[orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
- From: David Hewitt <dhewitt37@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:47:26 -0800
A few things:
(1) I vote for a conservative application of #2, certainly not #3. I'd be
fine even with being on the #1 end of a gradient between #1 and #2, but I
think the big wheels have come to some decisions about a minimum
expectation for all filters that makes #1 not OK.
(2) If someone wants to reach out to Tim B about Harney, I have his cell
phone number. I chatted with him at some length when I was over at Malheur
for work (last March or thereabouts), and I got the impression he was not
thrilled about ramping up eBird use, let alone reviewing.
(3) The only thing I know about gray-headed Bushtits is that I have never
seen them in Klamath and Kevin Spencer once told me "People come here and
claim to see the gray-headed ones, but I've never seen anything but brown
caps." I can't say I check every one I encounter, but I do look at them
when I get a clear look. So far, no gray heads.
- Dave Hewitt
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:07 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I have not really worked through the entire list of Oregon's birds. It
> probably wouldn't take too much time, as most of the birds that occur in
> Oregon appear here in only one field recognizeable 'form.'
>
> Along these lines, are there any Oregon counties where both gray-headed
> and brown-headed Bushtits occur with some frequency. Off hand only Klamath
> and Sherman strike me as possibilities. I would have to check, but I think
> I have seen both types in Sherman and I really don't know about Klamath.
> The range of gray-headed (*P. m. plumbeus*) extends quite a bit farther
> north than it is described by most sources. There is actually an isolated
> population in Yakima County, Washington and I've found *plumbeus* at
> multiple locations in Sherman County.
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:02:18 -0800
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
> From: matthewghunter@xxxxxxxxx
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Dave and All, Has anyone gone through all the list of possibilities and
> come up with a proposal of which subpopulation names/groups we would
> include in the county default lists (for whichever county they actually
> occur in)? I know I haven't. I know you mentioned things like flickers,
> juncos, yellow-rumped warblers, maybe fox sparrows, ... I'm just
> brainstorming, but Dave do you want to propose a list?
>
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:31 PM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I too think that Matt's option #2 is best. As soon as we include
> non-identifiable or somewhat unquantified sub-population/subspecies in the
> default checklist, user will them use and likely misuse them. Many of the
> dicey sub-population designations are those that reference generalized
> regional forms like I described in my long initial post on this topic.
> These taxa (for lack of better word) do not necessarily represent a
> specific subspecies or readily identifiable population. Folks use these
> thinking that they are helping, when in reality they are making waters that
> are already murky more muddy.
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------
> From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:05:02 -0800
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> I feel like Matt's option 2 is generally the best. It strikes a balance
> between adding the obvious and regionally identifiable subspecies to the
> lists while making it easy to find them (and therefore gather data on them)
> and not cluttering lists with too many subspecies.
>
> I'm still open to hosting a group meeting of reviewers who want to attend
> and talk about these and other issues. The initial offer was met by a few
> positive replies and a bunch of negative ones. We don't all have to attend.
> I know we have a big state and it is hard for all of us to travel to a
> meeting. If interested, one option would be to meet a day before or after
> one of our upcoming 2020 county blitzes. The schedule is on the
> oregon2020.com website. The counties are Sherman/Gilliam, Wheeler,
> Clatsop/Columbia, Wallowa and northern Malheur. Maybe some of you find it
> easier to shake free during late May and June, and could multi-task by
> joining a blitz?
>
> Cheers
> Doug
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Matthew G Hunter wrote:
>
> I assume a short note for the NW portal would be directed at "users" and
> encouraging a conservative approach to using these designations? I think
> that is a good idea.
>
> We, I think, still have not had enough discussion among ourselves (just a
> couple big long emails from Dave and me), about what we should do with
> regard to our default checklists. Options I see: (1) leave them all off so
> people have to add them if they want them, (2) include only the
> subpopulations that we feel are readily identifiable in the field, and any
> others people have to add themselves, or (3) put all the expected
> subpopulations for each county in the default checklist, so people don't
> have to add them. In all cases people would have to add out of range
> subpopulations (e.g. a European Herring Gull or whatever).
>
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Doug at al.,
>
> You are probably right. A short note on this topic and the use of
> sub-population assignments would be a good topic for the portal. I will try
> to get something started on this.
>
> Also, I heard back from Craig Miller this morning and to my modest
> surprise he has offered to take on the eBird review for Lake, Harney and
> Malheur counties. I will make contact with Noah (to the extent that it's
> possible right now) and let him know that Craig is willing to take on these
> duties. Noah has another book to write upon his return from the World Big
> Year effort, so I don't foresee eBird review fitting into his life again
> any time soon. We may want to recruit some help with Harney for Craig, as
> this county becomes a load once the masses descend in May. Lake and Malheur
> are both very manageable year around.
