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

  • From: Bob Archer <rabican1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:39:55 -0800

Being an ocean sailor, I have to correct Mr Irons on one point.  Every
point in the ocean does not have a closest point of land.  If you are a
sailor, one point to cross in your career is Point Nemo, which is in the
middle of a large open tract of the Pacific Ocean.  It is equidistant from
a point of land in the Easter Is group, Pitcairn Is group and an island of
Antartica.  About 1600 miles from any of those three if I recall correctly.
 The vast open ocean this point is in the middle of is about the size of
North America.  I suppose rare birds from this point should also be
forwarded to the newly formed B-Cuz panel, though I hear they only consider
Mt Chickadee as a review species?

Bob Archer


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:39 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