[birdky] Very long post about ornithological record-keeping in KY ... (no sightings)
- From: <brainard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: BIRDKY <birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:26:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
The following VERY long communication is intended for those with a history
and/or an interest in the maintenance of the ornithological record for
Kentucky. Some readers will find a lot of it of no interest to them. It
contains some history and perspective on the keeping of bird records by various
members of the Ky. Ornithological Society, as well as an apology from me for
some of my shortcomings in serving as the most recent “record-keeper.” I
assumed a partial role in the record-keeping process as a co-author of the
“Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Kentucky” (1988). Since that time
attrition has been largely responsible for placing more responsibility of the
task on me, although as many know I have been dedicated to and for the most
part enjoy the process.
Read on to the extent you care to ... or just hit delete!
This appears now because of a relatively recent post to BIRDKY that caused a
negative blow to my psyche. That resulted in me revisiting some narrative I
drafted more than a year ago but have never seen to completion. I repeat the
recent BIRDKY post from Melissa Easley here:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Melissa Easley
To: BIRDKY
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014
Hap and I birded the Obion bottoms of Fulton Co. this morning off in a flooded
field off of Salmon Rd. The following highlights made for an exciting excursion:
Blue-wing teal (3)
Semipalmated plover (10)
Semipalmated sandpiper (33)
Least sandpiper (105)
White-rumped sandpiper (2)
Least tern (4)
Swainson's warbler (1)heard a perfect rendition of their song in a woody
swampy area on the right just before the bridge
Willow flycatcher (2)
We also observed four Mississippi kites over Long Point.
Melissa and Hap
Murray, Ky.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What in the world about that post could cause someone great discomfort? I
actually would expect only one other BIRDKY reader besides me to even take note
of the abnormally high count of Least Sandpipers in Kentucky on the extremely
“late” spring date of the 30th of May. The high count of Least’s, especially
relative to the lower number of Semipalmated Sandpipers, is actually quite an
extraordinary thing, and one that I subsequently queried Melissa about,
thinking it must be incorrect. She replied with the following:
“We waded mud to get good looks with our scopes. It seemed at first that all
were leasts, but as we honed in on the flock, we discovered the presence of a
lesser number of semi sands and plovers. It took us by surprise, but if there
is one shorebird we know, it is the leasts. In contrast with the semi sands
they were smaller, with a browner color on back and breast, and yellow legs.”
As an unofficial “record-keeper” for the Ky. Ornithological Society, this
represented to my knowledge only the second time that such a disproportionately
high number of Least Sandpipers had been reported so late during May in
Kentucky. Melissa’s description sounded accurate, and provided me with more
substantiation than had accompanied the first sighting, and it caused me to
immediately revisit my decision not to “accept” the previous report from the
*exact* same location back on 20 May 1999. The first report had been
unprecedented in the region based on my experience with both the published
literature and my own field observations. Every year, just like clockwork, the
Least Sandpipers that predominate during the first two and a half weeks of May
are suddenly replaced by similar numbers of Semipalmated Sandpipers as spring
migrants. So although I was uncomfortable with excluding the 1999 report (which
was by perhaps the state’s most skilled birder, I might add) from the 2nd
edition of the “Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Kentucky,” I finally made
the difficult choice to omit it.
If record-keepers such as myself are doing a good job of watching over the
compilation of a set of records, we are presented with such scenarios on way
more occasions than most would realize, especially in the world of birds where
most reports are based only on sight records instead of photos or specimens.
Many times we reflect on past experiences with reliable observers and “give
them the benefit of the doubt,” but occasionally we just feel “queasy” enough
with the details of a report – and feel as though out of respect for consistent
treatment of all observers, not just the most skilled individuals (who are
regularly shown to make at least occasional mistakes like everybody else) –
that we make a difficult choice not to include it in a published summary.
Such is the uncomfortable position of the record-keeper who attempts to do a
credible and consistent job of reviewing, assessing, and seeing to the
publication in perpetuity of hundreds and hundreds of “sight” records by dozens
and dozens of observers with greatly varying skill levels each year. But always
within the province of such record-keepers is the ability to revisit a decision
and alter it. Such will be the case with the 20 May 1999 report of 1000 Least
Sandpipers in the Upper Hickman Bottoms of Fulton County.
