At 11:19 PM 5/18/99 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

>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.

Obviously you use other criteria, Michael, unless I've misunderstood
your claim that you voted against the Xantu's hummer record.

Why is it "beyond reasonable doubt", rather than "preponderance of
evidence"? Isn't the submission of a rare bird sighting a civil, not
criminal, matter?

oh, almost forgot... :) :) :)

>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.

Which makes the entire process subjective.

I have no problems with rare bird committees operating as they do.

I do have a problem with the notion that a field guide publisher should
be held hostage to the subjective opinion of the RBCs, rather than the
subjective opinion of the writers and editors they've hired to write the
guide.

Given that RBCs in different states/provinces work similarly, but NOT
identically, one can't even claim that the RBCs give a consistent view
of distribution of vagrants.

And, again, RBCs are a sport birding phenomena. It's great that
they concentrate on the broader view, as do many (but by no means
all or I suspect even most) sports birders, but to hold them up
as an authority that NGS or anyone else must consult or agree with
is ... unwarranted arrogance. Nothing more.


>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? '-)

Since there exist birders who don't bother to report rarities, and
I suspect far more biologists (at the Goshutes we don't bother reporting
to the Utah records committee any more, because of what might kindly
be called an attitude problem on the part of the committee), it is
obvious that the official birding records for a state or province are
conservative, as they're based on incomplete data.

Yet another reason for field guide editors to consider other sources
as well as RBCs when collecting distribution data.



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