Gene Hunn wrote:
>
>Just an opinion, but when a "mega-rarity" is reported I believe among the
>critical details that should be posted to the hot line, etc., is WHO
>reported it. A Great Knot in winter plumage is not going to be so easy to
>identify as a juvenile in fall (the one previous confirmed west coast
>record). Why not a Black-bellied Plover? Unless we can judge if the
observer
>knew the significance of the sighting and had some familiarity with the
most
>similar common species we can't judge whether to pop for it, driving
>hundreds of miles, sneaking off work, flying in from California, etc.
>


I wonder if the "WHO" is the important piece of data. Are there not some
excellent birders out there whose names would not be recognizable,
especially by callers from afar? I think information about confirmation of
the sighting might be more important.

As I was typing this I realized that Gene's comments hit a nerve with me
about RBA's. I sometimes get the feeling that some RBA's react to callers
with an attitiude that implies "you couldn't have seen that" where the
emphasis is on the creditials of the caller rather than upon the validity of
the sighting. It makes one feel like no one except those in the inner circle
can ever spot a rarity. This is not to say that RBA's are not plagued by
sightings that turn out to be clear mis-identifications.

Also, I apologize to Gene; I may well be overreacting to his post.

Cheers,
Gail Spitler
Johnsons Landing, BC
gspitler at wkpowerlink.com