Another such scenario recently presented itself to me during the unprecedented
flight of White-winged Scoters into the state. This winter’s irruption would
seemingly assign credibility to a January 1971 report of 40 White-winged
Scoters on the Ohio River above Meldahl Dam. I never knew much about that
report by an Ohio birder about whom I could not find any information when I
attempted to assess the report in the late 1990s. Being unprecedented at the
time, that report (which had been published in “American Birds”) was listed as
“unaccepted” in the 2nd edition of the “Annotated Checklist.” However, the
winter of 1970-1971 was similarly cold to this past winter, and also resulted
in one of two Kentucky reports of which I am aware of King Eider (shot by a
hunter on the Ohio River near Cincinnati). I believe this winter’s scoter
flight supports the January 1971 report enough to now include it with other
notable counts.
It would be easy to say “well there’s a first time for everything” and just
accept without critical review unprecedented reports. However, the consistency
in patterns of occurrence exhibited by birds more typically amaze those who
study such things, and established patterns of occurrence are really one of the
most useful tools a record-keeper has in attempting to maintain a credible data
set. Birds have wings and they have demonstrated over and over again that they
can show up most anywhere at any time, but patterns of occurrence are rules
that are typically followed by birds rather than regularly violated.
The point of the previous discussion is to highlight that decisions about
individual reports like a flock of Least Sandpipers or White-winged Scoters are
just tiny pieces of a very complex and very difficult process one puts his or
herself in the middle of if one attempts to maintain a credible data set of
reports. I have placed myself squarely within that realm for about 25 years
now, a role actually seldom relished due to the several types of anxiety that
are associated with it. Every single time I omit a report that I think might
have credibility it bothers me, because I know I’m sometimes leaving out a good
report. But I always tell myself that I’d rather leave out a good report than
include an erroneous one. And as frustrating as it can be, there are just a lot
of times when the credibility of a report is simply not certain.
Unfortunately, some relatively recent challenges to my enthusiasm for serving
in this role have caused me even greater angst than normal, and have resulted
in the following very lengthy digression that provides more background on the
evolution of this situation in Kentucky and an open apology to many people for
some of the places it has led me (being the imperfect human being that I am) ...
My beginnings ...
My interest in birds began back in the early 1970s when I first noticed the
birds my parents were feeding in the back yard. I can’t actually recall whether
it was my mom or my dad who recognized the most species, but they both taught
me the common birds that were regulars in our yard. Before I ever got to
keeping notes, I remember sorting out the fact that the immature White-crowned
Sparrows were not a different species from the adults even though they looked
different.
My first passion for nature actually involved the wildflowers that bloomed in
the woods on our farm in the early spring; one day on the way back to the
woods, we drove past an odd bird sitting on the barbed wire fence; it had a
white belly, a black back, and an obvious white tip to its tail. What could
this strange bird that I’d never noticed before be? That Eastern Kingbird was,
in retrospect, *the* bird that caused me to delve deeper into birds and
launched me on the path that has ended up – for better or for worse –
dominating my life.
The sister of a good friend of my dad’s heard of my blossoming interest in
birds and gave me a fateful membership in the Beckham Bird Club in 1972. During
the fall of 1972 I began taking crude notes on the birds I was seeing, and I
went on my first bird club field trip. My mom and I were amazed at how the
birdwatchers in the group seemed to know every sound and could identify birds
from the slightest glimpse. We even made a little fun of the manner in which
they tiptoed along the woods edge in pursuit of their quarry. Back in my early
days, I was mentored by one of the kindest and most unselfish people I have
ever met, Anne Stamm. She and her husband, Fred, drove me to many a bird club
outing until I got my own car.
I’m sure it was Anne’s dedication to the study of birds of her beloved Kentucky
that rubbed off on me and has resulted in my own interests being so provincial.
As far as I could tell, Anne was also the primary ambassador for the Kentucky
Ornithological Society; she seemed to be involved in everything the Society was
doing and was singly responsible for several aspects of its goings-on. At that
time, Anne was also the primary person who kept track of sightings for the
Kentucky Ornithological Society’s files. She also compiled a quarterly report
of Kentucky’s interesting bird observations that she submitted to a national
journal called (at the time) “American Birds,” and if I saw something of
interest, she spurred me on to write up details for a “Field Note” for the
Society’s journal, “The Kentucky Warbler.“
I got pretty good at bird identification, and I seemed to especially catch on
to songs and calls. While the “cool” kids in school went home in the afternoon
and interacted socially, I retired to the farm, did my chores, and birdwatched
as much as I could. When the same kids were hanging out together on the
weekends, I began spending time birdwatching with new friends ... most of them
“much older” people who were married, had kids my own age, or were even
retired.
It was not long after I began birding that I began finding some things of
interest to others. Here in Louisville we had a local “bird alert” phone list
to circulate word of unusual finds. As is true for many of us, the “oddities”
began to be the things I looked forward to finding as I grew accustomed to
seeing “the regulars” every season. During the early late 1970s and early
1980s, I attended the University of Louisville. I did both undergraduate and
graduate work at U of L so I could stay home and help out on the farm, but it
also allowed me to study under Dr. Burt Monroe, Jr., who at the time was the
state’s foremost authority on not only local birds, but birds of the world. I
doubt the state will ever have an ornithologist who will more widely recognized
than Dr. Monroe (unless you consider John James Audubon from his time here
during the early 1800s, I guess!).
The Annotated Checklist’s 1st edition ...
Over the course of my early birding years, I had noticed that there was not a
current compilation of the birds of Kentucky. I had read most every page of
Robert Mengel’s “Birds of Kentucky” several times, but it had been published in
1965 and didn’t include many records past about 1960. I also noticed that no
one besides Anne Stamm or Burt Monroe had any good sense of what was a new bird
for the state or even if something was a “first” for a season or place. Burt
had published an occurrence bar graph in “The Kentucky Warbler“ in 1969, but it
didn’t source the extreme dates or reports of really rare birds. Similarly, a
book titled “Kentucky Birds“ published by the University Press of Kentucky in
1973 lacked a lot of detail, especially for relatively rare species.
So during the mid-1980s I began hand-writing and typing up (not even a word
processor on hand for the common man at that time!) a draft of what I hoped I
could interest Anne and Burt in becoming an “Annotated Checklist of the Birds
of Kentucky.” I had seen such works done for other states and thought we could
use one for Kentucky. It took a few years and some butting of heads among the
three of us, but in 1988 we were finally successful in publishing it. As a
sidebar ... I doubt anyone will ever repeat what Robert Mengel did for the
state with the “Birds of Kentucky,” I think we’re all too busy and lazy! If you
don’t have a copy you should buy one; it will always be a benchmark work for
our state.
The first edition of the “Annotated Checklist“ contained mostly a set of
information that was of interest to me including peak counts, early and late
dates, corrections of what appeared to be earlier errors, as well as a few
interesting tidbits found in original literature sources that most people would
not ever see. Most loose ends were tied up with the help of hand written notes
maintained in a series of spiral bound notebooks that Anne Stamm had kept for
more than 20 years. I still have those treasure chests of information and
occasionally refer to them when the odd-ball question about a random record
from the 1960s or 1970s arises.
Those who know me well know that I am intense and stubborn about some, many,
[OK, most] things, and I know that as in most of my dealings in life, those
qualities have sometimes strained my relationships with others. It’s not
really been a deal of “it’s my way or the highway,” though, as many might
think. I think some others are as stubborn as I am, and when you butt heads
over topics, there should be some manner of understanding and respecting one
another’s perspectives about an issue. I can no longer confirm this with my
coauthors of the first edition of the “Annotated Checklist,” but I’d like to
think that we all understood and respected each others’ perspectives on the
various issues that arose during our work together. I am at least confident
that each of us certainly appreciated the others’ dedication to the study of
the birds of our state.
KBRC & the 2nd Edition of the Annotated Checklist ...
In part because of difficulties we had in assigning “accepted” status to some
sightings that appeared in the “Annotated Checklist’s” first edition, Dr.
Monroe organized the state’s first “Bird Records Committee.” It was modeled
after committees that were in place in some other states, and began to serve as
the “official” body that made decisions on whether or not reports of bird
sightings would become part of the states “official” list and data set. I
served on the committee at first, but became frustrated that it was not
reviewing as many reports as I thought it should, so when my term was up I did
not continue to serve on it. Since that time I’ve come to feel as though it’s
good for me to keep my role as author of various published summaries (Seasonal
Reports in “The Kentucky Warbler“ and “North American Birds,” and updates to
the “Annotated Checklist”) separate from the committee, so I have not lobbied
to get back on it.
Burt and Anne passed away during the mid- and late 1990s, respectively. Both
have been missed in many ways, but their contributions to bird study will live
on forever in the pages of the many books and articles to which they
contributed. Before Anne passed away in 1999, a 2nd edition of the “Annotated
Checklist“ had been initiated. In Burt and Anne’s absence, I continued the
process and with the assistance of a number of people was able to get it
published in 2003.
During that exercise, I worked with the Chair of the Bird Records Committee,
Lee McNeely, to try to assure that a consistent treatment of reports would
appear in it. While the committee continues to serve as the “official” body for
making decisions about records, there are dozens of sightings that are reported
every year that are not dealt with by it, but that require some sort of review
and assessment. To include or not to include ... it would be nice not to have
to make many of those choices, but if you are in the unenviable position of
needing to make a choice, you just try to do your best. I have seen cases where
authors of some published summaries seem to just accept every sighting that has
been reported in whatever manner, and those publications just seem to me to
lack a desirable level of credibility.
