Hi Tweets,

Gail Spitler writes:

>What is the role of the RBA operator? I don't think the operator should
>perform any screening function. That's the job of a Rarities Committee.

Originally, I shared this opinion, intuitively reached, but there are
aspects to operating an RBA which you would understand only after running
one for a few years, and I found that you'll encounter them no other way
than through actual experience. Some are counter-intuitive, some confirm
initial intuition, some may be popular, some unpopular, depending on the
organisational sophistication or lack of it in the local community. Where
there is no political interference, the job itself defines not only what
needs doing but in some ways the style of doing, and reduces the choice to
doing it well or doing it badly, and being prepared to face, sometimes on a
daily basis, the choice between being popular and doing a worthwhile job.

For example, why not dispense with screening? Well, for the best of
practical, not theoretical or ideological reasons, because time is very
limited on an RBA: time spent on junk sightings is time taken from reporting
solid sightings and the boilerplate of phone numbers. Time spent apologising
for and correcting aired junk sightings takes up even more at the cost of
quality reports. Put too many stringy sightings on the RBA and pretty soon
that RBA will have a bad reputation for time-wasting unreliability and
non-credibility. Then, perversely, the same people complaining about having
to provide supporting details on some sightings (this happens far less often
than one would think, BTW) will begin complaining about the opposite, that
it's too easy to get a bum sighting onto the RBA. Catch-22.

Best not to waste time on junk at all, but to analyse the sighting with the
observer beforehand so that what gets aired is reliable and accurate. Not
only does it help establish a reputation for high reporting integrity but
it's simply a more efficient way to do things practically in the long term.

Believe me, Gail, I'm not being patronising by saying that in practice a
conscientious RBA operator must and will screen sightings regardless of
personal belief on the subject (if not simply because most Rarities
Committees take, comparatively, the back side of forever to arrive at final
decisions).

Besides the efficient use of time and the need to maintain credibility,
there is also the issue of reponsibility. Let's adopt for a moment a
laissez-faire approach to screening reported sightings: if during my tenure
I had aired a rarity which I knew was likely a ropy sighting, but policy
required I not screen, and which resulted in people coming in from hundreds
or perhaps thousands of miles around. Remember at the same time that most
birders drive to these rarity locations, and that in the real world driving
is a somewhat hazardous activity at the best of times and under less than
optimum conditions becomes much more so. If someone got hurt or killed while
driving to what I suspected from the start was a spurious sighting, I would
know that person would likely not have been there at that time if I hadn't
aired a rarity report and I would then have an in-evadable contributing
responsibility for that for the rest of my life. This is an aspect I was
unaware of before operating the RBA here. The issue is not to remove every
last atom of doubt, and to be paranoid about possible consequences and
possible responsibilities, but to be aware that some such potential
responsibility does exist and to establish as much as reasonably--I stress
*reasonably*, not fanatically--possible the legitimacy of a sighting
beforehand. One should not have to apologise or feel defensive about such
anticipatory concern about a real-world, if unpleasant, contingency.

>If I chase a Great Knot and only find a
>Red Knot, so what.

Tell that to someone who's just flown in from Tennessee because it was still
being aired beyond its initial location date as if still around! Be sure to
put 911 on your cellphone's speed-dial button. '-)

>However, as confirmation or the lack thereof becomes
>available, it needs to be reported. Again, this is the responsibility of all
>the involved birders; certainly not just the RBA operator. An invitation to
>callers to play a role in the validity and currency of the RBA messages
>might help.

Yes, I agree that without the willing, fair and enthusiastic participation
of local birders no person running an RBA has a chance of performing to
potential. That said, there is an equal and pressing responsibility for the
local listers in a community not to use the RBA just as a stage on which to
strut ego's nasty little dance or to withdraw in petulant blackmail if that
particular usage is refused. An RBA is a community resource, not a tool of
personal validation.

>I don't know if the original sighters name and phone number should be given
>out.

If a laissez-faire RBA, this would actually be a good method of ensuring
some responsibility for the accuracy of one's reported sightings; however,
I'd be concerned this would squeeze out most of the entry-level to
intermediate birders who usually feel they lack the skills, confidence and
sense of legitimacy of the more expert birder. A well-moderated RBA, though,
would definitely help to redress that imbalance and encourage a wider
participation.

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)