At 09:22 PM 5/17/99 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

>A.)
>not paying the local rarities committee the elementary politeness of
>bothering to pick up the phone to find out what the committee's final
>decision was;

The local rarities committees are as commited to determining what can
be listed by sports birders as they are to the actual distribution
of birds.

There's also an unproven assertion here, that the inclusion in the
guide was based on the one record under dispute. There are other
sources of information on bird distribution that aren't necessarily
treated kindly by rarities committees, i.e. survey work done by
biologists for various agencies (here in the US).

Barred owls were listed as breeding like three times for the OR at
the end of the 1980s, when USFS surveys had them showing up like
pigeons at a grain elevator. In retrospect, which source of
data was more accurate?

>B).
>making the mistake of counting chickens before they hatch, assuming that the
>assessment process on this species was merely perfunctory;

An unfounded assertion regarding the assessment process, and a confusion
regarding hatching of eggs...IIRC, the guide says they're vagrants, not
breeders, in BC.

>C.)
>mistaking, as many twitchers clearly did, the wish for it to be countable as
>a BC/North American species for the reality (known in philosophy by the
>famous phrase, 'I want, therefore it is');

Now, what was the call sign of that airliner that mysteriously transported
the bird to BC?

The theories for human transport, as presented earlier here at least,
are so creative as to put the X-files to shame.

Or was the argument based on possible alien transport of the bird to
BC? In that case, at least the committee would be as down-to-earth
as the X-files.

>D.)
>decide it knows best, and the local rarities committee can just piss off.

As someone more interested in the biology of birds, rather than
sports birding, I find that there's a certain merit in this point
of view. I had (with a field trip) the fifth broad-winged hawk
record for Oregon a few years ago (there have been more, since)
and I nearly didn't bother reporting it due to the bullshit
involved with the offical records process. Frankly, I'm a
raptor professional and I couldn't give a shit about the record
committee's professional doubt and bias against those who
report on a species within their area of expertise, but who
don't participate in sports birding.

I know plenty of competent bird biologists who just don't,
so to speak, play the game. If they see rare birds, you'll
hear about it if you know them, but rare bird committees won't.
They're not playing the game for sport. You can trust them.
If they are uncertain in an ID, typically they'll tell you.
If they're dead certain and have worked hard to establish
an ID, they can be trusted. End of story.

The general presumption is that if you're not a hardcore
sports birder, you're not to be trusted. And if you are,
like most sportsfolk, you'll try to cheat (anyone watching
John Stockton sucker in Jason Williams on Sunday will know
how effective cheating can be). Frankly, the whole sports
birding mentality is, I believe, the only reason why
refereeing of this sort exists. Without referees, sports
birders will cheat, even if it's just a minor fudge.

Without sports birders, referees might not be needed...

>Time will tell which of these little piles the National G has stepped in.
>Having more experience with large organsations and their capacity to admit
>their imperfections than is healthy, I fully expect the National G to walk
>on, pretending it has nothing but diamonds on the soles of its shoes.

If you don't like their field guide, publish their own.

Your POV is a bit weird. It is their book, and they can include
any damned species they want. They are under no obligation to
contact local rarities committees. What arrogance to think so?

Clearly, if they felt that not contacting arrogant bird rarities
committees more concerned with the relative ranking of various
holders of various birding records within the region would hurt
their sales, they would've done so.

Equally clearly, they understand that failing to do so will have
no impact on their sales.

Good for them!



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net