Subject: MORE ON THE XANTUS' HUMMINGBIRD (LONG)
Date: Feb 9 21:50:00 1999
From: WAYNE WEBER - WAYNE_WEBER at bc.sympatico.ca


I am disappointed that Michael Price has chosen to interpret my comments on the Xantus' Hummingbird as an attack on the BCFO Records Committee; they were not. I was the one who initially invited Gary Davidson to chair the committee, and I support the Committee's efforts. However, I disagree with this particular decision, for good ORNITHOLOGICAL reasons. A decision of a Records Committee represents the collective opinion of 7 people (or whatever the number is)-- no more, no less. Records Committee members should not expect that their decisions will be universally accepted by the birding or ornithological communities, at least until their committee has been in existence longer than the BCFO committee, and they should not feel obliged to dump on those who disagree with their decisions.

Please keep in mind that 5 of the 7 Committee members voted IN FAVOUR of the Xantus' as a valid record. Michael's viewpoint is the minority one. However, I agree with the practice of most Records Committees, that a record should not be accepted if there is more than one dissenting vote on the final round of voting.
This does not mean that the record was "rejected", but that it was "not accepted"-- there is a difference. In published reports, records are usually grouped only into "accepted" and "not accepted" (or "unaccepted") categories, which is as it should be.

Michael seems to have an inflated idea of the role of a Bird Records Committee.
As I understand it, the BCFO Records Committee has only two main roles: (1) to review documentation for rarities at the provincial level, and to publish summaries of their decisions, and (2) to produce a provincial bird checklist. I would not question their authority to do either. So far, the Committee has failed to produce a provincial checklist, so there is no "official" B.C. list. (However, to give due credit to the Committee members, factors beyond their control have made it difficult for them to produce a checklist.) It is NOT the role of a Records Committee to tell birders what to count on their personal lists. BCFO publishes listing totals in our newsletter, B.C. BIRDING, but the last I heard, there was no requirement that a species be accepted by the BCFO Records Committee before it could be included in a list submitted to B.C. BIRDING.

The only organization I know of that requires birders' lists to conform to decisions of their records committee, for lists submitted for publication, is the American Birding Association. Since Xantus' Hummingbird is on the ABA Checklist (because of the 2 California records), it is left up to the judgment of the birder
as to whether a particular record of that species is valid. Furthermore, no Records Committee should presume to tell birders what to count on their personal (unpublished) lists; that is what I was referring to in my message to Tweeters and Gerrie Patterson. My standards on what I accept for my personal lists are very rigorous, as all my friends know.

Changing the subject slightly, I am well aware of Dr. Lee Gass' research on captive hummingbirds at the University of B.C. (In fact, my sister-in-law did a B.Sc.. honours thesis with Dr. Gass.) However, as far as I know, he is the only person in B.C. that keeps hummingbirds in captivity-- at least, legally. If someone has information to the contrary, I would be very interested in hearing of it. Anyway, the point is, whether or not hummingbirds are easy to keep in captivity, very few people do keep them.

I detect a strong note of disdain toward "listers" in Michael's remarks-- "if seeing and listing birds is your hobby, have a blast...", some of which may have been directed at me personally. For those of you who don't know me, while I admit to being a lister, I also have a Ph.D. in ornithology and 40 years' experience in birding and ornithological field research in many parts of North America, most of it in B.C. and the Pacific Northwest. While I respect Michael's opinions on whether a given bird is of wild origin or not, I feel that I am quite competent to make independent judgments on such matters. I also disagree with his assertion that "listers have an implicit interest in, and bias toward, acceptance". Many of the listers that I know have high personal standards and are quite critically-minded-- perhaps more so than some members of records committees.

My intention in circulating my response to Gerrie Patterson's original message about the Xantus' Hummingbird was NOT to attack the BCFO Records Committee-- as I have said, I am strongly supportive of their activities (and I had a role in founding the Committee). It was simply to explain to Gerrie, and to the hundreds who came to see the bird, that hey, this does not mean this bird was NOT a wild vagrant, it is simply the opinion of a committee of 7 people, and even 5 of them felt that it was a valid record. Anyone who is satisfied with my reasoning should feel free to count the bird on his/her personal list.

In conclusion, I hope everyone will reread and take to heart Michael Shepard's thoughtful comments in his posting to Tweeters (Feb 9, 11:41 AM), especially: "My advice is not to take the decisions [of Records Committees] personally." Michael founded the first Bird Records Committee for the Vancouver area in the 1970s, long before there was a provincial Bird Records Committee, and has personally experienced the frustrations (as have I) of chairing such a committee. Well put, Michael.


Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, B.C. V2C 6E4
Phone: (250) 377-8865
Wayne_Weber at bc.sympatico.ca