Subject: Mike Price letter re: Xhummer
Date: Feb 10 18:01:09 1999
From: Paul Webster - pwebst25 at concentric.net


Just a word of thanks to Mike for letting us in on his thinking about the sighting
of this rarity. Since I'm a lister myself (though not a fanatic) I can understand
the disappointment at not having a great sighting accepted. But records committees
help keep the integrity of sightings lists that we all depend on to a greater or
lesser degree, and Mike's vote was anything but unconsidered. Thanks again, Mike.

Paul Webster

> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:20:42 -0800
> From: mprice at mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Price)
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Xantus's Hummingbird Deliberations (long)
> Message-ID: <E10AR8j-0001yv-00 at dewey.mindlink.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Tweets,
>
> Gerrie Patterson writes:
>
> >I have just had a call from CBC Radio asking what I thought of the fact the
> >Xantus' hummingbird we had here for 10 months has not been accepted as a
> >"true" sighting . I am curious to know if someone can tell us who the people
> >are that make this decision and perhaps how they would decide.
>
> Gerrie, as a voting member of the BC Provincial rarities committee, I was
> one of those people, and I was one of the two people who voted, not once but
> twice, against the acceptance of the Xantus's Hummingbird Hylocharis
> xantusii to the BC List. My eventual decision was neither arbitrary nor
> perverse, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to share my reasoning with you.
>
> As I am much in favor of increased transparency in the horrendously slow and
> usually totally hidden workings of North American rarities committees
> (bafflingly called in North America, 'bird records' committees, as though
> records of non-rarities aren't important enough to record), and since
> relating the intellectual process by which I arrived at that decision will
> no longer compromise the adjudication of this particular candidate bird's
> acceptibility, please allow me to explain how I travelled from an initial
> acceptance to an unassuaged doubt. Please understand that I won't speak for
> any other member of the BC committee than myself; should another BC
> Provincial rarities committee member want to describe the reasoning
> underlying his or her accepting vote, I'm sure that would be an interesting
> point/counterpoint.
>
> Let's get to it, then. At first, acceptance to me seemed clear-cut: species,
> sex and age were incontrovertible. Very late autumn and very early winter
> are traditionally times for appearance of Deep South vagrants and 'mirror
> migrants' in the Cascadian Region as they are in their eastern geographical
> analogue, the Canadian Maritime Provinces. There were convenient hurricanes
> (Nora, Rick) in just that part of the world to strew storm-driven vagrant
> waifs from hell to breakfast. What more could a rarities committee member want?
>
> So, at first, I voted for unqualified acceptance and addition to the BC List.
>
> But a few brain cells at the back of the head weren't entirely convinced,
> and couldn't sleep for thinking about it. They went about for a couple of
> weeks fuming and frowning and muttering to themselves, just grunting at
> their friends when they said hello in the street, clearly unhappy about
> something. Finally, they decided to look at the mechanics of storm-vagrancy.
>
> *Just then*, there was a long discussion on this and another list in which
> the question of what happens when a hurricane bashes through the Caribbean
> and north into the US scattering Caribbean seabirds and over-water migrants
> and where the heck are all those Caribbean island endemics I shouldn't have
> to travel all that way to see? I'll skip the details and get to the
> observations and conclusions: typically the only birds which cast up as
> storm waifs immediately after a catastrophic storm are 1. seabirds and 2.
> passerine migrants already in transit over the water. Endemics? The
> hurricane kills them. Dey dont go nowheres, mon, dey stays right here.
>
> Alright, let's look at this again. An individual belonging to a sedentary
> southern Baja endemic species with no history of vagrancy gets sucked up by
> a hurricane and dropped down somewhere close to Vancouver BC. I checked all
> the Bird Alerts on BirdWest for the same period, but there were no-- repeat,
> no-- other Baja endemics reported anywhere. So much for fallout (see above.
> 'the hurricane kills them').
>
> Now I'm becoming a little uneasy about this bird's origin. Let's look at
> something else. Let's assume the bird is a bona fide vagrant, and let's
> assume that because it's a sedentary species, it's gonna sit where it lands,
> so to speak. Well, it remained in the vicinity of one or two yards through
> several seasons where a migrant would have left: it behaved as a
> transplanted sedentary species should. The reasonable inference from that is
> that it couldn't land anywhere else until it reached SW British Columbia,
> thousands of miles north of Baja California. But there were no weather
> systems at the time of sufficent energy to A) transport this bird here while
> preventing it from landing somewhere between Baja and here, B) getting it
> here in a timely way over such a long distance and C) being sufficiently
> energetic to get it here in a short time, but not so energetic that the
> storm kills it. The last two points are vital.
>
> Consider the type of bird it is: a hummingbird. One thing stressed in all
> the popular books about hummingbirds, and common knowledge to anyone who
> feeds them, is how frequently they need to rehydrate (that's 'drink', to
> non-ornithologists like ourselves). This is not preference on the birds'
> part: without frequent pitstops to tank up, they die. Twenty-four to
> thirty-six hours without water is the time period frequently quoted. They
> are so absolutely dependant on that combination of sugars and water we call
> nectar (if it's wild) or sugar-water, that they will not leave the proximity
> of flowerbeds or feeders except to migrate, and fight wars over these
> resources among themselves which would be fearsome to be near if they were
> larger animals.
>
> Let's look again at the storm-waif hypothesis. To reach SW BC from southern
> Baja in the survival-period of a non-rehydrating hummingbird, the hurricane
> transporting it must move northward at about a minimum of 180--200 km/hr for
> at least one full day. But the average hurricane slouches along at about at
> an average speed of only 20-50 km/hr, and a fast-traveller no faster than 60
> km/hr. Two things, then: first, hurricanes don't move fast enough to be the
> method of transfer within that window of survivability; second, the
> Hurricanes Nora and Rick pooped out and dissipated in areas well away from
> SW BC and were the bird travelling within the storm, it would have had the
> opportunity to bail out far aouth of BC. The inescapable conclusion? There
> were no weather systems capable of transporting the Xantus's Hummingbird
> from southern Baja to SW BC in a timely way, therefore the bird could not
> have been weather-transported.
>
> Then how could it reach SW BC so very far north? As the species' behavior
> shows, migration or long-distance vagrancy was foreign to it; its behavior
> at the Pattersons showed it would stay where there was food and water
> regardless of season: it behaved throughout as a transplanted sedentary
> species, not a temporarily-marooned migrant. So, hurricanes don't work, and
> there was no pattern or other occurrence of similar south Baja sedentary
> endemics in vagrante delicto to the exceedingly well-covered north including
> California and Oregon. So if there is no plausible natural transport
> mechanism, what the heck's left?
