Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Bird Records Committee Forum > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Saturday, June 26 at 12:08 PM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	Swallow-wing,©Dan Lane

26 Jun Fwd: How many records annually? [] 16 Jun Re: How many records annually? [Milt Moody ] 16 Jun Re: How many records annually? [Mark Lockwood ] 15 Jun Re: How many records annually? [William Rowe ] 15 Jun Re: How many records annually? [Phil Davis ] 14 Jun Re: How many records annually? [Martin Meyers ] 15 Jun Re: How many records annually? ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 14 Jun How many records annually? [Joseph Morlan ] 14 Jun MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates [Phil Davis ] 5 Jun New website for MNS-BCC Records Committee (Malaysia) [Phil Davis ] 5 Jun Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 5 Jun Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions [William Rowe ] 5 Jun Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions [Phil Davis ] 4 May MD/DCRC photographic guidelines [Phil Davis ] 2 May RFI: NA Lesser White-fronted Goose records from the 1970s [Phil Davis ] 27 Mar Re: Citing the CBC issue? [Joseph Morlan ] 27 Mar Citing the CBC issue? [Phil Davis ] 21 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Phil Davis ] 20 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Martin Meyers ] 20 Mar BRCs and intellectual property ["Jennifer W. Hanson" ] 19 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Alan Wormington ] 19 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Joseph Morlan ] 19 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Alan Wormington ] 19 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Ned Keller ] 19 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [William Rowe ] 16 Mar Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [Joseph Morlan ] 16 Mar When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? [] 16 Mar Re: Archiving of on-line records [Phil Davis ] 15 Feb Archiving of on-line records [William Rowe ] 2 Feb Re: Returning Birds [Joseph Morlan ] 28 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews -- Ontario [Alan Wormington ] 28 Jan Virginia's Warbler records in the East -- Ontario [Alan Wormington ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Dan Singer ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Ned Keller ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [William Rowe ] 26 Jan Re: "Ad hoc" reviews [Mark Stevenson ] 25 Jan "Ad hoc" reviews [Martin Meyers ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East [Adam Byrne ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East [knights ] 21 Jan Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East ["wormington AT juno.com" ] 20 Jan Virginia's Warbler records in the East [Giff Beaton ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Milt Moody ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Alan Wormington ] 12 Jan Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [William Rowe ] 12 Jan Semantics -- to accept or not to accept [Martin Meyers ] 10 Jan An excellent article on exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins [Phil Davis ] 9 Jan Re: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds [Phil Davis ] 3 Jan New Year's Resolutions [Phil Davis ] 24 Dec Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds [Steven Mlodinow ] 18 Dec Re: Returning Birds [Martin Meyers ] 18 Dec BirdChat discussion on bird records committees [Ted Floyd ] 12 Dec Re: Returning Birds [Phil Davis ] 9 Dec New Academia.edu feature for BRCF-L [Richard Price ] 9 Dec Returning Birds [Joseph Morlan ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Steven Mlodinow ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Chris Elphick ] 19 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Martin Meyers ] 19 Sep Fwd: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Sheehan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans ["K. Dean Edwards" ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Andrew Kratter ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Mark Lockwood ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Bill Whan ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Donna Dittmann ] 18 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Phil Davis ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [William Rowe ] 17 Sep Re: Trumpeter Swans [Alan Wormington ] 17 Sep Trumpeter Swans [Tony White ] 14 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Charles Swift ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Donna L. Dittmann" ] 4 Sep Re: BRC member residence? ["Paul A. Guris" ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [Martin Meyers ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [knights ] 3 Sep Re: BRC member residence? [William Rowe ] Subject: Fwd: How many records annually? From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:08:01 -0400 Joe and all, Here are the Alabama stats. As background, the ABRC only reviews reports for review list species. We do not review out-of-range or out-of-season records. Also, the review list criteria was changed from "< 20 records" in 2005 to its current form: <10 accepted records or <2 in previous 10 years. 2009 - 28 08 - 22 07 - 14 06 - 21 05 - 56 03 & 04 - 102 02 - 17 01 - 50 00 - 40 99 -34 98 - 44 97 - 32 96 - 49 95 - 45 94 - 37 93 - 33 92 - 11 91 - 20 90 - 47 89 - 32 88 - 17 Steve McConnell Secretary ABRC Hartselle, AL -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Morlan To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Mon, Jun 14, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: How many records annually? I am curious about the number of records processed by various records ommittees annually. Recently California took in for processing... 259 records in 2009 31 records in 2008 07 records in 2007 25 records in 2006 17 records in 2005 How does this compare with the workload of other committees? - oseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu F Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ alifornia Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ estern Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- ird Records Committee Forum archives: ttp://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How many records annually? From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:59:43 -0700 Here are Utah's meager numbers: (We haven't been reviewing out-of-range or out-of-season records to this point) HTML clipboard 2010 - 24 records so far 2009 - 31 records,  29  accepted   (93.5%) 2008 - 37 records,  31  accepted  (83.8%) 2007 - 46 records,  39  accepted  (84.8%) 2006 - 60 records,  44  accepted  (73.3%) 2005 - 51 records,  42  accepted  (82.4%) 2004 - 45 records,  41  accepted  (91.1%) 2003 - 43 records,  42  accepted  (97.7%) 2002 - 44 records,  40  accepted  (93.2%) We've been receiving sight records for only about half of the review species reported on our hotlines.  We do keep records of all review species sighting, however and mark the ones that have been reviewed and accepted by the committee. Milt Moody UBRC webmaster (and past secretary) UBRC website:  http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/ UBRC Archives: http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/Arch00Index.htm --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Mark Lockwood wrote: From: Mark Lockwood Subject: Re: How many records annually? To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 7:31 AM Here are the numbers of records reviewed for Texas for the past few years.    111 records in 2009 117 records in 2008 85 records in 2007 111 records in 2006 121 records in 2005 100 records in 2004 121 records in 2003   The numbers were higher in the 1980s and early 1990s, but we have refined the Review List for the state over the past 10+ years.  Back then we normally would review between 150 and 200 records.   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       -------------------------------------------------- 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: How many records annually? From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:31:54 -0500 Here are the numbers of records reviewed for Texas for the past few years. 111 records in 2009 117 records in 2008 85 records in 2007 111 records in 2006 121 records in 2005 100 records in 2004 121 records in 2003 The numbers were higher in the 1980s and early 1990s, but we have refined the Review List for the state over the past 10+ years. Back then we normally would review between 150 and 200 records. 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 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How many records annually? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:36:39 -0500 Here are the stats for MissourI. As Alan suggests, our numbers are much smaller than California or Ontario. Our record year runs from September to September. Also, as mentioned previously, we review out- of-season records, so each year is a mix of actual rarities (review list species) plus some record-early or late dates, winter records of summer birds, etc. Whether we review such records depends on the bird's status as given in the state checklist (review only those listed as casual or accidental for the season). year ending 9/02: 75 records processed and completed (acceptance rate of 81%) 9/03: 70 (73%) 9/04: 83 (87%) 9/05: 77 (88%) 9/06: 92 (84%) 9/07: 87 (87%) 9/08: 95 (87%) 9/09: 118 (88%) The record-high numbers of the past couple of years may have something to do with our new online documentation system; people seem to have adjusted rapidly to it and find it easy to use (with a few exceptions). Also note that our acceptance rate is remarkably uniform most years. It may go higher in the future, with so many records accompanied by digital photos. Bill Rowe St. Louis On Jun 14, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Joseph Morlan wrote: > I am curious about the number of records processed by various records > committees annually. > > Recently California took in for processing... > > 259 records in 2009 > 231 records in 2008 > 307 records in 2007 > 225 records in 2006 > 217 records in 2005 > > How does this compare with the workload of other committees? > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > SF Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ > Western Field Ornithologists http:// > www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: How many records annually? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:51:59 -0400 Hi Joe, et al. Here is a summary of our MD/DC Records Committee data from the past five years: 2009 received 84 reports; 49 decisions rendered 2008 received 64 reports; 85 decisions rendered 2007 received 77 reports; 78 decisions rendered 2006 received 84 reports; 85 decisions rendered 2005 received 63 reports; 70 decisions rendered Note: There is not necessarily a strong 1:1 relationship between the specific received reports and the processed decisions. In addition to the "current" reports we received, we continued to also add an average of 93 historical reports annually to our database over the past five years as we strive to complete our canvass of historically reviewable species from older publications, museums databases and specimens, BBL records, and now, old eBird reports. Some of these will turn into reviewable reports, but not many, since we are mostly done with this canvass and the low hanging fruit has already been picked over. We still have a backlog of species, rare or usual subspecies/forms, presumed exotics, and "problem children" taxa (for example, our Western Wood-Pewees, where we are stalled in terms of useful identification techniques. Also, species that have been removed from our review list still sit in our queue, but at a lower priority. Hope this helps. Phil At 11:31 PM 06/14/2010, Joseph Morlan wrote: >I am curious about the number of records processed by various records >committees annually. > >Recently California took in for processing... > >259 records in 2009 >231 records in 2008 >307 records in 2007 >225 records in 2006 >217 records in 2005 > >How does this compare with the workload of other committees? =================================================== 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: How many records annually? From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:39:55 -0700 Here are the number of submissions per year in Nevada since the committee's founding in 1994. 1994: 2 1995: 23 1996: 19 1997: 23 1998: 32 1999: 14 2000: 44 2001: 36 2002: 23 2003: 18 2004: 17 2005: 10 2006: 2 2007: 152 (Note: The committee had fallen asleep around mid-2004. When it awoke in 2007, many records were submitted for sightings from the previous couple of years.) 2008: 114 2009: 128 2010 (so far): 36 Note: I expect out numbers to drop off a bit beginning this year, as we made some significant cuts to our review list at our meeting in September, 09. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: How many records annually? From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:42:00 GMT Joseph, Ontario processes probably slightly less than these numbers (I'm on the road at the moment). I bet CA and Ontario process high numbers compared to other jurisdictions -- but of course CA and ON are both very large geographically. I suspect small states process far fewer records per year. cheers, Alan Wormington OBRC Member -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: How many records annually? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:31:36 -0700 I am curious about the number of records processed by various records committees annually. Recently California took in for processing... 259 records in 2009 231 records in 2008 307 records in 2007 225 records in 2006 217 records in 2005 How does this compare with the workload of other committees? -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: MD/DC Records Committee - new web updates From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:49:25 -0400 MOS and BRCF-L: Due to some web site issues, it's been a while since we have posted any updates to the MD/DC Records Committee web pages. A new batch of PDF web products is now available. Here is a summary: 1. Members. Since our last posting three members have rotated off the committee and we thank them very much for their service; they are: Stan Arnold, Paul DeAnna, and Leo Weigant. The three new members elected to the committee for three-year terms are: Walter Ellison (Kent County), Ron Gutberlet (Wicomico County), and Joe Hanfman (Howard County). The full membership list can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcmembers.pdf 2. Minutes of the MD/DCRC 2010 Annual Meeting and Annual Business Report. This detailed document can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcannual2010.pdf 3. MD/DCRC Databases. Updates to the abridged versions of the MD/DCRC databases of reports and records are here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf (a very large document - you can download and search it but you probably wont want to print it!) DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcdatabase.pdf 4. References Index. The updated MD/DCRC index of identification and reference articles can be found here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/rcbibliog.pdf (another large document - again, you probably do not want to print it!) 5. Official Lists. No new species were added to the MD or DC lists, so the current Official Lists of the Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia have not changed since the last posting. They can be found here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dclist.pdf 6. Review Lists. Likewise, the MD and DC review lists have not changed since the last posting. They can be found here ... MD http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdreview.pdf DC http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/dcreview.pdf Thanks to our new MOS webmaster, John Christy. 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: New website for MNS-BCC Records Committee (Malaysia) From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:59:20 -0400 Hi BRCF-L: FYI ... This is a cross-post from the OrientalBirding listserver ... I always like looking at links to other records committee's web pages, no matter where in the world they are from. Best practices can come from anywhere ... Phil >New website for MNS-BCC Records Committee >Posted by: "David Bakewell" digdeep1962 AT yahoo.com digdeep1962 >Date: Fri Jun 4, 2010 9:38 pm ((PDT)) > >Dear all > >Apologies for cross-posting. > >The website of the Malaysian Nature Society-Bird Conservation >Council Records Committee is now online at: >https://sites.google.com/site/mnsbccrc/Home/malaysia-bird-checklist-2010. > >The website aims to provide up to date information on the list of >wild birds which have been recorded in Malaysia. It summarizes the >work of the MNS-BCC Records Committee and publishes its decisions on >records submitted to it. If you have submitted a record to MNS BCC >RC, you can check on the status of your submission here. > >The site is still a work in progress, with information on East >Malaysia in particular being far from complete. We would appreciate >your feedback on the site's usefulness, how it can be improved and any other >suggestions. > >Thank you, > >Dave Bakewell >Chairman, MNS-BCC 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: Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:13:34 GMT Something else you can add to this discussion: A records committee should inform participants that another reason for submitting documentation -- probably THE reason -- is so that observer's significant sightings become permanently archived. Often this means permanent archiving in a museum that is associated with a particular records committee. Sometimes is sounds like observers document sightings "for the records committee" or "so the record can be judged" but they should also consider that submitting documentation can also be FOR THEMSELVES -- in other words, it is a process where their personal significant sightings are permanently archived somewhere, where they can be USED by some future researcher. Having one's observation reviewed by a records committee is a SHORT-term process; having the record permanently archived is a LONG-term process. For me, this is a driving force to provide documentation -- knowledge that my significant sightings will be permanently archived. cheers, Alan Wormingon Member, Ontario Bird Records Committee -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 08:32:38 -0500 Phil, and by extension Gary: Thank you for cross-posting this. It is a good, down-to-earth summary of the whole documentation issue. I may ask Gary for permission to quote extracts from it in our state journal—not that we have a big problem with this in Missouri, as a majority of the active birders are quite willing to document. But the birding community still needs to hear the reasoning all over again every so often. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Jun 5, 2010, at 3:21 AM, Phil Davis wrote: > BRCF-L: > > Here is a very relevant records committee-related message from > birdwg05, the Arizona birding listserver. I'm sure Gary Rosenberg > would not mind me cross-posting this for him ... Thanks, Gary! > > Phil > > >> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:23 -0700 >> From: Gary Rosenberg >> Subject: Documentation of rarities and range expansions >> >> Hi all, >> >> The ongoing thread about Mexican Chickadees in the Pinale=F1os >> (Mt. Graham) is an excellent example of the difference between a >> person's casual observations and a documented occurrence that >> meets the scientific standard. Having been involved with "both" >> for nearly 30 years in Arizona, I thought I would make a comment. >> >> I respect and understand when someone chooses to "not participate" >> in the process of documenting their sightings so they can be >> included in the scientific record of bird distribution in Arizona >> (or anywhere). Not everyone wants to take the time, or make the >> effort to photograph, tape record, or even write written details, >> and then have that documentation scrutinized by a bunch of >> strangers (or even friends) to make a determination of whether or >> not that documentation will withstand time and the "record" be >> added to the scientific record. The function of the Arizona Bird >> Committee, just like the function of all the state records >> committees, as well as the ABA Checklist Committee, and the AOU >> Checklist Committee, is simply to evaluate the quality of the >> documentation submitted. Reports that are well documented get >> added to the record, reports that are not well documented >> generally do not get added - it is that simple. Birder experience >> and credentials have little if anything to do with this process. >> No record committee that I know, nor any member of a record >> committee I know, views this review process in terms of >> "believing" or "not believing" the observer. Of course, on rare >> occasions, photos submitted actually represent a different species >> - but these are learning experiences, and the overall objective of >> any review of any report is to make our best assessment, based on >> the materials submitted, of whether or not the report should be >> added. >> >> This, I believe, is what Mark was trying to point out regarding >> the report of Mexican Chickadees on Mt. Graham. This would be a >> very significant range expansion - one that those of us who are >> very interested in the distribution of Arizona Birds would like to >> see be documented, so that it could be added to our scientific >> knowledge of birds in Arizona. A casual mentioning of such a >> sighting is VERY different than a concerted effort to both >> understand the significance, and then to want and document such an >> important finding. >> >> Most observers I know are generally excited about finding >> interesting birds, and they enjoy the process of documenting these >> rarities - and then seeing their names in print in North American >> Birds, or an Arizona Bird Committee Report - at the same time >> understanding that by documenting the rarity, their sighting can >> be added to the record - maybe being included in an update of any >> regional checklist or bargraph (such as the Tucson Audubon Society >> Birdfinding Guide to Southeast Arizona - or a new Birds of Arizona >> - or a new Arizona Bird Atlas). >> >> If one chooses to "not" document a rare sighting, then they should >> be prepared to not have that bird sighting included. Just like the >> lottery, you can't win if you don't play. Like I mentioned before, >> this process is perhaps not for everyone, but I will point out >> that it is both fun and rewarding to participate in this process - >> maybe a somewhat thankless process as both ego and acclaim from >> others is not, and should not be the main motivation to >> participate - the personal gratification that you contributed to >> the knowledge base of Arizona birds should be motivation enough. >> >> Finding Mexican Chickadees on Mt. Graham should be motivation >> enough to fully document such a sighting. Those of us interested >> in such a sighting don't care whether the sighting is made by an >> amateur, or by Roger Tory Peterson back from the grave - all we >> care about is that it is well documented there. Just saying they >> are there puts an unwarranted responsibility on the rest of the >> birding community to assess such a sighting without anything to go >> on other than the observer. It is always much better for everyone >> when a report is well documented (hopefully with photos) and thus, >> the observer's "credentials" (which shouldn't be needed to confirm >> a record) need not be mentioned. