Hi Tweets,

Wayne Weber writes:

>Admittedly, the chance of a species which is normally
>non-migratory, and confined to southern Baja California, making it on its
>own to B.C., and then remaining for almost a year, is remote.

And that admission of remoteness of likelihood, made by nearly everyone with
some knowledge of hummingbird migratory patterns or lack of them and
involved in the assessment of this particular candidate for BC List
inclusion, is precisely the grounds on which a solid reasonable doubt is
based and must be satisfied before acceptance is possible. You articulate
this doubt well.

>On the other
>hand, hummingbirds are not easily kept in captivity, and the chance of this
>bird being an escapee from captivity is even more remote.

Unfortunately for this assertion, Dr. Lee Gass, the noted hummingbird expert
at the University of British Columbia, daily proves how easy it is to trap,
transport, keep to study in a lab--sometimes over an entire winter,
transport back, and release hummingbirds without harm. In personal
conversation with him, he remarked on their ease of care, not difficulty.
The possibility of captive origin cannot then be discounted on the above
grounds.

>The 1988 Xantus' Hummingbird in Ventura (which I was also lucky enough to
>see) was accepted by the California Records Committee.
>Although much closer to Baja California, that occurrence was almost as
>unlikely as the B.C. occurrence, given the species' normally sedentary
>habits.
>
>Gerrie, I don't give a dang what the BCFO Records Committee decides. As far
>as I'm concerned, this was almost certainly a wild bird, and it's staying on
>my B.C. list!

I'm seeing something of this 'bad committee!' and feeling somewhat the
rolled-up newspaper of disapproval at our decision in the rhetoric used by
listers who are saying, angrily: "I don't give a damn what the BC rarities
committee says, I'm keeping this bird on *my* list!' You're also then
saying, by implication, that you don't care what the provincial committee's
decisions are: if you lose a tick you really want, its decisions have no
legitimacy for you. A rarity committee might as well resign under such
withering bluster from the most competitive listers, since such listers will
not support it unless the committee's decisions can be swayed to go their
way for their own listing purpose: developing larger and larger lists of
rarer and rarer species. A diligent Chairperson of such a committee would
strongly resist such an attack on a rarities committee's independence of
decision and thought.

Not following or flouting BC List guidelines when they don't work in your
favor is a personal decision, I guess, but such an attitude does seem to
make all the work the others and I put into making sure our decisions were
as fair and honest as possible a waste of time in the face of such--and I
won't sugarcoat this--obdurate selfishness. But do as you like: it's your
list. Just be aware that the bird's origin was the main cause for concern,
for discussion and for doubt throughout the the two-circulation assessment
of this record for most of us, pro *and* con, and uncertainties about that
origin were the eventual cause of the rejection of its candidacy for the BC
List.

then Nancy Ladenberger writes:

>I do hope there will be a reversal of this decision. I plan on leaving the
>Xantus's on my life list also.

Nancy, if compelling evidence arises to strengthen the considered opinion
that the Xhummer had a wild provenance beyond reasonable doubt (see Wayne
Weber's words above, "...Admittedly, the chance...is remote."), I for one
will change my vote to an 'accept'; as things stand, until then,
'extraordinary sightings require extraordinary proof'.

Am I and the other holdout 'bad' people for spoiling all those listers' fun
and making people feel sad? Of course not. That's not what we on the BC
rarities committee were doing nor why we were doing it. Accepting or
rejecting records of candidate rarities to put on a rigorously-maintained,
observationally sound list of naturally-occurring species in the locality,
province, state or country is what a conscientious rarity committee and its
members does to the best of its critical judgement, considered experience
and intellectual honesty.

In general and particular, rarities committees have nothing to do with
listing, except by effect. This is a good thing because listers have a
implicit interest in, and bias toward, acceptance--acceptance means more
rarities and bigger lists. Even if unintentional (and sometimes done with
intention), historical instance shows this can corrupt the objectivity and
reliability of a rarities committee's judgement.

A rarities committee should *never* become subject to such a political
process or popularity contest, and it should **absolutely never** become a
question of loyalty or popularity to or convenience of a region's listing
community or the personal vendettas of the most competitive listers in that
community. Acceptance or rejection of a species, such as the Xantus's
Hummingbird likewise should absolutely not be a matter of preconceived
subservience to the provincial, county or state listing community, for by
implication, rejection then becomes an act of disloyalty to the listers.
That's not what rarities committees are for: they are not to be the
playthings of listers, nor their whipping-boys.

If seeing and listing new birds is your hobby, have a blast. But please
don't expect rarities committee to rubberstamp approval for your ticks--umm,
checkmarks. They may or they may not let you add to your list at whim, but
their independence is better for you in the long run. How? You'll be able to
put your trust in reliability of the resulting checklists.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
mprice at mindlink.net