To Richard and all that agree with Richard Wood's remarks: If ya had a record turned down by a record committee and you lost a lot of sleep over it, ego was bruised beyond repair and you developed a deep chip on your shoulder because your record was turned down then stop sending in bird reports to the record committees. The reason I say that is because if there is a chance your record may not get approved and if you are going to let a rejection upset to such a large degree emotionally than stop sending in RQDs to MOURC. Simple as that! My GOD this email is nothing more than Richard having a troubling experience with a record of a Conn. Warbler that was turned down by some other state records committee or a photo of another bird being voted down by another records committee!. EVERYONE for the most part had records turned down! Everyone has made a wrong identification on a bird in the field with other birders looking on. Hell I was told by Kim Eckert to scan a small group of immature loons on Lake Superior during a bird trip and when he asked "well are they all imm. common loons?" and I replied "YEP". Kim then scanned the loons one more time and yelled "immature Yellow-billed Loon". YEP it has happen to everyone at one time or another!
Yes I am friends with birders on the Minnesota's records committee (MOURC) and even though they turned down two jaeger records I submitted doesn't mean I have a axe to grind with them! Its not a big deal, let it go, I say! All I can say if they ever rejected another record of mind again -- well houses are going to be burned down next time! LOL Honestly though, next time IF I see a Pomarine Jaeger or a Long-tailed Jaeger I will do a better job with my documentation. I also been nominated several times to sit on MOURC and each time I did not get enough votes. NO BIG DEAL !! Sure at one time it bothered me but overall I realized it's not that important to me but I was thankful that people in the Minnesota birding community thinks I am worthy to be part of MOURC. In the MOU's "Loon" Peder Svingen, Chair of MOURC THANKS everyone who had submitted a record to MOURC! In the column of rejected records, Peder explains why the board rejected the record. All you have to do is go back to any issues of the "Loon"and on some rejected records Peder writes "even though the observer was correct with the identification, the board felt more documentation on the bird was needed to be accepted" That to me is a great response! On other rejected sightings in these columns you can read why your record was rejected and by reading the explanation, birders can see what their documentation lacked that needed to be approved. It's a great educational response by the chairman to do this. Also this whole pecking order is no different than players on sport teams. The best players on sport teams get treated differently because their talents are better than the players sitting on the bench! The reason the best players are better than the bench players is because the better players put more time into the sport, it came naturally to that player vs. the bench player struggling to understand it all. Also I am pretty damn sure people who have PH.D after their name get treated a whole lot differently than people like me that have no abbreviations. The pecking order occurs everywhere! It just happens that PH.D doesn't mean a whole lot in the birding world when a guy like myself who is a janitor at a church, is above a guy in the pecking order who has a PH.D. !! That is why I like birding so much because it doesn't matter how munch money you have, how well educated you are, how popular you are and blah blah blah-- it's all about how damn good you are in the field! Period end of story. If you want to get above in the pecking order than work on your skills. Also people who have large North America lists, state lists or county lists doesn't mean jack either! I guided to many field trips or one on one trips with people with unbelievable list totals that have absolutely no skills or very little in the field! Again its all about how good you are in field! Enough Sorry Richard but you caught me in a ugly mood! Michael Hendrickson Duluth, Minnesota Lake Superior Boat Trips http://webpages.charter.net/mmhendrickson/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Wood To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net ; mou-net at moumn.org Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [mou] Records Committees 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 <pastoral at princetonfreechurch.net> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20070722/47815cd5/attachment.html
