Tweeters,

I can't back up Scott's comments enough. To cast the system into the sewer
serves no good purpose for you or the comunity as a whole.

I admit that the system has some problems. My personal gripe with the WRBC
has been its lack of communication with the community that it serves.
However, I must give them credit for doing the best that they can,
especially in the past couple of years. Prior to that, Jerry would not
have even known that his record was rejected because the WRBC never
published anything that they did.

I can speak with some knowledge on the report that Jerry speaks of. In
this case, Jerry reported a bird to Tom Rogers, in writing. Tom published
the report in American Birds. The records committe did go to the trouble
to hunt down the original written report that Jerry sent in. I have it
here at home. In it, Jerry expresses some doubts about the ID of the bird.
Perhaps, Tom should have thought twice about including it in the American
Birds report? Who knows? I am sure that if the original report was not
avalible, the committee would have contacted Jerry.

I would add that I don't think that it is the committees responseability
to hunt down every person that will have a report rejected and check with
them It should be assumed that the person that made the report submitted
all that they knew about the bird at that time. If anything, I would say
that the burden lies with Jerry in the example above. If the reporter has
doubts about something that they reported, that made it into print, they
should be the one to take care of the issue.

By the way, I am not picking on Jerry here, he is a friend of mine and a
good and capable birder. I am using this as an example. The example being,
quoting a big ole prison warden from the movie _Cool Hand Luke_, "What we
have hea, is failure to commu'cate." Giving up on the system because
communitcaion might be lacking, is only going to make the system worse.

I say give the committe a break. There task is not an easy one. I would
not want that job for anything.

I would ask of Jerry, knowing that he lives in a part of the state where
there are few birders, not to give up on us all because of a rejected
record. Jerry, we need you! I would also ask that Jerry write a letter to
the committee telling them about his concerns. That is the only way that
the system will ever improve. (Keep in mind the old saying, "let your
friends go where they like, but keep you enemies close by your side").

Complaining works, I would like to think that my complaining about the
lack of published reports is at least partly responsable for the recent
flurry of published reports.

While I am on a roll, I would add one more comment about the recent Great
Gray Owl from Kirkland. Don't assume that because Jim Erckmann or Dennis
Paulson did not let it known to everyone right away, that it was a case of
snobery on the behalf of the "professionals" in the community. It is not
the decision of the "professionals" to report something, but instead, it
is the decision of the individual, professional or not, to let information
out. There is a cause of genuine concern when it comes to rare birds and
birders wanting to see them. Some birders have given us all a bad
reputation.

The systems that I talk about here are only as good as the energy that we
all put into it.

Russell

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



On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Scott Richardson wrote:

> >From Keith Arnold's ORNITH-L post (3/17 1:48):
> > As the originator and long-time member of the Texas Bird
> > Records Committee, I can assure you that we all face the same
> > problems in obtaining sufficient documentation. Most birders simply
> > won't take the time to write up their findings.
>
> >From Jerry Tangren's Tweeters post (3/17 1:20):
> > I know I certainly won't
> > report any more rare birds. With the recent reviews of the WA rare Bird
> > Committee, I've seen my reportings over the years to Am. Birds essentially
> > slandered without even contacting me. Think I'm going to voluntarily go
> > through the process?
>
> The Washington Bird Records Committee is an all-volunteer group with eight
> members who recently have managed to meet twice per year to review bird records
> going back more than a century. They admit taking a conservative approach to
> accepting records.
> I wish I had lots of experience reporting rare birds to committees, but I'm
> afraid I just don't run into rarities the way some people do. I know that on
> the occasions I have written up a report, I have generally done a poor job.
> It's HARD to write detailed descriptions of plumage and behavior. And sketches?
> Photographs? Besides, I wouldn't report the bird if I didn't KNOW what I saw!
> I'm not assuming Jerry's attitude echoes mine, but I believe records
> committees are all too familiar with the pattern. Yes, perhaps they should be
> more responsive. But if they fail on that front, I am willing to swallow my
> pride and strive toward making a rock-solid case for my next rare sighting,
> rather than reject the system altogether.
> --
> Scott Richardson
> northeast Seattle
> salix at halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/salix/
>