I like to comment on the tone of the posts made during the RSHA/ McNary
Buteo thread. Nancy is currently out of town, so these comments are
strictly my own (i.e, Bill's). I want to emphasize that that I am not out
to discuss the identification of the bird. I want to comment only on the
attitudes reflected in the responses to our questions.

It is true that we supported the identification made by others that McNary
Bird was a RSHA. However, we had questions regarding inconstancies in its
plumage and in the way it behaved. We looked to Tweeters to provide
assistance with these issues. In my opinion, many of the responses were
demeaning and curt. Everything from our observation skills to our
psychological makeup were questioned. All this from people who have never
even met us. In my opinion, these comments were too personal and went too
far for a public forum. If you don't agree with what we say, then that's
fine. However, I would expect that people making those kinds of comments to
post us directly. If people thought that we wanted to go to the mat with
this bird id, then we did not communicate our objectives very well. If you
read our posts, I think it's clear that we were not out to propagate any
hostility, and only wanted simple and constructive comments on what we saw.

Some of the posts stated that there should be advanced bird ID classes. I
think that this idea is great; but, lets not taint learning opportunities
when they arise on Tweeters with these not so vailed negative attacks.
People may think I'm being overly sensitive, but I found the entire thread
very hostel. If we did anything to propagate this, then I apologize for
both Nancy and I.

In addition, I like to make the following rebuttal on some of the overtones
in the posts.

1) Nancy and I do not need to pad our list with a RSHA. We have observed
them many times in Calif. when we lived and actively birded there for over 7
years. We have also observed them many times on the east cost and in
Ridgefield WA.

2) I have not met a birder, regardless of experience level, who has not
stumbled or made a mistake on the id of even a relatively common bird; and,
this is not because they have not studied these birds or because of some
psychological pressure to find rarities. (If you are one of those people
that does not make mistakes, then you may not understand how this could
happen. I'll be happy to explain it someday). We concurred with the id of
the McNary Bird simply because, under the conditions that we saw it in, we
thought it looked very similar to other immature RSHA we have seen in
Calif., and thought that it was the best match to what we saw in our field
guides. End of story.

3) Bird watching has been our main hobby since 1982. We enjoy seeing every
bird, every time we get to see them. There is no doubt that there a special
thrill to see rarities and a there is certain amount of pride in finding
them. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. We also pride
ourselves in being accurate. But when we make mistakes, we don't interpret
it as a life and death issue. However, in such cases, we expect to be
treated more professionally. When we ask questions, it does not mean we are
looking for a fight. When we see or hear of a rarity, we try to promptly
report it so that others can have a chance to see it as well.

I like to end this on a positive note. I think that there are great birders
on both sides of the mountains. We like meeting them, birding with them,
and learning from them. We are fortunate to have tools like Tweeters to
communicate with each other. We look forward to continuing a positive
dialog with others on Tweeters and letting others know what is going on in
the Tricities.

If anybody has any comments to make, or any bones to pick, please post me
directly. I am not looking to propagate this thread any further.

Bill


Bill and Nancy LaFramboise
Richland, WA
wlafra at oneworld.owt.com