Hi Tweets,

John Chandler writes:

>In a post last week Michael Price asked whether the sighting of the Great
>Knot had been confirmed. Before communicating that it was confirmed, I
>checked my understanding of confirmed with someone locally. I'd be
>interested in your thoughts on this.
>
>A sighting of a rarity is called into the tape. What does it take for this
>sighting to be confirmed?

Depends, John. As far as an RBA is concerned, confirmation occurs when an
observer with requisite knowledge of fieldmarks and/or experience with the
species in question corroborates the original identification either during
the original observation or during an independent relocation.

It's going to be difficult if your locale has a large rarity-junkie
community because in the general competitiveness, most birding is done by
single observers and more and serious mis-ID's--what I came to call
'reachers'--are an inevitable result.

There's two ways to handle this as an RBA operator: first is, obviously,
don't air an Accidental or Very Rare vagrant until someone's made sure it's
a legit ID. I would suggest having a few people with impeccable field ID
skills more or less on call, John, so you can call the one who lives/works
nearest the location of the sighting and ask him/her to check it out, and
hang fire on the airing until they say yea or nay. That way you'll have to
broadcast fewer retractions of sloppily-ID'ed local birds.

Second, if you unable or unwilling through policy or lack of back-up to
pursue the first option, then the pragmatic course is to air it at the time
with a caution that it's unconfirmed, and take your chances of having to
issue a later retraction.

Of course, either way, that's screening, since you're using discretion to
classify, modify and/or pre-judge a basic report. But on an RBA that's all
screening really is--propagandistic hot air about acting as an arrogant
one-man Rarities Committee notwithstanding--just using your judgement and
your experience to decide whether you should air something with or without
qualifying comment, and sometimes whether you should air something at all,
it smells so fishy. That's all.

>When two or more observers say they are
>comfortable with their identification of the bird?

All that means is those two or more observers are comfortable with their
identification of the bird, nothing more: it tells *you* nothing and
*you're* the one who has to decide how to air it--or sometimes even whether
to air it. You need to ask what makes them comfortable, John, and be pretty
convinced by what they tell you so you can then say on the RBA that it is a
confirmed, a probable, a possible whatever. You may find it unpleasant in
the short run but more effective in the long--or it'll get you canned--to
resist assumption disguised as certainty, browbeating by someone
*determined* to get his sighting onto the RBA (though every instinct says
it's a gross mis-ID), wheedling by those who are not aggressive: none of
these are certainty of ID, or confirmation of ID.

In the specific instance of the putative knot, you can trust the judgement
of Mike and Rick Toochin on field identification matters.

>Obviously, as indicated
>earlier in this thread, there is a balance between timeliness and
>certainty.

Actually, John, in practice they are often mutually competitive, sometimes
exclusive qualities. If you have both serve reliability, then you'll find
that any conflict between them is resolved in all but the most unusual
circumstance.

>Before you hop in the car/on the plane, what level of confirmation would
>you want. What difference does it make if you do not know the observers?

If you make RBA-reliability one of the usual two or three main objectives,
as I tried to do, you'll find, John, that all the rest of this stuff falls
into place by itself and you won't need to thrash around on it. Most birders
doing a long-distance twitch are almost certain not to know who the major
players are in another location. *This* is why that third factor,
reliability, is so important. If your RBA has the reputation of being a
reliable one, people can jump in the car/make reservations and arrive with a
confidence inspired by the past record of your RBA.

If, however, your RBA gains a reputation for bare-minimum credibility or for
slack-ass 'Sightings 'R Us' approaches: 'Unfortunately, that Arctic Warbler
reported from Iona Island on Saturday April 1st was in fact a mid-identified
Warbling Vireo; sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused..." then
such a reputation is very difficult to leave behind and you will find that
birder mistrust can be a long-lasting obstacle to fuller acceptance.

You didn't ask this question but it's been hovering in the background
thooughout this entire weeks-long thread. How can I run an RBA well when I
don't know that much about it and I'm having to learn as I go along?

As I said earlier, an unenviable position in which to place yourself, or to
have a group place you, especially as your queries show you're beginning to
become aware of some of the larger responsibilities. Well, relying on the
assistance of people who do know--such as posting such related queries to
the list--is the first answer, at least until you're ready to trust your own
judgement.

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)