Yo, tweets.

I read with great interest the discussions about shorebird habitat
preferences, all the while supposing that such a valuable discussion
wouldn't have begun if it weren't for the questioning of a rare bird
sighting. Probably just about everything has been said, but I did want to
add a few additional comments. I'll bet everyone who has been involved in
the discussion believes, like me, that it's counterproductive to say
"always" or "never" for where birds, these far-flying vagile creatures,
might occur. The possibility of them turning up somewhere unusual is
responsible in some part for the enthusiasm of birders for getting out in
the field.

Not only do birds turn up in unusual localities (for first state records,
etc.), but they can turn up in unusual habitats as well, especially when
they find themselves in a situation where their optimal habitats just aren't
present. A good case in point is the Florida Keys, where I never encountered
habitats for freshwater shorebirds, except a few briefly flooded low areas
on Big Pine Key. I've seen both Stilt and Solitary sandpipers there on
saltwater mudflats adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean.

I agree that Solitary is very much of a freshwater bird, and I've never seen
one on salt water in the Pacific Northwest. I would say this species
typifies the freshwater shorebird, and I considered my sighting in the Keys
remarkable (my best photo of the species is from that encounter).

Stilt Sandpiper, however, is quite comfortable with mudflats adjacent to the
ocean on the Atlantic coast, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see one
in such a habitat here. It's very straightforward to predict that because a
species is rare in an area (as is the STSA around here), the probability is
high that extremely few will be seen in suboptimal habitat, so the vast
majority of sightings are indeed in those habitats that are more typical, as
has been discussed at length. Where the species is common, you are more
likely to see it in suboptimal habitats just because there are so many of
them.

I've used the habitat argument myself when judging the validity of a
rare-bird sighting, so I'm not criticizing that approach at all. A record
still has to stand on its own merit, and observers should keep in mind that
when they see a rare bird in an unusual habitat (I'm not referring to the
STSA in question, as I do think its habitat was appropriate), they have an
even greater responsibility to provide good documentation to those who may
judge the record.

Now, how about the reason this discussion began? A really important thing
for birders to remember is that records committees, North American Birds
editors, and others who judge the sightings of their friends and colleagues
do so not as a power trip but instead because they feel passionately about
the need to preserve an accurate picture of the status of birds in their
region over time and space. Again, this is why birding is so important to
ornithology. Nevertheless, ornithology - the science - has to maintain its
standards. Someone really has to do this rather thankless job in an attempt
to keep birding and ornithology from an acrimonious divorce.

And one more thing. I would have asked Roger Tory Peterson or David Sibley
or Kenn Kaufman (name your own icon) for documentation if they had reported
a juvenile shorebird to me 10 days before the known earliest date! But
anything is possible; the earliest juvenile ever found in Washington of an
Arctic-breeding shorebird was a Semipalmated Sandpiper on July 12. That
record, which I would have questioned vigorously, was adequately documented
- the specimen is in the Burke Museum.

Dennis Paulson
--
Netta Smith and Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115