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Gary >> >> Gary H. Rosenberg >> Tucson, AZ >> ghrosenberg AT comcast.net >> >> Secretary, Arizona Bird Committee >> >> http://www.avianjourneys.com >> info AT avianjourneys.com > > > =================================================== > 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 > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Documentation of rarities and range expansions From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 04:21:46 -0400 BRCF-L: Here is a very relevant records committee-related message from birdwg05, the Arizona birding listserver. I'm sure Gary Rosenberg would not mind me cross-posting this for him ... Thanks, Gary! Phil >Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:23 -0700 >From: Gary Rosenberg >Subject: Documentation of rarities and range expansions > >Hi all, > >The ongoing thread about Mexican Chickadees in the Pinale=F1os (Mt. >Graham) is an excellent example of the difference between a person's >casual observations and a documented occurrence that meets the >scientific standard. Having been involved with "both" for nearly 30 >years in Arizona, I thought I would make a comment. > >I respect and understand when someone chooses to "not participate" >in the process of documenting their sightings so they can be >included in the scientific record of bird distribution in Arizona >(or anywhere). Not everyone wants to take the time, or make the >effort to photograph, tape record, or even write written details, >and then have that documentation scrutinized by a bunch of strangers >(or even friends) to make a determination of whether or not that >documentation will withstand time and the "record" be added to the >scientific record. The function of the Arizona Bird Committee, just >like the function of all the state records committees, as well as >the ABA Checklist Committee, and the AOU Checklist Committee, is >simply to evaluate the quality of the documentation submitted. >Reports that are well documented get added to the record, reports >that are not well documented generally do not get added - it is that >simple. Birder experience and credentials have little if anything to >do with this process. No record committee that I know, nor any >member of a record committee I know, views this review process in >terms of "believing" or "not believing" the observer. Of course, on >rare occasions, photos submitted actually represent a different >species - but these are learning experiences, and the overall >objective of any review of any report is to make our best >assessment, based on the materials submitted, of whether or not the >report should be added. > >This, I believe, is what Mark was trying to point out regarding the >report of Mexican Chickadees on Mt. Graham. This would be a very >significant range expansion - one that those of us who are very >interested in the distribution of Arizona Birds would like to see be >documented, so that it could be added to our scientific knowledge of >birds in Arizona. A casual mentioning of such a sighting is VERY >different than a concerted effort to both understand the >significance, and then to want and document such an important finding. > >Most observers I know are generally excited about finding >interesting birds, and they enjoy the process of documenting these >rarities - and then seeing their names in print in North American >Birds, or an Arizona Bird Committee Report - at the same time >understanding that by documenting the rarity, their sighting can be >added to the record - maybe being included in an update of any >regional checklist or bargraph (such as the Tucson Audubon Society >Birdfinding Guide to Southeast Arizona - or a new Birds of Arizona - >or a new Arizona Bird Atlas). > >If one chooses to "not" document a rare sighting, then they should >be prepared to not have that bird sighting included. Just like the >lottery, you can't win if you don't play. Like I mentioned before, >this process is perhaps not for everyone, but I will point out that >it is both fun and rewarding to participate in this process - maybe >a somewhat thankless process as both ego and acclaim from others is >not, and should not be the main motivation to participate - the >personal gratification that you contributed to the knowledge base of >Arizona birds should be motivation enough. > >Finding Mexican Chickadees on Mt. Graham should be motivation enough >to fully document such a sighting. Those of us interested in such a >sighting don't care whether the sighting is made by an amateur, or >by Roger Tory Peterson back from the grave - all we care about is >that it is well documented there. Just saying they are there puts an >unwarranted responsibility on the rest of the birding community to >assess such a sighting without anything to go on other than the >observer. It is always much better for everyone when a report is >well documented (hopefully with photos) and thus, the observer's >"credentials" (which shouldn't be needed to confirm a record) need >not be mentioned. > >Respectfully, > >Gary > >Gary H. Rosenberg >Tucson, AZ >ghrosenberg AT comcast.net > >Secretary, Arizona Bird Committee > >http://www.avianjourneys.com >info AT avianjourneys.com =================================================== 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/DCRC photographic guidelines From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 03:21:11 -0400 BRCF-L: With the increasing popularity of digital photography and video, field observers now submit more digital images of rare birds to records committees. The MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) drafted a set of photographic guidelines to help photographers prepare and submit images for review by the MD/DCRC. These guidelines can be found on the MD/DCRC blog here ... http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/mddcrc-photo-documentation-guidelines We thank the Arizona Field Ornithologists (AZFO) for their original web page on this topic. Other records committee are welcome to link to or to adapt these guidelines, as you wish. Comments and feedback are welcome! 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: NA Lesser White-fronted Goose records from the 1970s From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 16:30:53 -0400 Hi BRCF-L: The MD/DC Records Committee is preparing to review a mostly ignored report of an adult Lesser White-fronted Goose seen from 23-25 Oct 1976 at Wye Mills, Queen Anne's County on Maryland's eastern shore. The bird was not photographed but it was very well-described and was seen over several days by a number of experienced observers, including waterfowl expert Dr. Bill Sladen, who was very familiar with the species from recent trips to Europe. The bird was examined for and showed no signs of captivity was also reported to be associating with a flock of migratory Canada Geese. At the time, the report was dismissed as being of an escape; however, the MD/DCRC thinks this is at least worthy of a review and putting it "on the record." I am writing to ask for additional information on any other CONUS reports of LWFG, especially from the 1970s, Specifically: 1. One adult bird was shot and photographed at Bombay Hook, DE on 21 Dec 1973. The AB report states that details will be published later, but if they were, I have not seen them. Can anyone help with more information this one? 2. I am pretty sure I also saw an AB report of an observation from New England in the 1970s, but I cannot relocate this reference. Does anyone know any more on this one? 3. The AOU Checklist also reports sightings from BC, ND, OH, and western PA. Any information on these reports would be welcome. 4. Finally, even though I know that this species can now (in 2010) be bought from an aviculturalist for about $250, I am told that back in the 1970s, virtually no one was keeping this species as an exotic. Any comments on this theory would be appreciated. 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: Citing the CBC issue? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:07:36 -0700 Phil, I would probably do it this way: Sunders, N. C. 2009. Delaware/Maryland _in_ Regional summaries of the 109th Christmas bird count. Am.Birds 63:60-61. On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:27:30 -0400, Phil Davis wrote: >BRCF-L: > >Does anyone know a recommended method of citing the latest CBC >summary, hardcopy issues? > >The most recent issue is entitled American Birds 2008-2009; Volume >63; The 109th Christmas Bird Count; Audubon. > >I want to cite the DE/MD report on pages 60-61 by Norm Saunders. I am >assuming that this issue is still within the otherwise defunct >American Birds (AB) series and is not an North American Birds (NAB) >issue, especially since ABA now publishes NAB. There is also no >associated issue number, only a masthead reference to "October 2009." > >... makes life difficult for those of us trying to provide proper citations ... > >Any thoughts? > >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 -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start April.6 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Citing the CBC issue? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:27:30 -0400 BRCF-L: Does anyone know a recommended method of citing the latest CBC summary, hardcopy issues? The most recent issue is entitled American Birds 2008-2009; Volume 63; The 109th Christmas Bird Count; Audubon. I want to cite the DE/MD report on pages 60-61 by Norm Saunders. I am assuming that this issue is still within the otherwise defunct American Birds (AB) series and is not an North American Birds (NAB) issue, especially since ABA now publishes NAB. There is also no associated issue number, only a masthead reference to "October 2009." ... makes life difficult for those of us trying to provide proper citations ... Any thoughts? 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: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:42:14 -0400 Hi Ned, et al. We do not use photos from web sites or messages from listservers for any purpose without the permission of the original photographer/author. It's a bit more work for me, but I've never had anyone deny us permission to use their inputs for a review. Plus, I always ask the person if they have anything else to add, for the record. The background on this is that many years ago, the committee used a written report from a CBC sighting that was provided to us by the compiler and the record was denied. As it turns out, there was additional detail available and also from a second observer. From that point on, the MD/DC committee decided to not use any inputs obtained from a third-party without the permission of the original observer. Hope this helps ... Phil At 08:40 PM 03/19/2010, Ned Keller wrote: >Here in Ohio, we probably harvest 10-20 percent of our >documentations from the internet, i.e. they aren't actually >submitted to us. We are looking at putting our records online, but I >would assume that we do NOT have the right to republish that >material, without explicit permission. How are the rest of you >dealing with that issue? =================================================== 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: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:23:24 -0700 For the most part, the NBRC requests permission from anyone who has submitted photos, and we don't publish them (in our annual report or on our website) without that permission. Now, as to the "for the most part" part... We don't really take submissions directly from public web posts -- if I see a report on a listserv of a review species, I contact the poster asking for a submission. Some choose not to submit, and if I think there's enough documentation in the post (and, perhaps, linked photos), I ask if we may use that for a "submission". And in asking, I also ask if we have permission to display the photo on our website and use it in our report. If I don't get a reponse, I don't use it. We also harvest a number of our submissions from early material (the committee dates back only to 1994). That material typically consists of reports in North American Birds (and its predecessors), in Western Birds, and similar sources. If there is any way to contact the observer, we do so, but if not, the presumption is that they submitted the information for the purpose of documenting a rarity, and we use it as such. I have not, however, published photos from those publications without permission either from the submitter or the journal. We have a large cache of material accumulated by the founding secretary of the NBRC, consisting of submissions of sightings that pre-date the committee. (The original bylaws of the committee specifically stated that we would not review pre-committee records. That was changed later and we now actively pursue such records.) In many cases, the submitters of the earlier records are no longer with us. In those cases, I have typically bent my rules a bit and used the photos for our report and website. Finally, our submission form uses an "opt out" provision somewhat like Bill Rowe's approach. The last section of the review form states: ---- By submitting this documentation, I agree to allow the Nevada Bird Records Committee to review and evaluate all materials I have submitted, retain all materials in its archives, publish its findings in Great Basin Birds and on the NBRC website, and make the materials available to any interested party upon request. If photographs were included, the Nevada Bird Records Committee may wish to publish some or all of those photographs in Great Basin Birds and/or on the NBRC website. If you do not want these photographs published, place "X" here. [ ] ---- Doubt it would hold up in court, but I think it's probably good enough for our purposes. (By the way, if a submission comes in which does not use the form, I write back specifically asking for photo permission.) As you would expect, I've yet to have anyone deny permission, but I have gotten a number of very nice replies saying how pleased they were that I asked for permission. Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: BRCs and intellectual property From: "Jennifer W. Hanson" <kuovi AT EARTHLINK.NET> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:16:26 -0400 Hi everybody, Although I'm currently a voting member and Assistant Secretary of the New Jersey Bird Records Committee, I am writing this more as a grad student who is in the process of completing a Master's in Library and Information Science at Rutgers University. Several issues have come up in this recent discussion of BRC submissions and "public domain," and I'd like to briefly talk about them. Public domain and the related question of whether or not an item is in the public domain is complicated. The University of California has some good material on copyright and public domain. To quote from their public domain page, "The public domain is generally defined as consisting of works that are either ineligible for copyright protection or with expired copyrights." See: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/publicdomain.html for a good discussion of the topic and a link to lots of additional references. Also, see the chart at: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm for an indication of how complicated the rules governing public domain can get. The larger question of copyright is also complicated. As Joe Morlan noted, possession of an item does not automatically give permission to reproduce it. There has been a working assumption that submission of material to a BRC for consideration includes or implies permission to publish said material in, say, an Annual Report. However, we live in an age where technology has made it very easy for people to publish their own content, as well as for other people to copy content without permission. There is also the example of the big media companies using increasingly draconian measures in an attempt to preserve their hold on their intellectual property. As a result, the issue of publishing submitted material has gotten to be more delicate. My personal view is that it is a mimimum courtesy to request publication permission, even if material has been formally submitted to the BRC. It might also be desirable to explicitly state that submission to a BRC automatically conveys permission for the BRC to republish that material in BRC-related publications (and the question of whether those publications are print, online, or both, also needs to be spelled out). Finally, there is the question of harvesting material from the internet. All of the issues listed above get much more complicated without a formal submission to a BRC. Some birders may put their photos and notes online with the expectation that the applicable BRC can refer to them, some may not. The lack of explicit communications between BRCs and observers in these situations presents potential issues. Another wrinkle is the fact that a fair number of photographers that use Flickr (very popular for bird photographers) use a Creative Commons license to cover their work, so photos with such a license could be used in BRC publications or other works under certain conditions. Here is Flickr's page on Creative Commons: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ Best regards and good birding, Jennifer W. Hanson Plainsboro, New Jersey USA kuovi AT earthlink.net Today in NJ Birding History: http://njbirdinghistory.blogspot.com/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:11:13 -0400 Joseph and all, When I say "public domain" what I mean is that anything I donate to an institution is then out of my hands and future control, so to speak. In other words, I have no say as to who can or can not use a specimen that I may have donated to a museum. As you correctly point out, within the museum itself there will obviously be various policies as to who can use certain materials, but in reality anyone with a legitimate research project surely is allowed access? cheers, Alan On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:03:05 -0700 Joseph Morlan writes: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:28:31 -0500, William Rowe > wrote: > > >Our documentation form states that all material submitted > (including > >photographs, by implication) becomes the property of the records > >committee "unless otherwise requested" (and no one ever has). I > >assume this means we are free to use that property as we see fit. > I > >would be interested to hear if anyone thinks otherwise. > > I disagree with that interpretation. > > The physical material becomes property of the committee and that > means the > committee is not obligated to return it, but it doesn't convey > copyright of > the intellectual or artistic property which remains with the author, > artist > or photographer. > > E.g., if I buy a book, I own it; it is my property. But that > doesn't mean > I can make copies and sell it. That use is covered by copyright > law. > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:16:40 -0400, Alan Wormington > > wrote: > > >Once something has been donated / given to a public institution > such as a > >museum, to me it becomes "public domain" and can be used by any > >researcher that requires it. > > I would not use the word "public domain" for items archived or > curated in a > museum. The museum can set its own rules on how specimens can be > used and > who can use them. They are not required to allow access or > ownership to > the general public which is what "public domain" means. > > The California Committee archives its records at the Western > Foundation of > Vertebrate Zoology and we recently passed a resolution restricting > access, > requiring that researchers need to get permission from the CBRC > chair or > secretary before digging through our files. The reason for this is > that > some original records have disappeared from our archives and it was > felt we > needed to keep a tighter reign on access. > > -- > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu > SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ > California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ > Western Field Ornithologists > http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:03:05 -0700 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:28:31 -0500, William Rowe wrote: >Our documentation form states that all material submitted (including >photographs, by implication) becomes the property of the records >committee "unless otherwise requested" (and no one ever has). I >assume this means we are free to use that property as we see fit. I >would be interested to hear if anyone thinks otherwise. I disagree with that interpretation. The physical material becomes property of the committee and that means the committee is not obligated to return it, but it doesn't convey copyright of the intellectual or artistic property which remains with the author, artist or photographer. E.g., if I buy a book, I own it; it is my property. But that doesn't mean I can make copies and sell it. That use is covered by copyright law. