Hi Tweets,

Arthur Berman writes:

>If I were to be lucky enough to find a rarity I would not report it as I don't
>need to be subjected to an inquistion. I don't report my list anywhere and in
>some ways have more stringent requirements for my lifelist (I don't list heard
>birds), but I don't worship at the alter of the ABA either.

You are mistaken in what a conscientious rarity committee does. Its purpose
is simply to assess as fairly as possible the validity of observational or
specimen records contributed to it to establish occurrence from the local
area to a country to a geographic zone and in some instances, to an entire
hemisphere (ie, first record of Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans north
of the equator).

Accepted records form, among other aspects, a picture of a species'
occurrence, distribution and migrational chronologies, relationships with
environmental conditions--for example, the relationship of Southwestern US
drought in the first quarter of the year to an increase in sightings in the
US Northwest and Canadian Southwest of Black-throated Sparrows Amphispiza
bilineata in the second, all of which eventually give us a more
comprehensive understanding of these dynamics. There are many factors to
look at when trying to arrive at a fair and honest conclusion.

To show how harsh your 'inquisitorial' rarity-record assessment process can
be, I offer my approach as a BC rarity-committee member: I would have two
simple questions I ask of any rarity report from you which comes up for
assessment: first, does the description establish the identification beyond
reasonable doubt? secondly, does the description eliminate all similar
species beyond reasonable doubt? If the answer is 'yes' to both, I vote for
acceptance of the record. All I ask is for a competent field-description
from you if photographic or specimen evidence were absent.

If there is reasonable cause to believe the bird may have originated as an
aviary escape, as with some watefowl species as Ruddy Shelduck Tadornis
ferruginea, then I will likely vote against acceptance; if I have enough
*uncertainty* which I'm unable to dispel about a wild origin--as I did with
the hummingbird--I will vote to stick the thing in a 'Pending' category if
the committee structure permits such flexibility, and time will tell if
there's a vagrancy-pattern or not; if such flexibility is lacking (as it was
at the time of the votes about the hummingbird, and the rules allow only a
yes-or-no vote), or I have a positive doubt of wild origin as in the above
shelduck instance, I will vote against acceptance. There is nothing
unconvential in this approach: rarity-committee members the world over
follow this general pattern of assessment.

All you need to do is to provide reasonably competent field-notes--if you
decide to contribute, that is. Very harsh. Very inquisitorial. I can see why
birders cower in terror or erupt in rage at the prospect. And, Arthur, *you
don't have to take part if you don't want to*! Competence! Free Will!
Personal decision! Dear god, will this horror never end for you? '-)

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
mprice at mindlink.net