>
> Artificial transport. Ugly words to a lister, but I'm no longer one and I
> don't care, so I can view and test the possibility with equanimity and what
> I cheerfully hope is neutrality. In absence of a convincing natural
> mechanism, an inadvertent or deliberate introduction into BC is the only
> other possibility. The bird might have flown into a wheel-well or
> baggage-hold of a northbound jet, or been deliberately and surreptitiously
> kept as a local aviary bird, or intentionally imported and released, for
> whatever reason (exotic birds would rather frequently show up in Richmond,
> particulary near Vancouver International Airport, YVR, when importers,
> fearing detection, would release their birds and other animals rather than
> be caught red-handed). But in the absence of a natural mechanism, given this
> species and its sedentary nature, human transport seemed at least as
> possible, if not more so.
>
> Let me stress, Gerrie, that by this point I didn't know which was the more
> plausible, natural or artificial origin for this bird, and that is the
> crucial point: I *didn't* have a reasonable certainty which. At this point
> in my thinking, I realised there was now an equally reasonable doubt that
> the bird arrived here on its own effort, and at this point in the
> deliberations of many a rarity committee member the removal of reasonable
> certainty forces a 'reject' vote (or 'non-acceptance' in the flannelmouthed
> euphemistic Bureauspeak increasingly employed by these committees).
>
> To remove that doubt, I tried to think of any way that it could be proven
> either way: if natural, how to pick up a single stay-at-home hummingbird
> from southern Baja California and not let it make a landfall until it
> reached the Patterson's yard thousands of miles to the north in one jump
> without killing it and without bringing any of its Baja buddies along. If
> artificial, how, and if deliberate, why? Was an illegal aviary in the
> vicinity? Was someone importing hummingbirds illegally? Was the bird an
> escape or a deliberate release? I even considered the possibility that the
> bird could have been deliberately released as a 'salted' rarity by an
> unscrupulous lister, as in the famous English 'Hastings Rarities' case of
> the earlier part of the century. I tried to think of *all* the
> possibilities, both natural and artificial. The answer to them all was: I
> don't know; nothing I can think of can dismiss the other possibilities;
> there is no compelling piece of evidence either way. Reasonable doubt. Can't
> accept. Reject, then. The rules say it's gotta be one or the other, and ya
> can't duck a decision.
>
> Reject. I so voted in the first circulation. Given the vast enthusiasm,
> rock-solid ID and tourist benefits around this bird, I thought to myself:
> oh, boy, this is a good way to raise an army of one. I was astonished to
> discover another committee-member had likewise rejected, forcing a
> re-circulation of the record. Well, I thought, maybe somwthing new's turned
> up that will nail it one way or the other. But in the second round, the
> storm-waif hypothesis was again invoked, again without detailed application
> of how it would work with this particular bird. Nothing arose in the
> second-round discussion either to illuminate any of the points on which I'd
> been thinking or to speak to the doubts I had about natural origin. There
> was nothing to compel a radical re-interpretation of the available evidence
> so as to permit me to change my vote to acceptance with a clear conscience.
> So, in the second circulation, I again voted against acceptance on the
> grounds that in my judgement there was a reasonable doubt of the bird's wild
> origin, reasonable certainty of which being the one condition necessary to
> accept any rarity.
>
> To steal something from somewhere (has the flavor of the Holmesian canon),
> extraordinary sightings require extraordinary proof. Such proof wasn't there
> nor was it provided in the entire time the bird was there, except to show
> the bird behaved as a good little sedentary species should: the closest was
> the idea of storm transport, but merely invoking the 'hurricane storm-waif'
> hypothesis without detailed development of how it worked in this instance
> was simply unconvincing.
>
> Disturbingly, in his weekly Birds column in the Globe and Mail on Saturday,
> Peter Whelan mentioned the fact that when the Xhummer was first seen, people
> noted a small injury on its nape. One of the situations I have seen this
> superficial injury/nape-feather disturbance before was on birds which have
> attempted to remove their heads from a mist-net's mesh so forcibly that such
> damage occurs where the net-strands 'hook' the nape feathers. The
> injury/displacement could as easily have had a natural cause, but such an
> observation deepened my uncertainty of the bird's origin.
>
> So, Gerrie, that explains why I voted against accepting the Xantus's
> Hummingbird as a fully wild bird which arrived here under its own power, not
> that I believe it didn't, but that after looking at all the available
> evidence, thinking hard for several weeks pro-and-con, then repeating that
> thinking again in the second round, continually testing and re-testing the
> possibilities again pro-and-con, there exists in my mind less than the
> reasonable certainty that an 'accept' vote would require. We don't know, we
> never will, and when the day's over, that makes the matter one of judgement,
> but as just one conscientious member of the BC Provincial rarities
> committee, I gave your hummingbird the most honest and critical judgement I
> possibly could before rejecting the record for inclusion to the BC List.
>
> And is it a 'real' sighting? Well, the identity, the sex and the age are
> beyond dispute. The bird flew around and amazed and pleased everyone and
> worshipped the God of Hummingbirds with a healthy thirst for sweetness. Of
> course it was real. The controversial issue was one of provenance.
>
> >We all know we saw it anyway!
>
> Yes, indeed! And both your bird and your wonderful hospitality brought so
> much happiness to so many people that, to me, *that* is the best thing to
> remember about it. It is the many outward-expanding ripples from the great
> kindness you and your family put into this part of the world which so many
> people will remember when they think back on the Xantus's Hummingbird in
> Gibsons, BC. Regardless of the decision whether to add or not add the
> species to the BC List, or keep or erase the pencilled-in tick on a
> life-list, I hope you'll see that's where that tiny mite's *real* value lay.
>
> Michael Price
> Vancouver BC Canada
> mprice at mindlink.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 20:21:10 -0800
> From: lydia <lydia at wizards.net>
> To: "Tweeters!!!" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: They Don't Migrate......
> Message-ID: <m10ARAM-0006ROC at merlin.wizards.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> In my delusional state brought on bysevere Cabin Fever, I came to this
> profound conclusion regarding Canada Geese.
>
> They don't migrate anymore, they commute!
>
> Lydia In Kent,
> Crawling back under her rock.
>
> Lydia Gaebe
> lydia at wizards.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:04:20 -0800 (PST)
> From: "S. Downes" <sdownes at u.washington.edu>
> To: Michael Price <mprice at mindlink.bc.ca>
> Cc: tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Xantus's Hummingbird Deliberations (long)
> Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9902092055270.74498-100000 at dante42.u.washington.edu>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Michael,
> I would like to publically say that I am very impressed by the amount of
> thought and reason you gave the bird, amazingly some of the points you had
> brought up I was not thinking about. When somebody makes a decision based
> on that much careful thought and research I must support their decision
> either way.