>
> Once I get Craig's user name, I will forward it to Brian Sullivan so that
> we can get him set up as a reviewer. I know that he'll do a fantastic job
> with these counties. As soon as all this is in place, I will let Greg
> Haworth and Ian Davies know so that we can update the review team
> spreadsheet and get everyone properly assigned.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:34:54 -0800
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I think a short article about the need for Mallard (Northern) and why it
> is showing up on Oregon eBird checklists would be good for eBird Northwest
> article. Pretty sure most birders will see it and think "What's this all
> about?" Want to write something up?
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, David Irons wrote:
>
> Greetings All,
>
> Given that Noah Strycker is out of the country for nearly the entirety of
> this coming year (doing a World Big Year) it is probably safe to assume
> that eBird reviewing will not be part of his activities in 2015. He is
> currently the assigned reviewer for Harney, Lake, and Malheur counties.
> Over recent weeks I have taken it upon myself to plow through the modest
> backlog of un-reviewed records for these counties. The Malheur County queue
> is, as of a few minutes ago, empty. I've been able to whittle the Harney
> and Lake queues down to fewer than 10 outstanding records each, with
> queries out to those observers with records that remain in question. I also
> sent a note to Craig Miller, asking if he might take on Lake County. He
> knows the status and distribution of Lake County's birds as well as anyone
> and would surely make a wonderful addition to our team if he accepts
> (fingers crossed).
>
> Today, Shawneen and I went out to the Nature Center at Jackson Bottom
> Wetland Preserve to meet with staffers and volunteers there who have been
> entering more than two decades of monthly on-site bird survey data into
> eBird. As one might expect, their survey protocols, particularly the
> earlier ones don't dovetail perfectly with the current requirements of
> eBird. There are of course taxonomy issues, with older checklists listing
> all white-cheeked geese as "Canada Goose" and Pacific Wrens as "Winter
> Wrens." There are also lots of checklists that show "Common Snipe," which
> is now of course the Eurasian cousin of North America's Wilson's Snipe.
> They have a wonderful volunteer who is a whiz at getting the data formatted
> and transferred en masse and just today he solved most of the biggest
> issue. In there historical data there is a consistent use of regional
> sub-population designations that have not been entered into the default
> Washington County checklist or had filters set. Examples of this are things
> like "Song Sparrow (Pacific Northwest)" and "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)."
>
> Since I've raised this issue, you should be aware that there has been some
> behind the scenes discussion about the value and usefulness of some of the
> regional taxonomic designations. Personally, I don't like many of them
> because I think the definitions themselves defy quantification. Can any of
> you define the bounds of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)." I can't, so I suspect
> that the average birder can't either. It's likely that most observers who
> select this more refined regional designation when entering Spotted Towhee
> are doing so because they are standing in proximity to the Pacific
> Ocean/Coast and not because they are identifying the bird (based on
> appearance) to a particular source breeding population.
>
> During the winter months in particular, western Oregon gets Spotted
> Towhees that are not very spotted on the upperparts and uniformly dark
> burnt orange on both the flanks and the undertail (the local breeding *P.
> m. oregonus*). We also get quite a few birds that are heavily spotted and
> paler burnt orange on the flanks, with even paler somewhat yellowish-orange
> under the tail. The latter birds resemble a number of interior and more
> northerly breeding subspecies, which in my opinion probably can't be
> assigned to subspecies with any clarity. We have a long way to go in order
> to gain a grasp on where these birds originate, so for now it may be best
> to leave them as simply Spotted Towhee and discourage the use of "Spotted
> Towhee (Pacific)" until such time that we or someone else comes along who
> can teach the rest of us how to sort them out.
>
> My personal yardstick for determining whether I make
> subspecies/sub-population assignments is, "can I, in relatively short
> order, show other birders the difference between two subspecies or
> sub-population types and have them understand it and be able to use it
> themselves." If I can't, then I probably shouldn't be using such
> designations myself. For example, I've had good success teaching folks the
> difference between Gambel's and Puget Sound White-crowned Sparrows, so I
> endeavor to sort this species to subspecies whenever I get a good look.
