>On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Dennis Paulson wrote:
>> Just think of now neat it would be if there were a Sage Thrasher
>> Subcommittee. . . etc. (snip snip)


and Scott Richardson replied:

>A wonderful idea, Dennis. Now how does it happen?

Don't ya just love people who ask questions like that?


>For my part, I am eager to publish Species Subcommittee reports in
>WOSNews. I have also attempted, in fits and starts, to compile Scrub
>Jay records, but have a difficult enough time handling Olympia's
>population, to say nothing of the remainder of the state.
>
>Taking on ALL of Washington's birds is okay for a few devoted
>birders/ornithologists, but many people must have their particular
>favorites. An individual or small group to summarize all Snowy Owl
>occurrences in Washington would have a relatively simple task ahead. But
>even birds of limited representation require hours and hours of
>exhaustive research (I think of the 4 pages of Snowy Plover records in the
>state recovery plan), and something is bound to be missing at the end of
>it. Who could tackle Western Bluebird or House Finch?
>
>My guess is that there would be a few capable and interested people ready
>to do this kind of research (the preparers of a revised Birds of
>Washington, for example). Most others might not even know how to go about
>the daunting task. How does one summarize BBS, BBA, CBC, American Birds,
>Washington Field Notes, WDFW observation cards, and birders' journals?

Actually, when I suggested a Sage Thrasher subcomittee, it was more on the
lines of going out and studying Sage Thrashers to find out more about what
they are doing here, rather than merely compiling a history of their
occurrence in the area or presenting an up-to-date distribution map. But
of course that's important information and could be one of the goals of
such a group. But the first alternative would in fact in some ways be
easier to do than the record compilation, which, as you wrote, would
involve a lot of literature work. It might be a lot easier to find out
what's known about a species in general from the literature than it would
be to get a complete record of its occurrence; it probably depends a lot on
the species.

The FUN of it would be really to learn about the species, and that's why I
think a rather dry compilation of records would be only a small part of it.
Just think of dedicating weeks, months, (years?), to understanding Snowy
Owls or Hutton's Vireos, yes even European Starlings, by watching where
they roost, how they interact socially, what they eat, where and how they
nest and how successfully they raise their young, etc. One thing we know
about studying a species is that you're not only studying the species, but
in fact studying all of its relationships with other species and with the
environment, which takes you further and further (as well as farther and
farther) and is always a fabulous learning experience.

>Again I offer an outlet: WOSNews. Shall I devote an upcoming issue to
>helping independent investigators, as individuals or teams, take part in
>this one-species-at-a-time approach to knowledge acquisition?

That sounds fine to me, and continuing to push such ideas will never hurt.
But I suspect we will need an enthusiastic, if not charismatic, person to
come forward with a species and get people to flock (so to speak) to her or
him to help carry out such projects. In short, we need a Bud Anderson for
every species! Or at least a Bud D'Veck, who, with his wife Marcia
Midkiff, goes out and spends long hours trying to learn about such elusive
critters as Rock Wrens and Poorwills on his own.

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