It's not so much who saw/reported the bird, but the fact that those with
reputations as experts are most likely to have provided exactly the details
one would hope everyone would provide for extraordinary sightings. The
expert reputation is built on years of providing such careful documentation
and demonstrating a critical attitude toward one's own observations. Once
one achieves "expert" status one should not, of course, abandon those good
habits.

Gene Hunn, Seattle, hunnhome at accessone.com

At 05:51 PM 1/19/98 -0800, you wrote:
>John Chandler wrote:
>>
>> As the current operator of the Vancouver RBA I should provide you with some
>> background on this.
>>
>> A possible Great Knot was first reported to the Vancouver RBA by a very
>> excited Rick Toochin on the afternoon of Jan 12. Rick and his brother Mike
>> and one other very good birder had seen the bird. Mike has seen this
>> species in Australia. As I understand it, they were reasonably confidant
>> in the ID but waited until they could consult their shorebird texts at home
>> before confirming the sighting Monday evening. The RBA tape had already
>> been updated when the confirmation was confirmed. I spoke with Rick on
>> Tuesday evening and he told me the observers were confidant they had seen a
>> Great Knot.
>>
>I'll make this short -
>
>With no disrespect to Mr. Toochin and Mr. Toochin, I'd like to share my
>previous understanding that it doesn't matter if the reporters are
>Dennis
>Paulson and Ken Kaufmann (arbitrarily choosen birders). I had always
>thought that what mattered was not the reputation of the observer
>(except I suppose if a person had a reputation for false reporting), but
>the comprehensiveness of the field notes, pictures or other records of
>the sighting.
>
>Sincerely,
>Michael Kennedy
>Victoria
>
>
>