Hi all,
Because of the possibility that Goshawk-man Nelson Briefer represents
something more nefarious than someone who dreams goshawks into
existence, I'll elaborate on the possibilities as I see them. If not
interested, skip this essay. I think it's unusually important to our
community, who we are and who we can become. What's more, it makes a
fascinating mystery.

Jim Flynn was brief. I certainly am not Briefer. But respectfully, I
would like to offer a difference of opinion with Jim's point that the
Goshawk thread is "simply a difference of opinion" and should
therefore be laid to rest (see the Flynn post and the Briefer post
appended below). In my opinion, what is at stake here is much more
than the identity of a fly-by raptor; rather it is the authority we
command as citizens to be able to contribute to substantive policy
issues. Any group, be it in literary criticism, family values, or
scientific observations, that demonstrates high standards, rigorous
quality control, and a capacity to self-correct in the face of
contrary evidence earns its credibility and deserves respect for its
judgments. When the group's capacity to offer creditable judgment is
compromised by the carelessness, incompetence, willful negligence, or
greed of its membership or perceived membership, it is not just a
matter of difference of opinion: what is at stake is the group's
reputation in the larger community. I see such questions of
reputation as a commons issue, in which the tragedy of the commons is
precipitated not by individuals benefiting from adding their personal
sheep to a meadow held in common, but by a failure to recognize the
cachet that the group has achieved and by minimizing the significance
of foundational disagreements to the level of mere differences of
opinion.

With the opportunity to democratize scientific observation through
citizen science programs such as eBird, the stock value of this
cachet, in my opinion, has shot up. Birdwatchers' observations could
now and do already influence the listing and delisting of species
under the Endangered Species Act; they could halt a multi-million
development proposal in its tracks under the law of the land. Wielded
honestly, without bias, scientific observations would just as easily,
of course, demonstrate cases in which developments do not threaten
high-value biological components. When the other stakeholders are
honest and trustworthy, I am comfortable with that possibility.

In cases, then, when the group's reputation is potentially
compromised, it is worthwhile considering the factors leading to the
situation and evaluating their possibility--that's the self-correcting
part of the high standards. I have no brief with Mr. Briefer as a
person; in fact, I couldn't identify him, even with a field guide and
binoculars. But how his actions affect my embraced community is as
much my business as it is his. The possibilities are limited but they
are worth considering:

1) His observations could be correct. This is a very simple case:
it is conceivable that Mr. B is correct and Goshawks are common in all
the places he undertakes his observations. In this case, most other
fellow birder's observations have been incorrect. Mr. B makes the
assertion that this is plausible because their observations are
"inaccurate" due to the "experience of the birder[s] relating to
accipiters" and because of their failure to "take into consideration
'Goshawks with expressed recessive genes.' " On his blog he contends
that this misapprehension extends to the entire field of ornithology
as expressed in the received body of knowledge represented by field
guides. I am open to his evidence: if his claim is that birders
generally fail to recognize phenotypic characters diagnostic of
Goshawks or worse, misidentify them, this leaves open the possibility
of correction through field education or better yet, photographic
documentation. We, the birding community, welcome such evidence and I
extend an open invitation to Mr B to submit not just a collection of
photos as on his Tucson blog, but photos with explanations
illustrating the diagnostic characters his posts appear to invoke. If
his claim is that some Goshawks may look exactly like other accipiters
due, for example, to his interesting claim of "Goshawks with expressed
recessive genes," then the evidence required cannot be obtained from
photos. For the interest of technical clarity this is what his words
suggest: Recessive "genes" are actually alleles that do not show up
phenotypically when paired with a different homologous allele in
diploid organisms like birds; recessive alleles are expressed only
when its homologue on the other copy of the chromosome is functionally
the same recessive allele. Presumably, Mr. B is proposing the
testable hypothesis that the presence of particular sets of recessive
alleles in Goshawks makes those double carriers express the phenotype
of other accipiters. Another way of saying the same thing is that the
phenotype that we call Goshawk is nothing more than the expression of
a few sets of particular, dominant alleles with no further distinction
from some other accipiters, presumably Cooper's Hawk. The genetic
evidence for this would not be difficult to procure, and again we
would love to see it. This would be a very important scientific
discovery as it would be unique in the Class Aves and perhaps among
all vertebrates. It bears some resemblance to a curious feature of
locusts that allows the same genotype to develop into either
medium-sized, typical adult forms or dissimilar, enormous adults, in
response to social factors. While the mechanism is different (the
enormous locusts are not distinguished by a particular set of dominant
alleles, but apparently by differential gene expression), these two
forms did fool the scientists at first; any field guides to locusts
from that time would have been as incorrect as Mr B's claims for avian
field guides across the entire northern hemisphere today (that's
hundreds of field guides). More posts, blogs and photos of the type
provided so far will not help to resolve this if that is Mr. B's
contention.