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:16:40 -0400, Alan Wormington wrote: >Once something has been donated / given to a public institution such as a >museum, to me it becomes "public domain" and can be used by any >researcher that requires it. I would not use the word "public domain" for items archived or curated in a museum. The museum can set its own rules on how specimens can be used and who can use them. They are not required to allow access or ownership to the general public which is what "public domain" means. The California Committee archives its records at the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology and we recently passed a resolution restricting access, requiring that researchers need to get permission from the CBRC chair or secretary before digging through our files. The reason for this is that some original records have disappeared from our archives and it was felt we needed to keep a tighter reign on access. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:16:40 -0400 Everyone, I guess it also depends on where a records committee archives its gathered material. For example if they are housed in a museum, would not a submitted report and / or photo be very similar to donating a specimen to said museum? Once something has been donated / given to a public institution such as a museum, to me it becomes "public domain" and can be used by any researcher that requires it. That said, I think there might be different criteria for photographs, since when a photograph was submitted one can assume that it would strictly be used for the purposes of the Records Committee. Thus if the photo was going to be published in a book, I think permission should be sought, especially if the book is going to be commercial and possible profit is involved. However, if the photo is going to be used by the records committee for its own website, I don't really think permission is required. Just like it would not be required if the photo was going to be published in the Annual Report of the committee. I'm sure that when artwork is donated to a museum, that there is surely a written contract as to what the artwork can and can not be used for. In a similar vein, photographs are a form of art and thus the photographer probably retains at least informal rights to its usage. However, when that person passes away I can't see those rights being passed onto someone else. In Ontario all of our material is archived at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. On occasion I'm sure the odd photograph has been used for some project, such as a local bird book, but I do not know how such situations were handled. But I would assume that an author could / should make an effort to at least get permission from the photographer; it most cases, the photographer is usually thrilled that his photo will be published somewhere. cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:07:05 -0400 swmavocet AT AOL.COM writes: > > Folks, > > I'm interested in gathering information and examples on how other > BRC's treat and possibly use archived observer records, in > particular, photographs. A couple years ago I wanted to create a > website of state rarity photographs along the lines of what the > (excellent) TBRC site presents: > http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/photos.htm > I saw this as an opportunity to present and share our 1st+ state > records, especially since many in our local birding community may > not have had the opportunity to see documentation of these rarer > records. No $$ involved, just publicity. > > I quickly ran up against the question of how and when (if ever) > photographs included in rare bird records could be shared publically > without the photographer's express permission. > Is adding a copyright designation enough? > What happens if the photographer cannot be contacted or has died? > Are these photos forever destined to remain unseen? > > Has any committee adopted a practice of having those who submit rare > bird photographs sign a release of some sort to permit future use > for 'educational' or 'scientific' purposes? > > I find it difficult to envision anyone suing over non-commercial use > of their rare bird pictures but in this age of 'spilled-coffee' > legal actions, one can never be too careful I guess. > > Steve McConnell > Hartselle, AL > ABRC Secretary > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:40:28 -0400 Here in Ohio, we probably harvest 10-20 percent of our documentations from the internet, i.e. they aren't actually submitted to us. We are looking at putting our records online, but I would assume that we do NOT have the right to republish that material, without explicit permission. How are the rest of you dealing with that issue? -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:28:31 -0500 Steve: Our documentation form states that all material submitted (including photographs, by implication) becomes the property of the records committee "unless otherwise requested" (and no one ever has). I assume this means we are free to use that property as we see fit. I would be interested to hear if anyone thinks otherwise. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:07 PM, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > Folks, > > I'm interested in gathering information and examples on how other > BRC's treat and possibly use archived observer records, in > particular, photographs. A couple years ago I wanted to create a > website of state rarity photographs along the lines of what the > (excellent) TBRC site presents: http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/photos.htm > I saw this as an opportunity to present and share our 1st+ state > records, especially since many in our local birding community may > not have had the opportunity to see documentation of these rarer > records. No $$ involved, just publicity. > > I quickly ran up against the question of how and when (if ever) > photographs included in rare bird records could be shared > publically without the photographer's express permission. > Is adding a copyright designation enough? > What happens if the photographer cannot be contacted or has died? > Are these photos forever destined to remain unseen? > > Has any committee adopted a practice of having those who submit > rare bird photographs sign a release of some sort to permit future > use for 'educational' or 'scientific' purposes? > > I find it difficult to envision anyone suing over non-commercial > use of their rare bird pictures but in this age of 'spilled-coffee' > legal actions, one can never be too careful I guess. > > Steve McConnell > Hartselle, AL > ABRC Secretary > > -------------------------------------------------- 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: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:25:35 -0700 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:07:05 -0400, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: >I find it difficult to envision anyone suing over non-commercial use of their rare bird pictures but in this age of 'spilled-coffee' legal actions, one can never be too careful I guess. In California we assume that a photo submitted by a photographer conveys "implied consent" to publish the photo in our Annual Report or on our web site. The copyright remains with the photographer and is always acknowledged. Photos submitted by third parties are handled differently and are not reproduced unless the third party or the original photographer assures us that it's okay to do so. Rarely a photographer may request that their photos not be published or reproduced without express permission and we honor that. A bigger problem is people stealing photos from our site and using them without permission. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: When do BRC records/photos become 'public domain'? From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:07:05 -0400 Folks, I'm interested in gathering information and examples on how other BRC's treat and possibly use archived observer records, in particular, photographs. A couple years ago I wanted to create a website of state rarity photographs along the lines of what the (excellent) TBRC site presents: http://texasbirds.org/tbrc/photos.htm I saw this as an opportunity to present and share our 1st+ state records, especially since many in our local birding community may not have had the opportunity to see documentation of these rarer records. No $$ involved, just publicity. I quickly ran up against the question of how and when (if ever) photographs included in rare bird records could be shared publically without the photographer's express permission. Is adding a copyright designation enough? What happens if the photographer cannot be contacted or has died? Are these photos forever destined to remain unseen? Has any committee adopted a practice of having those who submit rare bird photographs sign a release of some sort to permit future use for 'educational' or 'scientific' purposes? I find it difficult to envision anyone suing over non-commercial use of their rare bird pictures but in this age of 'spilled-coffee' legal actions, one can never be too careful I guess. Steve McConnell Hartselle, AL ABRC Secretary -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Archiving of on-line records From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:44:00 -0400 Hi Bill Things have bit busy here ... my response is only (!) a month late ... sorry ... My comments, from the MD/DC Records Committee perspective, are below ... At 08:54 PM 02/15/2010, William Rowe wrote: >This query goes out to anyone whose committee is currently involved >in on-line documentation, as we are in Missouri. > >In the two years since we got started, records have continued to >accumulate, so we now have close to 300 records archived in our >database, many of them with one to several photographs attached as >jpgs. We have a few questions that someone else may have experience >with: > >1) Has anyone reached the point where storage space is an issue and >you have needed to purge the database? If so, have you done this >more than once? How often? PCD: We have almost 3000 reports/records in our database. No storage issues here ... storage is cheap! >2) Whether or not your answer to #1 was "yes," how have you backed up >your data? On CD's, or some other way(s)? PCD: Yes, DVDs and memory sticks. I am about to activate an on-line web-based archival service so that backup data is stored "off-site." >3) Do you continue to maintain a paper archive in addition to the >electronic one? We do, and it is housed the same way as always, at >U. of Kansas where our founding member works. PCD: Yes to paper. In fact, most of our reports are still hardcopy; the committee began in the early 1980s. Every report has been duplicated in case a review package got lost in the mail. Our first plan was to place the original reports and photos into our Maryland Ornithological Society controlled storage and keep the duplicates as a local working file. However, now that digitization is relatively quick and cheap, my plan is to digitize everything (eventually). >4) What file size does your system allow for each digital image? Do >you have a problem with increased cost of allowing bigger files? PCD: No limit. Everything is stored within a Windows folder structure, organized by MD/DCRC accession number and then by observer. Again, no cost implications ... storage is dirt cheap. >I would appreciate any notes on these points or other issues that you >may be having. I would add that, in general, on-line documentation >is working pretty well, and a good majority of those who submit docs >are doing so on line. If for some reason they can't, or won't, they >send me paper documentation as always; I then scan it and upload it >myself, creating an on-line doc on their behalf. So all records do >become electronic and are circulated that way. (No need to go into >the details of procedure here -- will be glad to share if anyone is >interested. And public thanks to Ann Johnson of Iowa, who has helped >us a great deal.) PCD: We (I) have not converted to on-line reviews yet, but we plan to at some point. It's a change to a number of procedures and will require some XML work that is still secondary in priority to finishing our extensive historical canvass based on journal publications, museum databases and collections (especially the USNM), BBL database and banding schedules, CBC results, May Count results, historical eBird reports, etc. >Thanks, PCD: Hope this helps. Phil >Bill Rowe >Secretary, MBRC >St. Louis > >-------------------------------------------------- >Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html ================================== 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: Archiving of on-line records From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:54:35 -0600 This query goes out to anyone whose committee is currently involved in on-line documentation, as we are in Missouri. In the two years since we got started, records have continued to accumulate, so we now have close to 300 records archived in our database, many of them with one to several photographs attached as jpgs. We have a few questions that someone else may have experience with: 1) Has anyone reached the point where storage space is an issue and you have needed to purge the database? If so, have you done this more than once? How often? 2) Whether or not your answer to #1 was "yes," how have you backed up your data? On CD's, or some other way(s)? 3) Do you continue to maintain a paper archive in addition to the electronic one? We do, and it is housed the same way as always, at U. of Kansas where our founding member works. 4) What file size does your system allow for each digital image? Do you have a problem with increased cost of allowing bigger files? I would appreciate any notes on these points or other issues that you may be having. I would add that, in general, on-line documentation is working pretty well, and a good majority of those who submit docs are doing so on line. If for some reason they can't, or won't, they send me paper documentation as always; I then scan it and upload it myself, creating an on-line doc on their behalf. So all records do become electronic and are circulated that way. (No need to go into the details of procedure here -- will be glad to share if anyone is interested. And public thanks to Ann Johnson of Iowa, who has helped us a great deal.) Thanks, Bill Rowe Secretary, MBRC St. Louis -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:46:48 -0800 Thanks for all the suggestions and input on the problem of returning birds. At our recent CBRC meeting the following by-law addition was approved: "Accepted records of individual birds returning or continuing through subsequent years shall be treated the same as any other resubmission of an accepted record. A majority vote determines whether a record is to be treated as a resubmission of a returning or continuing bird." The main purpose of this bylaw change is to protect accepted records from having differing decisions in subsequent years. By treating them as resubmissions, a majority vote is required to overturn a previously accepted record. On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:35:39 -0800, Martin Meyers wrote: >The issues involved with returning and continuing rarities (as raised in >Joe's post from 12/09/09 and amplified in Phil's post from 12/12) are ones >the Nevada committee considered at our September/09 meeting. After the >discussion, I put together a draft procedure, which was subsequently >approved by the members, and the wording has been added to our bylaws. >Complete bylaws are available via a link on the NBRC home page, >http://gbbo.org/nbrc > >I'll include the exact wording of this section of our bylaws at the end of >this post, but first, a couple of comments: > >From Joe's post: > >>In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >>assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >>a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >>lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >>applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >>although it could apply to breeding birds as well. >> >>As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >>abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >>have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? > >For "returning" birds," our policy is very similar to California's as to >circulation and (initial) ID number, but with one small difference if the >majority considers it a repeat occurrence. We will add the letter "R" to >the (unique) identification number for any of the subequent occurrences. >And within the database, we will include a field that links the record(s) to >the original occurrence. This is only partially successful at accomplishing >what I'd like. The database is not readily available to the public >(although somewhat abridged copies are kept with the archives at the >University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Barrick Museum, and these are available for >vieweing on site.) What is readily available is a website which includes at >least some information about every record -- ID number, species, date, >location, submitters (for accepted records), committee decision/status, and >links to photos when available. > >The problem, then, is that while a record might have an ID number like >2009-001R, indicating that it is a "repeat" occurrence, it will require a >little effort for a user of the website to determine just which record(s) >are repeats of which records. (It's not all that hard -- the records can be >displayed sorted by species, so a very quick look at locations and dates >would allow a very good guess.) So in answer to Joe's question, do we have >a "clear procedure", the answer is "not really." But it's a start. > > > >As to Joe's next issue: >>Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >>is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >>in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >>subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >>rejected because of the subsequent year's action? >> > >Our procedure here is, at least, "clear" even if not perfect. If there is a >different decision on a record that is deemed to be a repeat (or continuing) >occurrence, we do not join the records in any way, e.g., no "R" appended for >repeats. (However, comments in the database will certainly note the fact). >And then: >"... on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be >re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D >(Reconsideration of previously completed records.)" > > >As to the question of how to handle what appears to be the same bird showing >up at widely different locations, we didn't deal specifically with that. >But it would seem that it would be up to the secretary (at least on the >first cut) to add a place for comment and vote under the same rules as the >"repeat/continuing" situation. The voting would be by the same rules. (And >if not "caught" by the secretary, who is, alas, fallible, any member could >just bring it up for additional consideration.) > > >As to the issue of "continuing" presence, Joe says: >>Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >>vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >>successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >>they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >>single record? > >I think there's more to it than just birds which remain to breed, too. We >added a procedure that essentially says that if a later record is thought to >represent the same bird (or birds) as a previous record, the committee must >determine (guess?) by vote whether it is "continuing" or "repeat". If it is >decided that the bird (most likely) never left, it is handled one way, if it >returned (for example, to breed, but after leaving, as in the case of >migration, or the more typical winterer), it is a "return". If the >committee decides a bird is "continuing", whether reviewed together with >other records for that bird or at some later time, we will eliminate the new >ID number and lump the record (physically) with the earlier submission. So >the lower ID number will include both (all) of the records. (Again, only if >both records received the same decision.) > >So, up to a point, we at least have a procedure, clear or otherwise. > >Joe's final issue is one we are facing right now, and nothing went into the >bylaws to cover it. We have a pair of White-tailed Kites in the Pahranagat >Valley of southeastern Nevada that have bred succesfully (probably twice, >although actual offspring were only noted this year.) We have submissions >for two, three, and four birds over a period of three years. The "two >birds" are covered by the "continuing" clause. But I haven't got a clue >what we'll do about the young birds. My inclination is to lump all the >records that include at least one of the presumed parents into a single >record with a single ID number, (assuming, of course, that the committee >votes to consider the pair to be "continuing".) > >One final clarification: In all cases, the fundamental committee review >process is largely unchanged. For every record, the vote/comments as to >acceptance proceed as if it were a new record. Only after that do the >questions of "new", "repeat", or "continuing" get officially dealt with if >warranted. > > > >For your amusement, here's our official wording. Constructive criticism is >always welcome. > >G. Records considered to represent repeat or continued occurrences of the >same individual as one previously reviewed: > >1. Determination that a new record represents a repeat or continued >occurrence of a previously reviewed record shall be by majority of members >voting, or by plurality should three considerations be involved ("new", >"repeat", "continued"). This vote may occur during the review process at >the discretion of the secretary, or it may require an additional special >circulation whose only purpose will be determination of repeat or continued >occurrence if requested by any voting member. Tie votes will result in the >most conservative interpretation, consisting of "new", "repeat", "continued" >in that order. However, in order to formally recognize a record as a repeat >or continued occurrence, both the current and former record must have >received the same decision, i.e., accept, non-accept (identification), >non-accept (origin). > >2. For any record determined to represent a repeat occurrence, that record >shall retain its regular assigned NBRC Identification Number, but the letter >"R" shall be appended to the record number for the additional occurrence. >The official database entry for repeat records shall be annotated with the >specifics of the determination. > >3. For records where the occurrence is determined to be a continuing >individual (as opposed to one which has left Nevada and returned at some >subsequent time), the two (or more) such records shall be handled by >combining the records into a single numbered record, using the ID Number of >the earliest record. > >4. Should the voting members decide by majority vote that a record >represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previous record, but the >decision on acceptance differs for the two records, the records will not be >combined or designated as a repeat occurrence. However, on recommendation >from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the >voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously >completed records.) > >Martin > >---------------------------------------------- >Martin Meyers >Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee >website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc >email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > >-------------------------------------------------- >Bird Records Committee Forum archives: >http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews -- Ontario From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:02:26 -0500 Martin and all, Ontario never officially reviews a record unless the species is on the Review List. Occasionally we receive requests to assess a non-review species, and we do indeed review the record but the results are returned only to the person who originally submitted the record. The decision does not appear in our Annual Report. Not mentioned by others, but the OBRC actively promotes the idea that documentation of rarities NOT on the Review List be sent for archiving directly to the Royal Ontario Museum (ornithology Department) and / or local compilers (who in turn send them in to North American Birds for publication, or are used for other purposes). The point here being that many observations should be thoroughly documented, not just those species on the official OBRC Review List. And this might include any number of significant sightings, such as local rarities, out-of-season observations, significant CBC sightings, out-of-range breeding records, etc. Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:28:58 -0800 Martin Meyers writes: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to > allow > more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs > which does > not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that > sighting > has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly > noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to > be > reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, > and the > particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support > on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid > Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think > such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just > don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a > regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to > the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding > out how > others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Virginia's Warbler records in the East -- Ontario From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:47:13 -0500 Giff and all, Ontario has 5 accepted records of Virginia Warbler: Northern Ontario: August 29, 2001: one immature male, Thunder Cape, Thunder Bay District Southern Ontario: May 3-4, 1975: one, Point Pelee National Park, Essex County May 9-11, 1974: one, Pelee Island, Essex County May 14, 2003: one male, Port Lambton, Lambton County May 16, 1958: one male, Point Pelee National Park, Essex County Cheers, Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:25:16 -0500 Giff Beaton writes: > Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's > Warbler > visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our > second > record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from > Eastern > North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list > below. > If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get > any info > you have. Thanks very much! > > > > Giff Beaton > > Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee > > > > PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. > > > > > > Eastern VIWA Records > > > > Spring: > > > > 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen > > 10 May 1974 photo > > May 1975 > > > > 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 > > Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) > > > > 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama > > > > > > > > Summer? > > > > MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) > > > > > > > > Fall: > > > > 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 > > 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park > > > > 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan > > > > 1 NS no data > > > > 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay > > > > 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta > > > > > > > > Winter: > > > > WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder > > > > GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Dan Singer <dsg2 AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:23:25 -0800 Hi all, In California our by-laws preclude us from reviewing such records: "(6) Records concerning forms that are only locally or temporally rare in California will not be treated." We have occasionally discussed modifying this by-law, but there has never been much enthusiasm for doing so. I think many or most members in CA agree that this function is better served by the NAB regional editors, who by and large handle this task very well. Dan Singer Pacifica, CA ________________________________ From: Martin Meyers To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 10:28:58 PM Subject: "Ad hoc" reviews I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others would handle it first. Thanks, Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Ned Keller <keller AT ONE.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:50:23 -0500 In Ohio, our bylaws permit the editor of our state journal to request review of records of species which are not on the review list. In practice, the Secretary (currently me, but the practice goes back to before my time) sends out a couple of non-review-list records each year. Amend your bylaws if you think you need to; meanwhile, just send it out. Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to > allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs > which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but > that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it > particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that > sighting to be reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and > the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid > Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think > such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we > just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It > is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a > change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested > in finding out how others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > Bird Records Committee Forum archives: > http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html > > -- -- Ned Keller keller AT one.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: "Ad hoc" reviews From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:42:46 -0600 The LBRC Bylaws do address such records: ³(7) Records concerning species that are only locally or seasonally rare in Louisiana may be reviewed at the LBRC's discretion.² Aside from some records of former Review List Species submitted after they were removed from the Review List, and review was primarily a courtesy to the observer who made the effort to submit record, we have not reviewed non-Review List Species. The concept of a non-Review List review by the LBRC has now morphed into ³if the observer requests the LBRC to do so, then we will review such records,² and that hasn¹t happed! At various times in the past, we have discussed adding outrageous seasonal records such as winter Long-tailed Jaeger or Scarlet Tanager, but have always opted not to complicate the review list with seasonal records and leaving that domain to American Birds-North American Birds seasonal editors. Donna L. Dittmann, Secretary Louisiana Bird Records Committee On 1/26/10 12:28 AM, "Martin Meyers" wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow > more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does > not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting > has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly > noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be > reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the > particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support > on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how > others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:00:51 -0600 Martin: In Missouri we routinely do review out-of-season reports. They get documented just like any other rarity. The basis for an observer to decide whether to document (and for me as secretary to decide whether to send a report on for committee review) is the state checklist, which we maintain at www.mobirds.org (top item in the MBRC menu). If you take a look, you'll see that every species has seasonal status and abundance symbols. So, for instance, we have a pending record this winter of Baltimore Oriole, which we will review because its status is "WR ca," casual winter resident (or visitor). We review all species that are listed as casual or accidental in winter; if the designation is merely "rare," we don't review it. The list is up there for all Missouri birders to consult, and we make some alterations to it every year as the data change. We also have a version printed as a field card that gets revised and reprinted every few years -- still useful for some people. This works well for us overall, with just a couple of issues: (1) We also do approximate geographic division for some species -- e.g., House Wren now occurs with some regularity in the southeast part of the state in winter, so we list it as "r (se), ca (elsewhere)" and thus no longer ask for documentation in the southeast. As you can imagine, this occasionally raises questions as to where the southeast begins and ends, but that is usually clear and, when it isn't, it falls to me to make a judgment call. (2) Some people still don't consult the list or not very carefully, and therefore submit reports that don't need review. This is no big deal -- I just archive in a separate place and send a brief email thanking them and explaining why the record won't circulate. We also maintain a Review List (viewable on the same site) but that is only for species that are casual or accidental (and thus documentable) at all times of year. I would say that out-of-season review gives us a strong database of well-documented records of this type and helps us understand seasonal occurrence better. We also want to review earliest-ever and latest- ever records, and if you look at our annual reports (also up on the same web site) you will see a number of these -- e.g., the earliest Yellow-bellied Flycatcher record for Missouri on 3 May 2008. I would also have no problem deciding that a record was so unusual for some other odd reason that it ought to be reviewed. Your Baird's Sandpiper sounds like a great place to start -- unusual not only in Nevada but nationally. We had a winter record not long ago, substantiated with photos, and I think it was one of very N. Am. midwinter records. Hope this helps, Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Martin Meyers wrote: > I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure > to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting > occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be > reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual > enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in > place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, > and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be > handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and > there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at > Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite > intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and > deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in > the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the > state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow > such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others > would handle it first. > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr AT WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:25:36 -0700 Martin, Here in AZ there is nothing in the by-laws to cause or prevent such a review. Review of the documented occurrence of extremely rare bird events seems entirely within the purview of a BRC so it's hard for me to imagine a BRC schemata so rigid that it *prevents* review of species (and archiving of the data) that aren't on a specified list. Here the secretary may choose to put through such documentation or another member (or even the observer) could request review for the purpose of archiving an exceptional occurrence. Cheers, Mark Stevenson Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Meyers" To: Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 11:28 PM Subject: "Ad hoc" reviews >I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow >more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which >does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that >sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly >noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be >reviewed? > > I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and > the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that > approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much > support on our committee to instigate one. > > However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, > north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a > sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't > have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular > migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the > bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out > how others would handle it first. > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: "Ad hoc" reviews From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:28:58 -0800 I am curious whether any committees have an established procedure to allow more or less ad hoc reviews. In other words, if a sighting occurs which does not involve a species that would ordinarily be reviewed, but that sighting has some features that are unusual enough to make it particularly noteworthy, is there a procedure in place to allow that sighting to be reviewed? I know that some of you have review species lists based on seasons, and the particular case I'm interested in right now could be handled by that approach, but we don't have such an approach, and there is not much support on our committee to instigate one. However, a well-documented report of a Baird's Sandpiper (at Pyramid Lake, north of Reno) on Sunday, 1/24/10, is quite intriguing. I think such a sighting belongs in the database and deserves a review, but we just don't have any procedure in place in the bylaws to handle it. (It is a regular migrant throughout the state.) I'm considering proposing a change to the bylaws to allow such things, but would be very interested in finding out how others would handle it first. Thanks, Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: Adam Byrne <byrnea AT MSU.EDU> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:54:50 -0500 Giff, Michigan has three records: 13 May 1993 at Dearborn, Wayne Co. (banded) 20-21 May 1997 at Paradise, Chippewa Co. 25 June 2006 in Kalamazoo Co. (banded). Adam M. Byrne Secretary, Michigan Bird Records Committee -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:44:10 -0600 Giff, Currently MS has no record of VIWA. Gene Knight MBRC Chair ----- Original Message ----- From: Giff Beaton To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Virginia's Warbler records in the East Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's Warbler visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our second record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from Eastern North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list below. If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get any info you have. Thanks very much! Giff Beaton Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. Eastern VIWA Records Spring: 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen 10 May 1974 photo May 1975 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama Summer? MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) Fall: 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan 1 NS no data 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta Winter: WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder -------------------------------------------------- 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: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: "wormington AT juno.com" <wormington@JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:07:42 GMT there are 2 more Ontario records and also a record for Labrador. I will supply these when I return home in a week Alan Wormington (currently in TX) -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Virginia's Warbler records in the East From: Giff Beaton <giffbeaton AT MINDSPRING.COM> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:25:16 -0500 Folks- Here in Georgia, we are currently enjoying a Virginia's Warbler visiting a hummingbird feeder in the southern part of the state, our second record. We are trying to compile a list of all VIWA records from Eastern North America, and with the help of Jon Dunn I have created the list below. If any of you have any other accepted records, I would love to get any info you have. Thanks very much! Giff Beaton Chair, GOS Checklist and Records Committee PS I have not included the 1979 IL report as it was not accepted. Eastern VIWA Records Spring: 3 in ON, Pt Pelee. 16 May 58 specimen 10 May 1974 photo May 1975 2 in MI. Southern MI, 13 May 93 Paradise, May, mid 1990s (Phil Chu) 1 in Bahamas 8 Mar 93, Grand Bahama Summer? MI. 25 Jun 06 (!) Fall: 2 in NJ. 6 Oct 62 24 Sep 66 both Island Beach State Park 1 NB 14 Oct 1995, adult male, Grand Manan 1 NS no data 1 Lab 21-22 Sep, Goose Bay 1 GA 17-19 Sep 1997, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta Winter: WV unk date, eastern WV, feeder GA 15-20 Jan 2010, Valdosta, feeding at hummingbird feeder -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody AT YAHOO.COM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:28:57 -0800 I agree a lot with Bill Rowe and would add that it's not so much the word that are used (although we should consider that), but it's more in how we treat the records. In Utah we have taken maybe a little different tack. We used to list the "Accepted" records together with the names of the observers at the top of the committee reports and at the bottom the "Not Accepted" records without the names of the observers -- probably a pretty common format. The possible interpretation of that arrangement (worst case scenario maybe) could be that the "Accepted" records are correct and valuable and that the "Not Accepted" records are probably bad sightings and are NOT valuable and that the observers should be embarrassed to have their names on the records (obviously something we don't intend to convey). For the past 6 years or so we've listed the records in taxonomic order and included all observer names, and at the end of each record list the results of the review in an unobtrusive yet certainly visible manner (e.i., 5Y-2N). The records are treated pretty much the same whether they are accepted by the committee or not. We post all records on the internet as they are being reviewed by the committee and they can be accessed through links on several lists of sightings after the review process, so that anyone who is really interested can check out the records and see for themselves whether they think they are "good sightings" or not. Here's a link to our comprehensive list of sightings for example: http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/RareBirdsIndex.html I like this arrangement because it treats all records with a degree of importance due to any record that someone took the time to create and send in. There are still people who feel bad when their records are "not accepted" or "rejected" or "not endorsed" but I think this approach tends to make them feel a little better about it. Milt Moody UBRC webmaster and past secretary --- On Tue, 1/12/10, William Rowe wrote: > From: William Rowe > Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept > To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:12 PM > Martin: > > Since I am hard at work trying to write this year's annual > report, with its plethora of Accepted records and some Not > Accepted, I will be brief.  I don't think it > matters.  I see your point about the connotations of > "accept" but I think any other word you substitute is going > to be perceived exactly the same by our constituents.  > Nobody out there is going to feel any better when a record > of theirs is "not endorsed" than when it was "not > accepted."  Everybody knows what happened no matter > what you call it.  