Subject: Re: Great Knot and RBA reporting protocol
Date: Jan 16 23:59:17 1998
From: Michael Price - mprice at mindlink.bc.ca


Hi Tweets

Gene Hunn writes:

(I've inverted the order of Gene's remarks somewhat because I think it's
important to establish the credibility of the Great Knot (Calidris
tenuirostris) observers as firmly as possible.)

>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.

The two Toochin brothers, Mike and Rick, both have high bird ID skill-levels
and are rarely inaccurate in their identifications.

>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.

This is done on some RBA's and BirdBoxes, and seems to work as an option;
while Hal Opperman has concerns re privacy and disclosure, with which I have
some agreement under most circumstances, I think this is as good a method as
not. In the case of posting MegaZorch rarities, certainly, having one's name
attached to the sighting is perhaps a good way of ensuring an accurate
identification. The disadvantage of this as the default method is that the
more diffident birders would likely not contribute without the option of
anonymity.

>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).

A guy in the Golden Gate Audubon (can't remember name, sorry) said to me
once that a Basic-plumaged Knot (Calidris canutus) is so inconspicuously
marked that it's what you're left with when you've eliminated all the other
possibilities. To those fairly familiar with the usual Basic-plumaged
wintering riffraff, a Basic-plumaged Great Knot will be different, perhaps
conspicuously so, as a *large* misformed-looking calidridine. It would stick
out.

>Why not a Black-bellied Plover?

A big, pale Calidris sandpiper with a big, long black honker which paces may
for a split second look like a big, pale Pluvialis plover with a short,
stubby black one which runs-'n-guns, but *only* for a split-second. I'm
looking at a series of color photographs of Great Knot, some with Bar-tailed
Godwits (Limosa lapponica)--they're about 1/3 the size--some with various
plumages, and ain't no way they look like plover, but more like a big,
dumpy-looking Basic White-rumped Sandpiper (C. fuscicollis).

>...let me defend
>myself: though I have served on rare bird committees, I am not an elitist,
>arrogantly dismissing the observations of the beginner. On the contrary, I
>do all I can to encourage new birding enthusiasts. But one of the most
>important values to impart to new and aspiring birders is the importance of
>a critical attitude toward one's own sightings, an awareness of how easy it
>is to make mistakes, and the worth of contributing to the construction of an
>accurate and detailed understanding of the comings and goings of our local
>birds. I believe this value is more important often than ones ego.
(snip)

Amen! Amen! Amen! This and the rest of your post, Gene, cannot be stressed
enough! Nicely said!

Hal Opperman writes:

>The compiler is in the middle, and has to take into account the presumed
>interests of both the observer who reports a sighting and a public eager to
>learn about it, as well as his (the compiler's) interest in staying in
>business. Result: some compromises get made in the name of keeping
>everybody happy, and as in any mediated transaction, the middleman takes a
>cut (of the information flow in this case).

However in this instance, Hal, the compiler had *already* made the decision
to publicise the sighting of a next-flight-out rarity but failed to provide
the necessary follow-up concomitant with its importance, either through
failing to realise what the usual RBA procedures are for updating on such a
high rarity, or by deliberate policy decision to provide no further updates
for whatever reasons. Since the original airing of this sighting would
naturally excite interest continentally, if shared, it became incumbent on
the Vancouver RBA either to provide sufficient and timely coverage or state
the bird was no longer being seen as soon as that became the clear case. To
say nothing at all, in this instance, was a failure of proper service to the
birding community at large. I do see in tonight's update that there is a
terse belated acknowledgement that the Great Knot was actually a
one-day-only sighting.

> I find it very
>revealing that when a bird like the Great Knot gets onto an RBA tape, and
>even though callers must assume that the compiler thinks it's probably a
>valid report based on the reputation of the observer, people *still* want
>to know that person's identity. It *is* important.

Actually, Hal, I think people could care less about the ID of the original
observer as knowledge in itself unless it's in one of those competitive
list-junkie communities where one lister is monitoring another lister's
score (oh god, this gives him *three hunded*! That's one more than me!):
they want to know that the bird was reliably ID'ed (hence observer's
name/reputation) only as a means to establish that it was probably there
they can go to the crux of the whole darn thing: the hope that it is *still*
there.

>Of course, once everybody is on-line and can exchange the latest info on
>palmtop computers via satellite uplinks, who'll need any of these
>voice-based systems anyway?

Well, the Brits have been using for-profit paging systems rather than Public
Domain hotlines for almost twenty years now. The free RBA is a North
American feature, though I can see its day is perhaps closing within a
decade or two.

Nonetheless, redefining the complex of principles of timely and informative
high-quality reportage by hotlines is a wheel which does not need
re-invention here: they're the same in any service organisation. The
decision to follow them, though, does, as I've said many times previously,
need a deliberate, informed and explicit commitment, one that can be taken
grudgingly or--much preferable--enthusiastically, but it does need taking.
The results--exemplary service, good service, mediocre service, lousy
service--show clearly to the world whether the people who make the decisions
and have the control have bothered to do so.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)