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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/
