Hi all:
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (RCSP):
As Chris Wood (singular) and Christian Nunes have written, there is essentially
no chance that the Georgetown RCSP arrived under its own power from within the
known range of the species. RCSP is resident throughout its gigantic range and
isn't even known for much in the way of upslope and downslope movements,
something in which a lot of other resident tropical birds partake.
Comparing RCSP to Orange-billed Nightingale-Thrush (OBNT) is specious. They
are different species with differing strategies, with the latter known to
undertake movements away from breeding grounds in the northern Sierra Madre
Oriental of Mexico. It has an evolutionary history that allows, even
encourages, these movements. RCSP does not. The rough distance north of known
breeding range of OBNT to the Black Hills is 1300 miles. Had that bird been
the same distance southish and managed to stay out of the ocean, and had the
bird been seen subsequently by some birder, nothing much would have been
thought of it, because it would still have been within the known range of the
species. We do not know where the OBNTs go that leave the Sierra Madre
Oriental, but they might easily go to Nicaragua (which is 1300 miles SE of the
N edge of the species' range). Yes, the bird was well north of known range,
but not really outlandishly so (think about Green Violetear and other such
beasties), it just went a bit too far. Also, consider the habitat between the
north end of the Sierra Madre Oriental and the Black Hills. If that bird is
looking for breeding habitat and overshoots the Sierra Madre Oriental, it
doesn't really have a lot of suitable options if it misses the various west
Texas ranges. Once the bird were to get north of normal, but east of the west
Texas ranges, the next bit of suitable habitat is, well, let's see, oh yeah,
the Black Hills!
What non-ornithologists (and, apparently, even some ornithologists) fail to
grasp when considering such a long movement by an individual of a non-migratory
species is that it's not just a matter of packing one's bags and heading out.
There are physiological processes that MUST take place in order to allow such
movements. The individual must alter its biochemistry and go through a period
of hyperphagy ("frantic consumption of food") in order to lay on the fat
required to fuel the trip. Without these processes, the bird is going nowhere.
Without these processes taking place, it would be just as if you decided on
the spur of the moment to visit, say, Tikal (where, oddly enough, RCSP is
resident), walked out to your driveway or garage, and got in the car to depart.
No extra clothes, no money, no credit cards, no binocular, and -- WHOA -- no
gasoline. You might sit there in your car hoping for a miracle to transport
you to Tikal, but I'll bet that you'll be waiting for a while.
To make an even more pointed example: The Southern Ocean is directly connected
to Georgetown via water, so do we really expect an Emperor Penguin to
swim/walk/scramble from Antarctica up the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico,
then up the Mississippi River to the Missouri River to the Platte River, catch
the left turn up the South Platte River to Clear Creek and uphill to
Georgetown? Of course, it's ridiculous. But, it really isn't much more
ridiculous than expecting a resident species to suddenly fly 1900 miles -- and
that, only if it came from the most proximal possible breeding site; it might
be 5000 miles! -- in order to look for a female RCSP well away from all
competition.
As far as providing it a mate -- I certainly hope that Nick had his tongue
firmly in his cheek. If not, conservationists obviously have their work cut
out for them. I mean, how many ecological disasters resulting from introduced
taxa do we have to go through before we truly learn the lesson? Cheat Grass
shouldn't be a problem, right? Introducing Ruddy Ducks to Europe shouldn't be
a problem, right? Iintroducing mosquitos to Hawaii shouldn't be a problem,
right? Wake up and smell the putrefaction!
Colorado Bird Records Committee (CBRC):
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." --
Charles Dudley Warner
(http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/04/23/everybody-talks-about-the-weather/)
The above quote seems germane to this subject, because no matter where one
travels in the US, one runs across negative sentiment about bird-records
committees. What I find appalling about that is that most of that negative
sentiment is expressed by people that do not contribute to the effective
committee systems that exist. Just like they like to complain about the
government, when the majority of American don't vote! Why is it that we like
to complain about things but don't care to take any action about them? Take
any positive steps. Because it's easier to complain than to act.
