Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Monday, May 12 at 03:02 AM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Ashy Starling,©Tony Disley

12 May RFI: North American albatross references [Phil Davis ] 2 May Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks [K Dean EDWARDS ] 2 May Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks ["Spector, David (Biology)" ] 2 May Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks ["Spector, David (Biology)" ] 2 May Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks [William Rowe ] 2 May Extralimital Mottled Ducks [Alan Wormington ] 7 Apr Re: BRCs and "umbrella" organizations [Martin Meyers ] 6 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [Joseph Morlan ] 6 Apr Re: BRCs and "umbrella" organizations [Phil Davis ] 3 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [Alan Wormington ] 3 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [Mark Lockwood ] 2 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [William Rowe ] 2 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [] 2 Apr Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [Bill Sheehan ] 2 Apr umbrella organizations ["kratter AT flmnh.ufl.edu" ] 2 Apr BRCs and "unbrella" organizations [Steven Mlodinow ] 3 Mar Re: Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings - data call [Phil Davis ] 29 Feb Re: Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings? [Steven Mlodinow ] 29 Feb Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings? [Phil Davis ] 31 Jan Digitization of American Birds series regional reports? [Phil Davis ] 28 Dec New Year's Resolutions courtesy of a Records Committee Secretary [Phil Davis ] 17 Dec North American Bird Distribution list [Phil Davis ] 18 Nov Re: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications [Joseph Morlan ] 17 Nov Re: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications [David Christie ] 17 Nov Qualifications, procedures, etc. [Milt Moody ] 17 Nov Fwd: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications [] 17 Nov Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications [Phil Davis ] 17 Nov Re: TBRC website updates [Phil Davis ] 13 Nov TBRC website updates [K Dean EDWARDS ] 10 Nov Re: "Rare Birds" books [Phil Davis ] 9 Nov Re: "Rare Birds" books [Stan DeOrsey ] 8 Nov Re: "Rare Birds" books [Phil Davis ] 6 Nov MD/DC Records Committee web site updates [Phil Davis ] 6 Nov Re: "Rare Birds" books [Stan DeOrsey ] 5 Nov "Rare Birds" books [Phil Davis ] 26 Oct Rare Birds of California book [Kimball Garrett ] 22 Oct Records Committee functions [Mark Lockwood ] 3 Oct MD/DC Records Committee 2007 Skins Workshop minutes [Phil Davis ] 26 Sep RFI - returning vagrants [Matt Sharp ] 9 Aug Admin message [Laurie Larson ] 9 Aug Re: "Fast-track" reviews ["George L. Armistead" ] 9 Aug Re: Science and records committees ["McCormac, Jim" ] 9 Aug Re: Science and records committees [Alan Wormington ] 9 Aug Re: "Fast-track" reviews [Kimball Garrett ] 9 Aug Re: Science and records committees [Chuck Otte ] 9 Aug Science and records committees ["McCormac, Jim" ] 9 Aug Ok-ok enough already [Matt Sharp ] 9 Aug Re: "Fast-track" reviews [Alan Wormington ] 9 Aug Re: "Fast-track" reviews [Steven Mlodinow ] 9 Aug Re: "Fast-track" reviews [Matt Sharp ] 9 Aug Re: BRCF-L Digest - 8 Aug 2007 to 9 Aug 2007 - Special issue (#2007-15) [Alan Wormington ] 9 Aug Re: BRCs and Science [Steven Mlodinow ] Subject: RFI: North American albatross references From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 04:04:28 -0400 Chatters / BRCF: If anyone has access to any of the three following references, please let me know. I'm researching Atlantic and Gulf albatross reports and records for North America and I have not been able to track down these three references. What I am looking for should be less than one page from each reference. 1. Conway, R.A. 1992. Field-checklist of Rhode Island birds. Bulletin No. 1. Rhode Island Ornithological Club. 57pp 2. Parnell, J.F., et al. 1978. Checklist of North Carolina Birds. Special Publication Carolina Bird Club and N.C. State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. 37pp. 3. Powers, K. D., and Brown, R. G. B. 1987. Seabirds. In: Backus, R.H. & Bourne, D.W. (Eds). Georges Bank. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp 359–371. Thanks in advance. Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks From: K Dean EDWARDS <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:02:09 -0400 There have been 5 occurrences of Mottled Duck in TN with all of them photographed. Two of these have been accepted by the TBRC. The other 3 reports have not yet been submitted for review (long story, don't ask) but have been published in North American Birds. All 5 occurrences have been since 2003, all but one have been in the fall, all but 1 were in West TN (the other in East TN), and all appear to have been of the SW form, A. f. maculosa. The documentation for the 2 accepted records is available in our online records archive on the TBRC website at http://www.tnbirds.org/TRBC The archive is just starting to get developed but Mottled is one of the species we have records up for. The first 3 sightings (not submitted) were at Ensley Bottoms in Memphis (Shelby Co) on the western end of the state. The first was on 4 Oct 2003. The second was found on 28 August 2004 and stayed for several weeks. A pair of birds was located the following spring on 28 April 2005. The first reviewed and accepted record was from Henry Co (also in West TN) and involved a pair of birds near Paris Landing on the TN River. They were found on 24 Sept 2005 and stayed until at least 30 Sept. The following fall, I found a single Mottled Duck on Douglas Lake in East TN in a group of about 200 Mallards on 5 Sept 2006. This bird stayed until at least 9 Sept. There are some good photos of this bird on the website. As for other states, they apparently now breed in Arkansas. There was a report from the Atlanta area (in fall 2006 or 2007 I believe) and reports this past fall and winter from eastern NC (probably from the SE population). I also seem to remember a recent report from Kentucky. Dean Edwards Secretary, Tennessee Bird Records Committee On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alan Wormington wrote: > Everyone, > > We currently have a Mottled Duck here in Ontario at Point Pelee, a > provincial first. > > Information on extralimital records seem scant, perhaps because most such > records have been recent. > > I would be most interested in hearing about out-of-range records of the > species in North America. If my memory is good, I do recall records for > Tennessee and New Jersey. Also Kentucky? Others? > > Many thanks, > > Alan Wormington > Leamington, Ontario > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks From: "Spector, David (Biology)" <spectord AT MAIL.CCSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:40:23 -0400 Here's the information from BNA: Mottled Duck banded in Texas recovered in Wisconsin and out of range in Texas. Mottled Ducks banded in Florida recovered in Georgia, Virginia, and New Jersey. Photographic record from Nebraska. -----Original Message----- From: Spector, David (Biology) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:09 AM To: 'Alan Wormington'; BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: RE: Extralimital Mottled Ducks Two records of band recoveries from northern states are mentioned in the BNA account. I don't have my copy handy, but I seem to remember New Jersey and Wisconsin. David David Spector Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Wormington Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:15 AM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Extralimital Mottled Ducks Everyone, We currently have a Mottled Duck here in Ontario at Point Pelee, a provincial first. Information on extralimital records seem scant, perhaps because most such records have been recent. I would be most interested in hearing about out-of-range records of the species in North America. If my memory is good, I do recall records for Tennessee and New Jersey. Also Kentucky? Others? Many thanks, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks From: "Spector, David (Biology)" <spectord AT MAIL.CCSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:09:21 -0400 Two records of band recoveries from northern states are mentioned in the BNA account. I don't have my copy handy, but I seem to remember New Jersey and Wisconsin. David David Spector Belchertown, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Wormington Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:15 AM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Extralimital Mottled Ducks Everyone, We currently have a Mottled Duck here in Ontario at Point Pelee, a provincial first. Information on extralimital records seem scant, perhaps because most such records have been recent. I would be most interested in hearing about out-of-range records of the species in North America. If my memory is good, I do recall records for Tennessee and New Jersey. Also Kentucky? Others? Many thanks, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Extralimital Mottled Ducks From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:47:02 -0500 Alan: I can speak for Missouri and Illinois. Missouri has no accepted record of Mottled Duck. We did have one spring report of two birds, but the documentation left it ambiguous whether the birds were Mottled or Black Ducks. We think it's just a matter of time before the species is confirmed here. Illinois has one documented and accepted record, a bird that took up residence at Lake Springfield (in Springfield) from 21 May to 24 October 2004, and was seen again in December and possibly later (not sure). That was the first state record. There is another report from Horseshoe Lake in Madison Co. (St. Louis area) in May 2005 that has not yet been resolved by the IORC. My opinion is that it was a good Mottled Duck (partly because I saw it). Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On May 2, 2008, at 6:14 AM, Alan Wormington wrote: > Everyone, > > We currently have a Mottled Duck here in Ontario at Point Pelee, a > provincial first. > > Information on extralimital records seem scant, perhaps because > most such > records have been recent. > > I would be most interested in hearing about out-of-range records of > the > species in North America. If my memory is good, I do recall > records for > Tennessee and New Jersey. Also Kentucky? Others? > > Many thanks, > > Alan Wormington > Leamington, Ontario > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Extralimital Mottled Ducks From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:14:57 -0400 Everyone, We currently have a Mottled Duck here in Ontario at Point Pelee, a provincial first. Information on extralimital records seem scant, perhaps because most such records have been recent. I would be most interested in hearing about out-of-range records of the species in North America. If my memory is good, I do recall records for Tennessee and New Jersey. Also Kentucky? Others? Many thanks, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "umbrella" organizations From: Martin Meyers <meyersm AT MINDSPRING.COM> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:19:09 -0700 The Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) was founded in 1994 as a completely autonomous organization. We remain entirely autonomous when it comes to bylaws, membership decisions, etc. We do, however, welcome the support of the Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO), which provides us with web space, an email account, and a centralized physical mailing address. In addition, GBBO provides invaluable advice on a number of issues, including member selection, although, as stated, nomination and election of new members is completely under the control of the committee. The almost-annual report of the NBRC is published in Great Basin Birds, the journal of the Great Basin Bird Observatory. We have also received logistical support from Western Field Ornithologists, which was particularly helpful in organizing our most recent membership meeting. Even closer cooperation with that organization is anticipated in the future. NBRC receives no external financial support beyond the limited implications of the preceding paragraphs. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:32:54 -0700 Hi Steve, The California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) is a standing committee of Western Field Ornithologists (WFO). The committee was founded in 1970 shortly after establishment of the original umbrella organization, "California Field Ornithologists" which published a journal called "California Birds." In 1973 California Field Ornithologists expanded to include all Western states. It became Western Field Ornithologists and the journal became "Western Birds." As WFO expanded into other states beyond California, the status of the CBRC has been under increasing scrutiny. Some WFO board members feel the CBRC gets special treatment, not afforded committees in other states. There have been efforts to sever ties between the CBRC and WFO. The most immediate effect of these efforts are plans to change the names of the respective web sites so that the CBRC will not be part of WFO's URL (currently http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/ but expected to change this year). The CBRC has a very small annual budget funded by WFO. Currently the budget consists solely of the cost of a PO box. All other expenses, including postage, are born individually by the members. WFO also provides for publication of CBRC annual reports in "Western Birds" and web space on the WFO web site. However last year, WFO budgeted a considerable sum for the publication of the monumental "Rare Birds of California" which itemizes all CBRC decisions to date and provides a history of the committee as well as full analysis and trends of California rarities. It also includes lots of color photos. This project took over a decade to complete, was supported and published by WFO, and is currently sold by WFO through Allen Press: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/rare_birds.html All CBRC members must also be members of WFO. Otherwise WFO has no control over CBRC membership or procedures. New members are elected by nomination from within the existing committee, although recommendations from the California birding community are solicited. On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:26:19 -0400, Steven Mlodinow wrote: >Greetings All > >I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological Society). > >In those cases where the BRC does operate under another organization, how much control does the "over-seeing" organization have. > >For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I got those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How may are on the FOSRC? etc. > >Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like info from as many states/provinces as possible > > >Thanks >SteveM > >-------------------------------------------------- >Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Apr 1 in SF http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "umbrella" organizations From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:25:21 -0400 Hi Steve, et al. I think our MD/DC committee follows the other popular models ... 1. We started in the early 1980s as the Maryland Records Committee of the Maryland Ornithological Society. A separate (non-MOS) DC Records Committee also started up around the same time but became defunct after not too many years in the mid-1908s. When the Yellow-Legged Gull showed up in DC in 1990, there was no records committee to vet record, so our Chair at the time, Claudia Wilds, "adopted" DC and we became the MD/DC Records Committee. I think we are the only committee to handle two jurisdictions, which presents some interesting challenges, but that's another story ... 2. We have nine voting members (our Secretary is non-voting and our Chair may or may not be a voting member). 3. We elect our own new members and the MOS President vets our selection. Members serve three-year terms and cannot be directly re-elected the next year. 4. We have a charter from the MOS but operate fairly autonomously from the MOS. Our "Goals and Procedures" document (effectively, our By-Laws) is on our web pages. 5. MOS may reimburse members for postage, but other expenses are contributed. 6. We publish periodic listings of our decisions in our MOS newsletter, The Maryland Yellowthroat; however, our detailed and annotated decision reports are intended to be published in our MOS journal, Maryland Birdlife; however, we have only published a few of these (some years ago). This is our Achilles heel and we are working on a plan to remedy this. 7. Everything else anyone wants to know should be on our web page ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html Hope this helps ... Phil At 10:26 04/02/2008, Steven Mlodinow wrote: >Greetings All > >I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the >auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological Society). > >In those cases where the BRC does operate under another >organization, how much control does the "over-seeing" organization have. > >For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I >got those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How >may are on the FOSRC? etc. > >Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like >info from as many states/provinces as possible =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:12:28 -0400 Steve and all, The Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC) operates identically to what is outlined below for Texas. The only real difference is that we publish a full-size annual report that includes lots of colour photographs. Our Annual Report appears in Ontario Birds, which is published by the Ontario Field Ornithologists. Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to the OBRC Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:33:33 -0500 Mark Lockwood writes: Dear Steve, The Texas BRC works under basically the same system as Bill described for Missouri. 1) The Texas Bird Records Committee is a committee of the Texas Ornithological Society. 2) The TBRC works autonomously with its own by-laws. 3) The TOS Board has occasionally asked about process or other types of information and has the option to nominate new members to the committee. 4) The TBRC elects new members from nominations made by existing members or TOS Board members (no nominations have come from this group in my 13 years on the TBRC). I do ask the TOS membership for recommendations for nominees. 5) The expenses of the TBRC are also small and paid by TOS. 6) The TBRC annual report is published by TOS in the Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society, but it is very streamline because of space limitations (because of page costs). Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:33:33 -0500 Dear Steve, The Texas BRC works under basically the same system as Bill described for Missouri. 1) The Texas Bird Records Committee is a committee of the Texas Ornithological Society. 2) The TBRC works autonomously with its own by-laws. 3) The TOS Board has occasionally asked about process or other types of information and has the option to nominate new members to the committee. 4) The TBRC elects new members from nominations made by existing members or TOS Board members (no nominations have come from this group in my 13 years on the TBRC). I do ask the TOS membership for recommendations for nominees. 5) The expenses of the TBRC are also small and paid by TOS. 6) The TBRC annual report is published by TOS in the Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society, but it is very streamline because of space limitations (because of page costs). Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm TOS Occ. Publications at http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:21:40 -0500 Steve et al.: Missouri's arrangement is very similar to what Steve McConnell described for Alabama: • Formally, the Missouri Bird Records Committee is a committee of the Audubon Society of Missouri (which is the only statewide ornithological society). • In practice, it is mostly autonomous. The MBRC has its own by- laws, originally approved by the ASM when the MBRC was started in 1987; revisions to the bylaws are supposed to be approved by the ASM Board, but that has not been a roadblock. We have drafted our own revisions on a couple of occasions and have had them approved. • The ASM does not exert any control at all over the MBRC's review process or the decisions it makes. • The ASM has delegated to the MBRC the selection of editors for the four seasonal summaries in our state journal each year, as well as the selection of the state CBC editor. • The MBRC is self-perpetuating and elects all of its own seven members. It is, however, required to make public announcement of term end points and vacancies and to solicit nominations from the general ASM membership. In fact, we get hardly any such nominations and usually just come up with our own from our acquaintances. MBRC members must be members of ASM (i.e., they must join if they don't already belong). So far no term limits have been enacted, not so much because we oppose them as because we would exhaust the pool of talent too fast. • Expenses are small and are paid by the ASM. Most members do not expect reimbursement for their slight incidental expenses, but the secretary does get reimbursed on an annual basis for expenses of correspondence and supplies. If we need something like a set of slides, we just put in a request. • Not by requirement but in a spirit of cooperation, members of the MBRC help lead field trips at statewide ASM meetings, and they periodically run ID workshops, either as part of these meetings or as special events here and there around the state. I"ll be interested to see all the variation in the way these things are done. Bill Rowe Secretary, MBRC On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Steven Mlodinow wrote: > Greetings All > > I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the > auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological > Society). > > In those cases where the BRC does operate under another > organization, how much control does the "over-seeing" organization > have. > > For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I > got those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How > may are on the FOSRC? etc. > > Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like > info from as many states/provinces as possible > > > Thanks > SteveM > Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf- > l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:48:52 -0400 Steve and all, The Alabama BRC operates as?a subcommittee of the Alabama Ornithological Society.? Others AOS subcom examples cover areas such as Membership, Conservation, etc. ABRC has its own bylaws and operates almost completely as a stand-alone committee in close association with our state compiler and archivist (a separate AOS-created position).? We do make regular reports to the AOS board meeting and are authorized to ask for small expense reimbursements (very rarely needed;? e.g. members pay own expenses to attend meetings). New ABRC members are elected from a candidate list consisting of nominations from the 7 voting members.??? AOS officers are not involved directly in these elections or the process of record review and state list updates.? Since we are a AOS subcom I guess technically they COULD involve themselves, but in the 20 or so years of our existence, it has never happened to my knowledge. The ABRC consists of a secretary plus?either 6 or 7 others, depending on whether the secretary is serving as a voting member.? Voting member terms are 3 years.? Secretary's term was recently changed from 2 years to "determined by the committee" = indefinite. Steve McConnell Secretary ABRC -----Original Message----- From: Steven Mlodinow To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 9:26 am Subject: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations Greetings All I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological Society). In those cases where the BRC does operate under another organization, how much control does the "over-seeing" organization have. For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I got those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How may are on the FOSRC? etc. Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like info from as many states/provinces as possible Thanks SteveM Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: Bill Sheehan <lsheehan AT MAINE.RR.COM> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:46:03 -0500 Hi Steve, The Maine Bird Records Committee is an autonomous collective... There is no active state-level ornithogical society in Maine. Bill Sheehan, Secretary ME-BRC Steven Mlodinow wrote: > Greetings All > > I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the > auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological > Society). > > In those cases where the BRC does operate under another organization, > how much control does the "over-seeing" organization have. > > For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I got > those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How may > are on the FOSRC? etc. > > Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like > info from as many states/provinces as possible > > > Thanks > SteveM > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides > . > > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: umbrella organizations From: "kratter AT flmnh.ufl.edu" <kratter@FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:20:32 -0500 Steve, et al. The Florida Ornithological Socety (FOS) does operate the Records Committee (FOSRC), though the FOSRC has a large degree of autonomy. Our by-laws adn rules are on our web-page (fosbirds.org). Potential new members are nominated from within the FOSRC and then appointed by the president of the FOS. All nominees since I came on the Committee (2002?) have been appointed, and I do not know of any cases wehere they were not before my time. THe FOSRC presents a twice-annual report to the FOS Board of Directors, which is laregely the minutes of the twice-annual meetings. The FOS hosts our web page; their journal (Florida Field Naturalist) publishes our reports. The FOS pays much of the costs of running the FOSRC (largely meeting expesnes and archival costs). Overall, I prefer having the FOS help mange the FOSRC. Andy Kratter Secretary, FOSRC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: BRCs and "unbrella" organizations From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:26:19 -0400 Greetings All I am wondering how many state/provincial BRCs are run under the auspices of another organization (eg, FOSRC under FL Ornithological Society). In those cases where the BRC does operate under another organization, how much control does the "over-seeing" organization have. For instance, does the FOS control who is on the FOSRC (I think I got those initials correct)? How people are added to the FOSRC? How may are on the FOSRC? etc. Obviously, I am not just asking the question of FL, but would like info from as many states/provinces as possible Thanks SteveM -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings - data call From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:36:37 -0500 Hi BRCF-L subscribers: In response to my query, below, Steve Mlodinow sent me a copy of his compilation from his Birder's Journal article that covered records into 1999. Also, Bill Sheehan sent me information on records recently reviewed by the Maine Records Committee. I'd like to go ahead and put out a data call for other North Atlantic albatross sightings and records. If the secretaries or someone from each Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico seaboard state/province or island records committee could send me either direct inputs or links to where I could pull down this information, I would greatly appreciate it. Negative reports from any states/provinces/islands without sighting reports or records would also be helpful. I may not be able to spend much time on compiling the data until next week, since our MD/DC Records Committee Annual Meeting is coming up on Saturday and I'll be preparing for it this week. Thanks, in advance. Phil At 22:19 02/29/2008, Phil Davis wrote: >Chatters / BRCF-L: > >This topic came up last summer and was just raised again by some >authors working on an article ... does any have or know of a >compilation or database of all North Atlantic albatross records and sightings? > >If I can't locate such an existing list, my next message may be a >data call for state-by-state and province-by-province inputs, but >hopefully this has already been compiled somewhere by someone. I >believe there are roughly between 30 and 45 such records and sightings. > >(I know Brian Monk in FL started such a list years ago, but his >preliminary data no longer exists ...) > >Thanks! > >Phil > > >=================================================== >Phil Davis, Secretary >MD/DC Records Committee >2549 Vale Court >Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA >301-261-0184 >mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com > >MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html >=================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings? From: Steven Mlodinow <SGMlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:55:02 EST Greetings A list of N Atlantic Sightings (from N America) was given in an article I wrote for Birders Journal. My compilation at that time was: Black-browed Albatross off Vauclin, Martinique 11/12/56 Bond 1959 Bird I., Marion, MA (2) 6/28/72 Du Mont 1973 Moorehead City, NC (2) 8/19/72 Du Mont 1973 Nantucket-Hyannis Ferry, MA 9/16/73 Veit and Peterson 1995 30 km east of Newburyport, MA 7/11/76 Veit and Peterson 1995 Plum I., MA 7/24/76 Veit and Peterson 1995 Cabot Strait, 50 km NE of Sydney, NS 7/15/83 Tufts 1986 Cabot Strait Ferry, NS 7/21/86 AB 41:53 Manasquan, NJ 10/24/89 P. Lehman, pers. comm. South of Yarmouth, NS 8/23/91 AB 46:53 Chatham, MA 9/21/96 FN 51:23 65 km off Virginia Beach, VA(photo) 2/6/99 Patteson and Brinkley, pers.comm. The following published records were rejected by state bird records committees: 2, Cape May Point, New Jersey, October 7, 1979 (Leck 1989, P. Lehman, pers. comm.); and one off Cape Canaveral, Florida, September 13, 1974 (AB 29:44, Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Yellow-nosed Albatross The first Yellow-nosed Albatross for North America was collected near the mouth of the Moisie River, Quebec, on August 20, 1885 (Murphy 1936). Since then, there have been about 26 additional records, all from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and mostly between New York and Nova Scotia (see table 1). Records increased in frequency during the 1970s, when 12 Yellow-nosed Albatrosses were seen, but have declined since then, with only four during the 1980s and three so far from the 1990s. This species has been found off North America year round, but a substantial majority have occurred during May (eight records) and from early July through late August (12 records) (see graph). Few records denote the age of the bird involved, but ageing is not necessarily easy in the field. Subspecific identification is rarely mentioned, even with specimen records, but one bird photographed near St. Marks Light, Florida, on July 3, 1983 was reportedly of the expected nominate race which breeds in the South Atlantic (Stevenson and Anderson 1992). Cheers Steven Mlodinow ************** Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598) -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Compilation of North Atlantic albatross sightings? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:19:57 -0500 Chatters / BRCF-L: This topic came up last summer and was just raised again by some authors working on an article ... does any have or know of a compilation or database of all North Atlantic albatross records and sightings? If I can't locate such an existing list, my next message may be a data call for state-by-state and province-by-province inputs, but hopefully this has already been compiled somewhere by someone. I believe there are roughly between 30 and 45 such records and sightings. (I know Brian Monk in FL started such a list years ago, but his preliminary data no longer exists ...) Thanks! Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Digitization of American Birds series regional reports? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:04:07 -0500 Chatters/ Birdwg01/NABD/BRCF-L: Is anyone aware of any discussions or plans to digitize the historical regional reports from the American Birds/Field Notes/North American Birds series? This is a very much needed project! I believe that a private initiative may be underway to digitize California's reports, but I am interested in any general plans to digitize all of the journal reports from all regions. Thanks! Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: New Year's Resolutions courtesy of a Records Committee Secretary From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:30:16 -0500 Hi Chatters and BRCF-L: This article was just published in our Maryland Ornithological Society's newsletter, the Maryland Yellowthroat. Perhaps you will find it of interest ... or maybe even of some use! Happy Gnu Year to all ... Phil ============================================ Ten New Year's Resolutions for the Field Birder by Phil Davis Few people really make New Year's resolutions any more. Well, I can help you fill that huge void in your life! Here is a list of resolutions that you may freely adopt. Resolved: 1. To carry a copy of the latest MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) Maryland and/or DC Review Lists inside my field guide or in my car so that I can check on the review status of any rare or unusual birds that I run across to determine if they are "reviewable" sightings. [The MD Review List is only two pages (one if you print on both sides), and the DC Review List is only one page.] These lists can be found on the MD/DCRC web pages at: MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf 2. To carry a list of phone numbers of other local birders into the field, so that if I do find a potentially reviewable bird, I can call either someone to come check it out, or someone who might be near a computer so that they can post a message to the MD Osprey listserver, with directions. Even if you are not sure about an ID, it's best to get the word out as a "possible." We have probably missed a number of rare and unusual records because of not judiciously "spreading the word." 3. To carry either note paper [with a pen] or a voice dictation recorder [with batteries] into the field to record notes for any reviewable birds on the spot. 4. To describe the entire bird, from tip to tail, not just key field marks, starting with which family the bird belongs to. The MD/DCRC web page carries documentation guidelines that provide memory joggers. [This two-page checklist is another good reference to throw into your car.] You can find these guidelines here: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcform.pdf Or check out other related links in the "Reporting Sightings" section: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html 5. To include in my report how I have eliminated other similar species [for example, Spotted Towhees from Eastern Towhees, Cave Swallows from Cliff Swallows, etc]. 6. To write out or dictate my notes before consulting a field guide, unless I'm still in the field and am on the bird. In that case, I can consult a field guide for key field marks and immediately check for the presence or absence of those field marks. [It's okay to consult a field guide later, to analyze age, sex, plumage, or elimination of other similar species AFTER the basic sighting has been documented; however, in your report draw a line between the observation field notes and any post-sighting analysis, and tell the committee when and where field guide(s) were consulted, including which references were used.] 7. To prepare a formal report to the MD/DCRC either the evening of the sighting or within a very few days. [Otherwise, the memory fades or terminal procrastination may set in.] 8. To submit written documentation in electronic format to the MD/DCRC Secretary [either via e-mail or via the MD/DCRC web form], and send images as e-mail attachments. 9. To provide some basic level of written documentation even if just submitting digital images. At a minimum, provide the date and location. [Even though our committee does accept "photo only" documentation, the voting members still grouse if they don't get some kind of accompanying statement.] 