2) if such evidence is not forthcoming and Mr B's claims about
Goshawks are actually incorrect, then there are, by my count, four
other possibilities motivating the actors leading to a situation like
this which could be just written off as a difference of opinion, and
they are, in order of increasing nefariousness and threat to the
community: carelessness, incompetence, willful negligence, and greed.
Carelessness and incompetence are similar and require little further
elucidation: Mr. B could simply be making honest mistakes and stymied
by one of the simpler identification challenges facing North American
birders. As long as the discussion about the truth on Goshawks
remains evidence-based, rational people can resolve the identification
challenge they pose, in this case, by evaluating either a photo set
described above (with diagnostic features) or with genetic studies as
discussed above as well. Here, differences in personality may
complicate this process but in the end the evidence will speak for
itself and will in our well-informed, self-correcting community, in
fact, prove to be not a matter of opinions or interpretations at all.
Our high standards gladly encompass his challenge.

Willful negligence includes an unwillingness to evaluate evidence of
alternate hypotheses. One possibility is that actors involved are
acting irrationally. That's fine, we're humans after all, and our
faith in our rationality is, well, frankly irrational. As humans, we
are quite capable of transcending our little minds and embracing
inconsistency... or hobgoblins. No wait, someone once said that
better. In any case, pure opinions are what is at stake in such an
emotional tug-of-war; only once all parties agree to embrace
rationality we can proceed to the evaluation of evidence once again as
above. Another possibility for willful negligence involves rational
actors responding to motivations other than answering the question
under consideration, such as a desire to establish a reputation as a
maverick (bloggers), to achieve notoriety (violent radicals), to
promote a particular ideology (idealogues), to attract the attention
of people with ideologies that benefit from the positions promoted
(sycophants), etc.

The only reason I am spending my time with this inordinately long post
is the final motivator for those compromising a community like ours,
which is really a subset of the reasons mobilizing willful negligence,
namely greed. If the power of citizen science really is increasing,
it has the potential to threaten vested interests susceptible to the
kind of evidence the birding community could mobilize. Those
interests include financial investments in real estate or mineral or
other resource extraction rights subject to the law of the land and
its enforcement and adjudication in the courts imposed by various
layers of jurisdiction. All of these jurisdictions have mechanisms in
place to evaluate evidence brought to bear on land use decisions
affecting those financial interests. The holders of these financial
interests have an easy time quantifying the benefits they can achieve
for the community by proceeding with real estate development or
resource extraction, such as logging. What the courts have a much
more difficulty with is valuating the costs imposed by the economic
activity on the quality of life represented by the loss of greenspace
or forests and its components. To prevent these non-monetized values
from being too degraded, the public has elected representative who
have set legal thresholds beyond which the trade-off between benefits
from economic activity is agreed to impose too heavy costs on our
quality of life. Such benchmarks are enshrined in statutes such as
the Endangered Species Act and Wetlands regulations at the federal
level and the Growth Management Act and the Critical Areas Ordinances
at the state level and below. These thresholds are most effectively
monitored, maintained, and brought to the courts' attention by an
informed and credible citizenry capable of mobilizing reliable
observers to document those parts of the environment which really are
valued by them as part of their quality of life and the protection of
which is mandated by law. One effective method to prevent even this
last defense of the public's quality of life enshrined in law--for
private gain at the public's expense (= greed)--is to undermine the
credibility of citizen groups and thus the standing its observations
would enjoy in public and ultimately in a court of law. This works
great if media reporters find sufficient disagreement within the group
so that their story angle becomes the lack of agreement and
inconsistency within the group rather than the issue, such as resource
degradation, that the group is bringing to the attention of the
public, courts, or politicians. Think about how the fictitious notion
of "reportorial balance" derailed Americans' attention on global
climate disruption for many years.

