Dear Tweeters,

In a posting on May 19 on the Xantus' Hummer controversy, Michael
Price writes:

"If I had known in advance......I would have kept my mouth tightly
clamped."

We should all be so lucky!

Michael goes on to bemoan the "sheer brutal nastiness..., the
malignant near-slanders, the deliberate gross distortions, the
personal spitefuleness, the mean-spiritedness, the intellectual
dishonesties...the naked resentment", which he claims were directed at
him. Having read all of the Tweeters postings on the subject, it seems
to me that Michael is far more guilty of these attitudes and actions
than those with whom he has corresponded.

Michael seems to conclude from this that rarities committees
should not offer reasons for their decisions. Just the opposite should
be the case. Rarities committees should not only be fair, they should
be SEEN to be fair, or the ornithological and birding communities will
quickly lose respect for their decisions. In the case of the BCFO
committee decision on the Xantus' Hummer, all that was needed was a
brief statement that two members of the committee questioned that the
bird was an unassisted wild vagrant. This would presumably be
mentioned in the Records Committee report, whenever it is published.
In this case, Michael "jumped the gun" by offering his reasons in
advance of publication of the report.

Most good, well-established rarities committees provide feedback
to the person(s) that provided documentation for a record, by
informing them of whether the record was or was not accepted, and if
not, at least brief reasons why. (The Oregon committee does a good job
of this.) Admittedly, this may be months or years after the record was
submitted, especially if it takes two or more circulations to reach a
decision.

I have heard from others as well as from Michael that the
Washington state records committee does not provide feedback to the
individuals submitting records. If true, this needs to be rectified.
Admittedly, it takes more paperwork, but in my opinion, a statewide
records committee should (a) promptly acknowledge and thank observers
for submitting records and documentation, and (b) notify the same
observers as soon as possible (before publication of the next report)
of the eventual acceptance or lack of acceptance of the record, and if
the latter, at least brief reasons. In my opinion, the persons
submitting records should also be entitled to receive, if they wish,
detailed comments of committee members on the record. (This may be
controversial, as in comments of referees on a scientific paper; some
referees are willing to make all their comments, pro or con, available
to the author, while others feel that this would stifle frank and
honest criticism). My preference would be to make all such comments
available to the observers, and I personally would not make comments
that I would not wish the observer to see.
Responding promptly to observers, when it comes to both submission
and acceptance of records, is common courtesy. Any records committee
that does not do so, in my view, is not doing its job properly. I also
feel that the more transparent the workings of a records committee
are, the more it will be accepted and respected by ornithologists and
birders.

Now, back to Michael. I will defend to the utmost his right to
vote against a record that he believes to be questionable, and of the
Committee to vote not to accept records when two or more members vote
against it. (After all, that's what the rules require) Most Records
Committee rules are set up to be conservative, and most committee
members consider it a greater sin to accept a questionable record than
to reject one which is probably good. However, Michael's immoderate
language, and attacks on "twitchers" and others via Tweeters, have
done a serious disservice to the BCFO Records Committee, and to
Records Committees in general (as judged by the comments of several
other Tweeters subscribers.) If someone is going to defend Records
Committee decisions in future (for B.C. or anywhere else) on the
Internet, it should be someone who can do so in a more civilized,
restrained, and thoughtful manner.

Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, B.C. V2C 6E4
Phone: (250) 377-8865
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca