[obol] Re: Wherefore art thou, oh albatross?

  • From: "Tom Crabtree" <tc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <garbledmodwit@xxxxxxxxx>, <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>, "'paul sullivan'" <paultsullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'OBOL Oregon Birders Online'" <obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:24:05 -0800

And app writers, make sure your app works 60-200 miles out to sea where cell
towers are, shall we say, sparse.  

 

Tom Crabtree

Completely sea-less in Bend 

 

From: obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Tim Rodenkirk
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:11 AM
To: llsdirons@xxxxxxx; paul sullivan; OBOL Oregon Birders Online
Subject: [obol] Re: Wherefore art thou, oh albatross?

 

A see a HUGE opportunity here to make some big cash- be the first one to
develop an app that can tell you what the CPL is from your current offshore
GPS coordinates.  This is something that could be used to navigate around
whatever your favorite county chunk of offshore waters may be in whatever
state.  App writers, get to work, there is serious money to be made here!

 

Tim Rodenkirk

Completely app-less in Coos Bay

 

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:40 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

 

Paul Sullivan queried:

 

Question: Is there anyone who espouses your position other than you? Anyone
at the ABA who wants to draw the lines as you do?

 

I'll preface my comments by saying that even though I am a member of the
Oregon Bird Records Committee (OBRC), the thoughts and opinions expressed
below are mine alone and they are not meant to reflect how others on the
committee might feel about this issue. 

 

This is not Mike Patterson's "position." It is an
interpretation/representation of how Oregon's at-sea boundaries would look
if the closest point of land (CPL) methodology is adopted at the upcoming
annual meeting of the Oregon Bird Records Committee (OBRC). The American
Birding Association (ABA) has already adopted this methodology, thus if you
intend to submit your listing totals to ABA or OBA, which follows the ABA
Listing Rules, then these boundaries are already in effect for you. 

 

I want to make it perfectly clear that the CPL method is not a creation of
the OBRC. Further, consideration of this proposal is not being driven by a
particular committee member or group of committee members who are convinced
that using CPL is a simpler method. In fact, multiple members have expressed
legitimate concerns over how one can know exactly when they've crossed these
invisible at-sea boundaries using the CPL method instead the latitudinal
straight line running due west from the onshore border. Presently, there are
no easy answers to that question. However, if you capture a GPS reading when
you see a bird of interest at sea, there are a number of fairly easy ways to
assign that observation to a county/state once you are back on land with
full Internet access. I'm not going to rattle through those in this email,
but if this change comes to pass there will surely be further discussion in
this forum and some accompanying education. 

 

If you look at the Oregon coastline, it is mostly devoid of promontories
that extend much farther west than the westernmost points in neighboring
counties. The glaring exception is Cape Blanco, which is by far the
westernmost point in Oregon. This is why there is such an expansive wedge
for Curry Co. on Mike's map and even a chunk of ocean south of the 42nd
parallel (the Oregon/California border) that would be considered Oregon and
Curry County waters if the CPL method is adopted. 

 

If you are scratching your head over why the CPL concept has gained traction
and adoption in the birding world over the last couple decades, don't look
at the Oregon coast, where the straight line method seems perfectly logical.
Instead, pull out a U.S. atlas and check out the Middle Atlantic Coast. Then
try to figure out how you might draw up the at sea boundaries for New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Once you get that worked out, you
might try tackling the at-sea boundaries for Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut. As you can see,
trying to interpret how the straight line method works for these states
would be a nightmare, with neighboring states all using the most
advantageous extensions of their boundaries to claim as much ocean territory
as possible. It is for this reason that U.S. Maritime Law uses the CPL
method whenever there is a disputed claim over at-sea jurisdiction. It may
seem like a convoluted way of doing things, but from any point out on the
ocean, there is only one closest point of land. It is unambiguous. I'm not
sure who gets credit for first suggesting that birders adopt this
methodology, but it certainly simplifies things along the Atlantic Coast. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, the rancor over which state or county gets to
claim a particular bird  for the purposes of our little bird listing game is
not likely to get too crazy. It will not rival the competition for offshore
oil and gas rights, or bickering over which state gets to collect all the
licensing fees from the commercial fisherman using those waters.
Regardless, there is still a need for an easy way to keep track of the
playing field. Since the ABA is the de facto national governing body when it
comes to who gets to count what and where, they have to adopt rules that are
clear, unambiguous, and work in every corner of the U.S., not just Oregon,
where the shape of our coastline lends itself to using the straight line
extended method. 

 

In addition to the ABA adopting the CPL methodology, it is also used by
eBird and is gradually being adopted by more and more of the individual
state records committees. Both the California and Washington BRCs  (CBRC and
WBRC respectively) have recently made bylaw changes that make the use of the
CPL method official. If Oregon were to continue to use the straight line
method going forward, the wedge off the mouth of the Columbia River that
lies south of the imaginary line extending west from the state line would,
in effect, be claimed by both Oregon and Washington. Any bird seen in that
wedge could legitimately be counted for both states, if that makes any sense
(it doesn't). 

 

The resulting impact at the southern border would be more bizarre. In
adopting this change, the CBRC acknowledges that there is a significant
wedge of far offshore waters (south of the 42nd parallel) that are closer to
Cape Blanco than they are to any point of land in California, thus these are
now treated (by the CBRC anyway) as Oregon waters. If the OBRC continues to
use the straight line extended method, 42 degrees N continuing to function
as the state line at sea, this wedge would be in effect a no man's land. If
one were to see a Shy Albatross or a White-chinned Petrel while cruising
through this wedge, it could not be legitimately counted for either state. 

 

On the surface, this change may seem weird or even a bit non-sensical, as it
did to me the first time I learned of the CPL method a few years back. There
will be some initial confusion and maybe even frustration as we all try to
grasp and adapt to a new set of boundaries. This fact is not lost on me, or
other members of the OBRC who might support CPL adoption. My personal
feeling is that we (the OBRC) should work in concert with our neighbors and
endeavor to make our rules and standards, along with our methods for
determining boundaries as consistent as possible with those being used all
over the United States. I also believe that we should follow the ABA Listing
Rules, since many Oregon birders report their totals to ABA and OBA
annually. 

 

It is not my mission or the OBRC's mission to tell anyone what they can or
can't count for their own list. It's also not part of our mission to
establish the at-sea county boundaries or tell any individual how they have
to determine them. We review records of species that are rare in Oregon. Our
primary geopolitical concerns center on making sure that a Review List bird
reported to the OBRC was actually seen within Oregon and, if asked, being
able to offer a clear definition of the Oregon boundaries as we recognize
them. 

 

If, for the purposes of your own listing, you want to continue to use the
straight line method (presuming that the CPL method is adopted by the OBRC),
it is your choice to do so. There are no list police who are going audit
your list or show up on your doorstep to challenge the species total that
you claim for a particular state or county. Birding works on an honor
system. The rules are out there. How you choose to interpret them and how
closely you choose to follow them is entirely up to you. 

 

I hope this answers some of the questions that Mike's recent blogs may have
raised. This post is intended to explain why this proposal is being
considered by the OBRC. Mike Patterson, who is an OBRC alternate, has put
forth some great information and a nice map showing how things would change
with adoption of the CPL method. 

 

Dave Irons

Portland, OR

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. obol
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2014