking to him, knowing both his own background as a birder and a lot of the little details of this particular sighting. If I were on a state committee or the ABA Records Committee, I think I'd have had to vote no, not because I don't believe Tim saw the bird, but because to accept a record of such an extaordinary bird requires an extraordinary level of proof. Tim has had to deal with far more ridicule than anyone in Minnesota has ever had to deal with for a rejection of a record, but he's done it with class and equanimity, knowing both what his own eyes saw but also why the people on these committees made their decisions.
As far as a person's name, attached to a record, goes, over the years, I've heard so many complaints about MOURC, every member whose name is on record, that it seems bewildering that people want to keep their interactions with the committee secret (at least up until the moment that their record is accepted) but feel comfortable criticizing such a small committee as if those individuals aren't equally vulnerable to embarrassment. I'm not referring to Mike here--he's talking about whether a policy makes sense to him--but I've heard a lot of people grumble about how unfair a particular vote went, as if committee members were voting for or against particular birders rather than particular bird reports. I think that the more transparent this process is, the healthier and more educational the process can be. I say this as someone who has never served on the committee but has had my share of reports rejected, too. I've always been impressed by MOURC's professionalism, and how fairly individuals serving on the committee have evaluated records, and even recommended rejecting their own personal records when they uncover additional information long after a record was accepted (eg Anhinga). Best, Laura Erickson Now happily home in Duluth On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Michael Hendrickson < mlhendrick...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello: > > Well its rainy and I got the day off because of it. I was browsing around > on the MOU website (http://moumn.org/) and noticed on the web page for > Review RQD Documentation (http://moumn.org/cgi-bin/rqd.pl?op=all) that the > MOU website manager(s) has added a vote column next to the bird that was > documented. > > This vote section in the Review RQD Documentation gives browsers a full > view of whose bird sighting(s) were rejected by MOURC or accepted by MOURC. > In other words I can read names of birders who submitted a bird sighting to > MOURC to see if their record was rejected or accepted. I think in my > opinion its odd we keep names of birders private in the MOURC Voting Summary > articles private.. meaning they that all birders who contributed bird > sightings to MOURC are mention after the article but not next to bird > sightings that were rejected or accepted. Is it really necessary to type in > next to birders names if their bird sighting was rejected or not? Should we > not keep this private to not embarrass anyone for records rejected by MOURC? > Was that not the whole reason to not publish names next to accepted or > rejected bird sightings in the Loon articles? > > In my opinion I think the MOU web page managers should remove this item off > the page because to me its no ones concern whose record was rejected or > accepted. > > Just a thought. > > Mike > > > > Mike Hendrickson > Duluth, Minnesota > Website: http://webpages.charter.net/mmhendrickson/ > Blog: http://colderbythelakebirding.blogspot.com/ > > > > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > -- -- Laura Erickson For the love, understanding, and protection of birds There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of birds. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature--the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after the winter. --Rachel Carson Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
