Date: 4/26/24 7:21 am From: Dennis Paulson via Tweeters <tweeters...> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Magnificent Frigatebird
Tweets, I was on the Washington Bird Records Committee for many years, and I agree strongly with Steve’s comments. Those items in his last paragraph never convinced any reviewer. There has to be a good description at the least, and much better than that a photo, even a mediocre one.
I have been looking at the eBird rarities daily reports for some time now, and they contain quite a few observations that are very unlikely, with no documentation. “Merlin said” is fraught with difficulty, as Merlin makes mistakes all the time, and I don’t think it should ever be used as evidence of a bird rare at that place or time. Whenever that happens, the observer should make every effort to see the bird.
I have much sympathy for all the vetters who put time and energy into figuring out which of those observations is valid. And please think about the fact that every misidentification in eBird compromises its value. It was set up as an aid to our gaining a deep understanding of bird distribution, abundance, and seasonality, and that makes those data priceless, as long a they are correct.
Dennis Paulson
Seattle
> On Apr 26, 2024, at 6:30 AM, Steve Hampton via Tweeters <tweeters...> wrote:
>
> I'm not a reviewer, but I've watched eBird best-practices presentations and talked to reviewers about how to describe a flagged (rare) bird.
>
> They want a description of what you saw, meaning at least 3 field marks, vocalizations if any, and the context -- angle, lighting, distance -- how good of a look you got, etc. Someone should be able to read your description and guess the species just from your description. Obviously, even a poor photo or audio is great. Audio can be gotten with a cell phone pretty easily.
>
> Descriptions such as "Clearly identified" "I know this species" "front yard" "highlight of the day" "Merlin said" and "yep" don't help the reviewer evaluate the record.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:14 AM Michael Price via Tweeters <tweeters...> <mailto:<tweeters...>> wrote:
> Hi tweets
>
> This issue of acceptance/rejection of extraordinary rarity reports has always been a fraught one, leading to frustration on either side of the rarities committee: on one side, irritation with undocumented, possibly frivolous reports; on the other, frustration and resentment at sometimes haughty and insensitively bureaucratic committee dismissal. It doesn't have to be this way. There is a simple workaround: the 'pending' file. This category ensures that potentially valid migrational/dispersion/trending data are not lost.
>
> Longer ago than I care to think, I operated a Rare Bird Alert for five years, and I became suspicious of a connection between a cluster of undocumented reports of subtropical vagrants in the Greater Vancouver region and BC generally and a then-occurring El Nińo episode. Lacking documentation, none of them could be accepted under then-current committee acceptance protocols at either the metro or the provincial committees. The same lack of flexibility existed in many US and Canadian committees. The result? data lost.
>
> Well, we now know that many of these tropical and subtropical rarities which heat up our alerts are climate refugees, whether displaced by global heating or cyclical atmospheric phenomena such as El Nińo. But how much of the early warnings were lost for want of a 'pending' category in our rarities committees?
>
> best wishes, m
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> <Tweeters...> <mailto:<Tweeters...> > http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters> >
>
> --
> Steve Hampton
> Port Townsend, WA (qatáy)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> <Tweeters...>
> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
