Subject: Re:
Date: Jan 17 09:10:35 1998
From: "Ruth Sullivan" - GODWIT at worldnet.att.net


Hi Eugene,
If I offended you with my commend,i like to apologize, this was not my
intention.i agree with Hal Opperman, you are not an Elitist, quite the
opposite.The reason i wrote the names of this observers because , there was
written in to the Log-book in Iona.I also raised hell the Birs was seeing
only once and still reported every day. On an IMPORTEND Bird asthe Great
Knot, it should be handled different
Also when i wrote bad lighting it can be possible wrongly identified,even
Top- Notch birders can make mistakes some time.This was the first time i
went to BC in four years, and verry disappointed, i saved a lot of Birders
time and money with my message.
Ruth
GODWIT at worldnet.att.net

----------
> From: Eugene Hunn <hunnhome at accessone.com>
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject:
> Date: Friday, January 16, 1998 6:06 PM
>
> Gene Hunn, Seattle, hunnhome at accessone.com
>
> I'm willing to take some heat for my recent comments about the importance
of
> knowing WHO reported a particular mega-rarity. First of all, 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. We all
> have reputations, good, not so good, or simply "unknown" (not really a
> reputation, I guess, but the absence of one). We EARN those reputations,
and
> they are something to take pride in. Identifying winter shorebirds, for
> example, is not easy, and it takes lots of work and critical study to
master
> the art. To identify the observer of such a report is to pay a certain
> respect to her/him for their contribution, or, if it should prove to have
> been in error, serves as a valuable correction. I've blown a few in my
day
> and welcome the constructive correction. If I see something
extraordinary, I
> don't assume that I will be believed on the face of it, no matter what my
> reputation, but go out of my way to provide the details necessary to
allow
> the reader of the report to make their own judgment of its likely
validity.