> Myrtle and Audubon's Yellow-rumped Warblers are another good example of
> readily identifiable sub-populations. To a lesser degree, most Dark-eyed
> Juncos can be sorted to types that most frequently occur in Oregon. On the
> reverse side of this coin, I don't have any notion of what a "Song Sparrow
> (Pacific Northwest)" is, although I assume most would limit the use of this
> designation to the really dark coastal types that we see most often on the
> west side of the Cascades. That said, one doesn't have to travel very far
> east to start seeing Song Sparrows that are considerably paler in
> appearance. When I think of the Pacific Northwest, I don't lop off the
> eastern two-thirds of Oregon and Washington.
>
> As those of us who subscribe to OBOL have seen, many of the birds listed
> in the daily eBird rarity alerts for Oregon are there solely because we
> have not added these regional sub-population taxa or set filters for them
> in our respective default county checklists. Ultimately, the eBird project
> managers are interested in the most refined reporting possible, with the
> ultimate goal of being able to map the ranges of identifiable subspecies
> and sub-population groups. In my view, the key word is "identifiable." If
> we allow the use of designations for which there are not well-established
> ID criteria we are creating a lot of less than ideal and perhaps even
> incorrect data that we may have to revisit and unravel someday. There is no
> easy answer. I am all for trying to collect subspecies information when
> available.
>
> I would encourage you all to keep this issue in mind as you review flagged
> reports and set filters. Take the extra time to ask observers how or why
> they decided to label a bird under one of these murky regional taxa and add
> them to the county checklist only when you feel like you are capable of
> helping your user base through the process of identifying them.
>
> Finally, some of you may have seen "Mallard (Northern)" pop up in a
> checklist or in the Oregon alerts for a particular county. This is the
> default Mallard for all parts of North America away from the southerly
> areas where Mexican Mallard can be found. Since this is a readily
> recognizable form and the presumed type that we get in Oregon, it should be
> added to all county default checklists and the filters should be set at the
> same level as "Mallard." On the surface this may seem like having two entry
> slots for the very same bird, but think of the big picture goal of being
> able to define the range of this sub-population of Mallard. Ideally, we
> want train local users to start entering their birds as "Mallard
> (Northern)" rather unspecified "Mallard." It may save us a lot of work in
> the future.
>
> I know this post is long and lot of ideas are addressed. Let's try to stay
> on top of our respective reviewing responsibilities. Folks who are
> dedicated about entering checklists and accurately accounting for what they
> see and hear deserve to see their data points represented in the output
> data in a timely fashion. Reviewing eBird observations tends to be one of
> those things that I forget to do for several weeks at a time, so I have set
> my phone up to give me a weekly notification reminding me to do it. Every
> Sunday at 10AM my phone beeps at me. It has helped me keep up and stay on
> top of the review process.
>
> Thanks to all of you for the time that you invest in making Oregon's eBird
> data as good as it can be.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> ------------------------------
> From: g.haworth@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:10:17 -0800
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update and Ian Davies introduction
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; id99@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Brian, Ian, fellow OR review team:
>
> Among ourselves, we came to decisions of "best case" assignments. These
> were based on evolved personal circumstances, balancing the work load of
> the available reviewers, and familiarity with the counties to be reviewed.
> We still have one outstanding issue and that is what to do with Noah
> Stryker's three SE counties during his travels this year.
>
> We have a communal spreadsheet that reflects the decisions we came to. It
> can be found here
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11l15yHrtUqkNTeH-dmlDaKJsfl9UAKxzXLJK5SUs-AA/edit>.
> Currently reviewer access to the filters reflected in this spreadsheet do
> not match with current access. Current access matches past assignments.
> Changes would need to made to filter access in order for us to achieve our
> current thinking on how best to cover Oregon.
>
> greg haworth
> Columbia (access) Clackamas (no access) Counties
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Brian Sullivan <bls42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> I've been meaning to respond to the recent spate of emails and make sure
> that everyone has the correct review assignments in OR and that we can
> successfully accomplish any juggling that needs to be done. Luckily, we've
> just brought on Ian Davies to help with these kinds of house-keeping
> issues, so please add Ian to the orebird list so he can be up to speed on
> what's happening. In addition to helping with reviewers/filters, Ian is the
> point person for content on the eBird site and social media. Please feel
> free to email him directly if you have questions.
>
> I think, once Ian is added, that it would be worth everyone sending an
> email to this list that details the OR counties that they are currently
> covering. That way Ian can double-check the review assignments and make
> sure they are up to date.
>
> Thanks
>
> Brian
>
> --
> ===========
>
>
> *Brian L. SullivaneBird Project Leader *
> www.ebird.org
>
> *Photo Editor*
> Birds of North America Online
> http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
> Avian Migration w/ PNW focus <http://birdsoverportland.wordpress.com/>
> Forays into the field <http://birdingfromportland.wordpress.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