> I do confess that if it came down to my voting on the issue a
> doubt has always lingered in my mind and I really could not say which way
> I would favor. My hunch is that the bird was blown off of land by the
> hurricane and would normally have died if it had not been transported by
> ship, plane or some other foreign object. So I doubt it was a *kept* bird,
> yet the probability of it reaching here under its own power is a little
> hard to swallow as well. So thank you again for your detailed comments.
>
> Scott Downes
> sdownes at u.washington.edu
> Seattle WA
>
> "Birds don't read bird books. (That's why they are seen doing things they
> are not supposed to do)." -Mary Wood
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:32:41 -0800
> From: Don Cecile <dcecile at sd22.bc.ca>
> To: "TWEETERS" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fw: QUESTION RE XANTUS' HUMMINGBIRD
> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990209183241.006acd9c at sd22.bc.ca>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Although I am not a member of the BCFO I felt obliged to comment on the
> following discussion of the BCFO decision to reject the Xantus Hummingbird
> report:
>
> >Personally, I am satisfied that this hummer was a wild vagrant. I believe
> >that I am as well qualified as any of the BCFO Records Committee members to
> >make such a judgment.
>
> But the fact of the matter is, there was a split decision among these well
> qualified individuals and therefore the record was rejected. It is
> necessary to have a small enough committee to be workable toward
> accomplishing their mandate. If the committee was to include every BC
> birder with appropriate qualifications, the committee would soon be too
> large to function properly.
>
> 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. 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. One can hardly
> >ever be 100% certain that a long-distance vagrant such as this is of wild
> >origin, but in my mind, it is so close to 100% that I am prepared to accept
> >it as such.
>
> I agree herein lies the problem, no-one can ascertain whether or not the
> bird was wild or whether or not the bird arrived there on its own. Thus
> there will always be differing opinions on which way to decide.
>
> I am much more prepared to accept Xantus' Hummingbird as a wild
> >vagrant than species such as Falcated Teal, Lesser White-fronted Goose, and
> >Crested Caracara, which some other B.C. birders seem willing to accept as
> >wild birds.
>
> I think it is important to make appropriate comparisons here. Take
> Falcated Duck for example, although it is a bird that is kept in
> captivity, it is a migratory bird whereas the Xantus is not. Furthermore,
> it is important to consider patterns of vagrancy which exist for Falcated
> Duck but do not for Xantus Hummingbird and finally, the Falcated Duck
> occurred in a well known vagrant trap with a history of turning up Asian
> birds.
>
> >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!
>
> So what is the sense of maintaining a bird list? If everyone puts on their
> list whatever they feel like then doesn't listing lose its meaning?
>
> Now here is a very good reason for the existence of the BCFO! In order to
> deal with some of the chaos that can exist when dealing with what is and
> what is not, we do have a need for provincial/state committees to address
> these very difficult decisions. A decision by such a committee should not
> be (and is not intended to be) taken personally. Keep in mind (although
> Xantus is not a good example) that decisions can change over time with
> increasing understanding of birds and these decisions can be reviewed as
> more information pours in. For example consider the first record of
> Tropical Kingbird, would this have been logically accepted? I think not,
> however after a pattern of vagrancy is established, all previous records
> could/should be re-examined.
>
> I do not have a personal investment into whether or not the Xantus
> Hummingbird is accepted or rejected. However some individuals that spent a
> lot of time and money in an attempt to see this bird for the sake of
> putting it on their B.C. list clearly do have an investment in the final
> disposition of this record. (I have long since learned that this is one of
> the pitfalls of rarity-chasing, you can be disappointed by travelling all
> that way to find the bird has left, or in this case to find the record was
> not accepted, either way should this remove the enjoyment of birding?)
>
> I think it is important to note that although records committees generally
> approach these kinds of decisions with caution and objectivity, there is
> some opinion involved at some point. Because one's own opinion differs from
> that of the committee or even if members of the committee have differing
> opinions, the function of the committe does not change, nor its importance.
> I respect the job of records committees and their decisions will not
> change how much I enjoy birding so why take it personally?
>
> >
> >At the same time, I would like to thank the Pattersons, on behalf of all of
> >us, for their hospitality and patience shown to the hundreds of birders who
> >came to see the Xantus'. It was a wonderful bird, and you were wonderful
> >hosts.
>
> Ditto.
> I would also like to thank the BCFO for the time and effort in making the
> tough decision that they did.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:49:09 -0800
> From: mprice at mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Price)
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: Fw: Question re Xantus's Hummingbird
> Message-ID: <E10ASWK-0007SU-00 at dewey.mindlink.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:06:04 EST
> From: BearlyBear at aol.com
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: more on oil spill
> Message-ID: <f8e785bf.36c121cc at aol.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> Here is the 2nd installment on the spill.
> Pat
> BearlyBear at aol.com
>
> Oil Spill Reaches Oregon Beaches
>
> .c The Associated Press
>
> By JEFF BARNARD
>
> COOS BAY, Ore. (AP) -- Battered by six days of pounding surf, cracks widened
> in the steel hull of a grounded cargo ship Tuesday, pouring thousands of
> gallons of oil and diesel fuel onto environmentally sensitive beaches.
>
> Streaks of gooey, tar-like fuel oil streaked the southern Oregon coastline for
> six miles around the 639-foot New Carissa. As many as 300 workers in yellow
> slickers and hard hats were called in to mop up the mess with shovels,
> squeegees and absorbent pompoms.
>
> ``I regret very much that we have a very serious incident on our hands,'' said
> William Milwee, the salvage consultant representing the Japanese company that
> owns the ship.
>
> Gov. John Kitzhaber said he was considering declaring a state of emergency,
> which would allow him to mobilize the National Guard to assist in the cleanup.
>
> ``We're skating on the edge here, hoping, praying, working hard to avoid a
> disaster,'' said Rep. Peter DeFazio.
>
> The Coast Guard said three of the ship's five fuel tanks were leaking and one,
> containing heavy fuel oil, was ``seriously breached.'' It was not known how
> much oil had leaked, but the three tanks hold 140,000 gallons of oil and
> diesel.
>
> Several oil-covered birds have been found, and special crews were standing by
> in case the slick threatens the habitat of Western snowy plovers, a threatened
> bird.
>
> The ship, staffed with a crew of 23, grounded Thursday about 150 yards
> offshore as it waited to come into port to pick up a load of wood chips. Its
> crew was removed by the Coast Guard on Friday.
>
> Oil fumes mixed with salt air Tuesday as workers packed oil-soaked sand into
> clear plastic bags, and front-end loaders piled up blackened driftwood.
>
> The thick oil penetrated less than an inch of the sand surface and pooled into
> depressions. Hundreds of bags of oil-soaked sand had been collected by Tuesday
> afternoon, but long stretches of beach still remained to be cleaned.
>
> ``It's nasty, dirty hard work,'' Milwee said, adding that the lighter elements
> of the fuel oil have evaporated, leaving behind only a gooey, gelatinous muck.
