While I have not heard from any current member of the records committee I have heard from a past member who assures me that there is no policy of blanket rejection of Whooper Swan records.
I'm glad to hear that. Those who read my message carefully (as this individual did) even recognized that I said _IF_ this was the case then I felt it to be misguided. It was not meant as a blanket attack (or an attack of any kind) on the MN records committee (or any other record committee). The message itself would be equally valid in any other state that applies a blanket set of rules to cover any sightings of a given species. Record committees (and sightings compilers) play an important scientific role, whether they realize it or not. While birders may sometimes think that record committees have 'agendas' or 'don't like certain birders' I have found it to rarely be true. They do their job carefully, with little appreciation from their peers. A committee's job is very important however. Changes in bird ranges don't occur solely in any one state. Biogeographers need to look at what happens throughout a species range to determine whether changes or patterns of vagrancy may have an underlying cause, whether these patterns are something to be concerned about. Therefore, it is important that they do their job well. Inevitably, that means most committees are conservative in their decisions - as perhaps they should be. I do think that the entire process needs to be transparent (some states are more transparent than others). Those that might make use of records need to understand what sightings have been submitted, which were accepted and rejected and why. Sometimes it is only by going back and looking at a series of 'rejected' records that scientists (and, hopefully, committee members) can determine that maybe something really is going on and maybe those previously rejected records are valid after all. Some time ago I was asked whether I thought the bird sightings published in The Loon were of any value. The answer is a resounding YES. In the absence of year-round standardized surveys then data published in The Loon (and North American Birds) is the only readily accessible data for changes in things like migration arrival and departure dates, breeding records and range expansions/contractions. True, this data may have errors in it and the users have to trust to the compilers to make it as good as possible. Beyond that, the user has to make the determination whether the data are any good or not. As a single datum, this can be tough. But if there are records from multiple sources that all point in the same direction then it isn't that difficult to pull a pattern out of the mass of data. So, to the extent that The Loon continues to publish bird sightings - congratulations. Whether you know it or not you are publishing an important historical record. To the extent that bird records committees carefully analyzes all submissions - kudos. You too are playing a role in the better understanding of bird ranges. ===== Jeff Price Boulder, CO [email protected] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
