Paul,
I disagree with your premise that "there is judgment here."
The question "are there Plumbeous Vireos in Oregon?" is not a judgment - it
is a question of fact. Either there are or there aren't. If there are, no
one has documented it yet. If there aren't that's just the way it is. Can
Johnny count it? That's up to Johnny. We have people counting all sorts of
things in this state. Do people count Mute Swans? I'm sure someone does.
Do people count Bobwhite, White-tailed Ptarmigan, or Sharp-tailed Grouse?
I'm guessing so. How about Smew, Black Duck or Newell's Shearwater. Count
on it even though good arguments can be made on all sides of that. There
are no List Police that haul you out of bed in the middle of the night and
go over your life list one by one telling you Yay or Nay. Will the Records
Committee accept Johnny's record? That depends. If it is well written and
convincing, yes. If it says, "I saw a "Solitary Vireo" that was all gray
and didn't look like a Cassin's," then, no it won't.
If you are waiting for the quick & easy no fail ID answer and you aren't
interested in how we get there, or the steps along the way, my question for
you would be of the 200 birds you have in each county, how many are empids?
Are you sure about all those? Even the ones in the 70s and 80s?
Tom
From: obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Paul Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:25 PM
To: 'David Irons'; 'OBOL Oregon Birders Online'
Subject: [obol] Re: deciding about Plumbeous Vireo sightings in Oregon
Dave, friend,
First, there is judgement here.
Are there Plumbeous vireos in Oregon? Yes or No
Can Johnny Birder count his sighting of a Plumbeous vireo on his list? Yes
or No
Will the records committee place Johnny's report for inclusion in the select
list of accepted reports of birds seen in Oregon? Yes or No
I look at things this way. Imagine a bar graph of people on the Y axis and
"Knowledge of birds" on the X-axis.
Most of the human race knows or cares little about birds; they are in the
tall bar on the left of the graph.. There is a smaller number that have
barely an interest. There are fewer who have a mild interest.. And the
plot continues to shorter bars of those who feed backyard birds, then those
who go out occasionally.and at the far right or the graph you have the tail
of the curve: the folks who know a LOT about birds, the folks who read
research papers, and discuss arcane topics about birds. Their bar is
really short.
Each of these cohorts has its place in the world.
The tern "Birders" applies to a chunk of people in the middle of that
sloping distribution.
Life is short. One cannot be at the tail of the curve in many things. I'll
never be a concert pianist or a professional tennis star. I don't even
aspire to compete with those in the tail of the graph I described above. (I
grant that I stand at the tail of a curve called "county listing in Oregon."
Big deal.)
"Intellectual curiosity" is a loaded term. One should have it, right? To
lack it is somehow negative, isn't it? But see my point in the preceding
paragraph. If I take the field with my old wooden tennis racket against
the pro serving 110 mph, I'm toast. If I join in the reporting of Plumbeour
vireo, Common pochard, etc, I'm toast. I don't want to play there.
When I see reports of certain species draw a rash of discussion from those
who care about such things.
When I see the discussion go on at length without coming to a conclusion.
When I see no clear discriminating field marks that I can take home from the
discussion to help me distinguish form X from form Y.
Then I say, "You guys have at it with your discussion. Enjoy yourselves.
I'm not interested enough to join in this discussion. Let me know when you
come up with a good answer for 'Joe Average Birder.'"
Meanwhile, I'll say, "Who am I to try to see or report one of these
species/forms in Oregon."
None of this means that:
The discussion of details by those who care has no value.
I'm mad at folks who are in the tail of the curve, (but I may skip their
long posts).
I can't go birding and have fun. I can count a lot of clearly
distinguishable species while they're figuring this one out.
Enjoy birds, however you approach them!
Paul Sullivan
From: David Irons [mailto:llsdirons@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 10:59 AM
To: paul sullivan <paultsullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; OBOL Oregon Birders Online
<obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [obol] deciding about Plumbeous Vireo sightings in Oregon
Paul,
The collectors among us and we are many (you included) generally like to
have an agreed upon scorecard that we use to keep track of our bird
sightings. As a member of the OBRC (Oregon Bird Records Committee) I have
one-ninth of the responsibility for the accuracy of that scorecard. I
suppose we could join the Pope and take a pass, but then how would those
endeavoring to get 100 or 200 species in every Oregon county know which
species they are able to count? I don't think that a discussion of the
identification challenges of separating Cassin's and Plumbeous Vireos or
discussing the rather murky status of Plumbeous Vireo in Oregon qualifies as
judging. There are a lot of us looking hard and hoping to find this species
in Oregon and up to now most of us have met with no success.
"Just don't go there" doesn't work for me. Too much intellectual curiosity
about such things...and I'm hardly alone.
Dave Irons
_____
From: paultsullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [obol] deciding about Plumbeous Vireo sightings in Oregon
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:57:12 -0700
I'm with the Pope on this one:
"Who am I to judge?"
;-) ;-) ;-)
Paul Sullivan
P.S. You can add Common Pochard, Long-toed Stint, and wintering Swainson's
thrushes to that list, too. Just don't go there.