My way ...
Back in 1985, I was fortunate enough to fall into a position where I could get
involved in local bird conservation through a job at the Ky. State Nature
Preserves Commission. Coincident with that position, I was also exposed to the
manner in which biologists studied other groups of animals and plants. It
wasn’t long before I truly understood how different the pursuit of birds “by
the masses” was from most of the activities that go along with studying other
groups. For example, in most other groups collection of specimens is still and
perhaps will always be the most common method by which the ranges and
occurrence of these organisms will be studied and documented. That being said,
as some groups of animals have become more popular, photography continues to
develop as an accepted manner of documenting occurrence.
The previous paragraph may seem to be way off topic, but it provides some
background for the manner in which I have attempted to pursue record-keeping of
Kentucky’s bird life. In my initial years of starting to shoulder some of this
responsibility with Anne & Burt, I decided that I really liked the way Robert
Mengel treated reports that he included in the “Birds of Kentucky.” You can
tell that he had a level head about reports he considered dubious for one
reason or another; he seemed to me to utilize a relatively conservative, common
sense manner of records assessment, and I would have to say I have attempted to
emulate it to the best of my ability. I don’t collect anything, of course, but
I do try to get photographs of as many unusual things as I can and get them to
a published or web source as much as I can. And I also encourage others to do
the same!
As noted earlier, one of the first things you notice when you really get into
birding is that birds have wings and just about anything can show up anywhere
at any time. I think that is the most enjoyable aspect of birding ... there is
the day in your life when you are going to go to a flood retention basin in
southern Jefferson County and find a Little Stint, or you are going to look out
your back window, and there’s going to be a Green-tailed Towhee scratching on
the ground with the other birds.
However, as exciting as such “rarities” are to us birders, there is seldom a
case when the detection and documentation of these vagrants is going to be
relevant to conservation (or to anyone besides us birders, really). Rarities
are really just part of a game we play as birders. It’s also easy to get caught
up in the notion that an individual sighting may represent the “first” for a
particular area. In 1984 while participating on the Otter Creek Park Christmas
Bird Count, I blundered upon a Mountain Bluebird that a number of people got to
see. It remains Kentucky’s “only” record of which I am aware, but is there
anyone out there who thinks that this is the only Mountain Bluebird that has
ever been in Kentucky? What was actually represented by the finding of that
Mountain Bluebird was the first time one had been conclusively *detected* in
the state. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Mountain Bluebird is somewhere in
Kentucky every few years.
Because what we actually notice is only a small subset of what is actually
around, I have always adhered to a philosophy that what we put into our
“official” data set (and publish in perpetuity in the literature) should only
be the sightings for which we have unequivocal documentation (and, thus, utmost
confidence). Where we all draw that line may be at different places. What one
cares to put on his or her life list might be subjected to a different set of
criteria than what the ornithological society decides to place onto an
“official” list for the state. I’ve just always been a stickler on that point.
One might consider a brief look at a bird as good enough to count on their
personal list, but for a species to be included in a state’s “official” data
set, I don’t think many would argue that some higher level of documentation
should be required.
In the above paragraph, I put “official” in quotes because, as previously
noted, the acceptance of a sighting of a rare bird into a certain data set
matters to no one except us birders (and perhaps a few scientists/museum
curators who care to keep a record of such occurrences). In the grand scheme
there is really no one else who does care. It is our own specific area of
interest ... our “game” we play.
Among those people who do care to be interested in such matters, however, it is
considerations such as these that lead to discussions and debates, and can
eventually end in cases of frustration, tension, intense words, and loss of
friendships. It probably seems ridiculous, of course, for that to be the case,
especially to those who have never attempted to keep such a body of information
reliable and credible. However, I can tell you that everyone who gets involved
in it is exposed to it eventually. And at that point you make a choice about
how much you care about it.
For me, I’ve obviously cared about it a lot. The state’s “official” data set
never has been, nor will it ever be, “mine,” but I have taken great pride in
trying to do a good job of putting a credible, sensibly compiled set of
information out there in the sources for which I have been responsible (in
part or entirely). I’ve also welcomed and grown accustomed to open discussion
about things like this with a lot of people who are willing to listen to and
respect different perspectives. As long as there are two or more people
involved, there will always be differing opinions.
