In August last year, I exchanged some emails with a member of that Committee. Here is a relevant comment from that person:
My view on the matter was that there was no need for a deliberation because it was not a new species for the state and in fact it was accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal (Science). This means it was sent to a[sic] accepted by professional ornithologists--a much tougher group that any state record committee.
Posts
5 comments:
The ways of Records Committees are often strange. The Druridge Bay Slender-billed Curlew (extemely rare so probably a good model in this case)in 1998 was in part identified by comparison with the 19 reported in Italy in 1995. Criticism was subsequently levelled at the fact that the Italian birds hadn't been accepted as SBC. However, SBC isn't a description bird in Italy beacause there are so many historical records. The main difference though, is that good quality photo/video was obtained so the ID could be confirmed. Ordinary birders played a large part in this.
Accepting IBWO just because it is already on the State list is washing your hands of the responsibility that you hold in them. And for the believers (Laura Erickson, various contributors to BirdForum etc.)to support extraordinarily poor evidence from observers whose credentials are questionable, while at the same time questioning the right of 'non-experts' to criticise the evidence, is bizarre. Which records committee is going to deal with the description of this flock of Ostriches?
I, the True Believer, am becoming a little worried. Just a little, mind you. It’s now spring and, even though I know that the IBWO exists, I also know that you Skeptics are circling for the kill. So, I need one minute to talk to my peeps. So please, you Skeptics out there STOP READING NOW, please! While I talk to all you believers out there.
Dear Believers. You’re killing me here! Come on! Just one good photo. I beg of you. How hard can this be? It’s a bird for god’s sake! It’s not bigfoot!!! I can’t hold off these guys forever. Tom is relentless. Wrong, you say? Well heck yes he is! But still relentless. So give me some help here.
Ok, how about a slightly less blurry video? Can you do that? Just enough to hold them at bay until you get the crystal clear photo that we all know is soon coming. It’s a bird! It has regular habits and habitats. Find it, photograph it, collect it, DNA it, send it to Sibley, put it in Jackson’s hands! Do what ever you have to do! Please! I’m begging you!!!! Help!!!
…sniff….
I believe in you guys and gals. You can do it.
The TB
Hmm, I remember being castigated for suggesting that the AR RBC wouldn't buck Cornell et.al. Smells like, "we don't think for ourselves; we'll accept the party line." No independence.
Ironically, didn't the True Believers point to the AR RBC's acceptance of the record as further validation of Cornell/Fitzpatrick's claim? "Cornell must be right because AR RCB accepted it; AR RBC says the report must be right because Cornell said it" = circular reasoning, when Cornell & the Science editors ramrodded this through the peer-review process.
"Science", the magazine, failed "Science", the process.
Dear T.B.,
When you are done being a Believer you can always take on rooting for the Red Sox, methinks they'll break your heart too.
I already have enough disappointments. I was rooting for LSU in the final 4!
Go Tigers!
Signed,
The TB
Post a Comment