If the observer is the kind who > takes things personally, it will be "That  > !! AT X?**X!!  committee didn't endorse my record." > > (As a side point, I assume we all use Not Accepted instead > of Rejected, since the latter sounds really harsh.) > > Best, > > Bill Rowe > Missouri > > > > > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Martin Meyers wrote: > > > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many > of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, > so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. > > > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the > words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts > to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on > records.  In formal communications, we use the terms > "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of > "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not > relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in > our bylaws. > > > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term.  > If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if > you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a > "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." > > > > But that's not what we do with records.  If > someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, > published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the > Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say > "No thanks" and give it back.  In fact, we actively > solicit all such records.  We happily "accept" > them!  Thanks very much! > > > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not > the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., > establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for > now.)   I don't have to get into a discussion > of that with any of you on this list.  You've all been > placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, > yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a > (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just > not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to > "accept" the record. > > > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case > adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we > still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website > (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name > in such cases.)  We include it in our annual > report.  We store it in our archives.  Somebody > may find it useful at some time in the future.  (In > fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records > or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it > might very well be that the same documentation would have > been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from > now, after a dozen other records for the species have come > through and been "accepted.") > > > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two > counts: > > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept > the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we > accept it, and > > 2) it is counterproductive.  It's hard enough to > get people to submit records.  The better we can make > them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission > and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to > submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has > given us is insulting. > > > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC > members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, > similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not > Endorse".)  Since the words are in our bylaws, it will > require a formal decision. > > > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical > publications, proclamations, etc.?  (I've checked a > handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem > to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a > few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in > annual reports.)  Can you provide any reason why it > would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as > "Accept"?  Might it be a better term?  Does it > make any difference? > > > > Thanks, > > Martin > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Martin Meyers > > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > > email: nbrc  AT  gbbo.org > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: sanmigbird AT AOL.COM Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:23:50 -0500 Martin, For years I have used the term "endorsed" because I much prefer it over accepted. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Martin Meyers To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 5:43 pm Subject: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have come through and been "accepted.") So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to submit records. The better we can make them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given us is insulting. I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? Thanks, Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- 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: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:17:42 -0500 Martin, I have been a long-term member of the Ontario Bird Records Committee (and sometimes Secretary). Not sure what started this discussion, but I must say that using said terminology "Endorse" and "Not Endorse" does sound more reasonable that what most committees currently use. If you can get your committee to "Endorse" your proposal, go for it! On a slightly different slant, I sometimes have to explain to observers if their record is rejected (ie., "not accepted"). I explain that a "rejection" of a record is a process that actually occurs commonly all the time involving entities other than bird records committees, just that it goes (mostly) unnoticed. For example, an author writing a book on some subject may choose to NOT use a record of yours, and by doing so he/she is in fact "rejecting" it (via the silent treatment). Committees, in contrast, sometimes get heckled for rejecting a record because the process is OUT IN THE OPEN (ie., the rejection is published in an Annual Report). This happens because our process is formalized, but believe me it happens all the time in many other situations, but it largely goes unnoticed. Something to think about. Alan Wormington Assistant to OBRC Secretary On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:43:25 -0800 Martin Meyers writes: > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will > shrug and > say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea > out for > your opinions. > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use > in annual > reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada > committee's > decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms > "Accepted" > and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", > identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this > discussion.) > These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives > you a > gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the > giver.) > That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." > > But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a > record, and it > meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the > species is on > the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No > thanks" > and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. > We > happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the > documentation given > to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification > (let's ignore > origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that > with any of > you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying > to > explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was > > probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is > just not > sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the > record. > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we > mark the > record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we > display it > on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's > name in > such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in > our > archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. > (In > fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or > records of > particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be > that the > same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were > submitted ten > years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have > come > through and been "accepted.") > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. > We might > not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and > 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to > submit > records. The better we can make them feel about the process, > without > sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll > continue > to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given > us is > insulting. > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to > replace the > word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not > Accept" with > "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require > a formal > decision. > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, > proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, > and so > far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, > > although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in > annual > reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very > least, > be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does > it make > any difference? > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:12:49 -0600 Martin: Since I am hard at work trying to write this year's annual report, with its plethora of Accepted records and some Not Accepted, I will be brief. I don't think it matters. I see your point about the connotations of "accept" but I think any other word you substitute is going to be perceived exactly the same by our constituents. Nobody out there is going to feel any better when a record of theirs is "not endorsed" than when it was "not accepted." Everybody knows what happened no matter what you call it. If the observer is the kind who takes things personally, it will be "That !! AT X?**X!! committee didn't endorse my record." (As a side point, I assume we all use Not Accepted instead of Rejected, since the latter sounds really harsh.) Best, Bill Rowe Missouri On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Martin Meyers wrote: > This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will > shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd > put an idea out for your opinions. > > I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use > in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the > Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, > we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two > categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's > not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our > bylaws. > > But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives > you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind > insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, > a "Not Accept." > > But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a > record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our > case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State > Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we > actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! > Thanks very much! > > Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the > documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the > identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get > into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all > been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, > yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in > the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to > allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. > > If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we > mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In > fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to > leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in > our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find > it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to > set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly > unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same > documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted > ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species > have come through and been "accepted.") > > So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: > 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. > We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and > 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to > submit records. The better we can make them feel about the > process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the > more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" > something someone has given us is insulting. > > I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to > replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to > replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in > our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. > > Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, > proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee > websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the > "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not > all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason > why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as > "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? > > Thanks, > Martin > ---------------------------------------------- > Martin Meyers > Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee > website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc > email: nbrc AT gbbo.org > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Semantics -- to accept or not to accept From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:43:25 -0800 This post is purely about semantics, and I expect many of you will shrug and say "who cares?", but I guess I care, so I thought I'd put an idea out for your opinions. I have, for some time now, been uncomfortable with the words I use in annual reports, webpages, and listserv posts to describe the Nevada committee's decisions on records. In formal communications, we use the terms "Accepted" and "Not Accepted." (We have two categories of "Not Accepted", identification and origin, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) These are issues enshrined in our bylaws. But I don't think "Accepted" is the right term. If someone gives you a gift, you can refuse to accept it (if you don't mind insulting the giver.) That would be a "Reject", or, a little nicer, a "Not Accept." But that's not what we do with records. If someone submits a record, and it meets the essential, published criteria (in our case, that the species is on the Review List or is not on the State Checklist,) we don't say "No thanks" and give it back. In fact, we actively solicit all such records. We happily "accept" them! Thanks very much! Now we have to make a decision as to whether or not the documentation given to us meets our criteria, i.e., establishes the identification (let's ignore origin for now.) I don't have to get into a discussion of that with any of you on this list. You've all been placed in the position of trying to explain to someone that, yes, you agree that the bird he/she saw was probably a (...fill in the blank..), but that the documentation is just not sufficient to allow the committee to, uh, let's see, to "accept" the record. If we don't think the documentation makes the case adequately, we mark the record to show what we think, but we still keep it. In fact, we display it on our website (although we have chosen to leave off the submitter's name in such cases.) We include it in our annual report. We store it in our archives. Somebody may find it useful at some time in the future. (In fact, since we tend to set the bar higher for first records or records of particularly unusual and unlikely species, it might very well be that the same documentation would have been totally adequate if it were submitted ten years from now, after a dozen other records for the species have come through and been "accepted.") So I'm arguing that "Accepted" is a bad term, on two counts: 1) it is wrong, or, at the least, ambiguous. We accept the record. We might not endorse its assertion, but we accept it, and 2) it is counterproductive. It's hard enough to get people to submit records. The better we can make them feel about the process, without sacrificing our mission and our standards, the more likely they'll continue to submit records. And "not accepting" something someone has given us is insulting. I am considering bringing a motion before the NBRC members to replace the word "Accept" with "Endorse" (and, similarly, to replace "Not Accept" with "Not Endorse".) Since the words are in our bylaws, it will require a formal decision. Do any of you use the term "Endorse" in your offical publications, proclamations, etc.? (I've checked a handful of committee websites, and so far, nearly all seem to use some variation on the "Accept" approach, although a few committees avoid it some, but not all, of the time in annual reports.) Can you provide any reason why it would not, at the very least, be as suitable a term as "Accept"? Might it be a better term? Does it make any difference? Thanks, Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: An excellent article on exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:09:05 -0500 BRCF-L: I was recently researching some local records committee issues dealing with presumed exotics, introduced species, and questionable origins when I discovered, on-line, an excellent article in the Fall 2009 issue of the LOS News by Donna Dittmann, Secretary of the Louisiana Birds Records Committee. Her article, which is based on a letter from a state birder and a thorough response by her and the LBRC, can be found here, on pages 3 - 10 ... http://losbird.org/news/0909_218_news.pdf I highly recommend this as "required reading" by all records committee members. I also highly encourage all records committees to post, here on BRCF-L, new committee information or links to updates to your web sites, decision reports, new policies, etc. One of the primary objectives of BRCF-L when Laurie Larson of NJ and I formed it, was to share "best practices." Thanks and Happy New Year. 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: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:42:39 -0500 Hi Steve, et al.: Comments below (preceded by "PCD") ... You can see how our MD state list is organized here ... http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mdlist.pdf Happy New Year to everyone on BRCF-L. Phil At 01:05 AM 12/24/2009, Steven Mlodinow wrote: >Greetings to All > >So, we in the WA BRC (Dennis Paulson to be specific) is putting all >of our reports into a grand master list; belated, yes. >We've had this in workable bits and pieces, but nothing that could >be put on a website, for instance > >He has raised the question regarding what to do with several >categories of birds > >1) White-breasted Wood-Wren and Black Woodpecker. Both rather >absurd, especially after reading the descriptions. We DID vote on >them, and they were unanimously rejected. Do other BRCs keep these >records on their databases as "not accepted based on inadequate >documentation" or just not include them at all. If they are tossed >into the trash forever, how does one define "outrageous?" PCD: We show all Not Accepts in our on-line database (but not on our State List, of course). >2) Mandarin Duck and Mute Swan. Both of these are actually seen, >probably, too often to be reviewed, and are entirely escapees as far >as we can tell (One might argue Mute Swans occasionally wander down >from the Vancouver Island population, but that population is stable >in size and not very large.) In any case, other birds such as >Egyptian Geese, Nutmeg Munia, Red (or is it Orange?) Bishop could >probably be tossed into this category for WA, though they have been >seen less often. Do any BRCs review these birds other than to >determine if populations are established? PCD: I am a personal proponent of reviewing species such as these, but people have various opinions on this subject, of course. I try to track down documentation for almost anything that flies. All of these "presumed exotics" are in our queue, but at the lowest priority. I would like to see our committee review them some day and perhaps get them added onto our checklist in the section called "Identification OK/Questionable Origin" or "Identification OK/Exotic Origin." The difference between the the two is subtle ... if the majority of the nine voting members feel that there is "no question" that a particular bird is exotic (for example, the essentially non-migratory Black Swan), then it would go into the "Exotic Origin" category. If a majority of the members cast their vote that there is at some question in their mind that the bird could be either exotic or wild (or something else ... human assisted, etc.) then it would go into the "Questionable Origin" category (such as a European Greenfinch). So, the difference is primarily one of confidence. It makes for a lot of lively debates, for sure ... >3a) Extirpated species once established. Sky Lark. Still established >on nearby Vancouver Island from which the species formerly colonized >San Juan Island. Keep on list because our population, now >extirpated, was part of another population still extant (with >possibility for possible future vagrancy/colonization)? I'd think >keep it on list as extirpated....? PCD: Greater Prairie Chicken is on our MD list as an extirpated species. We would gladly review one, if presented . Trumpeter Swan is also on our MD list as extirpated, but the reintroduced birds are now present. We have to deal with them soon ... >3b) Introduced and Truly