>
> The Coast Guard and salvage teams were going over their options on how best to
> remove the New Carissa. The 200-foot tug Salvage Chief, a veteran of the 1989
> Exxon Valdez recovery, arrived Monday night.
>
> Meanwhile, the panel overseeing restoration of Alaska's Prince William Sound,
> where the Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil, said Tuesday that only two
> of the nearly two dozen species hurt are fully recovered.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:33:25 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Bob Mauritsen" <Bluetooth at csi.com>
> To: "tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Oil-Coated Birds Reported in Oregon
> Message-ID: <199902100633.BAA10607 at dub-img-ims-2.compuserve.com>
>
> Don Bacus writes:
>
> >If they don't get that sucker either pumped or free soon, it's
> >going to break up.
> >
> >Seas have been too high to drain it or pull it off.
>
> AT the risk of being simplistic, this suggests to me that
> some effort by those in power should be made towards creating
> a vessel or device that *could* drain it even in high seas.
> Perhaps a ship with special extendable legs or something.
> I mean, they have oil platforms in the North Sea, for heaven
> sakes. They build the Glomar Explorer (or challenger, I forget
> which) to lift a soviet sub, didn't they? On All Things
> Considered today, Boris whats-his-name presented a satirical
> tale about American inventiveness. So, what's the problem?
>
> Bob Mauritsen
> Seattle
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:57:29 -0800
> From: mprice at mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Price)
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Xantus's Hummingbird Deliberations (long)
> Message-ID: <E10ATaS-0001Wm-00 at dewey.mindlink.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Tweets,
>
> Scott Downes writes:
>
> >Michael,
> >I would like to publically say that I am very impressed by the amount of
> >thought and reason you gave the bird, amazingly some of the points you had
> >brought up I was not thinking about. When somebody makes a decision based
> >on that much careful thought and research I must support their decision
> >either way.
>
> The Rarity Report as Police Procedural? (grin)
>
> >I do confess that if it came down to my voting on the issue a
> >doubt has always lingered in my mind and I really could not say which way
> >I would favor.
>
> Well, if you're not certain beyond reasonable doubt, the most conservative
> course is to vote against or, if your committee has the luxury of a 'pending
> further data' category for long-term evaluation, bung it into the 'pending'
> file and hope for enough additional observations within your lifetime to
> make eventual sense of the one sighting.
>
> >My hunch is that the bird was blown off of land by the
> >hurricane and would normally have died if it had not been transported by
> >ship, plane or some other foreign object. So I doubt it was a *kept* bird,
> >yet the probability of it reaching here under its own power is a little
> >hard to swallow as well. So thank you again for your detailed comments.
>
> Now that you mention it, ship assist is a plausible possibility, Scott, one
> that I think we all overlooked. Gibson's (and the Patterson's house)
> overlooks Georgia Strait, an inland passsage for all kinds of shipping
> heading for the northern exit to the Pacific Ocean through Queen Charlotte
> Sound. It's possible that when the ship was directly adjacent to the Sechelt
> Peninsula, that part of the mainland where Gibsons is, it thought it was
> home and jumped ship and thanks-for-the-ride. Could be.
>
> Only how would the bird feed while aboard? Would crew, captain or passengers
> chip in to buy a feeder? Maybe the ship already had one for use when moored
> in tropical ports--not all sailors head for the dives (just rantin', roarin'
> Rowlett-san ashore from his many seabird surveys, arrrr). Certainly if blown
> out to sea by Rick or Nora, spotting, then hanging on for dear life on a
> (northbound) freighter or cruise ship is a plausible way to survive *and* to
> get here all the way north, if either hummingbird feeding or a long torpor
> (though there's something inadequate about that second alternative) is assumed.
>
> Interesting possibility you've raised, Scott-- thanks!
>
> Michael Price
> Vancouver BC Canada
> mprice#u.washington.edu
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:00:45 -0800
> From: Don Baccus <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: Xantus's Hummingbird Deliberations (long)
> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990209230045.00d4a074 at mail.pacifier.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 08:20 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
> >But a few brain cells at the back of the head weren't entirely convinced
>
> brain cells can be a dangerous thing :)
>
> [snipping a long list of arguments that the chances that the bird
> arrived here naturally are diminishingly small]
>
> >Now I'm becoming a little uneasy about this bird's origin. Let's look at
> >something else. Let's assume the bird is a bona fide vagrant, and let's
> >assume that because it's a sedentary species, it's gonna sit where it lands,
> >so to speak. Well, it remained in the vicinity of one or two yards through
> >several seasons where a migrant would have left: it behaved as a
> >transplanted sedentary species should. The reasonable inference from that is
> >that it couldn't land anywhere else until it reached SW British Columbia,
> >thousands of miles north of Baja California.
>
> Why is this a reasonable inference? By definition, we have little knowledge
> of how sedentary species act once they're blown out've bed. "reasonable
> speculation" ... that's a phrase I could expect. But ... inference? From
> what logical base? A lack of knowledge? "Knowing nothing, I make the
> following reasonable inference from that null set of knowledge..." Uh...
>
> Sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> > But there were no weather
> >systems at the time of sufficent energy to A) transport this bird here while
> >preventing it from landing somewhere between Baja and here
>
> "Assuming facts not in evidence", or something like that. We don't know it
> didn't land elsewhere. You are presuming it didn't, and then showing it is
> unlikely. In other words, a classic strawman argument.
>
> Just because a species is "sedentary" doesn't mean individuals don't move
> around. Consider the sendentary northern spotted owl, weird individuals of
> which show up in weird places. They don't land in the nearest vacant tree
> when looking for a vacant territory during dispersion, they sometimes end
> up in urban environments, if I'm to believe posts to tweeters...
>
> Sure, not as far in terms of "klicks", but in terms of habitat differences,
> not so much different?
>
> But what seems weird here is that you're interpreting the term "sedentary"
> in a very, very literal sense. If the bird sits once, it won't move,
> because it is non-migratory. If we stopped calling it "sedentary" and called
> it "non-migratory", much of your argument would founder based on this simple
> switch in words.
>
> >, B) getting it
> >here in a timely way over such a long distance and C) being sufficiently
> >energetic to get it here in a short time, but not so energetic that the
> >storm kills it. The last two points are vital.
>
> Sounds like an variation of the "hummingbirds migrate on the backs of
> geese" answer to the disbelief folks express when faced with the facts
> that some members of this order stage impressive migrations. Obviously,
> there's nothing in the physiology of hummingbirds, as a taxonomic
> entity, that prevents large-distance travel.
>
> >
> >Consider the type of bird it is: a hummingbird. One thing stressed in all
> >the popular books about hummingbirds, and common knowledge to anyone who
> >feeds them, is how frequently they need to rehydrate (that's 'drink', to
> >non-ornithologists like ourselves). This is not preference on the birds'
> >part: without frequent pitstops to tank up, they die.
