Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:54:01 -0500 Reply-To: Maryland Birds & Birding Sender: Maryland Birds & Birding From: Phil Davis Subject: Records Committee Review Timelines [was: Re: [MDOSPREY] barnacle goose] In-Reply-To: <3C5DDBCE.E665317F@msu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:54 PM 02/03/2002 -0500, Ben Gardner wrote: >Ok, now I'm curious. How long does it take a records committee to >"bless" the appearance of such an unusual bird? Ben, et al. - It all depends ... I've never computed an average time, but that's an interesting question. I'll see if I have enough data in the MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC) database to compute a meaningful average. In general, it can take from six months to many, many years. Here are some of the variables ... 1. Observer Documentation. It sometimes takes quite a bit of time for all of the known observers who have seen a bird and taken field notes, photographs, or videos of the bird to actually submit their written reports and images to the committee. We generally do not start to review a report (i.e., a sighting) until all know documentation has been provided. 2. First Review. After all the documentation is available, there is a time delay before a sighting report begins its first review. This time can range from a few months (to when the next "package" starts) to several years. We generally try to group reports from similar species so that the members can concentrate on a few sets of ID references or research articles. Sometimes, we hold certain species (or subspecies) reports in anticipation of actions by the AOU, upon whose Check-List we base our taxonomy. For example, we held Thayer's Gulls reports for many years, anticipating a lumping of it by the AOU with Iceland Gull (however, this did not happen ... yet). Sometimes, we hold certain species (or subspecies) reports for further developments in the related field identification literature. In any given package, we try to mix some "easy" reports (like those with good photographs, sketches or detailed written reports) with those that will require more thinking, digging into the literature, and more angst by the voting members. Note: Typically, the committee includes 15-18 reports in a review "package". Generally, one half of the reports in a package are "new", or first-round circulations. The other half are "recirculations". We try to circulate about six packages a year, although sometimes we don't meet that goal. A table of the MD/DCRC package statistics can be found in the Annual Meeting 2001 Minutes on the committee web pages (see below). 3. Recirculations. There are nine voting members on the committee. If a first-round circulation is not accepted unanimously (9-0) on the first round, then it has to be recirculated. On the second round it must also capture all nine votes for acceptance. If a second-round report does not gain at least five votes for acceptance, then it becomes "not accepted". On the third round, a report can be accepted 8-1 but it fewer than seven votes to accept are cast, the report is not accepted. If a report has to be circulated for a fourth time, it first has to be discussed at the next Committee Annual Meeting, but still requires at least eight votes to be accepted. Each recirculation is subject to some of the same package scheduling variables (discussed above) as for a new (first) review. So, you can see that the number of rounds a report requires has much to do with the time to reach a decision. That's a quick overview of some of the variables involved. If you are interested in more information, check out the MD/DCRC web pages at the URL in my signature block. One important point to remember, the committee is not the "listing" police--people can put anything they want on their own lists. Our primary function is to maintain the archives of rare and unusual bird sighting in MD and DC. The committee conducts its deliberative peer-review process to express its level of confidence of concurrence with the sightings reported for those researchers or birders that are interested. We are not established, nor are our procedures optimized, to cater to the vetting of species for listing purposes. With regard to Barnacle Geese reports, we have several "reviewable" reports (including last year's Wicomico County bird) that are waiting to begin a review. The problem with a Barnacle Goose is almost always an issue of "origin" (natural vs. exotic). All records committees in the northeast deal with this problem. People are continuously writing reports and analyses to try to convince all members of a state records committee that any specific or given group of sightings is of a natural vagrants. The debate seems endless, however, so far, few northeast US state committees have found the logic to be compelling. Maybe this year, or last year, will prove different! Hope this helps ... Phil PS - If this message should generate additional discussions, I'm on travel all of this coming week and won't be monitoring this e-mail account. =================================================== Phil Davis, Secretary MD/DC Records Committee 2549 Vale Court Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA 301-261-0184 mailto:PDavis@ix.netcom.com MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html =================================================== ======================================================================= To leave the MDOsprey list, send e-mail to listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com with the following message in line 1: signoff mdosprey ======================================================================= =========================================================================