[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Raul Urgelles on 12:51:44 03/09/07
In Reply to: Re: Thoughts on "Apparent " posted by Bill Pranty
Dear birding community,
let me just say that, initially, I wished Trey hadn't brought up the subject of the "Red-billed Tropicbird" again...but what the heck. For starters, I ll point out a couple of things:
First, let me remind everyone in Toe's boat that day that we initially thought it was a White-tailed Tropicbird, until we reviewed Trey's photographs. That said, this was a problematic individual to begin with. I understand the importance of well-documented sightings as well as Bill Pranty, Andrew Kratter, or anyone else in the FOSRC for that matter. Let's face it guys, looking back now, we had a tough call.
Second (on the other hand), I did not and will not lose any sleep over the FOSRC's decision to not accept the record because, in all honesty, it doesn't bother me. I respect the decision because it's fair to say that, given the variation in subpopulations, it is just as hard to ID the bird as a White-tailed Tropicbird as it is to ID it as a Red-billed Tropicbird. I have Red-billed Tropicbird on my list and, hopefully tomorrow, I will have Loggerhead Kingbird in it also. Yes, there are some notes next to the tropicbird sighting because any self-respecting birder/naturalist/scientist would take down notes whenever there is controversy about an ID, but I do not disregard the fact that I believe it was R-B-T just because the FOSRC gave a no-vote. MY final decision stands because these are MY personal records, and not you or anyone else (FOSRC, ABA, AOU) can tell me what I can or cannot list but I will take suggestions.
When looking at it from a SCIENTIFIC perspective, a certain and strict criteria has to be met, no doubt about that. When looking at it from a HOBBY perspective, I believe we can be a bit more flexible. Birding does combine both. The thing is that, for some folks, a distinction is made, for others, it's one and the same. I think that sometimes the wrong message is conveyed whenever someone, an experienced birder for instance, sees a rarity, posts about it so everyone else can go see it, and then gets a response from some member of the FOSRC that sounds something like "you must report this sighting so that our committee can decide whether you really did see this or not", or at least it is interpreted that way. It would be incorrect to assume that's what they're saying, but it often happens: we react defensively when we hear the word "apparent", especially if we know what we're looking at. The FOSRC encourages birders to submit reports for rarities because it aids ornithologists, avian ecologists, and other scientists when looking at species dispersal, range expansion, etc. That said, it shouldn't sound like they have the final word on a birder's personal records, but of course this is all up to the birder and how far he/she wants to take their hobby.
There is NOTHING wrong with calling the Key West bird a Loggerhead Kingbird, especially when many birders, who are probably just as experienced as any FOSRC member, have already ID'd it as such. I do understand that because a good amount of birders will be spending a good deal of money to come see this bird, one has to be careful with the ID and scrutinize the sighting. But these birders coming from afar can t really wait for a decision from the FOSRC first, can they. So in fact, we rely on the general consensus about what the bird really is. Apparent doesn t cut it.
And now as far as Bill Pranty s last comment goes: I second Paul Bithorn s response. I believe that the majority of the birding community DOES NOT fall into the Largo Ivory-bills category. I DO understand your frustration though and I think you do a great job at educating the birding community, especially the newbies, about reporting sightings. No need for the sarcasm though. See you tomorrow at Fort Zachary Taylor.
Cheers,
RJ
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]