>
> Blah blah and yet some species DO migrate long distances, which seemingly
> removes the physiological argument.
>
> Behavioral arguments would make more sense (i.e. "they never fly anywhere,
> and here's some SOLID DATA backing it up", of course, proving a negative
> is very difficult).
>
> >Let's look again at the storm-waif hypothesis.
>
> Again, while this seems unlikely, is it much more unlikely than the illegally
> smuggled waif scenario?
>
> I should think one could build some significant arguments against the
> likelihood of illegal smuggling of the bird. First, motive - why would
> one want to? Then ... after taking the care, preparation, and diligence
> to get it to BC ... let it escape? A one of a kind specimen?
>
> I'm sorry, but we're faced with two very unlikely scenarios. I see no
> reason to favor the unlikely scenario of human transport over the other
> unlikely scenario.
>
> The statistical reality is that the P=1 in this case ... i.e., the
> probability of the bird being there was 100%. Somehow it got there.
> It's like winning the lottery, it is easy to show statistically that
> chances of winning are close to zero, but once you've won ... the
> probability are 100% in your favor of you having won.
>
> > To reach SW BC from southern
> >Baja in the survival-period of a non-rehydrating hummingbird
>
> So someone diligently feed and watered this bird while motoring,
> or flew it up here, or something else, without harming the bird.
>
> Seems like an interesting hypothesis based on absolutely no facts.
>
> Maybe you should try smuggling a hummer yourself to see how easy
> it is to do so without getting caught.
>
> Then, though, answer "why"? Where's the motive?
>
> Zoos and reputable private collectors keep records and would've
> 'fessed up by now.
>
> You are hypothesizing a competent (the bird lived), yet secretive,
> private individual. This combination of secretiveness and competence
> seems a mystery to me.
>
> And, if you believe it exists, you should be diligently tracking
> down the culprit. Such diligence and competence isn't acquired
> for the transport of a single southern bird. Whoever did it is
> either a wealthy private collector or a smuggler (though I don't
> know of any underground pet trade in this species, do you?).
>
> Regardless, rejection by the bird records committee is equivalent
> to declaration that high-level, competent smuggling is taking place
> and I do trust the committe has followed up to get the gendarmes
> interested in tracking this down?
>
> This is, after all, a fairly sophisticated operation and there's
> probably a lot of money involved.
>
> Hmmm...if there's money involved, where's the market?
>
> Have you uncovered a market for smuggled hummers?
>
> I realize such markets exist for some bird species.
>
> >Then how could it reach SW BC so very far north? As the species' behavior
> >shows, migration or long-distance vagrancy was foreign to it
>
> Which doesn't rule out the mutant brain-fart misguided individual.
>
> Sure, a low probability ... just like the probability of human transport.
>
> Would you care to entertain us with a rough calculation of the relative
> probability of these two events, with documentation for the constants
> involved in the necessary calculations? :)
>
> Of course ... we don't know the likelihood of such a mutation, nor
> of mutant humans transporting it.
>
> All we're faced with is an improbable event which occured with 100%
> certainty - the bird was there.
>
> Earlier folks said "God did it" when such events happened. The
> records committee, with a certain air of arrogance, hijacks God's
> role in the creation of miracles and have stated that "some person(s)
> did it". :)
>
> Still, you're arguing in basically the same vein - it could not've
> happened naturally, therefore a "miracle" was involved, in this case
> the technological ability to transport mass in ways outside the realm
> of the natural, non-technological world (pretty much defines a miracle,
> for any given reference base of technology).
>
> > its behavior
> >at the Pattersons showed it would stay where there was food and water
> >regardless of season
>
> Not really. It showed the bird stayed there, nothing more. Given our
> lack of knowledge of how this bird behaves when removed from its normal
> range, you can't really say anything more.
>
> Statements like this show the danger of pseudo-science...you're arguing
> from authority, yet your authority is based on total ignorance of how
> THIS species behaves under THESE circumstance. Sorry, doesn't cut it.
>
> >it behaved throughout as a transplanted sedentary
> >species
>
> Cool! It's behavior doesn't argue towards any MEANS of transplant.
>
> >not a temporarily-marooned migrant.
>
> Since the species isn't migratory, how the hell could you expect it
> to act like a temporarily-marooned migrant?
>
> Such behavior would be unexpected.
>
> It's sedentary behavior is what one would expect - as you argued
> earlier in your post. You argue both ends of this observation
> for a single conclusion, not ummm...entirely logical or internally
> consistent if one were to subject your conclusions to mathematical
> analysis.
>
> > So, hurricanes don't work, and
> >there was no pattern or other occurrence of similar south Baja sedentary
> >endemics in vagrante delicto to the exceedingly well-covered north including
> >California and Oregon. So if there is no plausible natural transport
> >mechanism, what the heck's left?
>
> Implausible arguments for non-natural transport...
>
> >Artificial transport. Ugly words to a lister, but I'm no longer one and I
> >don't care, so I can view and test the possibility with equanimity and what
> >I cheerfully hope is neutrality.
>
> And a certain lack of logic...and of course it's fairly well known that
> I've NEVER been a lister, so if this is of any consequence I'm pure
> white, while you're simply black bleached to off-white :)
>
> > In absence of a convincing natural
> >mechanism, an inadvertent or deliberate introduction into BC is the only
> >other possibility.
>
> Not at all ...
>
> > The bird might have flown into a wheel-well
>
> Earlier you argued that the high metabolic rate of the hummer argued
> against it's coming here naturally, due to its need to rehydrate and
> refuel.
>
> Now you postulate a voyage in the wheel-well of an airliner flying
> at 35K+ft in altitude?
>
> People try this ... and frequently die of hypothermia and anoxia.
> Those that live are invariably in for a stay in hospital, usually
> (in the US) a hospital in a confinment scenario, where they're
> stabilized and sent home. This is so well known that it is
> exceedingly rare to see folks try this means of entry any more.
>
> And we don't die of thirst or lack of food more quickly than hummers.
>
> What is the physiological basis for your argument that hummers are
> too fragile to migrate long distances without feeding and watering
> far more frequently than humans would need to if walking the same
> trip, while arguing that hummers are more able to resist the rigor
> of a wheel-well trip?
>
> > or
> >baggage-hold of a northbound jet
>
> Baggage holds typically aren't pressurized, either, though it would
> be warmer than a wheel well.
>
> Is there a single documented case of a bird being tranported a
> couple of thousand miles by accident, undetected, and successfully
> establishing itself in either a wheel-well or baggage department?
>
> You've exchanged one unlikely, undocumented form of transport
> (natural) for another unlikely, undocumented form of transport
> (via accidental human transport).