Gone. Like Scaled Quail. This bird was once >established but is now gone and was never reviewable by the BRC. Do >we just wipe it off list without mention? What do other BRCs do? PCD: Our MD list includes extinct species such as Passenger Pigeon. >4) Birds that have been seen that have a smidgen of a chance of >being wild, but unlikely to varying degrees. This would include RB >Goose, Barnacle Goose, PF Goose, Verdin. We've voted on some of >these (eg, Verdin and PF Goose) and accepted them as to ID but >rejected them as to origin. This category again brings up the >question of where does one draw the line. >-- Verdin. Highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but also >essentially unknown as cage bird >-- PF Goose. Seemingly highly unlikely to wander here on its own, >but is actually surprisingly rare in captivity in North America, and >if one takes their usual fall migration route, goes 180 degrees in >the other direction one eventually hits the WA coast. So, there is >some possibility of natural vagrancy, and it seems worth keeping the >bird in the "ID Correct, Origin Questionable" category. >-- Stretch that farther. RB Goose. Not so rare in captivity and >populations plummeting in the wild. I believe the CBRC has voted on, >and rejected (due to origin) a couple sightings. >-- So, if RB Goose is voted on and kept on "ID correct, Origin >questionable," how about Barnacle Goose? Or Bar-headed Goose? Etc? PCD: I think I covered most of this above. However, it is interesting to note that these cases can change with time. For example, Barnacle Goose is currently on the MD list as "ID OK/Questionable Origin" however, we are getting ready to reopen the original report and all of the subsequent sightings (~15 or so). This review will include all of the temporal and geographic distribution information that we now know about this species. I cannot predict what the members will do; however, a different outcome is certainly possible now, in view of the knowledge of the current patterns of vagrancy. >Sorry, I am incredibly tired at the moment, so this email is not as >coherent as I'd like > >Let me rephrase: > >There is a set of birds not rare in captivity (Red and Orange >Bishop, Mandarin Duck, Egyptian Goose, various munias, many >parrots/parakeets) that have essentially zero chance of getting to >WA on their own. Does any BRC keep these birds on any list, or vote >on any reports, other than to judge if a population is established? > >There is another set of birds, also common in captivity, that have >at least a vague chance arriving on their own power (RB Goose); my >assumption is that records of these birds are usually reviewed and >kept in the "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. True? > >Then there are birds exceptionally unusual in captivity AND >essentially impossible vagrants to WA (Black Woodpecker, >White-breasted Wood-Wren). Are reports of these types mentioned in >any list by most BRCs under any category? > >And there are birds that are rather unexpected vagrants but also >unusual in captivity (eg Verdin); I'd assume most such birds are >listed as "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. > >And finally, introduced somewhat successfully but now gone. >Mentioned under some category? For us, Scaled Quail would land here, >but there have been failed introductions of several other species >(including a tinamou) that seemed to take for a brief while and are >now gone... and none of these have been reviewed by our BRC except >to address established vs not established. Do most BRCs mention >these types of birds anywhere on their lists? > >Insights and Thoughts Desired >Steve Mlodinow =================================================== 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 From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 02:45:18 -0500 By popular demand, I've reposted my offering of a set of New Year's Resolutions for the birding community, from a Records Committee Secretary. I originally posted these a few years ago. (OK, you caught me, actually, no one requested that I repost them, except me!) You can find my "top ten" resolutions here ... http://mddcrc-blog.posterous.com/new-years-resolutions-from-a-records-committe My personal favorite is #7 ... Have a Happy and Rarity-filled New Year!!! 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: Laughables, escapees, and semi-established birds From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:05:37 -0500 Greetings to All So, we in the WA BRC (Dennis Paulson to be specific) is putting all of our reports into a grand master list; belated, yes. We've had this in workable bits and pieces, but nothing that could be put on a website, for instance He has raised the question regarding what to do with several categories of birds 1) White-breasted Wood-Wren and Black Woodpecker. Both rather absurd, especially after reading the descriptions. We DID vote on them, and they were unanimously rejected. Do other BRCs keep these records on their databases as "not accepted based on inadequate documentation" or just not include them at all. If they are tossed into the trash forever, how does one define "outrageous?" 2) Mandarin Duck and Mute Swan. Both of these are actually seen, probably, too often to be reviewed, and are entirely escapees as far as we can tell (One might argue Mute Swans occasionally wander down from the Vancouver Island population, but that population is stable in size and not very large.) In any case, other birds such as Egyptian Geese, Nutmeg Munia, Red (or is it Orange?) Bishop could probably be tossed into this category for WA, though they have been seen less often. Do any BRCs review these birds other than to determine if populations are established? 3a) Extirpated species once established. Sky Lark. Still established on nearby Vancouver Island from which the species formerly colonized San Juan Island. Keep on list because our population, now extirpated, was part of another population still extant (with possibility for possible future vagrancy/colonization)? I'd think keep it on list as extirpated....? 3b) Introduced and Truly Gone. Like Scaled Quail. This bird was once established but is now gone and was never reviewable by the BRC. Do we just wipe it off list without mention? What do other BRCs do? 4) Birds that have been seen that have a smidgen of a chance of being wild, but unlikely to varying degrees. This would include RB Goose, Barnacle Goose, PF Goose, Verdin. We've voted on some of these (eg, Verdin and PF Goose) and accepted them as to ID but rejected them as to origin. This category again brings up the question of where does one draw the line. -- Verdin. Highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but also essentially unknown as cage bird -- PF Goose. Seemingly highly unlikely to wander here on its own, but is actually surprisingly rare in captivity in North America, and if one takes their usual fall migration route, goes 180 degrees in the other direction one eventually hits the WA coast. So, there is some possibility of natural vagrancy, and it seems worth keeping the bird in the "ID Correct, Origin Questionable" category. -- Stretch that farther. RB Goose. Not so rare in captivity and populations plummeting in the wild. I believe the CBRC has voted on, and rejected (due to origin) a couple sightings. -- So, if RB Goose is voted on and kept on "ID correct, Origin questionable," how about Barnacle Goose? Or Bar-headed Goose? Etc? Sorry, I am incredibly tired at the moment, so this email is not as coherent as I'd like Let me rephrase: There is a set of birds not rare in captivity (Red and Orange Bishop, Mandarin Duck, Egyptian Goose, various munias, many parrots/parakeets) that have essentially zero chance of getting to WA on their own. Does any BRC keep these birds on any list, or vote on any reports, other than to judge if a population is established? There is another set of birds, also common in captivity, that have at least a vague chance arriving on their own power (RB Goose); my assumption is that records of these birds are usually reviewed and kept in the "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. True? Then there are birds exceptionally unusual in captivity AND essentially impossible vagrants to WA (Black Woodpecker, White-breasted Wood-Wren). Are reports of these types mentioned in any list by most BRCs under any category? And there are birds that are rather unexpected vagrants but also unusual in captivity (eg Verdin); I'd assume most such birds are listed as "ID correct, Origin questionable" category. And finally, introduced somewhat successfully but now gone. Mentioned under some category? For us, Scaled Quail would land here, but there have been failed introductions of several other species (including a tinamou) that seemed to take for a brief while and are now gone... and none of these have been reviewed by our BRC except to address established vs not established. Do most BRCs mention these types of birds anywhere on their lists? Insights and Thoughts Desired Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:35:39 -0800 The issues involved with returning and continuing rarities (as raised in Joe's post from 12/09/09 and amplified in Phil's post from 12/12) are ones the Nevada committee considered at our September/09 meeting. After the discussion, I put together a draft procedure, which was subsequently approved by the members, and the wording has been added to our bylaws. Complete bylaws are available via a link on the NBRC home page, http://gbbo.org/nbrc I'll include the exact wording of this section of our bylaws at the end of this post, but first, a couple of comments: From Joe's post: >In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >although it could apply to breeding birds as well. > >As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? For "returning" birds," our policy is very similar to California's as to circulation and (initial) ID number, but with one small difference if the majority considers it a repeat occurrence. We will add the letter "R" to the (unique) identification number for any of the subequent occurrences. And within the database, we will include a field that links the record(s) to the original occurrence. This is only partially successful at accomplishing what I'd like. The database is not readily available to the public (although somewhat abridged copies are kept with the archives at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Barrick Museum, and these are available for vieweing on site.) What is readily available is a website which includes at least some information about every record -- ID number, species, date, location, submitters (for accepted records), committee decision/status, and links to photos when available. The problem, then, is that while a record might have an ID number like 2009-001R, indicating that it is a "repeat" occurrence, it will require a little effort for a user of the website to determine just which record(s) are repeats of which records. (It's not all that hard -- the records can be displayed sorted by species, so a very quick look at locations and dates would allow a very good guess.) So in answer to Joe's question, do we have a "clear procedure", the answer is "not really." But it's a start. As to Joe's next issue: >Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >rejected because of the subsequent year's action? > Our procedure here is, at least, "clear" even if not perfect. If there is a different decision on a record that is deemed to be a repeat (or continuing) occurrence, we do not join the records in any way, e.g., no "R" appended for repeats. (However, comments in the database will certainly note the fact). And then: "... on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously completed records.)" As to the question of how to handle what appears to be the same bird showing up at widely different locations, we didn't deal specifically with that. But it would seem that it would be up to the secretary (at least on the first cut) to add a place for comment and vote under the same rules as the "repeat/continuing" situation. The voting would be by the same rules. (And if not "caught" by the secretary, who is, alas, fallible, any member could just bring it up for additional consideration.) As to the issue of "continuing" presence, Joe says: >Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >single record? I think there's more to it than just birds which remain to breed, too. We added a procedure that essentially says that if a later record is thought to represent the same bird (or birds) as a previous record, the committee must determine (guess?) by vote whether it is "continuing" or "repeat". If it is decided that the bird (most likely) never left, it is handled one way, if it returned (for example, to breed, but after leaving, as in the case of migration, or the more typical winterer), it is a "return". If the committee decides a bird is "continuing", whether reviewed together with other records for that bird or at some later time, we will eliminate the new ID number and lump the record (physically) with the earlier submission. So the lower ID number will include both (all) of the records. (Again, only if both records received the same decision.) So, up to a point, we at least have a procedure, clear or otherwise. Joe's final issue is one we are facing right now, and nothing went into the bylaws to cover it. We have a pair of White-tailed Kites in the Pahranagat Valley of southeastern Nevada that have bred succesfully (probably twice, although actual offspring were only noted this year.) We have submissions for two, three, and four birds over a period of three years. The "two birds" are covered by the "continuing" clause. But I haven't got a clue what we'll do about the young birds. My inclination is to lump all the records that include at least one of the presumed parents into a single record with a single ID number, (assuming, of course, that the committee votes to consider the pair to be "continuing".) One final clarification: In all cases, the fundamental committee review process is largely unchanged. For every record, the vote/comments as to acceptance proceed as if it were a new record. Only after that do the questions of "new", "repeat", or "continuing" get officially dealt with if warranted. For your amusement, here's our official wording. Constructive criticism is always welcome. G. Records considered to represent repeat or continued occurrences of the same individual as one previously reviewed: 1. Determination that a new record represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previously reviewed record shall be by majority of members voting, or by plurality should three considerations be involved ("new", "repeat", "continued"). This vote may occur during the review process at the discretion of the secretary, or it may require an additional special circulation whose only purpose will be determination of repeat or continued occurrence if requested by any voting member. Tie votes will result in the most conservative interpretation, consisting of "new", "repeat", "continued" in that order. However, in order to formally recognize a record as a repeat or continued occurrence, both the current and former record must have received the same decision, i.e., accept, non-accept (identification), non-accept (origin). 2. For any record determined to represent a repeat occurrence, that record shall retain its regular assigned NBRC Identification Number, but the letter "R" shall be appended to the record number for the additional occurrence. The official database entry for repeat records shall be annotated with the specifics of the determination. 3. For records where the occurrence is determined to be a continuing individual (as opposed to one which has left Nevada and returned at some subsequent time), the two (or more) such records shall be handled by combining the records into a single numbered record, using the ID Number of the earliest record. 4. Should the voting members decide by majority vote that a record represents a repeat or continued occurrence of a previous record, but the decision on acceptance differs for the two records, the records will not be combined or designated as a repeat occurrence. However, on recommendation from any member, the related record shall be re-considered following the voting rules specified in section IV D (Reconsideration of previously completed records.) Martin ---------------------------------------------- Martin Meyers Secretary, Nevada Bird Records Committee website: http://gbbo.org/nbrc email: nbrc AT gbbo.org -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: BirdChat discussion on bird records committees From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57 AT HOTMAIL.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:32:38 -0800 Hey, all. They're talking about the California Bird Records Committee over on BirdChat. Scoot on over and see for yourself... http://www.birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CHAT.html Seasons greetings, y'all! All best, Ted Floyd Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Returning Birds From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:13:12 -0500 Hi Joe, et al.: You raise a number of good questions ... The MD/DC Records Committee policy on returning bird is as follows: 4.4.5 Multiple Versus Single Records Policy The Secretary will organize sighting reports into contiguous blocks of time that are indicative of the period when a bird or flocks of birds were within a jurisdiction (Maryland or DC). Specifically, reports of wintering birds returning for multiple seasons (such as when indicated by banding data) will be considered as one report for each season that bird is present. The challenge, of course, is does one ever know, for certain, that a bird is the same individual? The probabilities may be quite high, but for certain??? So, this brings up the question that our policy addresses of what IS a bird record? I think I raised this issue on BRCF-L years ago but wasn't led to a conclusion, so I adopted the position, above. I also couldn't find any ornithological guidance on the web. So, my approach is that a "record" is a sighting on a single date or a beginning and ending date pair of when the bird in question was [most likely] in our jurisdiction. For example, the Maryland Kelp Gull was likely in Maryland for an extended multi-year period, hence one record that spans multiple years. On the other hand, we actually have a case where a Harris's Sparrow was banded in a yard during the winter and then returned for two more winters, so we know it was the same bird. However, we have still treated this case as three records, one for each of the winters. A single record that spans three years wouldn't really describe the conditions this returning bird. I guess a better way to handle this would be to have one master record, with three daughter records, but I am not prepared to implement this (from a data processing standpoint), especially just for this single case. We recently just accepted several Black-bellied Whistling Duck records for Maryland. One flock of eight birds was reported on the Patuxent River separately by three people at three different locations. We circulated this as one report (my decision) and it was accepted as such ... no committee member voiced any concern that there might be two flocks of eight birds in this same area. A reasonable position, I think. A second record was accepted three days earlier for a flock of up to ten birds at a lake in Montgomery County, over 40 miles away. While some members commented in their ballots that this MAY be the same flock, no one could say for sure. Hence, two separate Maryland records were accepted for these sightings. As usual, the key activity here is to encourage comments from the voting members and be sure the comments are captured for posterity in the committee's archives for the benefit of any future research efforts. We have not run into the other cases that you describe, so we have no positions on these situations. I guess we might first have to deal with the nesting bird question when we find that a pair of Eurasian Collared-Doves has raised a brood; however, we are close to removing this species from our review list and I think that action would probably happen first (how's that for avoiding the issue?). Phil At 01:11 PM 12/09/2009, Joseph Morlan wrote: >I am interested in how different committees handle returning birds or the >same bird persisting over multiple years. > >In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is >assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If >a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is >lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually >applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, >although it could apply to breeding birds as well. > >As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed >abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees >have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? > >Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual >is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened >in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a >subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically >rejected because of the subsequent year's action? > >More problematic are similar looking birds showing up at widely different >localities. E.g. a Snow Bunting from San Diego is believed by some to be >the same individual seen weeks later in Monterey. How do other committees >handle probable same birds seen in different localities over different >dates? > >Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees >vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of >successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are >they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a >single record? =================================================== 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 Academia.edu feature for BRCF-L From: Richard Price <richardp AT ACADEMIA.EDU> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:35:02 -0800 Dear BRCF-L members, I wanted to tell the list about a new feature on Academia.edu. Academia.edu launched 12 months ago and now helps 300,000 academics a month answer the question 'who's researching what?' There are now 29 people on Academia.edu listing Ornithology as their research interest. We have built a dedicated page on Academia.edu for the mailing list: http://lists.academia.edu/See-members-of-BRCF-L This page will show you fellow members of BRCF-L already on Academia.edu. You can see their papers, research interests, and other information. Visit the link below, sign up with Academia.edu, and share your research interests with fellow members of BRCF-L. http://lists.academia.edu/See-members-of-BRCF-L Richard Dr. Richard Price, post-doc, Philosophy Dept, Oxford University. Founder of Academia.edu -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Returning Birds From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:11:43 -0800 I am interested in how different committees handle returning birds or the same bird persisting over multiple years. In California, a bird returning to the same place in subsequent years is assigned a new record number and circulated as if it were a new record. If a majority of the committee considers it to be the same bird, then it is lumped with the previous record for statistical purposes. This usually applies to birds returning to winter in the same spot as previous winters, although it could apply to breeding birds as well. As far as I can tell, this procedure which has historically allowed abstentions has not been codified into our by-laws. Do other committees have a clear procedure established to deal with such records? Also what happens if a bird which is determined to be the same individual is accepted one season and rejected the next? This has actually happened in California on at least one occasion. What does the action in a subsequent year, do to the original accepted record. Is it automatically rejected because of the subsequent year's action? More problematic are similar looking birds showing up at widely different localities. E.g. a Snow Bunting from San Diego is believed by some to be the same individual seen weeks later in Monterey. How do other committees handle probable same birds seen in different localities over different dates? Birds which remain to breed offer another problem. Do other committees vote each year on the same bird or pair? What about the offspring of successful nesting. Are the chicks considered to be a new record and are they voted on separately? Or are they merged with their parents as a single record? Thanks in advance. -- Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu SF Birding Classes start Feb.9 http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/ California Bird Records Committee http://www.californiabirds.org/ Western Field Ornithologists http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/ -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Steven Mlodinow <sgmlod AT AOL.