I'm sorry if I have offended anybody. I wholeheartedly agree with the
sentiment that there needs to be better communication between the Bird
Records Committee and those who submit records for review. The suggestion
of teaching the art of writing bird descriptions is very good. This is not
the first time it has been mentioned, but WHO will do it? Any suggestions
are welcome. I'm sure if a "sample" description were sent to the WOSNews
editor, it would be warmly received.

I also like the idea of giving the author of a report the opportunity of
withdrawing it before publication. But again that takes communication, and
there seems to be a bit of a shortage of that.

Tom Schooley
dunlin at mail.tss.net
Olympia WA


----------
> From: Raymond Korpi <rkorpi at clark.edu>
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Cc: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: Synchronicity?
> Date: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 10:38 AM
>
> > 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