>
> Document the relevant calculations that led you to believe one
> was more likely than the other, please. Keep in mind that humans
> are notoriously poor at intuitive judgements in regard to
> probability, which is what keeps casinos in business and which
> explains why the study of statistics invariably includes non-intuitive
> examples like the fact that the likelihood of two folks having the
> same birthday in a sample group of 35 is well over 50%...
>
> >or been deliberately and surreptitiously
> >kept as a local aviary bird
>
> In this case, the aviary would presumably regret the loss of a bird
> which it either paid to bring in, or bought once here, and would
> presumably make efforts to recover it...
>
> Wouldn't you? Heck, just go set out your own feeders nearby on
> weekdays and mistnet the sucker, and you have your investment
> back.
>
> Didn't happen, though, did it? I mean, it was around for MONTHS.
>
> I can't imagine why anyone motivated to bring it here to keep it
> would be unmotivated to get it back.
>
> >, or intentionally imported and released, for
> >whatever reason (exotic birds would rather frequently show up in Richmond,
> >particulary near Vancouver International Airport, YVR, when importers,
> >fearing detection, would release their birds and other animals rather than
> >be caught red-handed).
>
> For such species there is always a known market. After all, dealers
> exist in known markets.
>
> Is there a known market for this species of hummer? Any reason to
> believe there's an unknown market?
>
> > But in the absence of a natural mechanism, given this
> >species and its sedentary nature, human transport seemed at least as
> >possible, if not more so.
>
> Subjective, not objective. I find the notion of human transport
> unexplainable, as I simply don't see any motive to do so that doesn't
> involve the making or spending of money (smuggling a bird in takes
> some money at least), and it would be natural to try and recover it.
> After all, customs agents don't look for feeder hummers as being
> a hot spot for nailing a smuggler, so recovery once its presence
> became known should've been fairly simple.
>
> >Let me stress, Gerrie, that by this point I didn't know which was the more
> >plausible, natural or artificial origin for this bird, and that is the
> >crucial point: I *didn't* have a reasonable certainty which. At this point
> >in my thinking, I realised there was now an equally reasonable doubt that
> >the bird arrived here on its own effort, and at this point in the
> >deliberations of many a rarity committee member the removal of reasonable
> >certainty forces a 'reject' vote (or 'non-acceptance' in the flannelmouthed
> >euphemistic Bureauspeak increasingly employed by these committees).
>
> Which seems silly, to me. In absence of a plausible argument for human
> transport, it seems far more reasonable to acknowledge that our knowledge
> of birds is extremely limited. For many of our species, we can't even
> write a credible conservation plan that says anything other than "don't
> change a thing without monitoring effects, 'cause our knowledge base
> isn't even half-assed, it's more of an ass-hair".
>
> I find it much more easy to believe that a weird individual got funky
> and moved up here than to believe perps smuggled the bird into the
> country, only to let it go, and only to let it hang out with no effort
> at recovery.
>
> Of course, if they let it hang out with no effort at recovery, this
> indicates it wasn't worth much.
>
> Hmmm...not worth much...then why was it smuggled in the first place?
>
> People rarely smuggle dirt (I know one friend who does, collecting
> a "dirts of the world" archive). People much more frequently smuggle
> drugs, expensive CITES items dead or alive, currency to launder, that
> kind of thing. So ... show me the money, then I'll be more interested
> in the human-movement theory.
>
> >To remove that doubt, I tried to think of any way that it could be proven
> >either way: if natural, how to pick up a single stay-at-home hummingbird
> >from southern Baja California and not let it make a landfall
>
> False premise - the fact that it's "sedentary" doesn't mean if it makes
> a single landfall it won't move. Perhaps it made landfall in a San
> Francisco fog, or in the mojave where no feeders were available. It's
> not so hard to imagine landfalls that wouldn't appear attractive.
>
> You claim that any landfall would lead to its staying put...this is
> a tautalogy, for after all it was living on land before it left, and
> if you're statement's true it would still be home...
>
> > until it
> >reached the Patterson's yard thousands of miles to the north in one jump
>
> Again, the "one jump" premise is a false premise. While it may be true,
> it is mere speculation unbacked by data and apparently adopted by your
> belief that "sedentary" means something much more strigent than
> "non-migratory". Sedentary species have post-breeding dispersals,
> they don't just sit on their butts sucking the same flower their
> whole life...
>
> >without killing it and without bringing any of its Baja buddies along.
>
> If single birds are an indication of human transport, just how many
> rare birds would be tossed out? The blackburnian warbler I saw at
> Malheur had no blackburnian buddies along. Neither did the
> prothonatory. The red-shoulders we see at Ferguson springs, apparently
> breeding, are a unique island several hundreds of miles from the
> nearest breeding neighbors, and they didn't bring their cousins
> and siblings along, apparently.
>
> This statement of yours just seems silly. If rarities must appear
> in flocks in order to be legitimate, go rewrite the books!
>
> >If
> >artificial, how, and if deliberate, why? Was an illegal aviary in the
> >vicinity? Was someone importing hummingbirds illegally?
>
> Any evidence of other hummer smuggling? Have you notified the authorities
> that apparently hummer smuggling's going on?
>
> > Was the bird an
> >escape or a deliberate release? I even considered the possibility that the
> >bird could have been deliberately released as a 'salted' rarity by an
> >unscrupulous lister, as in the famous English 'Hastings Rarities' case of
> >the earlier part of the century.
>
> In that case, just let the record stand. Cheating and records based on
> cheating have a fine tradition in sport, along with mistakes made by
> officials and referees.
>
> > I tried to think of *all* the
> >possibilities, both natural and artificial. The answer to them all was: I
> >don't know;
>
> Apply Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is that the bird arrived
> here naturally by a fluke. Improbable arrivals happen all the time.
> This one is excessively improbable, but given how frequently we find
> highly improbably misplaced birds, excessively improbable sitings are
> a certainty at some interval. The calculation of that interval seems
> to be pretty difficult, but we know it's finite.
>
> Your entire argument is known as an "argument of incredubility". The
> world of science is littered with folks who've fallen on that sword.
>
> >nothing I can think of can dismiss the other possibilities
>
> You can't dismiss human intervention entirely, not for ANY rare bird
> siting.
>
> >there is no compelling piece of evidence either way. Reasonable doubt.
>
> I would think bird records comittees operate more along the civil
> suit model than the criminal conviction model...
>
> Preponderance of evidence, in other words.
>
> Your entire argument boils down to a simple statement - you can't
> believe the bird got here naturally, so you reject it. Absent any
> evidence to the contrary. This is not even "reasonable doubt" in
> the legal sense. "reasonable doubt" must be based on EVIDENCE, and
> the only evidence available is that the bird got to BC. That's all
> you have to work on. Your "reasonable doubt" is based on pure
> speculation, and if you don't mind my saying so, speculation based
> on rather specious logic in at least a few cases.