Now, where does Mr. Briefer fall? There is no way to know a priori.
He could be right, but if he's wrong, he could simply be in error, he
could be trying to make waves among birders for personal gain, or he
could be trying to undermine the credibility of the entire birding
community and the capacity of its observations to be meaningful to the
media and the common good of the public through its law enforcement
mechanisms. Let's briefly look at his email below to look for clues:

1) The species: his focus on Northern Goshawk is interesting. Field
ornithologists, both professionals and amateurs, generally master the
identification of the presumptive species Northern Goshawk and its
most similar congener, Cooper's Hawk early on in their career. Both
are widespread and obtrusive when present (check out
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/goshawk/), though encounters
with birds matching the Cooper's Hawks' phenotype are much more
frequent on our continent. Much more difficult is the distinction
between the Cooper's and Sharp-Shinned Hawks phenotypes because these
presumptive species overlap much more in characters. Why then is Mr.
Briefer obsessed with the distinction between what ornithologists
claim to be Northern Goshawk & Cooper's Hawk phenotypes when the
distinction between the Sharpie & Cooper's Hawks phenotypes is much
more difficult. Who knows?

Here's one possibility: birders achieve recognition among other
birders for their ability to find, identify, and confirm the presence
of birds other birders have difficulty detecting. The recognition
that accompanies such skills has been known to lead some unscrupulous
ornithologists, even professionals, to meticulously modify tags on
museum specimens in order to claim finding species in places where
they aren't known to occur (read the NYT mag article on
Meinertzhagen--fascinating!). Maybe Briefer wants to impress his
fellow birders. People who have learned how to trust their own
observations are a skeptical bunch, however. Good luck.

Here's another: Northern Goshawk is a federal Species of Concern
under the Endangered Species Act, at least its western populations.
>From 1991 to 1999 three lawsuits presented data arguing that listing
as endangered is warranted, and the species maintained status as a
Candidate species, but the FWS declined to list it each time, due to
insufficient data, in other words, not because it wasn't endangered
but because we couldn't yet tell. Under the current president, its
status has been downgraded to Species of Concern. In Washington
state, the species is listed as a Candidate species, which means "that
the Department [WA DFW] will review for possible listing as State
Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive. A species will be considered for
designation as a State Candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that
its status may meet the listing criteria defined for State Endangered,
Threatened, or Sensitive." (from WDFW website). Hmmm. Is that
relevant? Perhaps. During the ESA review process in the 1990's, a
Congressional report included the following succinct statement:
"CONTROVERSIES: If the northern goshawk, under the ESA, is listed as
endangered or threatened, timber harvests may be reduced in a number
of States, especially in the west." (check it out at
http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/biodiversity/biodv-23.cfm). OK, so
timber interests might benefit should the public's data on Northern
Goshawks be excluded by courts due to lack of credibility as a result
of disagreements on the species' status within the community of
birders. But those data could be important because up until now our
ability to assess whether the species warrants listing is hampered by
a dearth of data. How convenient...

Remember, motives alone have never convicted anyone. But you ever
build card-houses? Ever notice that once they start falling, the whole
thing crumbles really fast?

2) Let's read Mr Briefer's email again, this time for content. Ok, it
starts out by denigrating the oldest and most venerated citizen
science project ever (other than hunting), the CBC. Then the email
impugns the identification skills of birders as a class. The next few
sentences apply sophomoric sophistry to argue that the number of
Goshawks must be larger than reports would have you believe, because
of inflated numbers of unidentified hawks and smaller accipiters.
Unfortunately, the writing is sloppy, because it produces a logical
incongruency: improvements in birders skills cannot possibly lead to
both a decrease and an increase in numbers of unidentified accipiters
as stated. Further, the mysterious system called "Accipiter Alert" is
invoked to lend an air of authority to the otherwise unsupported
pronouncements. A web search produces no link to an effective
"Accipiter Alert" system to support the claim; in fact, the only
accipiter alerts on the web are jay calls--thank God for attentive
observers among the prey! I discuss the argument of the "recessive
gene" section earlier. The suggestion concerning the change in
frequency of the genetically odd Goshawks is a dead give-away. There
is no basis for the assumption that the "recessive" Goshawks should
increase in number. This obfuscation resembles classic 19th century
charlatans using impressive language to generate the impression of
authority while uttering technical nonsense. Notice again the use of
language, "...will be a lack of confidence and confusion when
observing accipiters" and "any birder who uses field marks to identify
raptors is working under a handicap," that is designed to sow doubt
about the legitimacy of birders' observations.

