Subject: Problematic Sightings
Date: Feb 9 12:33:45 2002
From: Rick Howie - rick.howie at shaw.ca


I have been reading the various postings on the subject of possible mistaken sightings, and I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides of the debate.

I remember a time when, as a young Park Naturalist in Banff, Alberta, I ran into the senior staff office and proudly announced the presence of Tricoloured Blackbirds in the local marsh. I had seen the epaulettes and I was sure that the lighter one was quite whitish. As well, I had checked the range map in the field guide,and they should be in the area.
I was using the Golden guide to Birds of North America at the time, and if you look casually, the description for Tricoloured is directly in line with the range map for Redwinged Blackbird. Not knowing any better, I made my announcement. Fortunately, the local expert pointed out the error in my ways and I went on to learn much about birds.

Today, I am publisher of the local checklist in Kamloops and spend a lot of time in various endeavours related to birds, both professionally and avocationally. I am frequently in the position that Dennis Paulson found himself, and constantly struggle with how to handle possible sighting errors. I have been responsible for causing my share of ill feelings. I did feel that Dennis was respectful in his approach and raised valid questions.

In answer to one of our local birders who asked about the subject of documenting rarities, I created the following reply, which I believe has elements of context which relate to the past series of discussions. I hope that it helps with some further perspectives.

To Kamloops Birders:
A few weeks ago, Karen Willies asked about the procedures & philosophy for documenting rare bird sightings and who the officiating body was for such information. We talked about the topic and decided that it may be of interest if I put together a short article. So what follows are my own opinions about this subject, which go well beyond Karen's question, but only touch on a fraction of the topics related to this process.

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

The simple pleasures of birdwatching for personal satisfaction and marvelling at the wonders of nature have become somewhat confounded over the past 75years or so. There was a time when communication between birdwatchers was limited, to say the least. You could wander hill and dale, jotting down mental or pencil notes about your sightings, and the number of people who would become aware of your findings were relatively few. And unless you were in touch with someone who knew as much or more than you, your findings were quite acceptable to the family and friends you shared them with. Optics were limited and field guides non-existent, so field observations were not as sophisticated as they are today. But that was fine, because you saw what you thought you saw and no one would or could question your word. Undoubtedly, you felt satisfied with your findings.

With the advent of increasingly sophisticated optics, detailed field guides, expanded communications and a serious concern for being correct, it has become much more of a mine field of inquisitions if you choose to share your observations widely. "Why should this be?", you may ask. "Don't people believe me?"

Well, the simple act of sharing an observation throughout today's birdwatching community unleashes a host of issues that catch many people by surprise. First of all, people care. For all kinds of reasons they care, so we cannot assume that our words will go unheeded. Some people care because conservation issues require us to document the occurrence of certain species very carefully. The presence of an endangered species on someone's property could have serious implications about how they use their land, or whether trees can be harvested for example. The financial implications cannot be taken lightly, so sightings had better be correct.

Others care because they are writing manuscripts for publications that attempt to put all local species into context, or they are publishing checklists or other documents that ultimately appear in the public domain. These form the basis of opinion for decades or forever thereafter. Once printed, our sightings become a permanent part of the ornithological record for an area, and may be the centre of debate & conjecture for a long time.

The state of our knowledge is now so sophisticated in some areas, that we have a deep understanding of plumage variations and other factors that can be the cause of many field errors. Hence, another reason that people care. They know about all of the potential mistakes that are honestly made, and can turn a common bird into a rarity. And unless our sighting details rule out the potential for the more likely bird, the skeptics are justifiably concerned and may be hard to convince. And for whatever personal motivations, these people who seek the truth cannot let a weakly-documented sighting go unchallenged. They don't mean to be unkind to the observer, so much as they seek the truth.

Well, others may care because they wish to travel to see the rare bird. Before making the commitment of time and money to do so, they seek assurances that a Hutton's Vireo at Kamloops won't turn into a Ruby-crowned Kinglet for example.

The reality of our highly-connected world of modern communications, is that we are now held accountable for our statements and we take on a responsibility for the outcome in a way that we have never faced before. There is so much information available to so many people who can now question our observations, that by hitting the "send" button on our computers, we invite a plethora of comments. We are now responsible for telling not 5 people about our sighting, but perhaps 5000, or 50,000. They in turn may tell others, or they may download the observation to a database that is used to determine occurrences of that species across the continent.

Now this should come as no surprise, because for many people, that is precisely the thrill of sharing the sighting - so many people will know about our accomplishment ! So we should not be afraid of sharing the information, but we must be prepared for the obligation. And the obligation is to document the sighting as well as possible and to acknowledge the alternatives if sufficient details are not provided to rule them out. And it is quite possible that we may not be aware of the other possibilities. Not all of us study plumage variations sufficiently to know if we are making a mistake. Ah yes, ignorance was bliss when that Osprey in winter was so unexpected until someone pointed out that light-phase Rough-legged Hawks look similar underneath and will hover near water. Or that the head of some sub-adult Bald Eagles can closely resemble that of an Osprey, so that the bird perched beside an icy river in January is more likely an eagle than an Osprey.

So in answer to Karen's simple question about who the board of adjudication might be. The glib answer is that it is the entire world to whom you have sent notice about your sighting. On a provincial level, there is no official "records committee" for British Columbia, although the BC Field Ornithologists did operate one for a few years. This was self-appointed by that organization and was not necessarily sanctioned by some higher order of professional ornithologists for example. There is no such process in this province. The authors for the "Birds of British Columbia" acted as an approval board for purposes of this scholarly works, so this came closest to a provincial records approval procedure. But this group disbanded once the publication was completed. Wayne Campbell maintains the large provincial database that this publication was based on, and has his own procedures for accepting records to that database.

Here in Kamloops, I have published the second version of the local checklist, so by taking on this role, I am left with decisions to make when it comes to adding a species to the checklist, or a record at an unusual time of year and so forth. The decisions are my own and I am not empowered by any higher authority to do this. If I become aware of a rare sighting and accept it for the local checklist, it undoubtedly validates this record more so than if I had not accepted it. But if I choose not to publish it, the record is still as valid as the details and the rest of the birding community wish to make it. As publisher of records, I take on as much responsibility for validating mistaken identifications as I do not publishing correct ones. I maintain a large database of bird sightings for Kamloops & area. As some of you have noticed, I tend to be a bit of "a hard sell" when it comes to adding rare sightings to my database. It is only because I believe that it will become part of the ornithological record for Kamloops and I do not take the responsibility lightly. This does not make me right, nor am I the final word by any stretch of the imagination. But I am afraid that I will often ask the hard questions. Well, at least I used to. I am trying to be less grinchy these days.

Well, I won't get into a longer discourse on what to do about all of these sightings of rarities and how to solve the dilemnas that arise in terms of "officially " validating them. Some time ago, I sent a note out whether or not rare birds were worthy of all the angst they cause, but that is another topic for another time.

I hope that this has provided some thoughts about a few things that happen when news of a rare bird is released. We could lose control of the game at that point and it certainly moves us from the sandlot into Yankee Stadium. However, good solid field notes can ensure that we are hitting home runs and not being Casey at bat.

Rick Howie
Kamloops, BC
rick.howie at shaw.ca