Actually, it does matter, which is why I asked. As to whether something is a state first or not, is of no concern to me. I've played that game (had committee members solicit reports from me, then turned them down, and laugh at me in the process), so I won't even think of coming anywhere close to doing that. If the system was to be changed, to be made truly scientific (such as having ornithologists on records' committees), then I might play, but until then, no. So, I don't see anything right with submitting reports to records committees.
I asked mainly because I know of birders that submit their reports to the AOU each time they go out; so I suspect that the AOU wouldn't look too kindly on someone adding a bird a few days later. I am aware how often this happens; it has happened to mee many times, and sometimes a year or two later, I have been able to ID what was one unidentifiable by me, just due to the additional experience I've gotten. Richard Richard L. Wood, Ph. D. Hastings, MN rwoodphd at yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: shawn conrad <[email protected]> To: Richard Wood <rwoodphd at yahoo.com>; mou-net at moumn.org Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 11:30:48 AM Subject: RE: [mou] Shorebird ID help The answer really doesn't matter. Unless the bird is a new state record or something, who is going to know or care if Nate (or any other hypothetical birder) counts it on his day, year, county, life, or any other list? In fact, 99.99% of birders won't even know if he keeps a day, year, county, life, or any other list at all. Should it be something highly unusual such as a potential first state record, and the rationale for believing this is convincing, the observer is free to document the observed details and submit them with the photo for consideration by MOURC. Either way, the observer can list it or not, and likewise, MOURC will do what it feels is most defensible. What's wrong with that? Just because this is being posted on the listserv doesn't mean this doesn't happen all of the time in the field. Birder A sees a bird and can't make the identification, Birder B looks at it and says, "That's a Clark's Grebe because of X, Y, and Z." Either Birder A looks in a guide, questions Birder B, believes Birder B to be credible and counts it--or not. How often during group outings is a difficult-to-identify bird identified by one or two members of the group, then other members of the group peer through the scope and feel satisfied that they have viewed said species? For me, this would be a opportunity to hone my critical thinking skills a touch. I would consider whether the person actually offered reasons for the identification and whether that person likely has credible experience with the species in question. Then, I would still ask how other possible identifications can be ruled out......unless I just wanted to get back to birding, then I would just pass on Species X and start looking at other things! My meager experience is that good birders usually welcome being questioned and either back up their assertions or reconsider what they are looking at. As birders, we should all strive to improve our identification skills, but there isn't a need to pester each other about our listing 'skills'! Sometimes, for me, having someone else help me identify a species is the best way to learn to identify it myself the next time. Consider this; even when I go out in the field by myself with a field guide, I am relying on someone else to help me with that identification--the authors of that guide. It's worth noting that even field guides have mistakes or descriptions that unintentionally lead one toward misidentification, so why not rely on the testimony of other birders who can suggest reasons for this bird being identified as one species or another? Perhaps bird identification is as much or more art than science? Nate, if one of the identifications someone suggests to you and the rationale for it pass the "smell test" and you can't poke holes in the logic, I'd say add it to any list you'd like. Since you saw it in 'real life'--behavior, various angles, and all--you are by far the most credible observer compared to those of us viewing just a snapshot in time. Shawn Conrad http://users.2z.net/itasca_chippewa_birding/ ________________________________ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:50:18 -0700 From: [email protected] To: mou-net at moumn.org Subject: Re: [mou] Shorebird ID help Hi all, I have a follow-up question to this. Let's say one gets a bunch of response, and there is a consensus as to what the bird's ID is. What does the birder do in that situation? Do you call it what the consensus says they think it is or do you leave it as an unidentified? I know what I would do, and I'd like to hear what the others of you out there think about this. I'd also be interested in knowing what the birding bodies think one should do. Richard Richard L. Wood, Ph. D. Hastings, MN rwoodphd at yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Pastor Al Schirmacher <[email protected]> To: mou-net at moumn.org; mnbird at lists.mnbird.net; BIRDCHAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; BIRDWG01 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; Wisconsin Birding Network <wisbirdn at lawrence.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 9:18:46 AM Subject: [mou] Shorebird ID help My son, Nathan Schirmacher, took these photos of a shorebird (http://www.flickr.com/photos/natester166) at Foley Sewage Ponds, Foley, MN (central part of state) on Saturday, August 30th - click on the "Mystery Shorebird" section to the right, click on the photos to enlarge. We have discussed the ID without resolution, and would appreciate feedback. This bird fed alone, would not associate with the six Stilts present. Thanks! Al Schirmacher Princeton, MN Mille Lacs & Sherburne Counties --- This mailing list is sponsored by the Minnesota Ornithologists' Union. Mailing list membership available on-line at http://moumn.org/subscribe.html. ----- To unsubscribe send a blank email to mou-net-request at moumn.org with a subject of unsubscribe. ________________________________ See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. Check It Out! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080902/47789ee6/attachment.html
