John,
To me you are very much on the wrong track.
Raraties committees really have NO interest in twitchers other than
that from time to time twitchers report sightings to such committees.
Raraties committees are part of the overall record of what birds are
present in Aust and what birds visit.
This goes to make up our sum of knowledge of birds and is of some
interest to twitchers in that if records are accepted they can boost
their egos by saying I've got another one. there is nothing wrong
with this as we all need an ego boost from time to time.
Personally i refuse to sum up my sightings as, although I do like to
see new birds and have been know to drive 50 km to view an unusual
bird I refuse to get involved in long distance twitching.
Back to R committees. they don't matter to the average twitcher as
its up to the individual to satisfy her (him) self as to whether a
certain bird has been seen.
Raraties committees need convincing. by explaining carefully with
lots of clear thinking. Emotion and expectation are not part of their
vocabulary.
Peter
On 18/12/2007, at 9:49 AM, John Leonard wrote:
My thinking on rarities committees is that they seem to be committees
which police the claims of the twitching community. This is all very
well, but in the greater scheme of things it really doesn't matter
whether 12 or 13 records of Franklin's Gull have been accepted for
Australia. The likelihood is that 100s of Franklin's Gulls have turned
up in Australia with no-one to note the fact. Their presence in
Australia has absolutely no bearing on that species' survival or not,
or on the fortunes of any more common Australian species. If
Franklin's Gulls are ever seen in larger numbers in Australia then
perhaps it might become significant for their survival or for other
species in Australia, but by then they will be sufficiently common
that rarities committees don't need to adjudicate on each record.
It's up to people whether they make the effort or not to submit
records, but, IMHO, if they do they are not perfroming a particualrly
important public service in the way that people who carry out regular
bird-surveys, nest-monitoring, bird-banding &c do.
Please don't anyone take offence at this, because none is intended.
John Leonard
On 18/12/2007, Keith Weekes <> wrote:
Nikolas
I don't think anyone is suggesting the committee members are
"evil". They
are all widely respected birders and/or twitchers and as I
understand it
mostly with appropriate scientific qualifications. I also
understand the
rationale of being very cautious in accepting records.
But, whether or not it's true, there is clearly a perception that
BARC is a
bit of a club and that you shouldn't bother submitting interesting
sightings
unless you have irrefutable evidence of them (not just your own
sighting,
but photos, measurements, videos, DNA samples and so on) or you're
a member
of the club. That's quite understandable of course. I think people
also need
to inject a sense of reality into things and realise that it's
appropriate
for BARC members to treat a report from someone they know for a
fact to be
excellent at identifying birds in the field as more authoritative
than a
report from an unknown.
However, reading the reports there does seem to be a bit of a skew
towards
trying as hard as possible to rule sightings out. It seems that
there is an
attitude of "we're 99% sure but can't rule out x" so we're not
allowing it.
(eg http://users.bigpond.net.au/palliser/barc/SUMM459.htm)
I have no idea, but maybe a few more "false positives" in areas of
uncertainty and where it's not a "first sighting" would be of more
scientific value than the current system which seems to:
(a) tend towards excluding records (possibly incorrectly); and
(b) discourage people from reporting.
Also, there is an impression that even detailed field notes and
observations
often don't seem to cut it. I know that if I ever come across a
possible
American Golden Plover I'm just going to shoot the thing and
submit the
corpse.
On 17/12/2007, Nikolas Haass <> wrote:
What is wrong with Australia's birders' attitude toward Rarities
Committees?
To my earlier post, I got several private responses which seemed
to be
driven rather by anger than anything else:
"As for the committee members, many do it for their own ego, and
nothing
else."
"To be told I need to look at feather length when plumage colour
varies is
ridiculous."
"How can a group of people who weren't there say you didn't see a
particular bird?"
"It seems to me that if you don't have a camera or aren't part of
the 'in'
crowd, i.e. know someone on the committee then your record will
almost
certainly fail."
"This is not a good system. It only serves to encourage the who
gives a
shit about the committee attitude."
"This is also not helped by such comments as xxx's on the topic
(of the
magpie) who basically said don't bother putting in a submission
form for the
magpie as he will reject it."
"Yes we need a system of checking claims, but we need one that
either
works or that people have confidence in (preferably both). At the
moment we
do not have such a system."
"While the committee always treats submissions with respect that
has not
been the level of conduct of some members."
Here some of my comments in response:
How can a group of people who weren't there say you didn't see a
particular bird? It seems to me that if you don't have a camera
or aren't
part of the
'in' crowd, i.e. know someone on the committee then your record
will
almost certainly fail.