10. In electronic documentation and attachments, to use file names that convey information, such as observer name (eg, last name and first initial), observation date, species name (or four-letter abbreviation), and a sequence number for multiple images. [Feel free to contact the MD/DCRC Secretary before you submit electronic documentation for the assigned MD/DCRC data- accession number, and you can include that, too.] Oh, what a wonderful life it would be … Happy New Year to All! Phil is the Secretary of the Maryland/ District of Columbia Records Committee =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: North American Bird Distribution list From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:55:29 -0500 BRCF-L: This message is cross-posted to BRCF-L with Tom Johnson's permission. This new listserver will compliment BRCF-L and Birdwg01 (Frontiers of Bird Identification). Hope this helps ... Phil -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: North American Bird Distribution list Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:18:59 +0000 Greetings, This message is an introduction to the new North American Bird Distribution (NABD) list. The idea for this listserv stems from the fact that there is no real forum for active, participative discussion on the issues of bird distribution, distribution dynamics, and patterns of vagrancy. While Birdchat provides a forum for general bird and birding issues, Frontiers of Identification hosts discourse on advances in field identification of North American birds, and the various state and provincial listservs host reports and discussion of distributional phenomena on a small scale, none of them fill the void that NABD hopes to occupy. The North American Birds journal is indispensable, but does not provide real-time interaction and cannot hope to cover as many topics as a listserv. While we will try to be accepting of any potential contributions, please try to avoid discussion of more basic or established distributional phenomena well-covered in field guides and other general birding books. NABD is a place for discussing new phenomena, previously overlooked patterns, and highlighting recent records of particular significance. Questions about little-known particulars of bird distribution, requests for records from other regions of the continent in order to gain a better understanding of regional phenomena, observations on the effects of weather on migrants and vagrants, or simple postings of vagrant birds and speculation about their origins are examples of suitable subjects for posts to this listserv. This message has not been sent to any listservs as of yet, but please feel free to forward to others that might be interested in contributing; we would appreciate any constructive criticism or ideas on the usefulness/ viability of such a list before we circulate it around too much. Currently, NABD is organized as a Google Group. Anyone can read the messages, but to post, you will need to log in as a member of the group: http://groups.google.com/group/NABirdDist Good birding, Tom Johnson and Mike Harvey tbj4 AT cornell.edu, mgh27 AT cornell.edu NABirdDist -- Thomas Brodie Johnson Ithaca, NY tbj4 AT cornell.edu mobile: 717.991.5727 ========================================================= Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com Co-Listowner, Bird Records Committee Forum BRCF home page: http://www.princeton.edu/~llarson/brcf/brcfhome.html Secretary, Maryland/DC Records Committee MD/DCRC web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html ========================================================= -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:58:44 -0800 On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:58:11 -0500, Phil Davis wrote: >Do any other records committees have stated (either formal or >informal) membership qualifications or nomination guidelines that you >can share? California is similar to others. From our by-laws: "Anyone is eligible to become a Voting Member if, in the estimation of the existing Voting Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability in and knowledge of field identification of birds and is a member in good standing of Western Field Ornithologists in California." As it stands, this article probably needs to be revised to drop the last two words. Occasionally exiting members move out of state. When that happens, they are normally allowed to continue if they want. If not they are replaced by a special election. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu Birding Classes start Feb 5 in SF http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications From: David Christie <maryspt AT NBNET.NB.CA> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:42:10 -0400 At 2:58 AM -0500 11/17/07, Phil Davis wrote: >Do any other records committees have stated (either formal or >informal) membership qualifications or nomination guidelines that >you can share? > >(I do understand from earlier threads that some states/provinces >have difficulty in just finding enough members to fill the >membership positions!) > In the New Brunswick Bird Records Committee -- a small committee of just 5 voting members -- the description of qualification is very general "Anyone with a good knowledge of bird identification may be nominated." That's in the opinion of the committee member who makes the nomination. Our method of nomination and selection may be a bit different from most other committees. Originally, prior to a meeting, we asked people if they were willing to be nominated. Following voting to select the new members, each nominee was informed whether or not they had been selected. Thus, about the same as described by Steve McConnell for the Alabama committee. Now, we nominate people without asking them and have a preferential election that establishes a prioritized list of potential new members (usually 7 to 8 people for filling 2 vacancies). The chairperson then approaches, in order, the persons on the list to determine their willingness to serve, until all vacant positions are filled. We've done this a few times now and only once has one of the top-ranked candidates declined to serve. The remaining candidates on the list don't even realize that they have been considered. David Christie -- David Christie Secretary, New Brunswick Bird Records Committee Mary's Point, Harvey, Albert Co., New Brunswick, Canada http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/maryspt/BRC -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Qualifications, procedures, etc. From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:07:39 -0800 Greetings, In answer to Phil's questions: Here are the qualifications for members of the Utah Bird Records Committee according to the bylaws: B. Qualifications. 1. A Voting Member should possess expertise in identification of Utah birds, knowledge of Utah bird distribution, and familiarity with birders and localities in Utah. And here is the election procedures from the same source: C. Elections 1. Any Member of the Committee may nominate individuals to open positions a. It is the responsibility of the nominating Member to check with nominees and determine willingness to server prior to submitting the name b. Each Member may nominate up to three individuals c. If there are four or more nominees, above the number of open positions to be filled, there shall be a preliminary vote to determine the finalists reducing the number of nominees to two more than the number of open positions. 2. Nominees will be voted on as follows a. Voting Members will rank nominees from 1 to 3. b. Points will be assigned in reverse x to 1, so with 3 nominees a vote of 1 would equate to 3 points c. Votes will be compiled by the Secretary and the nominee with the most points will be asked to serve d. If there are two open positions, the top two vote takers will be asked to serve And here's the records committee website with a lot of the actual records reviewed (some converted into an internet version) since the committee's re-organization in about 1983 and also lists of review-species sightings both reviewed and not-reviewed. http://utahbirds.org/RecCom/index.html Best Wishes, Milt Moody UBRC webmaster (and former UBRC secretary) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:03:50 -0500 The Alabama bylaws have this brief guidance: B.? Qualifications.? Anyone is eligible to become a Member if, in the estimation of the existing Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability in and knowl?edge of field identification of birds and is an Active Member of the Alabama Ornithological Society and, at the time of appointment, is a resident of the AOS area Our current procedure is to have each member contact those they are nominating and determine if they are willing to serve prior to placing their names in the hat.? This allows the election to be completed at the meeting without a surprise later if someone is not interested in being on the committee. At the election meeting the?qualifications of all nominees are discussed prior to the actual vote being taken.? Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -----Original Message----- From: Phil Davis To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 1:58 am Subject: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications BRCF-L:? ? Do any other records committees have stated (either formal or informal) membership qualifications or nomination guidelines that you can share?? ? (I do understand from earlier threads that some states/provinces have difficulty in just finding enough members to fill the membership positions!)? ? Thanks!? ? Phil? ? ===================================================? Phil Davis, Secretary? MD/DC Records Committee? 2549 Vale Court? Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA? 301-261-0184? mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com? ? MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html? ===================================================? ? --------------------------------------------------? Bird Records Committee Forum archives:? http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html? ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Records Committee membership nominations and qualifications From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:58:11 -0500 BRCF-L: Do any other records committees have stated (either formal or informal) membership qualifications or nomination guidelines that you can share? (I do understand from earlier threads that some states/provinces have difficulty in just finding enough members to fill the membership positions!) Thanks! Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: TBRC website updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:46:40 -0500 Hi Dean: Congratulations to you and Chuck Nicholson on the excellent TBRC web site! I encourage all records committees to post a message to BRCF-L when major data or formatting updates are made to their web sites. The records archive feature is most impressive. A question ... can you briefly summarize what the underlying database and web technology is that drives this capability? Thanks. Phil At 10:24 11/13/2007, K Dean EDWARDS wrote: >As announced at the TOS Fall Meeting earlier this month, a significant >update to the Tennessee Bird Records Committee website is now online. >A special thanks goes out to TOS webmaster Chuck Nicholson. The >TBRC website can be reached from the TOS website (www.tnbirds.org) >or to link there directly... > >http://www.tnbirds.org/TRBC/index.html > =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: TBRC website updates From: K Dean EDWARDS <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:24:32 -0500 As announced at the TOS Fall Meeting earlier this month, a significant update to the Tennessee Bird Records Committee website is now online. A special thanks goes out to TOS webmaster Chuck Nicholson. The TBRC website can be reached from the TOS website (www.tnbirds.org) or to link there directly... http://www.tnbirds.org/TRBC/index.html The new TBRC website includes the following: About the TBRC A brief history of the TBRC, the committee by-laws, and a list of all members past and present. The membership list will eventually be put into a timeline format detailing who was serving on the committee at any time. Please let me know of any corrections or omissions. Official List of the Birds of Tennessee Newly updated through 2007 TBRC actions and with fully revised status codes and breeding status. The updated list contains 406 species of which 182 are known to have bred in Tennessee (i.e., documented to meet "confirmed breeder" status as defined in "Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Tennessee"). There is also a new Review List of 131 species for which the TBRC requests documentation when observed in the state. Everyone is encouraged to refer to the Review List and to report sightings of those species to the TBRC and regional season report editors for The Migrant and North American Birds. TBRC Records Archive -- In development This is the newest addition and the one I'm most excited about. When completed, this will serve as an online archives of all documentation of bird reports reviewed by the TBRC. A few examples are online now with more to be added as time permits. Each species will have a separate page with range map, status, and a list of all accepted records and rejected reports reviewed by the TBRC with links to the reports, photos, and other documentation submitted to the TBRC and articles published in The Migrant. This list will only include observations reported to and reviewed by the TBRC. Documenting Rare Birds in Tennessee Rare Bird Report forms in various formats (with online submission hopefully coming in the future) and instructions on how to document rarities and fill out the report forms. Currently the instructions link to a nice 1987 article in The Migrant written by Stephen Stedman and John Robinson which provides excellent recommendations for documenting birds including filling out the TBRC report form (which is largely the same today as the one described in the article). Committee Actions and Reports Links to all Committee reports published in The Migrant over the years. The TBRC invites everyone to check out the new website and, as always, encourages everyone to carefully document sightings of rare species and submit your observations to the TBRC and regional editors of the season reports in The Migrant and Norht American Birds. Dean Edwards Secretary, Tennessee Bird Records Committee =================NOTES TO SUBSCRIBER===================== The TN-Bird Net requires you to SIGN YOUR MESSAGE with first and last name, CITY (TOWN) and state abbreviation. You are also required to list the COUNTY in which the birds you report were seen. The actual DATE OF OBSERVATION should appear in the first paragraph. _____________________________________________________________ To post to this mailing list, simply send email to: tn-bird AT freelists.org. _____________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send email to: tn-bird-request AT freelists.org with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. ______________________________________________________________ TN-Bird Net is owned by the Tennessee Ornithological Society Neither the society(TOS) nor its moderator(s) endorse the views or opinions expressed by the members of this discussion group. Moderator: Wallace Coffey, Bristol, TN wallace AT bristolbirdclub.org ------------------------------ Assistant Moderator Andy Jones Cleveland, OH ------------------------------- Assistant Moderator Dave Worley Rosedale, VA __________________________________________________________ Visit the Tennessee Ornithological Society web site at http://www.tnbirds.