All, If anyone would like to take a look at the Wisconsin checklist (and I = agree it is quite nice and packed with information) here is the link: = http://www.uwgb.edu/birds/wso/WILIST.PDF
Another checklist format I like if anyone is interested is the one for the = Tandayapa Valley in Ecuador. They give a "likely to be seen" indicator = for every bird, and for any of the vagrants they list when/where the = records occured. Admittedly it is only for the last 5 years or so since = Tandayapa lodge was built, but still a very nicely done checklist. It can = be viewed at: http://www.tandayapa.com/TBLList.html for the Tandayapa Bird = lodge and immediately surrounding (within 5km) area and http://www.tandayap= a.com/birdtours/daytripslist.html for an annotated list that includes all = areas visiting in day trips from the lodge. Both are very nice. Just some ideas from a fellow birder regarding checklists. Something = could be done similarily for the MN list, and i'd even offer to help = compile the information to build a checklist (ie send me a list of = sightings for accidental species such that one could annotate on a list = where/when it was seen...an example would be Long-tailed Jaeger. Has been = seen 3 times, in XX, YY and last at the Bayport Marina in Month (I cant = remember it), 2002.) such as the Tandayapa ones, and combine in the = breeding information provided in the WSO one. Providing an online = resource with as much information as possible would seem to be a good = thing to help promote birding in the state. =20 Chris Fagyal Senior Software Engineer United Defense, L.P. Fridley, MN (763) 572-5320 [email protected] >>> Chad Heins <[email protected]> 02/22/2004 21:16:26 PM >>> Hey birders! Apparently I picked a bad time to not check my email.=20 My brain is still on information overload as I try and process the entire discussion of MOURC listings etc... =20 First, I must confess that I am not a member of the MOU. Perhaps that excludes me from any right to comment, perhaps I'll comment anyway. If I'm reading many of the comments right, it seems that there is a desire for better communication between the MOURC and the MOU membership/birding community. I would like to thank Karl Bardon for his explanation of the re-listing of King Rail et al. Your explanation was very insightful and for the first time, I learned what the MOU defines as accidental. =20 I spent quite a bit of time on the MOU website the other day looking for abundance classifications for birds in MN. While there is a list of casual species and accidental species, there is no definition of those terms. Compare and contrast: I checked out the WSO's website (Wisconsin Society for Ornithology). They have an incredible annotated checklist of every one of the 422 species recorded in Wisconsin. They have classifications for rare (rare, but regular in the state annually), casual (no more than 1 record every 1-5 years), and accidental (less than one record every 5 years). I'm not suggesting the MOU adopt such classifications--simply that it would be nice if this kind of information was available to the public (non-members). Along those lines, it seems to me that some of the comments made regarding MOURC are not against the decisions that have been made, but rather about the way those decisions are shared with the birding community. My birding experience in Minnesota is limited to the last 3 years. I've heard of Gyrfalcon sightings each year; why would this bird no longer be considered regular? My erroneous assumption was based on my limited experience in the state. I'm not looking at 10 years of data like the MOURC is. But if the reasoning for such a decision is included with such a decision, people would have no grounds for disagreement. One last thing and then I'll shutup... I have seen my share of rarities in the Mankato area.=20 I have also seen my share of rejections from record committees in WI as well as MN. (That's what happens when you are so excited, you forget to take pictures)=20 When documentations are rejected, it is nice when the reasons for rejection are clearly outlined in a response. It helps all of us to be better field ornithologists, note-takers, and record-keepers. The next time I see a Mississippi Kite in the MN River Valley, I am going to look at and note the field marks that caused my first one to be rejected. =20 Thank you for your time. Chad Heins Mankato, MN =20 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools=20 _______________________________________________ mou-net mailing list [email protected]=20 http://cbs.umn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mou-net