What's this content about? It purports to be about evidence
supporting the author's contention that most Goshawks are overlooked.
But read it again. It isn't. The substantive statements are
uniformly about the unreliability of birders, their ilk, and their
observations. That offers some great quotes for the press to chew on
about the quality control problems inherent to citizen science: a
ready-made angle for a biased reporter to use when discrediting the
community of observers. What's the saying about Fox guarding the
chicken coop? The other statements are mostly incoherent mumbo-jumbo
that uses some approximate language to make both unsupported and
almost plausible claims about Goshawks--under full suspension of the
rational faculties.

3) Let's look at Mr Briefer's credentials. Oh look, there's a blog
with an "about me": "I have 15 years of daily field work (weather
permitting) observing raptors. For 10 of those years I have tried to
get toward winter-pleasant weather by traveling, 1,800 miles toward
the South. ... Everywhere I walk, bike, drive toward, shop, recreate,
vacation, and reside, I turn into a hawk-watch site. That is how I
have garnered 1,000 daily-sightings of Northern Goshawks. All field
guides need to be modified to show the true story of Goshawk habitat,
migration, and distribution. Common Northern Goshawk (nonprofit) est.
2006" Here's a person that claims daily field work over 15 years and
is based out of Anacortes, abutting one of Washington state's most
heavily birded area, yet is apparently entirely unknown to Washington
state's most active birding listserve, tweeters, and its hundreds of
birders. I go birding much less often than I'd like to, but I still
run into flesh-and-blood past and future tweeters posters whom I
recognize by name every time I'm out. Birders are a talkative bunch;
they have reputations to create, develop and maintain built on two
main characteristics: the reliability of their observations and their
personal affability. Unrepentant birders' misidentifications are an
albatross around their neck while perennially crotchety birders are
solitary birders. But in 2006 a fellow identifying himself as Anton
Briefer to the state registers the formation of a corporation called
Common Northern Goshawk. A quick web search exhausts information
about any Anton Briefers pretty quickly. Several web sites reference
an accomplished runner by that name, running for MIT in the 80's and
still winning runs in the 40-49 age category these days in the Skagit.
Having never run nor won a race in my life, I wish I had such a
commendable web record; frankly, I'm too embarrassed to check! But no
information about Anton's bird activities. A non-profit that doesn't
accept donations is a non-profit that has not been granted tax-exempt
status by the IRS. I know because I'm in the same situation, but I
haven't yet submitted our application for tax-exempt status. Has
Common Northern Goshawk? I'd love to see its IRS 1023 form.
Presumably this is the same person as the one that goes by the name
Nelson Briefer who blogs about Northern Goshawks in Anacortes, San
Diego, Tucson and Texas, and posts occasional random comments to other
blogs, like this one to Rebecca a falconry blogger, parrot
afficcionado and author:
"Just a heads up. I am the only person in the U.S., who has developed
insights and strategies toward finding, observing, and identifing
[sic] Northern Goshawks in places they are not supossed [sic] to be
(in cities and suburbs).
My other blog is www.ebrieferaolcom.blogspot.com (Goshawks of San
Diego). In the near-works is to be Goshawks of Anacortes, Washiington
[sic] and Goshawks of Tucson. The Best, Nelson."

