I'll rush to add further to Gene's comments, lest he be considered the
heavy here. A male harrier isn't a whole lot bigger than a kite and has a
long-winged graceful look; many people don't realize what a difference it
makes to see a harrier fly overhead, as opposed to seeing one coursing low
over a field. A White-tailed Kite (and a male harrier) might more likely
be compared with a gull than a Red-tailed Hawk. And habitat *does* matter;
we probably reject some reports when the habitat or the date is quite
inappropriate, as well as a not-completely convincing description.

One of the ongoing controversies in this area--and surely wherever there
are birders--was discussed at great lengths here by Russell, me, and others
a few months ago. There is a real conflict in each of us interested in the
status of birds in our state (region, whatever), especially when we are
compiling records, writing books, or otherwise acting as recordkeepers. It
really seems to boil down to a choice between maintaining *critical* (the
word should be used in its best sense here) standards and probably hurting
some feelings, or making sure that observers are happy by welcoming all
observations with open arms and thus tacitly accepting some records that
are not valid.

This discussion comes up over and over again during meetings of the
Washington Bird Records Committee. Our mandate is to look at reports of
rare or unexpected birds (and a White-tailed Kite in King County is indeed
such a bird) in as objective a manner as possible, to decide whether the
description of such a sighting convinces us that that particular species
was indeed seen. There are three categories of reports that generate
rejection: (1) the description clearly points to another species having
been seen; (2) the description does not present sufficient evidence to rule
out other, similar, species; and (3) although there are no really similar
species, the description is still not adequate to convince a committee that
the species was seen. These criteria are the underpinnings of the purely
objective process on which we pride ourselves.

Then there are also three categories of records that probably bring out the
slightly less-than-objective *biases* in bird-record committee members:
(4) the description is so poorly written that it is considered inadequate
evidence for a sighting (literacy is rewarded); (5) the observer has a
reputation for "shooting from the hip," with a past record of rare-bird
reports that could not be confirmed by others or were found to be a
different species upon checking (good reputation is rewarded, and good
reputation is built on critical observation skills); and (6) the observer
is known by the committee members to be very much a beginner or, in some
cases, is entirely unknown to the committee (experience [or reputation] is
rewarded). This is my own assessment; some other members might take issue
with it. But I hope no one disagrees with me that experience should be
taken into consideration.

In these critical deliberations, reports from the entire range of
experience, from beginner to old hand (and some of the old hands are quite
young), can be rejected, but there is more likelihood of such a report
being rejected when the description is inadequate, and that is often the
case with beginners, who often know little of bird anatomy and little about
exactly what to look for as field marks. Ergo, reports from beginners are
more likely to be rejected. We know, of course, that rejection is
destructive to the psyche. Ergo, bird-record committees are full of evil
people who get their kicks from seeing beginning birders burst into tears.
NOT REALLY. It's a consequence of the system, and we don't like that
aspect of it either.

What are the solutions? Well, a better and more thorough introduction to
bird anatomy and bird field marks for beginners would help (as was
discussed in this forum). A downplaying of how important it is to find
rare birds would help (also discussed). But, nevertheless, rare birds
*are* found--sometimes when you least expect it (which indeed is one of the
most fun things about birding)--so we just need to plug along and try our
best to deal with this whole sticky, gooey mess.

I'm in the camp that would rather throw the baby out with the bath water
(which I assume relates to the sticky, gooey mess), in other words, to
reject occasional valid records by maintaining a standard critical enough
to reject the invalid ones. No one should take it personally (well, except
maybe people in category 5 above), especially not beginners, whose records
would never be rejected because of who they are.

Well, that's a lot of stuff, when I had only planned to type a brief
statement to say I agreed with Gene's assessment.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416