I’ve also always tried to be as objective as I can with the process, but
perhaps as important as being objective is being consistent in one’s treatment
of reports and the people submitting details of the sightings. This means that
you have to try to treat the reports of the most knowledgeable observers the
same as the reports of novices. You can imagine how difficult this is. However,
it means that the novices must be required to submit a certain level of detail
with a report and it means that the experts are going to sometimes be asked to
provide more than they might believe they need to. In all scenarios there is
room for difficulties to arise.
Apology ...
Now what this is all leading to is an open apology to all the birders of our
region. As stated previously, I have been closely involved in all of this
record-keeping process for more than two decades now. I have continued to try
to be as objective and level-headed in my considerations, discussions, and
decisions as I can be. However, ... there have been times when I have become
frustrated with the process, so frustrated, in fact, that I have said things,
both verbally and in writing, for which there is no place.
I know I have hurt the feelings of a few people, and I am responsible for
alienating folks on more than one occasion. Those of you who regularly read the
posts to our state listserv, BIRDKY, and the seasonal reports that appear
quarterly in “The Kentucky Warbler“ and “North American Birds,” certainly have
noted the absence of contributions over the past couple of years from some of
the people who I have hurt.
So I openly apologize to those individuals who I have hurt with my words, I
apologize to my birding friends who have been placed in the middle of these
situations, and I apologize to all the readers of BIRDKY and the state and
national birding journals who have not been able to know about the missing
reports.
Where to go from here ...?
In order to correct the situation, I have been asked by a few people to remove
myself from the record-keeping process, and I would do that if I felt like it
was the best thing to do. But I know that at least currently I would be letting
way too many other people down to accommodate that request.
Short of me resigning from all of my record-keeping roles, it has been stated
that withholding of reports has been the only way to eliminate communication
with me (and, thus, the problem). However, I want to clearly state that what
bothers me most about this situation is that I have caused a lack of sharing of
reports to occur. The most wonderful aspect of the digital age is that it has
enriched the opportunity for us birders to share with one another so much more
than we have ever been able to before. So I want to also openly pledge to
anyone who hesitates to share their observations with others via BIRDKY or
other listservs, that I will not communicate with anyone who has expressed or
who expresses such a desire. Likewise, for anyone who does not wish their
sightings or photographs to be included in published form, all they have to do
is submit such a desire to either Lee McNeely (co-author of the KOS seasonal
reports) or Chris Sloan (co-author of the “North American Birds“ seasonal
reports) and those wishes will be honored.
Assembling a reliable set of data for publication is typically a fun endeavor
that involves interaction with a number of folks; the spring 2012 seasonal
report in “The Kentucky Warbler,” for example, involved reports from no less
than 150 individuals. I have especially enjoyed being able to incorporate so
many nice photos in recent years due to the advent of digital photography.
However, the angst referred to previously does nothing but diminish my
enthusiasm for putting in the work required to do the best job one can. There
is a lot of time and effort involved in doing the best job, and one obviously
needs the “fun” of it to keep doing it.
As work towards publication of a 3rd edition of the Annotated Checklist
proceeds, I find myself happening to go through the most difficult time of my
life. I am not entirely sure that it will get finished. Moreover, the
compilation of quarterly reports for “The Kentucky Warbler“ and “North American
Birds“ become more difficult every year. If there is anyone who has a special
desire to get their foot in the door on this record-keeping process, I
encourage you to contact me or someone with KOS. In particular I am currently
searching for a co-author for the next edition of the “Annotated Checklist.”
Finally, if there is anyone left still reading ... I want to say that I have
not put all of this out there to garner support of any kind or generate a
single encouraging response from anyone. However, if there is anyone who wishes
to share criticisms, constructive comments, or any other insight on these
topics, please know that I expect and encourage all kinds of input regarding
record-keeping of Kentucky’s birdlife. In “giving it out” I have never expected
anything other than “getting it back.” One is not always comfortable hearing
criticism, but if it is well-founded it can make one a better person.
Brainard Palmer-Ball, Jr.
================NOTES TO SUBSCRIBERS=============
When posting on BIRDKY, please close posts with
your first and last name and your address (city or county).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To post on BIRDKY, send e-mail to:
birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Visit the KOS website at
http://www.biology.eku.edu/kos/default.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Visit the KOS Photo Page to view photos of birds recently
sighted in Kentucky:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/kentucky_ornithological_society/pool
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
birdky-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject line.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BIRDKY List Manager: Gary Ritchison.
E-mail: gary.ritchison@xxxxxxx
Other related posts:
- » [birdky] Very long post about ornithological record-keeping in KY ... (no sightings) - brainard