Posts like this are frankly bizarre. Birders who take their birding
seriously simply do not introduce themselves this way. Nor do birders
actually interact much with falconers on their blogs; what is a birder
singularly obsessed with Northern Goshawks writing to a falconer with
an anatum/cassinii hybrid Peregrine for? To me the weirdest thing is
the apparent contingency that Mr. B implies: that his NOGO ID skills
ONLY apply in those areas where conventional wisdom suggests they
wouldn't occur. The blog postings on his own blog are strange as
well. Witnesses like Doug Irbey and Ken Boyle are regularly
identified by name in posts that mention "NGs". "Doug Irbey"
generates a total of 0 google hits, while Ken Boyles are ubiquitous,
though none appears to be connected to any bird-knowledgeable
background. Who lists witnesses for their birding blog for species as
widespread though rare as Northern Goshawk? What's the point of
listing anonymous witnesses? Who refuses to accept commentary on
their blog but lists their cell phone number in an Orwellian show of
transparency? Call his number 360 420 9320. I have never gotten a
person on the line. Leave a message to make a date to learn about
Accipiter Alerts. We all would love to have evidence that overthrows
an erroneous paradigm.

So who is this guy?

A brilliant loner who has unearthed the secret to the status of the
Northern Goshawk in North America? What about the conspecific
Goshawks in Europe? in Asia? The entire ornithological community from
amateurs to professionals awaits your evidence with great excitement.
Contact me; I will gladly help you find an outlet for convincing
evidence of your discovery, as I described above! I would love to be
associated with such a coup.

A harmless but misguided 40-year old runner and hawk-watcher who has
diligently kept detailed notes on daily observations of accipiters
over 15 years without interacting with any birding community only to
emerge now as a highly public figure hurling invective at and
ridiculing other birders' observations as his basic MO while blithely
making a fool of himself by publicizing patently false information?
What a weird choice of species, style and target! What a huge risk to
credibility and future career options. Why bother maintaining the
front so long? Why invest so much time in such species-specific
blogging and bolstering credentials with anonymous "witnesses" and
false transparency? It makes so little sense...

A deluded kook whose grasp on reality is sadly slipping into oblivion
and has devised this project as his only lasting message to the world?
My sympathies are fully extended in this case and I would volunteer
my services to ease his project into a venue that doesn't risk
compromising the important work conservationists do to maintain the
quality of life mandated under the laws of our democracy.

An ideologue with a chip on his shoulder about the Endangered Species
Act who, on his own, came up with a preemptive scheme by registering a
not-for-profit corporation and writing blogs about fake observations
of Northern Goshawks to prevent its future listing? What's weird
about this is that individuals are rarely motivated on their own to
develop such an elaborate program (involving a $50 filing fee and ugly
state paperwork; developing and maintaining active blogs for three
disparate locations; creating a temporal record of one's own location
and activity) just to avert the future listing and associated future
costs of a species that at the current moment has little impact on any
industry. Most such ideologues on either side of the political
spectrum are reacting to trenchant life experiences. You have to be
oddly motivated, very bored, and independently wealthy to act so
diligently entirely on your own for a future threat.

Or is this the latest nefarious personification of the evil corporate
empire, the chimeral bogeyman invoked by liberals to the amusement of
Limbaugh and O'Reilly die-hards, that in anticipating future threats
imposed by lawfully enacted restrictions on its economic activity is
capable of strategizing how best to render impotent through fraudulent
means the democratic activity of an alert citizenry? In other words,
is this guy a plant paid for by some forest industry trade group like
the WFPA (Washington Forest Protection Association)? Wouldn't that be
something? Check out a previous incarnation at
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2000-10-11/news/rotten-to-the-gills.php.
Has he been mobilized by financial interests to strategically create a
public record of Goshawk abundance in multiple states across the range
of the populations under consideration for listing that would
contradict data collected by other public interest groups, ultimately
serving to reduce to the level of hearsay evidence generated by
citizen observers--rather than professionals--for public interest
groups representing conservation interests? Could it be that such a
strategy is paired with concerted efforts to impugn the credibility of
data collected by citizen scientists to render it useless in court
proceedings, or worse, to prefabricate a media story-line that has
worked so well to shape policy on other national issues by creating
artificial controversies between manufactured experts to mask the
substantive concerns? Think about it: you're a reporter with a 7pm
deadline and you have to write about global climate disruption or how
to teach evolution. Imagine how much easier it is to report a
catfight between experts--get a couple of good quotes from them
accusing each other of manipulating the data--rather than reading
through the entire IPCC report to identify what line of evidence of
anthropogenic climate change is the most compelling to figure out who
to interview, etc. You'll never get that before the deadline; besides
the final episode of reality TV goes on air at 8, and anyway, your
editor doesn't want to risk being called biased if his stable doesn't
focus on the controversy rather than the substance. Everyone wins,
right? It's not the reporters' fault that it works this way, but it
does compromise the relevance of the information the public gets to
hear about. As for teaching evolution, the cynical thing is that
these strategic corporate forces that are so adept at adapting their
strategies to the evolving environment--just like allele frequencies
in populations of disease organisms that change in order to adapt to
and overcome the evolution of its hosts' defense mechanisms--make
common cause with those social forces that insist on denying the very
existence of the adaptive process by natural selection in Nature.
It's a modern-day narrative that packs more punch than Peter denying
that he knew Christ three times in the Garden of Gethsemane the night
before the crucifixion!