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:29:58 -0400 Greetings All I sent my original post just to Tony, but since we are all chiming in. Jewett et al (1953) stated "no records in recent years" for WA. In the late 1960s, a small population (of about 30) birds was detected in Skagit County, in nw WA. Numbers stayed at about this level for 10 years, but thereafter started to increase dramatically in w. Washington. Wintering numbers in nw. WA are probably now in the 3000-5000 range (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and King Counties) with a few hundred elsewhere in w. WA, more so in the n. than the s. I know in nw. Oregon, there is one location now getting tallies in the hundreds, but just very small numbers are found elsewhere.? There was an attempt to introduce Trumpeter Swans into e. WA at Turnbull NWR (there is no clear evidence the species ever bred in WA). This attempt failed, except one elderly female (I believe in her 30s, maybe 40) finally attracted a mate and raised young this year. There is a small introduced population in se. Oregon. All w. WA birds are of wild origin from the n. A small number also migrate through (with a few wintering) e. WA. Peak movement there is in March and November. In w. WA, a few arrive in Oct and linger into April, but most are present from Nov-Mar.? Cheers Steve Mlodinow -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Chris Elphick <elphick AT SBCGLOBAL.NET> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:13:12 -0700 --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Martin Meyers wrote: Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Martin et al., Although my memory of the references is hazy, I believe that reintroduced is correct for Nevada.  Below is the text from the Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas, and I remember putting in quite a bit of time fact checking details for this species.  Linsdale is available electronically.  If anyone is interested, I think I have a complete pdf (but you can probably find it on-line). Chris Distribution The Trumpeter Swan was widespread in western and central North America prior to its dramatic range retraction and population declines. The bird was apparently native to the eastern half of the Great Basin, including eastern Nevada (Ryser 1985) and John Muir's reference to swans at Mono Lake in June 1875 (Wolfe 1979) suggests that they may have occurred in the western Great Basin as well. By the early twentieth century, however, the species was completely extirpated from the state (see Linsdale 1936).  Trumpeter swans were reintroduced during the 1940s and 1950s, when birds were transplanted from Montana to the Ruby Valley (Banko 1960). Both Banko (1960) and Ryser (1985) provided substantial detail on this reintroduction project, and Alcorn (1988) gives a fragmentary record of known occurrences (of migrants or winterers) elsewhere in the state.   Trumpeter Swans continue to breed at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, but have not spread elsewhere in the state.  Two incidental records from the Ruby Valley were received during the atlas project.  Both records were of confirmed breeders in freshwater marshes.  The Ruby Valley breeders are part of a growing, but still highly disjunct, population of Trumpeter Swans in western North America. Beyond the state borders, the nearest breeding populations are in southern Oregon and Idaho (Mitchell 1994, Contreras 1999, Adamus et al. 2001). Chris Elphick Storrs, CT elphick AT sbcglobal.net -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:18:26 -0500 Since I'm on the road for the next few weeks and don't have access to all of my resources, this will be less complete than I'd like, but I think I can provide at least some information on the Trumpeter Swan situation in Nevada. We have an introduced population (in the Ruby Valley in central Nevada) which has been present since the mid-1950's and is considered "established". The species is on our checklist based on that population. For the most part, the flock is sedentary -- these birds do not typically wander around the state although there is some discussion as to whether some have recently migrated north with Tundra Swans. The species is exempt from committee review in the Ruby Valley. Outside that area, the NBRC has no accepted records (with one non-accepted record, rejected on identification grounds.) Alcorn's Birds of Nevada lists a nesting pair on the Mary's River in 1974, which I'd suggest is almost certainly from the Ruby project. He also states that "...seven were reported at Carson City on 2/5/84." If those were correctly identified (a big "if" -- there is no documentation that I know of), they would probably be from a non-Ruby population, as Carson City is quite far from the Ruby Valley. Since "wild" Trumpeters occur occasionally in California (a reviewable rarity in the state), and many of those records are from the interior, it is pretty reasonable to assume that wild vagrants do occur in Nevada, and more birder coverage might turn one up every few years. (Some years ago, a banded bird from the Harriman (Idaho) population showed up in southeast California. One might assume it flew across some part of Nevada.) So, in direct answer to Tony's question, the multiple choice answer is probably "f: none of the above." Closest would be "c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established", but I don't think "RE-introduced" is the correct term for ours. Again, if I had my copy of Linsdale with me, I might modify my answer. I'll post again in a few weeks if I uncover any additional useful information when I get home. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). Martin -- Martin Meyers, Secretary Nevada Bird Records Committee (NBRC) email: nbrc AT gbbo.org website: www.gbbo.org/nbrc -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Fwd: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Sheehan <lsheehan AT MAINE.RR.COM> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:28:07 -0400 Hi Tony, Trumpeter Swan is included as a Hypothetical species on Maine's list.  Its inclusion is based upon an account of a sighting in Scarborough, Maine sometime prior to 1868 by a reliable reporter.  Palmer (1949) included this record in his Maine list. The Maine Bird Records Committee has yet to review this historical record. There are no recent reports for this species in Maine (30+ years). Cheers Bill Sheehan, Secretary Maine Bird Records Committee On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have > included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for > that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, > please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more > than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are  established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: "K. Dean Edwards" <kde AT ANGST.ENGR.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0400 The Tennessee Bird Records Committee has just completed a review of Trumpeter Swans so this is timely. TRUS has been on the state checklist with a status of 'Extirpated' based on sightings by JJ Audubon. There were a few reports of re-introduced birds in the early 2000s primarly in West TN: Jan 2001, a single banded bird found dead in Shelby Co, TN traced back to be a released bird from Iowa Jan 2002, a family group of 3 (adults banded) in Lauderdale Co determined to be 3rd and 4th generation wild-born birds from Wisconsin. Two of them were eventually shot by a hunter with the immature dying as a result. Jan 2003, a single bird in Sullivan Co (only one from East TN) that was traced to Ontario The Records Committee did not address any of these reports at the time. In Jan 2009, 2 birds were found in Dyer Co, TN, which were determined to be wild born birds from Wisconsin. This report was submitted to the Committee and we accepted it in our spring round of voting based on the birds being wild-born and the Wisconsin Records Committee treating the re-introduced population there as 'established'. So using your notation... for TN, b - historic (nonbreeding) records but native population extirpated e - migrants/winter residents from re-introduced populations Dean Edwards Secretary/Chair, Tennessee Bird Records Committee On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Andrew Kratter <kratter AT FLMNH.UFL.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:40:35 -0400 The FOSRC recently had a Trumpeter Swan record (photograph). We do not have any historical records. Here is the synopsis from our Minutes: This adult with its head plumage stained rusty shows the distinct features of Trumpeter Swan, such as the long, all black, bill with a straight culmen, the straight angular border to the base of the upper mandible (opposed to vertical or convex border of the Tundra Swan, C. columbianus), and the entire inclusion of the eye within the facial skin (Pyle 2008). The status of Trumpeter Swans in eastern North America is not settled however. In the past few decades, birds have been introduced into the Great Lakes region, with breeding in that area. Vagrant birds, presumably from these reintroduced populations, have shown up in several states along the east coast, but not all records committees (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina) have considered the populations sufficiently established to add the species to their official state lists. Other records committees (e.g., North Carolina) have apparently regarded them as vagrants from established populations. The Maryland Records Committee considered a pre-1950 record a wild vagrant, but recent birds were not from established populations. The FOSRC accepted the identification of the Okeechobee Co. bird as a Trumpeter Swan, but did not accept that it was from an established population. The Committee would like to see more widespread acceptance that populations in the northeast are established before accepting the species to the Florida list. In addition, I think that to consider the populations established, they would have to meet the FOSRC definition of an established population, which can be found in Appendix A of our Rules and Procedures (see http://www.fosbirds.org/RecordsCommittee/RulesAndProcedures.aspx). One point is that the populations must be stabilized/growing by natural reproduction. Are Trumpeter Swans still being reintroduced in the Great Lakes region? Andy -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: Trumpeter Swans From: Mark Lockwood <Mark.Lockwood AT TPWD.STATE.TX.US> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:34:14 -0500 Dear Tony, In Texas we have a somewhat convoluted situation. We have come to a resolution as far as state records are concerned that is somewhat unsatisfactory, but without collecting birds I do not know any other solution. 1) We have one record of a wire strike bird that was banded in Wyoming in the nest (specimen at Texas Tech University). This bird was picked up in the western Panhandle. 2) We have five occurrences of birds from Minnesota and Iowa with neck collars that have been documented (not considered state records) 3) We have five records of unmarked birds since 2000 (three from the Panhandle, one from Lubbock, one on the upper coast) that have been accepted as state records 4) We have a record of an unmarked bird from Falcon Dam from prior to the reintroduction/introduction projects in the Midwest (accepted as a state record) There is no way to know if the unmarked birds from nw. Texas since 2000 came from the northwest or from the Midwest because by then Minnesota and Wisconsin (at least) had quit marking birds. As a result, the TBRC decided to accept records of unmarked birds as valid state records. Unlike what Bill describes in Ohio, these few birds (most records involve one or two birds) are found on a small lake and they behave like wintering Tundra Swans, so there is no behavioral or other clues as to origin. The neck-collared birds mentioned above were found in the Panhandle and eastward across nc. Texas which raises the possibility that some (or all) of these birds came from those populations. I have thought Texas would have seen an influx of those birds by now, but since they do not migrate as expected perhaps the recent records are all from the natural population in the Northwest. As is the case in Louisiana, Trumpeter Swan is reported to have wintered on the Texas Coast in the late 1800's and early 1900's but there is no physical evidence to support that claim. 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 ________________________________ From: Bird Records Committee Forum [mailto:BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony White Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:31 PM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Trumpeter Swans Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.com -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:15:39 -0400 Bill and all, At least for all (or almost all) of the East, the Trumpeter Swan situation can easily be filed into two distinct categories: 1--Wild birds have been extirpated for a very long time (100+ years). State/provincial records committees can and should review whatever few records exist, if they are based on extant specimens. The only hope of proving that a bird from the west has wandered to the east in modern times would be via a band recovery (ie. salvaged by a hunter or whatever) proving that the bird originated from wild/native populations in the west. 2--Introduced population (if they remain established) should now be treated in a vein similar to Mute Swan. They are an introduced (or re-introduced) species. I note that each state/province is struggling with the issue in deciding if the species is now established in their area as an introduced species. If introduction programs have now stopped, a viewpoint should be established as to if these introduced populations AS A WHOLE have been successful (rather than each state/province struggling with the idea). Cheers, Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Bill Whan writes: > Tony-- > In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state > list based > only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the > most > recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear > to > mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of > wild > trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have > been > one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable > historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or > provinces to > the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, > despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run > "reintroduction" projects. > We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. > We do see > swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others > from > nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they > eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned > the > practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records > is > becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no > long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our > region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or > geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims > that > such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would > require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received > documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only > discernible > regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly > irregular > movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial > feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such > movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the > > contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles > east > to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see > trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water > freezes at > a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years > ago. > Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of > > fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often > noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban > > park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. > Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. > I wonder if any records committee in this region has > received a report > of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding > population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in > their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in > some > odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of > monk > parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in > determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. > I > believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) > there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in > our > state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) > the > new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral > repertoires > (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild > populations; > 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five > years > of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of > independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of > > population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant > to > consider establishment. > Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have > survived, > though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some > > decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the > mute > swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to > regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local > phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same > criteria > we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is > my > own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this > detail. > Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee > received > acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred > > here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its > fairly > recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't > know, > of course. > This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some > information > and argument for further thought is available on a web site put > together > by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at > http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html > I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" > projects > are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for > acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate > > wild behaviors. > I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear > from others > on this vexed topic. > Bill Whan > Columbus, OH > > p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The > history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, > really > hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the > status of so many seemingly contradictory records. > > > Tony White wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states > > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces > > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the > following > > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. > Wild > > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > > established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.com > > > > -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Bill Whan <billwhan AT COLUMBUS.RR.