>
> > Can't
> >accept. Reject, then. The rules say it's gotta be one or the other, and ya
> >can't duck a decision.
>
> At a very, very deep level this entire argument on your part
> explains why I:
>
> 1) could care less about bird records committees
>
> - and -
>
> 2) don't bother submitting sightings to them.
>
> I just shoot the results, put them in my file, and sell 'em if
> I have the chance without any reference to the rarity of them
> being found in such a place :)
>
> >But in the second round, the
> >storm-waif hypothesis was again invoked, again without detailed application
> >of how it would work with this particular bird.
>
> Of course, for the vast majority of species we don't have sufficient
> knowledge to make "detailed applications" of this hypothesis.
>
> Better toss out that rarities book at start over! How many vagrants
> have been accepted without any objective information on how a storm-waif
> hypothesis affects that species? You reject the hypothesis based on
> subjective analysis, not experimental data. Other species are accepted
> based on the same lack of data. There should be consistency...i.e.,
> unless the bird's radar tracked from site A to site B it can't be
> accepted. Something like that. Recovered bands (oops, this is
> supposed to be for "life lists", not "death lists", oh well)...
>
> >To steal something from somewhere (has the flavor of the Holmesian canon),
> >extraordinary sightings require extraordinary proof.
>
> Actually, Holmes said something that implies quite the obvious.
> More along the lines that if you're faced with a known fact, and
> have proven that all explanations but one can not account for
> that fact, then you MUST accept the one explanation as being
> truth, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE IT SEEMS. In other words, no
> extraordinary proof is necessary to prove an extraordinary
> fact, only elimination of all other possibilities. This is a
> keen insight, and you've done much harm to Conan Doyle's
> reputation by publicizing your misunderstanding.
>
> We're talking Sherlock, not Oliver Wendell, I presume?
>
> He says nothing in this canon about choosing between two
> highly improbable explanations...
>
> > Such proof wasn't there
> >nor was it provided in the entire time the bird was there, except to show
> >the bird behaved as a good little sedentary species should
>
> You mean all sedentary species spend their entire life at a single
> feeder?
>
> >Disturbingly, in his weekly Birds column in the Globe and Mail on Saturday,
> >Peter Whelan mentioned the fact that when the Xhummer was first seen, people
> >noted a small injury on its nape. One of the situations I have seen this
> >superficial injury/nape-feather disturbance before was on birds which have
> >attempted to remove their heads from a mist-net's mesh so forcibly that such
> >damage occurs where the net-strands 'hook' the nape feathers. The
> >injury/displacement could as easily have had a natural cause, but such an
> >observation deepened my uncertainty of the bird's origin.
>
> God, you grasp at straws.
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:20:01 -0800
> From: Don Baccus <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> To: "tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Oil-Coated Birds Reported in Oregon
> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990209232001.00d4a064 at mail.pacifier.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 01:33 AM 2/10/99 -0500, Bob Mauritsen wrote:
>
> >AT the risk of being simplistic, this suggests to me that
> >some effort by those in power should be made towards creating
> >a vessel or device that *could* drain it even in high seas.
>
> Uhhh...at the risk of seeming really rude, do you really
> believe no such efforts have been made?
>
> If the ship breaks apart, there's a high degree of financial
> loss involved. Insurance will cover much the ship owner's
> cost and cleanup, etc, but the shipping industry has never
> viewed its vessels as disposable.
>
> >Perhaps a ship with special extendable legs or something.
> >I mean, they have oil platforms in the North Sea, for heaven
> >sakes.
>
> Yes, and they take years, not hours, to build.
>
> And they aren't built on heavy seas on the beach. We're talking
> 15-20 foot waves in water that's maybe 20 feet deep on the
> downswing, if we weren't, this EMPTY ship would be floating,
> not stuck hard aground.
>
> And oil platforms have failed, too.
>
> One can build stable structures on the beach, of course,
> there are plenty of piers and docks and the likes. But
> you're talking about something mobile, at least I assume
> you are. Building a pile-driven structure able to deal
> with such seas takes a long time, and the building itself
> doesn't happen in storms. You build it to withstand
> storms afterwards, you don't build it IN a storm.
>
> The North Sea structures you mentioned are assembled
> with divers, huge specialized equipment, especially.
> They are not assembled in the stormy season...
>
> > They build the Glomar Explorer (or challenger, I forget
> >which) to lift a soviet sub, didn't they?
>
> Yep.
>
> It failed to perform its mission, though it got some
> significant pieces up.
>
> But this sub was sitting on the bottom where the Soviets
> didn't believe it could be salvaged. In other words,
> the Glomar ship was built in oh, years or at least a whole
> ton of months (if they modified an existing hull), not hours
> or days.
>
> And the salvage operation still failed to complete its
> full mission, which was to raise the sub intact.
>
> > On All Things
> >Considered today, Boris whats-his-name presented a satirical
> >tale about American inventiveness. So, what's the problem?
>
> Physics. Blame God for making water so damned heavy and
> fluid at the same time, not to mention those big winds.
>
> Do you have ANY idea how much energy is released when a
> 20 foot wave breaks onto a ship? At 8 1/3 lbs a gallon
> moving at high speed, it's a lot. It breaks steel plates
> that make the ship a ship to begin with (or at least the
> welds or rivets holding it together).
>
> Open-sea refuelling take place with two ships under power
> moving fast enough to maintain the ability to steer. The
> hoses are slung in the air by booms, and distances are
> very close between the two boats. You don't put hoses
> in the water when you have huge seas, they break.
>
> One could try this approach with the New Carissa, but the
> problem with getting another boat close enough to use
> this technique is that that second boat would get stuck,
> too. You move it close, the seas move it up and down,
> it loads 400,000 lbs of oil, it sits lower like twenty
> feet away from the ship its sucking oil from, and boom!
> it's on the sand. And of course the seas and winds are
> pushing it onshore the whole time, and since it's trying
> to sit next to a stationary ship it too must hold still,
> which means water isn't moving against its rudder, which
> means it can't steer, which means ... well, this ain't
> a pretty picture.
>
> Some of the most competent intuitive engineers and problem
> solvers that exist work in the ocean. It's highly unlikely
> you're going to come up with any ideas they've not thought
> of.
>
> One salvage ship was readied to move on site within hours
> of the grounding of this ship, but storms were such that
> it couldn't cross the Columbia bar (which has claimed
> more ships than any other geographical feature in the world).
>
> It's not like they've not tried.
>
> The answer with ships is to keep them from being grounded
> in the first place.
