> At 10:40 PM 3/17/97 -0800, Tom Schooley wrote:
> >Anybody who regularly reports rare birds is either out birding an
> >awful lot, or they have active imaginations. Too often the latter is all
> >too true.

I agree with Jerry that this is an assumption which does begin to get
made by many on records committees and in the birding community in
general. I know I've made it both in the role of field notes editor and
editor of a journal; ultimately, in both these cases, it's my
responsibility to let the viewer and the audience know the status of such
rarities, and it is my hope that the viewer will submit the record for
review.
One alternative is a lack of ability to write coherent reports of
rare birds not captured on video of some sort. I have no fancy camera at
present, and must rely on either drawings or very extensive notes to
support my reports. There is also a need for such committees to provide
instruction on better reporting. In Nebraska, when the committee was
formed, Barb Wilson wrote a two-page article on writing reports. Here in
Oregon, Harry Nehls offered a workshop at last year's OFO meeting on the
same topic. In both cases, some feedback was given.
For newer birders, I highly recommend writing up a rare bird
which everyone has seen (in Oregon, the Yaquina Bay King Eider this
winter is a good start). Post on Tweeters or OBOL and ask for feedback.
This will help immensely. Mike Patterson has also talked about sketching
hints on his web site. I'd consult those as well. I've started sketching
and it does help. When I moved to Oregon, after not having written a
report in a few years, my first two reports were on birds I was VERY
familiar with from my time in the Midwest--this made the reports easier.
Spending time with the bird also helps.
Records committees are a necessary entity to allow the
"scientific" world to be able to use "amateur" sightings--that is why
they are picked carefully, but the committee, while voluntary, I think,
has a responsibility of instruction on what makes viable reports and how
to write them. This would cause legitimate records to be accepted, and
more knowledge gained by all. Additionally, committees must realize that
some reporters, while not professional ornithologists, do have either
extensive field experience, non-obvious academic backgrounds, or
experience in research methodology within the field.
To conclude, an anecdote: when I was editor of the Nebraska Bird
Review, there was one lady in SW Nebraska who consistently sent in weird
records. Due to the lack of notes, these sightings were often not
published (though I would try to follow up), yet her sightings of species
common in other parts of the state but not expected there were quite
useful. One must be willing to critically assess all data, not throw
everything out because of one or two goofy records.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Korpi "A cat without hairballs is only half a cat."
Hm: Portland, OR --Ren Hoek
Wk: Clark College
Vancouver, WA
rkorpi at clark.edu