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:57:02 -0400 Tony-- In Ohio, the trumpeter swan has been admitted to the state list based only on historical specimen records of apparent wild migrants, the most recent of which dates to 1900. This date matches others that appear to mark the final extirpations of marginal Midwestern communities of wild trumpeters. The closest of these communities to Ohio seems to have been one in the marshes of northwestern Indiana. I know of no acceptable historical evidence of wild nesting here, or in Ontario (or provinces to the east), Pennsylvania (or states to the east), Michigan, or Ohio, despite enthusiastic claims by various wildlife managers who run "reintroduction" projects. We see no wild trumpeters here these days, as far as I know. We do see swans from Ohio introduction projects, and from time to time others from nearby areas. Many trumpeters no longer carry neck bands (they eventually fall off), and some projects--like Ohio's--have abandoned the practice of installing them, so determining origin by sight records is becoming increasingly difficult. Because we are aware of no long-distance migrations regularly undertaken by trumpeters in our region, and because our records don't reflect the known schedule or geographic pattern of wild trumpeter migrations, accepting claims that such birds represent natural occurrences of wild individuals would require a lot of appropriate documentation; we haven't received documentation of any sort for one in recent years. The only discernible regional pattern in these incursions seems to involve mostly irregular movements by introduced swans seeking unfrozen water (or artificial feeding, such as in Minnesota and elsewhere) in cold weather; such movements need not be long, or even in a migratory direction, as the contingent at Michigan's Seney NWR moves in winter only a few miles east to reliably open water at a lake spillway. Here in Columbus, we see trumpeters occasionally, mainly in winter, when shallow water freezes at a wildlife area to the northwest where birds were released 15 years ago. Away from nesting areas, behavioral clues--begging for food, lack of fear of humans, appearances in city ponds and farmyards--are often noted. I seem to recall it was one of ours that wintered in an urban park in West Virginia, accompanying Pekin ducks, a few years back. Visitors to Seney are warned not to feed the swans. I wonder if any records committee in this region has received a report of a swan documented to belong to a truly wild western breeding population, rather than introduced birds declared as established in their jurisdiction of origin; I doubt it, and this has resulted in some odd decisions. With the exception of a few populations, such as of monk parakeets, we in the Midwest have relatively little experience in determining the establishment status of introduced or escaped birds. I believe our committee has declined to accept these birds because 1) there is no confirmed evidence the species ever bred historically in our state, and even its migratory status is very scantily documented; 2) the new populations of the region do not share normal behavioral repertoires (e.g., seasonal migrations, wariness, diet, etc.) with wild populations; 3) for such a long-lived species (swans may not breed before five years of age), even if everything else added up, a substantial period of independent breeding, with multiple generations and some evidence of population growth and range expansion in the wild would be relevant to consider establishment. Because releases in Ohio over the past two decades have survived, though hardly always prospered, we eventually may have to make some decisions based in part on establishment, just as was done with the mute swan. For the time being, I believe the Ohio committee is likely to regard nearby populations treated by others as established as local phenomena, and that for reports here we apply to them the same criteria we apply to our own population of equally artificial origin. This is my own opinion, as the OBRC has not considered the issue in this detail. Here's the interesting question: if the Ohio committee received acceptable documentation that a trumpeter from Michigan had occurred here, would we accept it to our official records, based on its fairly recent official Michigan status as an established species? I don't know, of course. This is a complex and potentially contentious issue. Some information and argument for further thought is available on a web site put together by my colleague from New York, Gerry Rising, at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html I believe it demonstrates that the region's "reintroduction" projects are instead introductions, which presumably raises the bar for acceptance, especially when the birds in question do not demonstrate wild behaviors. I would very much appreciate hearing news of what you hear from others on this vexed topic. Bill Whan Columbus, OH p.s. Just read Donna Dittmann's contribution from Louisiana. The history of this species in that region has been, for me at least, really hard to evaluate, and I look forward to their conclusions about the status of so many seemingly contradictory records. Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states > and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces > have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the > basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter > Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following > situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. > Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records > only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild > swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from > established populations migrate to or through the state or province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White spindalis AT aol.com > > -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Donna Dittmann <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:43:02 -0500 Tony, There is a brief summation of the Louisiana situation in our most recent newsletter: http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/newsletter2009.pdf. We have not yet re-addressed its status on our State List. Donna Donna L. Dittmann LBRC, Secretary On 9/17/09 6:31 PM, "Tony White" wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and > provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included > the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that > inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell > me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can > apply for a single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. > b. Based on historical records only. > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or > province. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the > results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:12:06 -0400 Hi Tony: MD and DC status is below. Phil At 07:31 PM 09/17/2009, Tony White wrote: >Hi all, > >I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states >and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces >have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the >basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter >Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the >following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. >a. Continuing presence of wild birds. MD/DC - No >b. Based on historical records only. MD - Yes, accepted onto the Official MD List as an extripated species based on historical descriptions of the species on the lower Potomac River in the 1700s. DC - Not on the official list. >c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. MD/DC - No >d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. MD - ??? A number of unbanded Trumpeters have been recorded in the state, including family groups. Provenance unknown. DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the >state or province. MD - Yes, from neck band identification (Ontario reintroduction population). DC - No reports of any Trumpeter Swans. >f. Other reasons (please explain). MD - The MD/DCRC has a batch of MD Trumpeter Swan reports from over the years that have been held as one of our "problem species." Now that neck banded birds have been recorded, we plan to soon circulate the entire batch, along with the official status of the species in other Eastern states/provinces and try to arrive at a determination of the current status of this species in MD. >Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to >share the results of this inquiry with others. > >Best wishes, > >Tony White >spindalis AT aol.com =================================================== 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: Trumpeter Swans From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:24:01 -0500 See responses below. Trumpeter Swan is now fully accepted in Missouri as a current wild species (as opposed to an historical memory), but this took us a while because we waited until we felt that the introduced populations in MN and WI, from which our wintering birds come, were well established and self-sustaining. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Tony White wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual > states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and > provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and > what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has > Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of > the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a > single list. > a. Continuing presence of wild birds. No, if wild means from original, natural populations. > b. Based on historical records only. Not "only,", but a strong historical record: breeding bird until at least 1850; transient until 1900 (last record, per Robbins and Easterla, Birds of Missouri) > c. Swans have been reintroduced and are established. No, not as breeding birds. Very recent breeding record may have involved birds from non-established populations to our north. > d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. No. > e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the > state or province. Yes, mainly from MN and WI. Those breeding populations are deemed to be established, and so we have accepted our wintering birds as such. The largest group, at Riverlands Migratory Bird Sanctuary in the St. Louis area, has grown to over 350, and small numbers now occur with increasing frequency elsewhere around the state. > f. Other reasons (please explain). > > Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to > share the results of this inquiry with others. > > Best wishes, > > Tony White > spindalis AT aol.com > -------------------------------------------------- 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: Trumpeter Swans From: Alan Wormington <wormington AT JUNO.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:53:04 -0400 ONTARIO STATUS: a. Continuing presence of wild birds. ONTARIO: no; former migrant and probable breeders extirpated by 1884. b. Based on historical records only. ONTARIO: no, see below c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. ONTARIO: In southern Ontario a release program began in 1982, which I believe stopped a few years ago. They are now considered to be established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: No. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. ONTARIO: Birds occasionally seen (and nesting?) in northern Ontario COULD be from the southern Ontario introductions, but more likely they originate from other nearby introduction programmes such as maybe Minnesota or Wisconsin? f. Other reasons (please explain). ONTARIO: There has been some recent literature published on the subject in Ontario, I would suggest contacting Glenn Coady (glenn_coady AT hotmail.com). Bill Whan in Ohio has also published extensively on the subject. Alan Wormington Leamington, Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Trumpeter Swans From: Tony White <spindalis AT AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:31:15 -0400 Hi all, I am looking into the status of Trumpeter Swans in individual states and provinces. I am interested in knowing which states and provinces have included the swans on their official bird lists and what the basis was for that inclusion. If your state/province has Trumpeter Swans on its list, please tell me and indicate which of the following situations apply. more than one can apply for a single list. a. Continuing presence of wild birds. b. Based on historical records only. c. Swans have been reintroduced and are? established. d. Wild swans migrate to or through the state or province. e. Swans from established populations migrate to or through the state or province. f. Other reasons (please explain). Thank you for your attention to this request. I will be happy to share the results of this inquiry with others. Best wishes, Tony White spindalis AT aol.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Charles Swift <chaetura AT GMAIL.COM> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:26:44 -0700 I just wanted to echo Martin Meyers recent comments (which I discussed with him at the recent WFO mtg in Boise). Idaho has a very small population (1.5 million) with a small birding community. One of our voting members lives in La Grande, OR (he also happens to be the NAB regional editor for Idaho & w. MT) and another recent member and formerly our web master lives in Alaska. Needless to say we have nothing in our bylaws about residency requirements. We are hard-pressed to find even potential members so we can have some periodic rotation of new people into the committee - but we are trying! thanks, Charles. -- Charles Swift Moscow, ID chaetura AT gmail.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: "Donna L. Dittmann" <ddittma AT LSU.EDU> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:31:46 -0500 The Louisiana Bird Records Committee policy with regards to committee membership: B.        Qualifications. Anyone is eligible to become a Member if, in the estimation of the existing Members, that person has demonstrated the ability to logically and objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the LBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Louisiana Ornithological Society. There is no official residency requirement in our Bylaws, however we encountered/anticipated future record circulation problems with members who moved out of state or country. This of course if minimized now with electronic circulation, but regardless, the LBRC policy has for years been that members who plan to leave the state resign from the committee. Personally, I think that from a Louisiana observer's perspective, it is better PR for the LBRC to only enlist membership from individuals who reside in the state, and thus are active contributors to the local process. Donna Dittmann, LBRC Secretary On 9/3/09 10:10 PM, "Martin Meyers" wrote: > The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over > as secretary in 2007, state: > > C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: > Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that > person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field > identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats > of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. > Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting > Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on > the committee is limited to two at any one time. > > At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San > Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a > Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition > to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) > > Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency > requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in > Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. > > Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very > small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership > is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want > people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why > one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the > people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that > portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that > public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) > > 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 -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: "Paul A. Guris" <paul AT PAULAGICS.COM> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:33:24 -0400 I live in Pennsylvania and serve on the New Jersey Bird Records Committee. At least one other member is from New York. The bylaws state that any committee member shall be "knowledgeable regarding New Jersey birds and a competent field observer", so no residency requirement exists. There is, however, a requirement to make a certain number of our semi-annual meetings, which could make it logistically difficult for somebody to serve who was not within reasonable driving distance of the state. I've also served on the Pennsylvania Ornithological Records Committee in the past, but I don't know what their official policy is. When asked if I'd like to serve, I did tell them first that I spent more of my birding time in NJ than PA, in case they felt this was a disqualifier. I was told that this was fine, as my experience with coastal and seabirds would be helpful for the types of rarities that often appear in a non-coastal state like Pennsylvania. -PAG Paul A. Guris See Life Paulagics P.O. Box 161 Green Lane, PA 18054 www.paulagics.com 215-234-6805 paul AT paulagics.com -------------------------------------------------- Bird Records Committee Forum archives: http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/brcf-l.html Subject: Re: BRC member residence? From: Martin Meyers <nbrc AT GBBO.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:10:36 -0700 The Nevada Bird Records Committee bylaws, which I inherited when I took over as secretary in 2007, state: C. Qualifications for Voting Membership: Any resident of Nevada is eligible to be a voting member provided that person has demonstrated exemplary ability in and knowledge of field identification of birds, possesses familiarity with the species and habitats of Nevada, and is active in Nevada birding. Non-residents of Nevada who meet the criteria above may also serve as Voting Members. However, the number of non-residents serving as Voting Members on the committee is limited to two at any one time. At present, we have two voting members who reside out of the state, Mike San Miguel (Los Angeles) and Tim Lenz (working on eBird at Cornell.) Tim was a Reno (NV) resident before taking on the eBird position (where, in addition to his software development tasks, he also vets Nevada eBird records.) Incidentally, the bylaws do not specifically deal with the residency requirements for the (non-voting) secretary. Good thing! I live in Truckee, CA, about 15 miles from the Nevada border. Nevada is a state with a very small population and a correspondingly very small birding population. The committee's goal when it comes to membership is to get the best talent we can possibly put together. We certainly want people who know Nevada birding (and Nevada's birding population), but why one's place of residence is relevant is a question you'll have to ask the people who developed the bylaws. (I have not attempted to revise that portion of the bylaws, as I think it work okay for us, and I expect that public relations issues might outweigh any gain.) 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: BRC member residence? From: knights <gsknight AT DIXIE-NET.COM> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:34:51 -0500 BRFC Members, Like CA here in MS we only require that a member be in good standing in the state OS. Our bylaws state that one can be a member of the records committee if.... "in the estimation of the existing Voting Members, that person has demonstrated an expert ability to objectively analyze records of rarities, is an active field observer with a competent knowledge of identification of birds, has conscientiously submitted reports to the MBRC of Review List species, and is a member in good standing of the Mississippi Ornithological Society". This works for us and we currently have a member on our committee that lived in MS for several years and now resides in Iowa. Gene Knight MS MBRC Chiar Oxford, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: swmavocet AT AOL.COM To: BRCF-L AT LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:19 AM Subject: BRC member residence? Folks, Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western Florida panhandle. A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents serving on state BRC's? Thanks, Steve McConnell ABRC Secretary Hartselle, AL -------------------------------------------------- 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: BRC member residence? From: William Rowe <rowe AT TJS.ORG> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:26:07 -0500 As in California, Missouri BRC members are required to hold membership in the parent association, the Audubon Society of Missouri, but there is no residency requirement. We are left free to elect our own members from wherever. I can only recall one or two members, or potential members, who lived out of state (both Kansas), but they were familiar with Missouri and had done a lot of birding here. No current member is from out of state. Bill Rowe St. Louis, MO On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:19 AM, swmavocet AT AOL.COM wrote: > Folks, > > Currently the Alabama BRC bylaws dictate a member must be a > resident of the "AOS area" which is Alabama plus the western > Florida panhandle. > > A challenge to this was recently raised: "why can't otherwise > qualified birders living just across the border, and who bird > frequently in Alabama, be considered as members?" > > Question: What is the generally accepted policy for non-residents > serving on state BRC's? > > Thanks, > > Steve McConnell > ABRC Secretary > Hartselle, AL > -------------------------------------------------- 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