Raise your hand if you've ever wondered why the occurrence of rare bird X at
great birding-spot Y wasn't accepted by the Committee. For those of you with
your hands in the air, did you read the relevant CBRC report? If not, why not?
If so, was that occurrence mentioned in the report? If not, why not? This is
where the system breaks down, because everyone is willing to complain about the
inaction of the CBRC, but very few are willing to take the 5-15 minutes that is
required to submit a record to the CBRC. In most cases about which birders
wonder/grumble about CBRC inaction, the reason for that inaction is that
NO ONE HAS SUBMITTED A REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE!
The CBRC cannot act without the reports upon which to act. The reason that
there are particular species on the review list that occur in the state a lot
(e.g., Glossy Ibis, Gray-cheeked Thrush, Pine Warbler to name just a few) is
because almost
NO ONE HAS SUBMITTED REPORTS TO THE COMMITTEE!
Everyone that is priveleged to see a species in Colorado that is on the CBRC
review list (http://cfo-link.org/birding/cbrc_review.php) should be on the hook
to submit a report of that occurrence to the CBRC. If you do not submit a
report to the CBRC, please keep your grumbling to yourself.
In my experience, the CBRC is one of the best records committees in existence.
It is responsive, generally quick, and reports of its deliberations are
thorough and informative. Of all US committees, the CBRC has the single-best
system in place for submitting documentation
(http://cfo-link.org/CBRC/login.php5), and that system will only be getting
better in the near-term future. To respond to Gary's pointed barb about the
Kelp Gull, I would present a hypothetical situation to explain why it took so
long for the record to clear the hurdles and for the record to be published.
But first, I will note here that Jim Beatty has already posted on this subject
and anyone actually reading the CBRC report
(http://cfo-link.org/downloads/CBRC_Reports/CBRC_43rdreport.pdf) should really
have no problem understanding why the process took so long.
You go to the auto mechanic because your car won't start. The mechanic in his
greasy overalls and his four-day bear, spits a stream of tobacco juice past you
and says that it probably needs a new starter. You agree to have him replace
the starter. Upon completion of that task when the car still doesn't start, he
says that the problem is electrical and sends you to another mechanic after, of
course, charging you $325 to replace the starter.
While I could take this example further, the point is that until one has done a
thorough job of analyzing the problem, it's a bit criminal to just start in on
"fixing" things.
When the Kelp Gull was wending its way through the CBRC process (and I was the
Chair of the CBRC at the beginning of the process), "we" knew that there was
work being conducted on the Kelp Gulls breeding in Louisiana and that Donna
Dittman and Steve Cardiff were in the process of writing a thorough piece on
the phenomenon that would include analysis of plumage of Kelp Gulls and the
Herring x Kelp Gull hybrids that were being produced there. Their paper was
published in Birding (http://www.aba.org/birding/v37n3p266.pdf) in 2005. Larry
Semo -- then and now, Chair of the CBRC -- had to inveigle a number of
observers of the bird to submit reports to the CBRC (I admit to being one of
those). (A quick aside on that vein: Despite the fact that the CO Kelp Gull
was seen by HUNDREDS of birders, only seven submitted details to the CBRC.)
So, the process was finally moving in late 2005. In the first round of voting
by the CBRC (probably in early 2006), the vote on acceptance was split,
necessitating another round of voting. At that point, the Chair can then ask
for opinions from outside experts, and Larry went through that slow process.
Once those expert opinions came in -- including that of Donna Dittman and Steve
Cardiff -- and those opinions distributed to the CBRC members, the second round
of voting could commence. At that point, the record passed and was published
as a special report of the CBRC in 2007.
Finally on this subject, realize that all CBRC members are volunteers and doing
a LOT of work for no other reason than their dedication to Colorado
ornithology. They get no pay and they get no praise (or damned little).
Instead people grumble at them about the job that CBRC members do, despite
those grumblers ignorance of what is involved in being a CBRC member. It's not
a junket!
So, "hear, hear" to the Colorado Bird Records Committee and, especially its
volunteer members and most especially to Larry Semo, who has been its Chair
through a time of great changes, both in how birding is done in Colorado and
how people deal with information.
Respectfully,
Tony Leukering
Villas, NJ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en.