Come on! I would be proud if I wrote fiction and had come up with
this story line. Thinking about it this way offers a whole new
approach to appreciating the remarkable attention to details in all
this work: the wallpaper on Nelson's blog; the "daily field work
(weather permitting)"; the quirky closing "The Best, Nelson"; the
self-conscious shuttling between Goshawk, NG and Gos in the blog
entries; "Common Northern Goshawk" as an incorporation, an embodiment
of the message. Do you remember when a spokesperson for this federal
administration said, "...we create our own reality... . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' But you know,
these tactics aren't new; the bullying, the public posturing combined
with anonymity and lack of history, the perception of transparency,
the crude use of the community's vernacular and the simultaneous
inability to fit in: these are all just like the tactics honed by our
government during Cointelpro from 1956 into the 1970s and used
effectively against the AIM and other citizen movements.

Still, to be fair, we still don't know which Nelson Briefer we're
dealing with. But I tell you what: Depending on which one he is, I
think we can predict some pretty different responses to an alert,
suspicious and well-informed community of citizen scientists not
willing to just settle for a difference of opinion and intent on
protecting its reputation:

If he is a man honestly convinced he is correct with suitably rigorous
evidence that Goshawks really are common, and that this fact has been
missed by generations of ornithologists, throwing down the gauntlet
will motivate him to step forward and subject his evidence for
scrutiny. Like most graduate students, I am a sucker for suitably
rigorous evidence that overthrows decades, nay centuries, of
conventional wisdom peddled by our ornithological forbears. We may
yet come to know Briefer well as a birder and a person-in-the-flesh
and celebrate his bravery in the face of our ridicule and
marginalization.

If he is a harmless but misguided 40-year old runner and hawk-watcher,
he may still be honestly convinced he is correct with suitably
rigorous evidence that Goshawks really are common, and that this fact
has been missed by generations of ornithologists. In this case, if he
cares as much as his blogs suggest about whether or not he is
right--at least enough to publish the names of "witnesses"--we would
also expect him to step forward and subject his suitably rigorous
evidence to the community's scrutiny. In this case, the evidence
would be found wanting and everything would go back to as it was,
except we would know Briefer as a person-in-the-flesh, forgive him his
hubris, and he might feel a little sheepish about his 15-year career
in a birding bubble. But we'd recognize him when we next saw him at
Deception Pass, on the Guemes Island ferry, and the other favorite
haunts he mentions on his blog and rib him good-naturedly about his
Goshawks.

If he is a deluded kook whose grasp on reality is sadly slipping into
oblivion and has selected this project as his message to the world, I
would bet nothing will change on his blog. He will continue to post
kooky observations to his own blog while surprising unsuspecting
bloggers with non-sequitur comments. Community efforts to reach an
honest kook are equally likely to succeed or fail and if reached he
may very well be willing to adjust his format to preclude the
possibility of being taken too seriously or hauled into court for a
subpoena. He could also remain a virtual person, despite the best
efforts to reach him. But this would also be the only possible choice
for a fraud posing as a kook.

A real ideologue acting alone in bad faith would probably find these
activities less than satisfying once his cover is blown. With little
tangible harm done, he would probably not bother covering his tracks
particularly well. Without much risk of personal repercussions in a
free country, an ideologue relishes being recognized for his ideology,
so he might even voluntarily step forward to take credit for an almost
successful, albeit failed charade. Heck, he might get interviewed by
Bill O'Reilly or get an audience with Ann Coulter, a motivating
prospect for such an idealogue, I'm sure. Conceivably, an ideologue
who believes he could withstand the scrutiny may well opt to adopt one
of the other personae, particularly that of the deluded kook, since he
might believe that just having active blogs out there contradicting
legitimate data could still confuse gullible reporters or others in
the decision-making chain and perhaps help to undermine other citizen
science projects.