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ARCHIVES TN-Bird Net Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archives/tn-bird/ EXCELLENT MAP RESOURCES Topographical Maps located at http://topozone.com/find.asp Tenn.Counties Map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/states/tennessee3.gif Aerial photos to complement google maps http://local.live.com _____________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Rare Birds" books From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:39:52 -0500 Hi Stan: No ... no private replies at all. My copy of the California book just came the other day, but I've only had a chance to flip open some of the pages. It looks very good, however. Phil At 08:13 11/09/2007, Stan DeOrsey wrote: >Thanks. I hope you got a few more private replies. The lack of >listserve replies surprises me? ================================== Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com ================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Rare Birds" books From: Stan DeOrsey <jsmd AT ATT.NET> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:13:05 -0500 Thanks. I hope you got a few more private replies. The lack of listserve replies surprises me? Not to beat a dead horse, I did not buy the California book but I do have Phil Unitt's Birds of San Diego County (1st or 2nd edition), an excellent work. He includes very detailed maps of both wintering and breeding distribution along with historical data. If this were on the internet the maps would be updated periodically (perhaps) and the point in time would be lost. By having the book, the maps are now historical and can be referenced to see future changes. NY State has just completed a second breeding bird survey and they have their maps online. At this time there are two maps for each species, the old (1980s) and the new (2000s), so it can work. But if these were updated yearly by internet records the points in time would be lost. On the other hand both of these works address "common" birds, not "rare". All the best, good luck. Phil Davis wrote: > Hi Stan: > > I think you stated the case very well. I certainly agree. > > Thanks! > > Phil -- Stan DeOrsey jsmd AT att.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Rare Birds" books From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:27:32 -0500 Hi Stan: I think you stated the case very well. I certainly agree. Thanks! Phil At 08:25 11/06/2007, Stan DeOrsey wrote: >Web pages are the perfect spot to publish data, particularly data >which is constantly being added to and perhaps corrected. Books, or >even CDs, but something more or less permanent, is the perfect place >to publish analysis and summaries, especially when a "point in time" >is desired. > >It is nice to look back and find a book or journal article examining >the change in status of a particular entity, bird species for us, so >that we might now continue understanding the degree of change since >that point in time. A book which is mostly a collection of data, >without significant analysis and perspective, requires constant >reevaluation and is thus better placed in an area (web page) which >can be constantly updated. > >One fear I continue to have for web pages is that they >disappear. No matter how well intended, URLs, organizations, >individuals, evolve and data is lost or at least misplaced all too frequently. > >Net, publish on paper if you are contributing more than a list of >species and dates. > >Phil Davis wrote: >>The topic of book vs. web site is a key issue and I know it will be >>hotly debated. I know that there are some (many?) people in the >>ornithological community that say "if it's not published (i.e., in >>the traditional sense), then it doesn't exist." I'd be interested >>to hear what others have to say about this. >-- =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee web site updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:05:42 -0500 MD Osprey, BRCF-L: We have just updated a number of our MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) data products on committee's web pages. Thanks to MOS Webmaster, Taylor McLean, for putting up these documents. All data products now conform to the AOU 48th Supplement taxonomy, with exotic non-AOU species pushed to the back of the lists. Highlights include: MARYLAND: 1. The Official List of the Birds of Maryland http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf Species recently added include Inca Dove, Anna's Hummingbird, and Tropical Kingbird. These accepted records raise the MD species total to 432. A new subspecies taxon was also accepted, European Whimbrel. 2. Maryland Review List http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf This list indicates the species that the MD/DCRC wants to review. This list is only two pages, local birders might want to put to slip a copy into your field guide so you can check on the reviewable status of unusual species while you are still in the field. 3. MD MD/DCRC Database http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf This is a large PDF reference document - don't print it! This is an abridged listing of the records and reports of rare and unusual species ever reported in Maryland, showing dates and locations. You can open the document and do a search/find for species of interest. The complete MD/DCRC database contains a great deal of other information fields. We are working to get this database, which includes many historical but non-reviewed reports, totally up to date and to verify as much information as possible for the earlier published reports. We are getting close to this goal. There are still a few "problem" species that we know need some work to straighten out (for example, Le Conte's Sparrows). We will make an announcement once we feel we have everything validated. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 1. The Official List of the Birds of DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf Species recently added include Cackling Goose and Bullock's Oriole. The DC total is now 328. 2. DC Review List http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf This is the list of reviewable DC species. 3. DC MD/DCRC Database http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf This is the equivalent database for DC. OTHER: 1. Status of Recent Review Packages http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcpackages.pdf A summary of recent package decisions and those currently in circulation. 2. MD/DCRC Identification and Reference Index http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf An index of the MD/DCRC reference files for identification and taxonomy information, by species. 3. Chronologies of when species were added to the MD and DC lists MD: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdchron.pdf DC: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcchron.pdf Indicates the year that species were added to the MD and DC official list, subsequent to the MD 1958 baseline and the DC 1984 baseline. Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Rare Birds" books From: Stan DeOrsey <jsmd AT ATT.NET> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:25:02 -0500 Web pages are the perfect spot to publish data, particularly data which is constantly being added to and perhaps corrected. Books, or even CDs, but something more or less permanent, is the perfect place to publish analysis and summaries, especially when a "point in time" is desired. It is nice to look back and find a book or journal article examining the change in status of a particular entity, bird species for us, so that we might now continue understanding the degree of change since that point in time. A book which is mostly a collection of data, without significant analysis and perspective, requires constant reevaluation and is thus better placed in an area (web page) which can be constantly updated. One fear I continue to have for web pages is that they disappear. No matter how well intended, URLs, organizations, individuals, evolve and data is lost or at least misplaced all too frequently. Net, publish on paper if you are contributing more than a list of species and dates. Phil Davis wrote: > The topic of book vs. web site is a key issue and I know it will be > hotly debated. I know that there are some (many?) people in the > ornithological community that say "if it's not published (i.e., in the > traditional sense), then it doesn't exist." I'd be interested to hear > what others have to say about this. -- Stan DeOrsey jsmd AT att.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: "Rare Birds" books From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 19:33:37 -0500 Hi Kimball, et al. I haven't seen any follow-up on this, yet. One reason might be that people that have ordered their copies of the California book (like me) haven't received them yet. I have had a similar vision for a MD / DC work for a number of years and we have just begun to embark on the planning to lay out such a project. Once I get my copy of the California book, I'll be able to compare our two visions and comment. The topic of book vs. web site is a key issue and I know it will be hotly debated. I know that there are some (many?) people in the ornithological community that say "if it's not published (i.e., in the traditional sense), then it doesn't exist." I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about this. My current view is that IF the purpose/audience is the scientific documentation of the status of rare species at the time of publication, then an edited and peer-reviewed book makes sense. However, if the objective is to share information with the birding community (local, regional, and/or national) then a dynamic, frequently updated web site would make sense. I know that some people will say, "the two are the same," but I submit that they are not; they are two similar but different objectives with two separate but highly overlapping audiences. We have discussed here in Maryland the idea of formally publishing such works but not on paper; rather on CD (which could also be made available online as PDF), but the point is that such a document would be an "official" publication in the (occasional) Maryland Avifauna Series, with a defined publication date and publisher (the Maryland Ornithological Society). Using that publication as a formal baseline, I could then see a web site that would provide updates from that point on. This should be interesting ... Phil At 14:00 10/26/2007, Kimball Garrett wrote: >Dear Bird Records Committee aficionados: > >I haven't seen any discussion on this listserve about the new book >produced by the California Birds Records Committee (Rare Birds of >California, edited by Robb Hamilton, Michael Patten and Dick >Erickson). Although I think the book is spectacular and exemplary >and will be of interest to all who sit on or work with any bird >records committee, my reason for this post is actually not to >shamelessly plug the book (which I will do anyway by pointing out >that it can be ordered through the WFO web >site: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/ ). > >What I'm more interested in knowing is what people think of the book >as a model for reporting the results of the work that records >committees do. Do you see strong points or shortcomings? Is a book >the way to go when updatable summaries can be posted on a >committee's web site? Are any other BRCs actively working on a >similar (or dissimilar?) publication for their state or >province? One problem with a book, clearly, is that it can get out >of date quickly. Since the California book went to the printer late >this summer, the following potential new species for the state have >been photo-documented (though none has yet completed review by the >CBRC): Eurasian Kestrel, Swallow-tailed Kite, Common Rosefinch, >Lesser Frigatebird, Townsend's Shearwater, and Wood Sandpiper >(though the last, from