Date: 1/12/18 6:12 pm From: Joel Geier <joel.geier...> Subject: [obol] Re: ebird throws out the baby with the bath water...
Lest Mike Patterson's original point gets lost -- that this eBird "innovation" is unnecessarily hiding reports that are decades old -- I'd like to return to that.
Noah Strycker's comment was in the same vein.
I also second Lars Norgren's comment about Burrowing Owls being far more in need of this kind of protection in Oregon than, say, Painted Buntings.
My own comment was aimed at pointing out that this innovation also seems to be ineffective at preventing excessive attention for the handful of species that it takes into consideration.
Although I'm supportive of the general idea of shielding sensitive birds from disturbance, I hope that there will be better regional and temporal calibration, taking into account both the views of state/county editors and wildlife professionals and organizations who are working on conservation of these species.
Certainly for Gyrfalcons in Oregon it should be OK to reveal sightings within a month or two after the report. For Painted Buntings, I can't imagine that the survival of the species could hinge on postings of vagrants in Oregon. For other species (especially owls) both on and off the list, there could be a reasonable justification for obscuring the detailed locations on a longer-term basis.
Speaking as a reasonably proficient computer programmer, this kind of thing is not rocket science. They already have my card.