But a cog in the PR machine of serious financial players has an awful
lot at stake. Note how up until this point, everything produced by
Nelson aka Anton Briefer could have been produced by a non-union
worker in Bangalore, India, fabricating web-based posts, using stock
photos or trolling the web for images. Everything tangible is
actually virtual: the witnesses, the 15 years of experience, the NGO,
the blogs, not to mention the reported birds. Which is not to say
there isn't a traceable trail: Anton is listed in the public record
as the registering agent for Common Northern Goshawk as a corporation
in WA state, complete with an extant Anacortes address (you can
google-earth the house; I thought I could detect a goshawk perched on
the tree in the backyard on the satellite image--see what you think).
The blog itself lists a different Anacortes address along with the
cell phone number. If large financial interests are pulling the
strings, the risk of blemishing their reputation as a legitimate
company is enormous: the public is not very tolerant of front page
scandals and Wall Street pays attention to front page news. The risks
are so enormous, that the possibility of exposure through
identification of the PR cog, Anton himself and his funders as well as
their connections to the industry would be extremely worrisome. Under
this scenario, we would expect Anton and Common Northern Goshawk,
Nelson Briefer and his blogs to disappear without a trace.
Alternatively, they could calculate that they are safe from exposure
and might risk mimicking the actions of the Anton alteregos I've just
identified. Still, the first two alteregos are unlikely since in
either case, evidence would have to be forthcoming soon. The kook is
the best option, esp the one who remains entirely anonymous. Still,
an authentic kook wouldn't be nearly as likely to work hard to
undermine both the conventional wisdom on Goshawk numbers nor to
discredit the citizen science community. Thus, the anonymous kook who
is virulently anti citizen science and continuing his obsession with
common Goshawks remains extremely suspicious: it could be the cover
for an agent. To be recognized as harmless he would have to be a
public figure, available to the press and to the courts. Thus an
anonymous kook's credibility will continue to erode rapidly.
Impersonating an idealogue acting alone is another possibility but
seems much riskier, especially with an attorney general who can't
figure out his position on water-boarding.

Let this email be the gauntlet: a Nelson Briefer with legitimate data
will have to reveal himself soon. We can all call his cell number,
leave a message, demand to join him for his invited goshawking events.
Besides, we know he reads tweeters; he won't miss this message. It's
actually fun to leave him messages; be nice. Visit his addresses if
he doesn't show up. Ask his neighbors about him. There is nothing
illegal about this. FRAUD is illegal. Ask him to provide his
evidence publicly; remember blog entries don't count, real documented
birds do. We have nothing to fear--except a virtual nelson who hides
behind evasions and disembodied blog entries and seeks to circumvent
the playing field altogether rather than level it.

You may ask, WHY would I spend this amount of time indulging such
paranoia. Well, I sing with the Seattle Peace Chorus. Our mission is
person-to-person diplomacy through music. We travel to enemy
countries and sing with the people. We went to Venezuela in June and
had a wonderful time. This is the most harmless group of people you
could imagine. A FOIA request revealed that the SPC had in fact been
infiltrated in the early 90s. The FBI informant employed through the
secret $40 billion budget of our national security system reported
that the group posed no foreseeable security threat. Imagine, they
used to get the intelligence right on occasion for that price. OK,
but that's a peace group--groups with the word peace in them warrant
the high-risk security profile. But Tweeters? It's the
ridiculousness of the juxtaposition of the words "tweeters" and
"industry conspiracy" that makes it an appealing leader. What editor
doesn't want the appeal of the Onion's front-page headlines when
reporting real news? Speaking of newspapers, where's my rolodex--and
the emails for the environment reporters for the PI and the Times?
You know, they might get a kick out of following up on this lead and
actually feel like they made a difference if they turn up a story....