This is not a good system. It only serves to encourage the who
gives a
shit about the committee attitude. This is also not helped by
such comments
as
xxx's on the topic (of the magpie) who basically said don't bother
putting in a submission form for the magpie as he will reject it.
Yes we need a system of checking claims, but we need one that
either
works or that people have confidence in (preferably both). At the
moment we
do
not have such a system.
Again I can only speak for the many committees I have experience
with and
the three committees I worked for. You said "How can a group of
people who
weren't there say you didn't see a particular bird?". I agree it is
difficult, but of course they can - it all depends on the quality
of your
report. Ideally you submit photographs, but usually you don't
necessarily
need to. If you report all the key field marks you observed,
maybe draw a
sketch pointing out important observed features and explain how
and why you
ruled out other similar species, your record should NOT fail! To my
experience (which is an international experience), only a small
minority of
records are rejected - the idea is NOT to reject records, the
idea is to
make observations scientifically valid. Typically only very bad
descriptions
which don't rule out other more likely species or reports proving
that the
seen species is not the reported species (e.g. an accompanying
photograph
clearly
shows another 'common' species) get rejected immediately (if all
members
agree). All 'tricky' ones will be discussed by all members of the
committee
and in many cases more experts will be asked for advice. Of
course the
committee members are humans and it can happen that a member
looks at a
perfect picture of a 'common species' which has been sent in as a
'rare
species' and says "Bullshit". But this rare event shouldn't
discourage good
birders to contribute to science.
It is also not true that the committees ignore escapees and
releases -
again I am speaking for other Rare Birds Committees, because I
have no
experience with BARC. These birds just end up in another category
- one for
released and escaped birds (e.g. if you saw a Flightless
Cormorant [from
Galapagos] in Australia it would end up in such a category). If
populations
of released or escaped birds are self-sustaining for a certain
period
(typically 10 years or so) these species will enter another
category - one
for self-sustaining populations of escaped or released birds (e.g.
Eurasian Blackbird, ...).
I do agree that the system is not ideal. But it is the best
system we were
able to come up with. BTW all members of the committees are
volunteers. They
spend their personal time and money (for travelling) to do this
job. I
really don't think those people are evil.
So you are telling me to take a camera or don't bother submitting a
report?
I was telling you exactly the opposite: I said that typically if you
report all the key field marks you observed you DON'T necessarily
need a
camera! (see e-mail above)
As for the committee members, many do it for their own ego, and
nothing
else.
That's absolutely wrong for all the committees I know. All of us
do this
job without any advantage - however, we are putting quite some
time into
this volunteer work. I don't see any advantage for any kind of
'ego'.
Especially since no committee member is allowed to review his/her
own record
(of course!).
To be told I need to look at feather length when plumage colour
varies
is ridiculous.
That is not ridiculous. Many field guides are misleading
regarding plumage
colour. In many cases the RELATIVE length of certain feathers is an
important key (e.g. tail projection, wing projection, primary
projection
etc.)
And again: everybody can have his own personal list at home and
no one
would bother. However, I believe that it is a pity that many not
reported
sightings are lost for science. Therefore I still think it is the
best to
report to the appropriate committee.
My original post:
I "give a shit what Rare Birds Committees think"! I can't speak
for BARC.
However, in my "American life" I was a member of the New Jersey
Rare Birds
Committee (NJBRC, the New Jersey counterpart of BARC) and in my
"German
life" I was a member of the Hessen Rare Birds Committee (AKH) and
the
Schleswig-Holstein Rare Birds Committee (AKSH) (two German
counterparts of
BARC). The idea of Rare Birds Committees is NOT to 'kill' a tick on
someone's 'list'. No, the most important job of Rare Birds
Committees is to
peer review the documentation of a 'rare bird' (reports and photos,
sketches, sound recordings - or whatever you submit), to collect,
publish,
and archive the records that prove that a 'rare bird' occurred.
Therefore,
documentation must eliminate any other species that might be
confused with
the claimed rarity. Some documentation is clear cut, such as a good
photograph which shows identification characters. Some
documentation is less
clear cut, and that's why there is a large committee with a
variety of
specialties, opinions,
and skills to vote on the evidence. To learn about recent range
expansions
of certain species it is also important to get an idea if a bird
came on its
own or was released by someone.
Serious scientific journals only use data that were accepted by the
responsible Rare Birds Committee for their analysis. That's why
I'd like to
encourage observers of a 'rarity' to document it, so that it can
be used for
scientific studies.
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
____________________________________________________________________
________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
--
John Leonard
Canberra
Australia
www.jleonard.net
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