May, did get a one-liner in the book); >another potential first for the state, Great Black-backed Gull, is >in the second round of review, and at least one other potential >first state record (Tristram's Storm-Petrel) is in the review process. =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Rare Birds of California book From: Kimball Garrett <kgarrett AT NHM.ORG> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:00:37 -0700 Dear Bird Records Committee aficionados: I haven't seen any discussion on this listserve about the new book produced by the California Birds Records Committee (Rare Birds of California, edited by Robb Hamilton, Michael Patten and Dick Erickson). Although I think the book is spectacular and exemplary and will be of interest to all who sit on or work with any bird records committee, my reason for this post is actually not to shamelessly plug the book (which I will do anyway by pointing out that it can be ordered through the WFO web site: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/ ). What I'm more interested in knowing is what people think of the book as a model for reporting the results of the work that records committees do. Do you see strong points or shortcomings? Is a book the way to go when updatable summaries can be posted on a committee's web site? Are any other BRCs actively working on a similar (or dissimilar?) publication for their state or province? One problem with a book, clearly, is that it can get out of date quickly. Since the California book went to the printer late this summer, the following potential new species for the state have been photo-documented (though none has yet completed review by the CBRC): Eurasian Kestrel, Swallow-tailed Kite, Common Rosefinch, Lesser Frigatebird, Townsend's Shearwater, and Wood Sandpiper (though the last, from May, did get a one-liner in the book); another potential first for the state, Great Black-backed Gull, is in the second round of review, and at least one other potential first state record (Tristram's Storm-Petrel) is in the review process. Kimball Kimball L. Garrett Ornithology Collections Manager Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90007 (213) 763-3368 (213) 746-2999 FAX kgarrett AT nhm.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Records Committee functions From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:35:33 -0500 Dear all, Phil asked me to post a link to a piece that was recently published in a Texas Ornithological Society publication called Texas Birds Annual. Mel Cooksey originally drafted it in 2003 as a post to TexBirds in an attempt to broaden the participation in the documentation process. http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=TEXBIRDS&P=R40331&I=-3 Perhaps you will find some portion if useful as well. Mark Mark Lockwood Secretary, Texas Bird Records Committee 402 E. Harriet Ave. Alpine, Texas 79830 mark.lockwood AT tpwd.state.tx.us Visit the Texas Bird Records Committee at http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/ TOS Handbook of Texas Birds at http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2004/lockwood.htm TOS Occ. Publications at http://www.texasbirds.org/publications/occasional.html   -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee 2007 Skins Workshop minutes From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:33:03 -0400 MD Osprey, BRCF, and Birdwg01: We have posted the minutes of the Maryland / District of Columbia Records Committee (MD/DCRC) 2007 Skins Workshop on our web page here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskins2007.pdf Our workshops are held annually at the Smithsonian Institution to examine bird specimens of taxa that are planned for review by the committee. Workshop sessions are about half a day long and, in later years, we typically write-up and post our findings for the benefit of future committee members and for other birders, both local and non-local. Our studies are not exhaustive but are intended to either focus on specific characteristics or issues, or to provide our members with a general familiarity with unusual taxa and to compliment the available literature. In the early days of these workshops, when Claudia Wilds was our Chair, some of the MD/DCRC workshops coincided with meetings of the AOU Committee on Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. Since 2001-2002 our minutes have become more detailed and since 2003 we have also included specimen photographs with our findings. The 2007 minutes are rather lengthy but most of the page space is taken up by photographs. The PDF file is over 1MB. Taxa examined at the 2007 workshop included the following: Black-bellied Whistling-Duck (focus on the hallux) Cape Verde Shearwater and "Scopoli's" (Cory's) Shearwater (focus on size, bills, and underwings) Southern Lapwing (focus on subspecies) Tropical Kingbird vs. Couch's Kingbird (focus on bill shape, back coloration, and tail shape) "Snowy-bellied Martin" complex (Caribbean/Cuban/Sinaloa Martins) Hoary Redpoll vs. Common Redpoll (focus on classification and taxonomy, ID characteristics, and the two Greenland forms) Bridled Tern vs. Sooty Tern (focus on underwings) All of our previous workshop minutes are posted on our web page at the URL in my signature block. One of our members suggested that we could use an index of the taxa that the committee studied at the previous workshops. I generated two versions, one that lists the taxa studied at previous workshops in taxonomic order with links to the corresponding set of minutes; the second index is a chronological listing of the workshop minutes and taxa examined. Some of the earlier accounts are rather basic, but others are more detailed. The two indices are found here ... Taxonomic order: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskinstax.pdf Chronological order: http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcskinschron.pdf Hope this helps ... Phil =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: RFI - returning vagrants From: Matt Sharp <sharp AT ANSP.ORG> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:53:48 -0400 I am posting this for Phil Barnett. Please reply to him at philbarnettox AT yahoo.com I'm compiling a list of vagrants that have returned on territory (or apparently holding territory) to the same site in the breeding season for a forthcoming article. The birds don't have to be national vagrants, but could be out of range vagrants in a county/state etc.. If the individual returned to a different site that's also useful information. Any information from North America would be especially helpful. Phil Some I've got so far. UK Black-browed Albatross - Scotland. Little Shearwater - Skomer (1981-1982). Little Bittern - Yorkshire (pair 1984, male 1985). Collared Pratincole - Norfolk (1994-1999). Gull-billed Tern - Essex (pair 1949-1950). Lesser Crested Tern - Farne Islands (1984-1997, thought to have been Norfolk 1983 bird). Least Tern - Rye Harbour (1983-1992). Ancient Murrelet - Lundy (1990-1992). Scops Owl - Oxon (2006-2007). Denmark American Bittern (2001-2004). Holland Green Heron (2006-2007). --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Admin message From: Laurie Larson <llarson AT PRINCETON.EDU> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:38:15 -0400 Hello all, It's great to see a good discussion on the list. But since it has been quiet so long, two brief notes from the management: * When you post, plain text is required. If you don't use it, the Listserver will do its best, usually resulting in gibberish in postings, digests, and archives. Turn off your mail software's HTML and other fancy formatting. * Avoid quoting entire previous messages (and messages-within- messages). It's confusing to readers, and often isn't necessary. If needed, quote just a few lines you're responding to, to orient the reader; the rest is available at the list archives. (Archives link follows every message). Phil Davis and Laurie Larson share list-ownership. Don't hesitate to contact Laurie if you can't post, need help with a change of address, or any other technical issue. Contact Phil for help with policy decisions and other guidance. Or, just write both of us. Thanks, Laurie Larson llarson AT princeton.edu Phil Davis pdavis AT ix.netcom.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Fast-track" reviews From: "George L. Armistead" <georgearmistead AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:35:13 -0400 All, I certainly understand Jim's point that records committees are subject to the foibles that any human endeavor is, and at times there doesn't seem as though there is much science governing records committee decisions. I like to think of voting members as experts issuing expert opinions. They will inevitably be at times wrong, inexpert, or even inept. I'm not sure what one can do about that but try harder to do better, and hold a committee accountable if something is really out of whack. Still, I think we all agree there is value in archiving these reports (for whomever), and also at least some value in the committee taking an official opinion on some percentage of them. As to Chris's question: >How should a committee like Nevada's deal with species for which there are >not many documented records, but which probably occur in small numbers >every year, and which would probably be reported far more frequently if >only there were more than a couple of dozen birders out looking for them? > >Is it appropriate to trim the review list based on the intuition of the >committee, or is a documented pattern of records absolutely essential? That really depends on the goals of the committee and the particular bird. Is the goal to try and establish a pattern of vagrancy or to track the spread or decline of a species? If it's vagrancy then you have to decide what the difference is between a vagrant or migrant or perhaps even a low density resident? In theory, the more data you collect the more valuable the data is. The standard Iliff and I used to use when determining whether we thought a bird was a vagrant or a rare-but-regular migrant was if the bird was annual in occurrence, or less than annual. Then there is the detection question. Surely, yes many birds are annual but they are detected far less often than that. I'd say take it case by case. If the committee does not have the magic number formula that Matt referred to, then using the intuition of the committee I think should be okay. Your votes on records are only your best judgements and so if there is no mathematical formula to follow then I think it's okay that the review list species be made up of judgements as well. Don't know if this helps, but that's how I got it figured. Best to all, -George George L. Armistead Philadelphia, PA georgearmistead AT hotmail.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/seabirder/ Field Guides, Inc. Birding Tours Worldwide http://www.fieldguides.com/ >From: Chris Elphick >Reply-To: Chris Elphick >To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU >Subject: Re: "Fast-track" reviews >Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:24:30 -0700 > >Hello again, > >I get the sense that this discussion has wandered a bit from the original >question. I'd guess that most people on the list would agree (a) that >anything that increases the speed and efficiency of committees is a good >thing, as long as (b) it doesn't compromise the quality of decisions. > >But, I think Martin's original question was more subtle, in that it asked >whether some subset of records should somehow be treated differently from >the majority (e.g., because they're perceived to be "easy" identifications, >or because there is a sense that certain species should get moved off a >review list). > >So, this begs the underlying question that Martin nicely skirted so as not >to put direct blame on me for my decisions when revising the NV review >list: > >How should a committee like Nevada's deal with species for which there are >not many documented records, but which probably occur in small numbers >every year, and which would probably be reported far more frequently if >only there were more than a couple of dozen birders out looking for them? > >Is it appropriate to trim the review list based on the intuition of the >committee, or is a documented pattern of records absolutely essential? > >And (for what little it is worth), I agree completely with Alvaro's >comments about the audience that committees actually serve. Rightly or >wrongly, I don't know any scientists who pay attention to bird records >committees (or, probably, even know of their existence), except when those >scientists are also birders. > >Chris > > > > > >Chris Elphick >Storrs, CT >elphick AT sbcglobal.net > >-------------------------------------------------- >Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html _________________________________________________________________ Booking a flight? Know when to buy with airfare predictions