Tweeters,

I think Michael Price is right with this. Bird Record Committee
decisions are not set in stone. If more information, such as more
extralimital X
AHU records occur, the BRC decision can be re-evaluated
and changed. Similarly, BRC decisions, as much as possible, should not
be swayed by public opinion, but instead must be evaluated based on the
data presented when the decisions are made.

The Washington BRC has made similar conflicting decisions lately. The
Crested Caracara at Neah Bay in January, 1998, was rejected by a majority
of the WBRC because its origin is considered unknown. It may seem far
fetched, but Caracaras are apparently kept in captivity in Mexico, so
this bird may have been transported here as a "kept" bird. (As an aside,
I voted to accept this record, but I stand by the decision of the
committee, which I think was well deliberated). The Brown Booby on
Protection Island in October, 1997, a likely ship follower/rider, was
accepted by the WBRC, ostensibly because Brown Boobies do travel 1000s of
miles on their own and a pattern of their dispersal on the West Coast is
emerging, particularly in warm-water years. But boobies also hitch rides
on ships and may even be captured by sailors and later released.

Is this inconsistent? Maybe. Should we open up all the sightings
presented to BRCs for a vote by Tweeters? Go ahead, but that would be
silly and inconsequential, if you ask me. The most important thing we
can do is to continue to make field observations so that more sightings
occur, to perhaps answer our questions about the dispersal and vagrancy
of these birds with more data. To swear off BRCs because they decide
against a particular sighting is very counter-productive. Instead,
gather more sightings and do more research, to help reveal more about the
patterns of these species, then present the record again for further
deliberation.

If a record is rejected because of unknown origin, it doesn't mean that
the sighting is not valid. The sighting may be extremely important from
a historical perspective. The rejection hopefully means that the bird's
method of arrival is uncertain and until an additional pattern reveals
itself that the committee errs on the side of caution. As everyone
points out, BRCs don't know everything. Sometimes they, too, feel like
they have to wait until more information comes forward to make a final
decision.

Bob Boekelheide
Sequim

Michael Price writes:

>Just so we're clear. This vote is not about countability, except on people's
>informal personal lists. The formal vote has already been taken not once but
>twice by the duly constituted BC Bird Records Committee. The Xantus's
>Hummingbird Hylocharis xantusii was in British Columbia, Canada, and within
>that jurisdiction the BC rarities committee has reached a finding that there
>was sufficient doubt of the bird's natural origin to preclude its inclusion
>to the BC List. If a pattern of sightings emerges, the committee will need
>to re-evaluate this initial sighting but at present the bird is on neither
>the BC List nor the Canada List compiled by Birders Journal. Formally, this
>renders this particular individual uncountable on anything but a personal
>list.
>
>This adjudicative process is straight out of the book. While, as I said
>earlier, I'm a promoter of increased transparency and efficiency in the
>workings and accountability of a rarities committee, this current poll,
>based as it is on an underlying populist perception of a miscarriage of
>process in the decision (ie, that the BC committee was wrong to reject) is
>strictly informal and will have no outcome on the bird's official status on
>the Canada/BC List. It will remain uncountable until or unless new and
>compelling evidence arises to remove the doubt of origin, and such data may
>be decades in arriving if it emerges at all.
>
>This flap about the Xhummer is one of those small issues which is the tip of
>a larger and much uglier one. I think the most disturbing thing about this
>is the underlying attack on the legitimacy of the BC rarities committee. By
>voting 'Yes, it's countable', one is essentially saying the BC committee has
>no standing in its own province and its decisions carry no force. Imagine if
>BC listers were to start a populist campaign to attack and undermine the
>jurisdictional authority of the Washington Bird Records Committee over a
>similarly unpopular, but perhaps correct, decision.
>
>In similar circumstance, I doubt that the WBRC or any other rarities
>committee anywhere would alter or even sanction such a vote on one of its
>decisions based on twitchers' emotional need to keep the bird on their
>lists. I've never heard of this happening anywhere before, but there's a
>first time for everything.
>
>A while back, I expressed reservations about the advisability of a close
>relationship between a rarities committee and the listing community, and was
>attacked for criticising listers; those reservations become deeper by the
>day as this issue and the related one of the independence of rarities
>committees, unfolds in the way that it's doing.
>
>It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
>
>
>Michael Price
>Vancouver BC Canada
>mprince at mindlink.net