Finally, remember that what we need to protect here is not just the
reality of the Goshawk's plight. In a hearing, a blog about sightings
without a witness whose tax, phone, bank and background records can be
subpoenaed and subjected to cross-examination would be pretty meager
evidence. However, to be effective the strategy only has to make it
plausible that the variance in the results of bird counters over
numerous blogs reflects reasonable doubt about what the truth is among
those claiming to be knowledgeable citizen scientists. If the
financial interests can protect their investments by hiring a birding
tyro to fabricate a public record and get away with it, then just
paying his consultant fees would provide an awesome return. The
standard of proof for presence vs absence data is by its nature very
lopsided, favoring presence data. The possibility that Nelson
Briefer's blogs could be used in a comparative study about the
agreement among different bird counters, say by the media or an
independent evaluator, must be nipped in the bud--should compelling
evidence about his claims fail to materialize.

I am a proud member of the birding community, proud of its
observational skills and of its vigilance; let's run any charlatans
out of town! What would make me mad is an industry's public face that
appears to play by the rules set out in the law of the land in court
hearings stacked with their banks of lawyers, whose retention costs
are passed along to the public in the hawking of their products while
they defraud us by underhandedly undermining fair play with underworld
tactics. In sports, practitioners of such tactics are suspended. The
public has the same prerogative: let's ask our representatives and
our government to revoke the operating licenses for companies that
think it's ok to do an end run around the law. Companies serve the
public at its pleasure; we license these companies to operate for a
reason. If they are not trustworthy actors in negotiations about when
and where to limit activities that compromise the values we all hold
in common, they should not be operating at all! Fines and bribes can
be budgeted as a cost of doing business; real leverage is only secured
by the possibility of revoking operating licenses. Start a movement
to review the operating licenses of all corporations--are they
fulfilling the duty embodied in the licensing contract?

But I'll tell you the one thing that would really piss me off: that
the idea would even be hatched that a one-man hatchet job would stand
a chance with us birdwatchers is seriously insulting. If this really
is what's going on, then I pity them for the atrophy of their
imagination and their stupid, empty lives. You know what we do when
the yawning abyss gapes like that? We go birdwatching. Go find
yourself a goshawk and watch its quirky flight, stuck between an
accipiter and a buteo. Like us, you will live to tell about it.

Respectfully,
Dan Froehlich

This text is NOT copyrighted and should be used by as many people as
possible, esp as an amicus brief in any hearing on the listing status
of the Northern Goshawk.



--------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Ebriefer at aol.com
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:22:05 EST
Subject: [Tweeters] Null Goshawk data
Dear Tweeters; In 2-3 days I will post my Accipiter Alert.
I have been a firm believer, for many years, that Christmas Bird
Counts, spring migration counts, and typical birding trips, are
gathering unscientific and inaccurate data- relating to Goshawks. In
other words, NO data! When birders learn the art- science of
hawk-watching; then you will see a marked increase in the number of
sightings of Goshawks, and a decrease in the number of unidentified
accipiters. In other words, as it stands now, some Goshawks are
treated as Cooper's or S.s. Hawks. Also, some unidentified accipiters
are Northern Goshawks. Yet, once a birder considers my Accipiter
Alert; then the number of unidentified accipiters will increase
(possibly dramatically). And this depends on the experience of the
birder relating to accipiters. Once the birder (not the hawk-watcher)
take into consideration " Goshawks with expressed recessive genes",
and when these types of Goshawks become more numerous, then there
certainly will be a lack of confidence and confusion when observing
accipiters. And this leads directly into the difference of a
hawk-watcher compared to a birder. In other words, any birder who uses
field marks to identify raptors is working under a handicap. The Best
- Nelson Briefer Ebriefer at aol.com - Tucson and Anacortes



See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: merlinmania at comcast.net (Jim Flynn)
To: Tweeters at u.washington.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:38:47 +0000
Subject: [Tweeters] Re: Null Goshawk data
Hi Tweets,

Although I'm one who normally detests "cease and desist" type messages
on Tweeters I intend to be a hypocrite in this case. I'm hoping we can
put this whole Goshawk thread to rest - although I know I am in large
part resposible for starting it.

I don't think a difference of opinion on Goshawk occurences needs to
get personal and hope others won't make it so. Its simply a difference
of opinion - not an uncommon occurence in accipiter ID!

Good birding,

--
Jim Flynn
merlinmania at comcast.net
Seattle, WA


--
*******************
Daniel Froehlich
danielfroehlich at gmail.com
Seattle, WA, 98105
*******************