on MSN Travel. http://travel.msn.com/Articles/aboutfarecast.aspx&ocid=T001MSN25A07001 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Science and records committees From: "McCormac, Jim" <Jim.McCormac AT DNR.STATE.OH.US> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:32:33 -0400 Hi Alan and all, Didn't mean to hijack the previous thread about timeliness of review - that's why I started one with a new heading. I think you hit it on the head about the high vs low quality science, Alan. Also interesting that you brought up collecting. Of course, that rarely happens these days and rightly so, but in regards to the Ohio sapsucker record, one piece of corollary information was the alleged Red-naped Sapsucker in Kansas in 2001. This bird was also thought to be a male Red-naped by a number of folks, and it was finally collected by University of Kansas personnel and proven to be an adult FEMALE, and most likely Red-breasted x yellow-bellied! Jim Jim McCormac Ohio Division of Wildlife 2045 Morse Rd., G-3 Columbus, Ohio 43229 614-265-6440 -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Wormington Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:13 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Science and records committees Jim and all, This appears to be a discussion on the differences between "high-quality" science and "low-quality" science. If there are major concerns about the review process, then perhaps Ohio should go back to a system where collected specimens are required before any record can be accepted. Now that WOULD be high-quality science, but then the number of usable occurrence records would plummet dramatically. And then Ohio might know LESS about its rare birds, not more. The Ohio Red-naped Sapsucker is a classic example where a LOT of time should have been spent in the review process. No fast-tracking here! Perhaps even YEARS until all known experts were consulted, and their opinions compiled. If someone asks what's taking so long, simply tell them its a difficult record! Alan Wormington ****************************** On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:15 -0400 "McCormac, Jim" writes: > Hi all, > > Good discussions and I've enjoyed following along. The science angle > is > far more interesting to me than the timeliness of review; about the > latter I'd just say that timeframes shouldn't drive reviews, the > best > methods of reaching the best decisions should. > > Alvaro and Steve make great points about records committees and > self-perceived notions of conducting scientific research. I'd say > outside of the birding community - and even to some degree within - > records committees are largely ignored. Sometimes, I think there is a > sense that committees may on occasion fail to follow any sort of > rigid > scientific standards, and that some decisions may be more of an art > than > science. I've also seen decisions that I felt were mistakes in that > the > bird in question was forced into a pigeonhole that committee members > wanted it to fit into, rather than being considered something that > for > whatever reason couldn't be properly identified to species. > > A case in point was a recently accepted Red-naped Sapsucker here in > Ohio. There are few records east of its normal range, and perhaps only > one other record east of the Mississippi. One in Ohio would be > extraordinary by any reckoning. Without delving deeply into the nuts > and > bolts of sapsucker plumage variability/aberrations and hybridism, > here's > what happened. The bird was easily accessible, widely seen, and many > good photos were taken. Based on Internet comments and remarks made > elsewhere, the ID was soon a foregone conclusion among many in the > birding community and perhaps even a few on the records committee. > > The record soon circulated amongst the Ohio committee, and was > accepted > after the first round of voting. Ohio bylaws preclude members from > discussing a first-round circulation, so none of them saw the > others' > comments on their vote sheets and it was published in our state > journal > as accepted and new to the Ohio list. I had a number of problems > with > this ID, and independently shared the photos and other documentation > with people with acknowledged expertise in Sphyrapicus, like Kaufman > and > the authors of the Birds of North America monograph on this complex. > None of those I consulted felt good about the ID as Red-naped and > most > listed their specific concerns. The committee, even though no member > claimed much experience with Red-naped Sapsucker, did not seek > outside > expert review, apparently. > > I requested a recirculation of the record, and copies of all the > vote > sheets. When I reviewed the remarks of the members, there was very > little in the way of concrete comments as to why they thought it was > an > indisputable Red-naped, and one member made no comments at all - > just > checked the accept box. Another commented "If it looks like a duck, > and > quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Another member felt it > was > probably an adult female, others felt it was an adult male. > > To cite the oft-quoted Carl Saganism, "Extraordinary claims require > extraordinary evidence". Extraordinary claims should also receive > extraordinary scrutiny. > > Now, it is not my intention to bash this committee or any other, but > when decisions like this are made in that manner, it's very difficult > to accept the work as "science" and the temptation is to ignore their > conclusions. They did re-review the record and I provided the > committee > with the expert opinion I had received, and again voted to accept > and > add to the state list. Presumably the members reached consensus on > the > sex of the bird this time :-) There are probably plenty of other > similar > examples out there. I recently learned where the Ohio committee just > accepted a sight record of White-throated Swift - another state > record - > again, apparently after the first round of voting. > > As someone who is involved in researching and publishing information > about Ohio's bird life, I'm not going to blindly accept these sorts of > decisions as good "science", and they make me wonder about the > validity > of records committee decisions in general. > > Jim > > Jim McCormac > Ohio Division of Wildlife > 2045 Morse Rd., G-3 > Columbus, Ohio 43229 > 614-265-6440 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird Records Committee Forum > [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Steven Mlodinow > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:31 PM > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Subject: Re: BRCs and Science > > Greetings All > > Alvaro, I mostly agree with your statement. I have gotten miffed at > the > haughty attitude that BRCs are being so very, very, very careful > because > folks, this is science. WE CAN NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. IT IS SCIENCE. > > Okay, I am getting carried away. But there are some folks on BRCs > who do > essentially scream this message and are rather off-putting (and in > my > mind often mis-guided as to what science and scientific processes > are). > > On the other hand, when it comes to bird status-and-distribution, > which > is (admittedly) of apparent declining interest to the ornithological > community, BRC's do serve a purpose -- less so with mega rarities > that > are a one-off occurrence, but more so with more regular vagrants. > Indeed, a friend is considering using the occurrence of Bahamian > vagrants in FL to look at dispersal of these island species, and how > such might be related to weather.... all of which could be useful in > understanding the biogeography in the West Indies. That data would > be > available without a FL BRC, but the data is more accurate with it. > > Enough > Me Done > Steve > > > ************************************** > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Jim McCormac Ohio Division of Wildlife 2045 Morse Rd., G-3 Columbus, Ohio 43229 614-265-6440 -----Original Message----- From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Wormington Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:13 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Re: Science and records committees Jim and all, This appears to be a discussion on the differences between "high-quality" science and "low-quality" science. If there are major concerns about the review process, then perhaps Ohio should go back to a system where collected specimens are required before any record can be accepted. Now that WOULD be high-quality science, but then the number of usable occurrence records would plummet dramatically. And then Ohio might know LESS about its rare birds, not more. The Ohio Red-naped Sapsucker is a classic example where a LOT of time should have been spent in the review process. No fast-tracking here! Perhaps even YEARS until all known experts were consulted, and their opinions compiled. If someone asks what's taking so long, simply tell them its a difficult record! Alan Wormington ****************************** On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:15 -0400 "McCormac, Jim" writes: > Hi all, > > Good discussions and I've enjoyed following along. The science angle > is > far more interesting to me than the timeliness of review; about the > latter I'd just say that timeframes shouldn't drive reviews, the > best > methods of reaching the best decisions should. > > Alvaro and Steve make great points about records committees and > self-perceived notions of conducting scientific research. I'd say > outside of the birding community - and even to some degree within - > records committees are largely ignored. Sometimes, I think there is > a > sense that committees may on occasion fail to follow any sort of > rigid > scientific standards, and that some decisions may be more of an art > than > science. I've also seen decisions that I felt were mistakes in that > the > bird in question was forced into a pigeonhole that committee members > wanted it to fit into, rather than being considered something that > for > whatever reason couldn't be properly identified to species. > > A case in point was a recently accepted Red-naped Sapsucker here in > Ohio. There are few records east of its normal range, and perhaps > only > one other record east of the Mississippi. One in Ohio would be > extraordinary by any reckoning. Without delving deeply into the nuts > and > bolts of sapsucker plumage variability/aberrations and hybridism, > here's > what happened. The bird was easily accessible, widely seen, and many > good photos were taken. Based on Internet comments and remarks made > elsewhere, the ID was soon a foregone conclusion among many in the > birding community and perhaps even a few on the records committee. > > The record soon circulated amongst the Ohio committee, and was > accepted > after the first round of voting. Ohio bylaws preclude members from > discussing a first-round circulation, so none of them saw the > others' > comments on their vote sheets and it was published in our state > journal > as accepted and new to the Ohio list. I had a number of problems > with > this ID, and independently shared the photos and other documentation > with people with acknowledged expertise in Sphyrapicus, like Kaufman > and > the authors of the Birds of North America monograph on this complex. > None of those I consulted felt good about the ID as Red-naped and > most > listed their specific concerns. The committee, even though no member > claimed much experience with Red-naped Sapsucker, did not seek > outside > expert review, apparently. > > I requested a recirculation of the record, and copies of all the > vote > sheets. When I reviewed the remarks of the members, there was very > little in the way of concrete comments as to why they thought it was > an > indisputable Red-naped, and one member made no comments at all - > just > checked the accept box. Another commented "If it looks like a duck, > and > quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Another member felt it > was > probably an adult female, others felt it was an adult male. > > To cite the oft-quoted Carl Saganism, "Extraordinary claims require > extraordinary evidence". Extraordinary claims should also receive > extraordinary scrutiny. > > Now, it is not my intention to bash this committee or any other, but > when decisions like this are made in that manner, it's very > difficult to > accept the work as "science" and the temptation is to ignore their > conclusions. They did re-review the record and I provided the > committee > with the expert opinion I had received, and again voted to accept > and > add to the state list. Presumably the members reached consensus on > the > sex of the bird this time :-) There are probably plenty of other > similar > examples out there. I recently learned where the Ohio committee just > accepted a sight record of White-throated