We were having a simialr discussion on the Oregon line last week, so
those of you who read both, pardon my redundancy.
I very much advise the use of the p.v. label for all birds
reported in such venues on a review list. When the Records Committee was
started in Nebraska (only a few short years ago), this was one of the
elements which was eventually worked intoarticles which went into the
Nebraska Bird Review, a sort of hybrid journal and field notes
publication. As reviewable species came up, the editor would append this
if the committee was still reviewing the species or if the article
written was to be submitted. This way researchers could look at NOURC
records later to see if record was accepted.
The second half of the hybrid nature of the publication--that of
field notes--was not as rigorously screened. When I took over the
public. for a year, I decided it was needed for review species as well as
out-of-season and out-of-range birds. I generally used italics or some
other differentiating print to note review species. Reporters sent in
dates of occurrence, but if no further info was included, this was
noted (that no substantiating details were sent in). Reporters were
asked specifically for details when I sent them report forms to at least
try to get some info; if they did not wish to submit to NOURC (as some
did not) that was fine, researchers would at least have something more to
go on when reviewing--whether that be a few notes (which sometimes were
extensive enough that I submitted them) or at least an editorial warning.
I think it's very important that people be rewarded for their
time by giving them credit to contributing to the database, but those of
us who choose to take such positions must have a critical eye. It's
generally not our place to make determinations for the most part (some
get obvious enough even for me), but we also must encourage the reports.
Coming from a state at least the same size as Oregon but with a state
membership of only about 250, encouragement with gentle criticism and
follow-up went hand-in-hand.
And those of us now who are only submitters of records must be
willing to be reasonably questioned, though I do think we should expect
reasonable response and review in return.

Ray Korpi
Clark College
rkorpi at clark.edu


On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Jack Bowling wrote:

> This is a necessary discussion which, in one form or another, I have
> been having with other birders lately, including Michael P. I sit on
> the B.C. Field Ornithologists Bird Records Committee. I also am the editor
> for BC/Yukon region for Audubon Field Notes. To not include a mongo record
> in AFN before it has been ruled on by the BRC (always the chronology)
> would be pre-judging by me and a conflict of interest. I therefore in future
> will append a p.v. (pending verification) to all sightings listed in
> AFN of species which are included on the BRC Review List. I rely on the
> compilers to filter out the chaff sightings from the wheat and this
> works well since I have not and do not expect to receive any of the "flock of
> Painted Buntings" stuff. One can argue the merits (standardization, increased
> communication) and pitfalls (elitism, lack of acceptability by the
> professional ornithological community) of BRCs all day long, but from
> my end I have noticed a steady increase in the standard of submitted
> documentation for sightings. I attribute this to the proselytizing of the BCFO
> and its BRC. The BCFO was able to build on the successes (and failures) of
> the local BRCs in Vancouver and Victoria which have been around for much
> longer. To me the merits are obvious. The pitfalls will only be overcome if a
> structure can be setup which includes and builds on the strengths of the
> amateur birder (identification skills, local knowledge) as well as those of the
> professional ornithologist ("science" in all its manifestations). I'm sure there
> will be much more said on this subject.
>
> ,Jack
>
> P.S.: The only way I have found to keep up on the BRC committee
> activities around North America is to subscribe to the quarterly
> newsletter put out by Anthony White of Bethesda, Maryland. Tony spends a
> great deal of time networking with various committees and poring over
> journals then summarizes any changes to continental, state or provincial
> checklists in the newsletters. He cites sources if you want to follow up on
> your own. Cost is $12US annually.
> His address is: Anthony W. White
> 5872 Marbury Road
> Bethesda, MD 20817
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack Bowling
> Prince George, BC
> CANADA
> jcbowling at mindlink.bc.ca
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Korpi
rkorpi at clark.edu
wrk: 360-992-2215
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------