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:45:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: "S. Downes" <sdownes at u.washington.edu>
> To: tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Xantus's Hummingbird Deliberations (long)
> Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9902092311340.27592-100000 at dante03.u.washington.edu>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Tweets,
> Regarding the Xhummer acceptance or not: Did I somehow miss something that
> Bird Records committees, rarities committes or whatever else you want to
> call them are just to validate or invalidate lists? I am a lister,
> counties, state, year etc.. however I do it for fun and for the motivation
> that it takes me to get out and say find a hard to find bird for that
> county. Shouldn't lists be a secondary tool in a way of keeping tract of
> the fruits of your hobby. To use another hobby: Sports memorabilia. Would
> a collector start raving if an appraiser suddenly imformed him that the
> ball that he searched for five years to finally add to his collection is
> now not worth very much money. A true collector would know how hard it has
> to find that ball, how much enjoyment he/she got from the pursuit and have
> its own *personal* value. I have the same *personal* value for every
> lifer. I know that I have not seen that bird during all of the years I
> have been birding, so take a *tick* away from me, you can't take the
> memory I have of seeing the Xhummer. Competive listers need to ask
> themselves is a bird of questionable origin more important so they can be
> one ahead of their birding chum or is the personal traits listed above
> more important?
>
> Yes, I made the trip to Gibsons and saw the bird, emphasis on saw
> the bird which was great enjoyment to myself. I really have a hard time
> convincing myself that the trip a hundred plus miles to the north is now
> somehow worth less because that bird cannot go on a list.
>
> Did it give me a chance to see a bird I had never seen before? Yes.
> Did I get to visit a new area for birding to me? Yes.
>
> A list should be a fun hobby that motivates people to see new species, new
> places and the challenge of trying to find the target bird. Well, of the
> three goals for lists I'm 3/3, though waiting for a bird to come to a
> feeder is not much of a challenge.
>
> I have felt that BRC's job was to document the vagrancy of species that
> were not usual migrants to an area. If this is correct then should we not
> error on the side of caution, if the record was accepted and the reality
> was the bird was not here by natural causes, well then the vacrancy of an
> endemic species would have its case far strengthened by a record a
> thousand plus miles to the north, which would not be the case in reality.
>
> In regards to Don's feelings about submitting to the records committee,
> well thats a personal choice but I hope that it isn't out of protest for
> the dislike of BRC's. If it is, what does the protest serve? You get your
> photo and record of vagrancy does not get the attention of the BRC that it
> should to be evaluated. If evaluation of sightings is supposed to have
> some scientific background in the species natural history and I see that
> Don uses science as a tool for supporting of arguements, then I'm sorry if
> I'm dense here but how can you be pro-science and not submit a record that
> might help to better understand the vagrancy of a species, unless your ego
> is so fragile that a rejected record somehow personally affects you. I
> would hope you are a better person that to let the latter happen.
>
> Scott Downes
> sdownes at u.washington.edu
> Seattle WA
>
> "Birds don't read bird books. (That's why they are seen doing things they
> are not supposed to do)." -Mary Wood
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 02:49:15 -0500
> From: Larry Cowan <LarryCowan at compuserve.com>
> To: Jude Grass <jude.grass at gvrd.bc.ca>,
> Eric Greenwood <egreenw at intraNet.bc.ca>,
> Subject: RBA Vancouver, BC -- Feb. 09/99
> Message-ID: <199902100249_MC2-69E7-3EBB at compuserve.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> This is the Vancouver, B.C. Bird Alert for Tuesday, February 9th, 11:00 p=
> m
> update.
>
> Featured bird is Ross's Goose.
>
> Birds noted:
>
> ROSS'S GOOSE
> Eurasian Wigeon
> Peregrine Falcon
> Gyrfalcon
> Black-bellied Plover
> Greater Yellowlegs
> Willet
> Marbled Godwit
> Dunlin
> ICELAND GULL
> SLATY-BACKED GULL
> Western Gull
> Glaucous Gull
> Band-tailed Pigeon
> Barn Owl
> Short-eared Owl
> Northern Saw-whet Owl
> BLUE JAY
> American Pipit
> Northern Shrike
> American Tree Sparrow
> Snow Bunting
> Western Meadowlark
> Red Crossbill
>
> Sightings for Tuesday, February 9th
> The ROSS'S GOOSE was observed at Coquitlam's Como Lake Park this morning
> from 11:00 till at least noon.
>
> Also seen in the Harbour Dr. area of Coquitlam was a BAND-TAILED PIGEON.
>
> A BARN OWL was seen south of Port Kells off Harvey Rd. in Surrey.
>
> =46rom the foot of 12th in Tsawwassen's Boundary Bay Regional Park came t=
> he
> report of 2 MARBLED GODWIT, 4 EURASIAN WIGEON and 5 GREATER YELLOWLEGS.
>
> A SHORT-EARED OWL was seen north of 52nd & Hwy 17.
>
> Monday, February, 8th
> A SHORT-EARED OWL was seen at Boundary Bay Regional Park.
>
> The SLATY-BACKED GULL was spotted at Burns Dr. & 88th in Delta.
>
> In a field near River Rd. & 34th Ave. in Ladner were 1 MARBLED GODWIT in
> the company of 2,000+ BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER and 8,000+ DUNLIN.
>
> Reifel had a report of a NORTHERN SHRIKE.
>
> Sunday, February 7th
> An adult ICELAND GULL was discovered near the junction of 68th St. & 60th=
>
> Ave. in Delta. Also in the area was a PEREGRINE.
>
> Other gulls of interest were 4 WESTERNS and an adult GLAUCOUS GULL seen i=
> n
> the gull roosts along Burns Dr. in Delta. Also in the area were an
> AMERICAN PIPIT and a PEREGRINE.
>
> Another falcon of note was a GYRFALCON seen on the 1st hydro tower west o=
> f
> 52nd & Hwy. 17.
>
> The eastern BLUE JAY was observed along with 15 RED CROSSBILLS from the
> Inglewood and Ivywood Place neighborhood in Delta.
>
> =46rom Iona came the report of a WESTERN MEADOWLARK and not far away near=
>
> Ferguson Rd. on Sea Island was a NORTHERN SHRIKE.
>
> The ROSS'S GOOSE was again reported from Coquitlam's Como Lake Park. The=
>
> bird was observed at approx 3:00 pm.
>
> Saturday, February 6th
> The SLATY-BACKED GULL was seen near Burns Dr. & 96th in Delta.
>
> Two GLAUCOUS GULLS both 1st year birds were reported in a flock on 104th =
> in
> Delta about 1.5 km from Hwy 10.
>
> Two NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWLS were reported from the Reifel Refuge.
>
> An AMERICAN TREE SPARROW has been frequenting a yard on Bath Rd. in the
> Bridgeport area of Richmond.
>
> The WILLET and 5 SNOW BUNTINGS were seen at the base of the Tsawwassen
> Ferry Jetty.
>
> END TRANSCRIPT
>
> Visit the VNHS web site at www.naturalhistory.bc.ca/VNHS
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TWEETERS Digest 1666
> ***************************