Swift - another state > record - > again, apparently after the first round of voting. > > As someone who is involved in researching and publishing information > about Ohio's bird life, I'm not going to blindly accept these sorts > of > decisions as good "science", and they make me wonder about the > validity > of records committee decisions in general. > > Jim > > Jim McCormac > Ohio Division of Wildlife > 2045 Morse Rd., G-3 > Columbus, Ohio 43229 > 614-265-6440 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird Records Committee Forum > [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Steven Mlodinow > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:31 PM > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Subject: Re: BRCs and Science > > Greetings All > > Alvaro, I mostly agree with your statement. I have gotten miffed at > the > haughty attitude that BRCs are being so very, very, very careful > because > folks, this is science. WE CAN NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. IT IS SCIENCE. > > Okay, I am getting carried away. But there are some folks on BRCs > who do > essentially scream this message and are rather off-putting (and in > my > mind often mis-guided as to what science and scientific processes > are). > > On the other hand, when it comes to bird status-and-distribution, > which > is (admittedly) of apparent declining interest to the ornithological > community, BRC's do serve a purpose -- less so with mega rarities > that > are a one-off occurrence, but more so with more regular vagrants. > Indeed, a friend is considering using the occurrence of Bahamian > vagrants in FL to look at dispersal of these island species, and how > such might be related to weather.... all of which could be useful in > understanding the biogeography in the West Indies. That data would > be > available without a FL BRC, but the data is more accurate with it. > > Enough > Me Done > Steve > > > ************************************** > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Science and records committees From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:13:05 -0400 Jim and all, This appears to be a discussion on the differences between "high-quality" science and "low-quality" science. If there are major concerns about the review process, then perhaps Ohio should go back to a system where collected specimens are required before any record can be accepted. Now that WOULD be high-quality science, but then the number of usable occurrence records would plummet dramatically. And then Ohio might know LESS about its rare birds, not more. The Ohio Red-naped Sapsucker is a classic example where a LOT of time should have been spent in the review process. No fast-tracking here! Perhaps even YEARS until all known experts were consulted, and their opinions compiled. If someone asks what's taking so long, simply tell them its a difficult record! Alan Wormington ****************************** On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:15 -0400 "McCormac, Jim" writes: > Hi all, > > Good discussions and I've enjoyed following along. The science angle > is > far more interesting to me than the timeliness of review; about the > latter I'd just say that timeframes shouldn't drive reviews, the > best > methods of reaching the best decisions should. > > Alvaro and Steve make great points about records committees and > self-perceived notions of conducting scientific research. I'd say > outside of the birding community - and even to some degree within - > records committees are largely ignored. Sometimes, I think there is > a > sense that committees may on occasion fail to follow any sort of > rigid > scientific standards, and that some decisions may be more of an art > than > science. I've also seen decisions that I felt were mistakes in that > the > bird in question was forced into a pigeonhole that committee members > wanted it to fit into, rather than being considered something that > for > whatever reason couldn't be properly identified to species. > > A case in point was a recently accepted Red-naped Sapsucker here in > Ohio. There are few records east of its normal range, and perhaps > only > one other record east of the Mississippi. One in Ohio would be > extraordinary by any reckoning. Without delving deeply into the nuts > and > bolts of sapsucker plumage variability/aberrations and hybridism, > here's > what happened. The bird was easily accessible, widely seen, and many > good photos were taken. Based on Internet comments and remarks made > elsewhere, the ID was soon a foregone conclusion among many in the > birding community and perhaps even a few on the records committee. > > The record soon circulated amongst the Ohio committee, and was > accepted > after the first round of voting. Ohio bylaws preclude members from > discussing a first-round circulation, so none of them saw the > others' > comments on their vote sheets and it was published in our state > journal > as accepted and new to the Ohio list. I had a number of problems > with > this ID, and independently shared the photos and other documentation > with people with acknowledged expertise in Sphyrapicus, like Kaufman > and > the authors of the Birds of North America monograph on this complex. > None of those I consulted felt good about the ID as Red-naped and > most > listed their specific concerns. The committee, even though no member > claimed much experience with Red-naped Sapsucker, did not seek > outside > expert review, apparently. > > I requested a recirculation of the record, and copies of all the > vote > sheets. When I reviewed the remarks of the members, there was very > little in the way of concrete comments as to why they thought it was > an > indisputable Red-naped, and one member made no comments at all - > just > checked the accept box. Another commented "If it looks like a duck, > and > quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Another member felt it > was > probably an adult female, others felt it was an adult male. > > To cite the oft-quoted Carl Saganism, "Extraordinary claims require > extraordinary evidence". Extraordinary claims should also receive > extraordinary scrutiny. > > Now, it is not my intention to bash this committee or any other, but > when decisions like this are made in that manner, it's very > difficult to > accept the work as "science" and the temptation is to ignore their > conclusions. They did re-review the record and I provided the > committee > with the expert opinion I had received, and again voted to accept > and > add to the state list. Presumably the members reached consensus on > the > sex of the bird this time :-) There are probably plenty of other > similar > examples out there. I recently learned where the Ohio committee just > accepted a sight record of White-throated Swift - another state > record - > again, apparently after the first round of voting. > > As someone who is involved in researching and publishing information > about Ohio's bird life, I'm not going to blindly accept these sorts > of > decisions as good "science", and they make me wonder about the > validity > of records committee decisions in general. > > Jim > > Jim McCormac > Ohio Division of Wildlife > 2045 Morse Rd., G-3 > Columbus, Ohio 43229 > 614-265-6440 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird Records Committee Forum > [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Steven Mlodinow > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:31 PM > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Subject: Re: BRCs and Science > > Greetings All > > Alvaro, I mostly agree with your statement. I have gotten miffed at > the > haughty attitude that BRCs are being so very, very, very careful > because > folks, this is science. WE CAN NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. IT IS SCIENCE. > > Okay, I am getting carried away. But there are some folks on BRCs > who do > essentially scream this message and are rather off-putting (and in > my > mind often mis-guided as to what science and scientific processes > are). > > On the other hand, when it comes to bird status-and-distribution, > which > is (admittedly) of apparent declining interest to the ornithological > community, BRC's do serve a purpose -- less so with mega rarities > that > are a one-off occurrence, but more so with more regular vagrants. > Indeed, a friend is considering using the occurrence of Bahamian > vagrants in FL to look at dispersal of these island species, and how > such might be related to weather.... all of which could be useful in > understanding the biogeography in the West Indies. That data would > be > available without a FL BRC, but the data is more accurate with it. > > Enough > Me Done > Steve > > > ************************************** > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records > Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html "The Early Worm Gets The Bird!" --- Alan Wormington -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Fast-track" reviews From: Kimball Garrett <kgarrett AT NHM.ORG> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:09:11 -0700 Please indulge me as I bring this back to Martin Meyer's original query. [For the record, I'm pro-science, Committees make mistakes, and our constituencies range from the sport birding community to the scientific ornithological community, whether we like it or not.] Unstated in Martin's query was a component of "fast-tracking" considered (or already in practice? -- correct me if I'm wrong, Martin) by the Nevada committee. This is the review of "easy" photo-documented records (however that is defined) by only a subset of the Committee (say, a "fast-track" sub-committee of 3). As I told Martin, I'm uneasy about this approach. So often (in my experience in California) a single dissenting -- or even accepting -- vote on an otherwise "slam-dunk" record has enlightened and often shifted the whole discussion of the record -- maybe not toward "non-acceptance" but toward a significant issue such as subspecies identity, age/sex issues, possibly captive origin, fraud, etc. Such issues usually do not affect the "outcome" of the record, but they can inform the wording about the record in a published Committee report. I can't imagine a circumstance under which anything less than the entire committee's input is warranted [shades of our past discussion on abstentions and recusals -- I still favor California's policy of requiring that ALL members vote on ALL records]. The more practical solution for fast-tracking is technological -- simultaneous web-based voting rather than snail-mail circulations. I don't know of any Committee that isn't working toward that goal. Kimball Kimball L. Garrett Ornithology Collections Manager Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90007 (213) 763-3368 (213) 746-2999 FAX kgarrett AT nhm.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Science and records committees From: Chuck Otte <cotte AT OZNET.KSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:00:44 -0500 Awesome discussion!! Our approach here in Kansas is that anything that is submitted on paper or via the web form is assigned a record number and all the information is kept, no matter how common. Twice a year I put together a web page that has all the information and photos or videos, let the committee know the URL and then let them vote. Most all of the really good birds have already been on the state listserv so everyone knows about them. The common stuff that the over exuberent beginner reports is still assigned a number, but is color coded as to not requiring a vote. If for some reason, I flag something as not requiring a vote that several people want to discuss, we can vote on it and discuss it at our annual meeting. We don't really have any method to accelerate a decision. But we do discuss our review list once a year to see what needs to go on, what needs to come off, etc. We find that it is very very useful to have those records to document the spread of species that seem to be expanding their range. Some people have asked why we have certain species still on the list, and it's simply because we feel that there is value in gathering more information. We don't really see any value to obtaining a "quick" decision on anything. Chuck Kansas Bird Records Committee Secretary -- Chuck Otte cotte AT oznet.ksu.edu Past President, National Association of County Agricultural Agents Geary County Extension Office, PO BOX 28 785-238-4161 Junction City, Kansas 66441-0028 FAX 785-238-7166 http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/geary -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Science and records committees From: "McCormac, Jim" <Jim.McCormac AT DNR.STATE.OH.US> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:15 -0400 Hi all, Good discussions and I've enjoyed following along. The science angle is far more interesting to me than the timeliness of review; about the latter I'd