On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Dennis Paulson wrote:

> I am going to propose at the next WBRC meeting that we develop a Rapid
> Response system (hopefully both more rapid and more effective than that in
> Bosnia) so that we can immediately vote by mail or phone or whatever it
> takes on at least reports that would be new state records, so there is
> essentially no delay. These records then would be published in the next
> available WOSNEWS as *certified* with the Good Record Committee Seal of
> Approval.

Timeliness is important. One positive side effect of being timely is
the good Public relations between the BRC and the community which it
serves. In the last issue of birding there was a letter to the editor
addressing the general lack of communication in any form from most all
BRCs across the nation. Communication and education should be just as
much a part of the job of a BRC as reviewing the records.

Lack of commincation creats the perception by the birding public that the
BRC is a snoody bunch of nare-do-wells that look down on everyone else. In
most cases this is a missperception, but in some cases it is indeed the
truth.

There is not doubt that there are reported sightings that we don't need to
spend time on, like a beginning birder reporting something like "last week
I had flocks of Painted Redstarts at my feeder". I have had reports like
that and with a little investigation they turned in to Rufous-sided
Towhees. My point is that a report from a credible observer, reported in
the proper fashion (i.e. written description, photos, ect) is public
information and should be released to the public whether it is accepted or
not. I feel very strongly that the BRC has no right to with hold that
information in any way.

I see the members of the BRC as peers. I have every right to have access to
those records at the same time as the members of the BRC. I do not need
the committee to decide what I should know about and what I shouldn't.

Why should reports lacking one or two bits of information to make it not
quite convencing, be kept a secret. I just don't see the reasoning here.

Don't get me wrong here everyone, I feel strongly that we need a BRC.
They are there to keep the official record straight. I also feel strongly
that they are not to be censors of information. The information should be
available for public review, as soon as it is reported, no matter what the
decision of the BRC is.

> Having said that, I still agree with my earlier posting :-) In the first,
> and only so far, report of the WBRC, we had to comment on 17 records that
> had been published but that were subsequently rejected. They include a
> Falcated Teal, a Wood Sandpiper, a Temminck's Stint, an Iceland Gull, 2
> Brown Thrashers, a Tennessee Warbler, a Magnolia Warbler, a Cape May
> Warbler, a Black-throated Blue Warbler, a Black-throated Green Warbler, a
> Blackburnian Warbler, a Blackpoll Warbler, a Mourning Warbler, and 3
> Orchard Orioles.

Hats of to the BRC! I'm glad to know that those records have been
evaluated. Thanks!

> All of these records are in the category of the Wood Sandpiper from
> Louisiana--some compiler from out of state who doesn't have access to
> Washington Birds (where the WBRC report was published) will include them in
> a list of out-of-range records of the species. Few people will check the
> bird-record committee records from every state and province to see if
> records published in American Birds are really valid. Parenthetically, I
> *did* do just that for the rare shorebird records that I accepted in my
> book, but it was relatively easy to do it for only a few states and part of
> a province.

One thing I hold in great esteem about Dennis is his high degree of
professionalism. I look at his shorebird book as an example that I would
like to emulate in working on my book.

However, when it comes to publishing these sightings, We can not let the
possibility that someone from Tazmania might come across a published
record twenty years from now and use it as the gospel truth, rule our
lives now. As I said in my first posting, it is the responsibility of the
person that wants to use the sighting or report to make sure that it has
been verified. If they do not do that they should be picking apples instead.

Well, I promised my self that I would not stay up as late as I did last
night, so, I'll end it here. Grab a glass of apple juice then off to bed.

Russell Rogers
4510 Glenn Way SW
Seattle, Washington 98116
(206) 935-6280
rrogers at halcyon.com