[texbirds] Re: Photo documentation vs. a mob
- From: "Stevan Hawkins" <shawkins4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:03:09 -0500
Brush:
In the 1980s during a San Antonio Audubon Society field trip to the
Cartwright Ranch, Dinero TX, Jean Evans spotted a Brant that Sumner Dana and
I confirmed. Even though nobody else in the group saw that bird, the TBRC
accepted our written documentation. Even then, without witnesses that bird
would not have been accepted. As Fred stated, witnesses for significant
finds are always good.
Onward!
Steve
Stevan Hawkins
San Antonio TX
-----Original Message-----
From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brush Freeman
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:40 PM
To: ronniekramer1964@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Collins, Fred (Commissioner Pct. 3); texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Photo documentation vs. a mob
**
One need look no further than to the TOS Handbook to see a list of sadly
non-accepted species for the state that would otherwise be on the list if
there had been even a modest effort made towards documentation in the
pre-TBRC era.....Things like Limpkin that was actually found injured and
viewed by many in, as I recall a bathtub....(We likely never see that bird
in the state again.) ...White-tailed Tropicbirds etc. along with numerous
others,,,The only reason we even have Passenger Pigeon on the state list is
because of a single egg that was collected....No other specimen or even a
photograph is known to date from Texas. Technically this otherwise would be
on the hypothetical list.
**********************************************************************
Brush Freeman
503-551-5150 Cell
http://texasnaturenotes.blogspot.com/
Finca Alacranes., Utley,Texas
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ronnie Kramer
<ronniekramer1964@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> And the value of these discussions becomes appearent, hopefully to
> all, as I start feeling myself swayed. You make a very good point
> Fred and so does Cameron and many others. But presumably for every
> documented occurance there are severral or many non-documented
> occurances. Each could be very valuable. But an occurance with much
> documentation regarding behavior, biology, etc could be much more
> valuable. I'm no judge of what would be more valuable, or if Mark made
the 'right' choice.
> Hypothetical; if the finder of Flamulated Owl had mentioned it only to
> one or two members of the records committee, and had spent a month
> documenting the birds behavior, diet, biology, etc., gathering what
> some would consider to be worthless information, and others might
> think priceless, would that be better than what actually happened? I
> don't know. But I think these things are worth discussing.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Ronnie Kramer
> Central Texas Man Cave
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Collins, Fred (Commissioner Pct. 3) <
> Fred_Collins@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In today's digital world, photos are nothing but 0 and 1. Anything
> > can be created with expertise. Every new movie shows us a world that
> > does not exist in reality. No doubt, should George Lucas take up
> > bird watching he might the first to reach 1000 species in ABA Lucas
> > Land. However, for
> bird
> > documentation, digital photography has become the gold standard.
> > Today field notes and/or a sketch are questioned because a digital
> > photo was
> not
> > obtained. There are always those that will question an observer's
> > skill, credibility, or motives, if not currently then from a
> > historical perspective in the future. Several birds have come and
> > gone from the
> state
> > list because specimen tags have been questioned 100 years after the
> > maker has passed on. In 100 years, I wonder how society will look
> > at a digital photo.
> > In my opinion, there is no better documentation than m.ob. If 10
> > or 100 people have knowledge and records of a bird's occurrence,
> > history will be much more likely to accept a record than if its sole
> > documentation is a single observer with one set of observation notes or
photos.
> >
> > Unless a bird is threatened by additional observation, as with
> > nesting species, then the m.ob. seems to be the best possible way to
> > insure a records place in Texas ornithology history.
> >
> > When I find an Elegant Tern you will hear it fast and with GPS
> > coordinates. I need all the help I can get.
> >
> >
> > Fred Collins
> > (281) 357-5324
> > Director: Kleb Woods Nature Center
> > Cypress Top Historical Park Commissioner Steve Radack
> > Harris County Precinct 3 www.pct3.hctx.net
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Cameron Carver
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:24 AM
> > To: MBB22222@xxxxxxx
> > Cc: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [texbirds] Re: Reporting locations of rare sightings
> >
> > Are there any photos that show definitively that this bird was
> > photographed on the UTC? All of the photos posted appear to simply
> > be on some beach somewhere. Are the photos geotagged? Is there
> > something in the photos that can give a sense of place? If not, why
> > should we assume that this bird was found on the UTC? Should we simply
take his word?
> >
> > Cameron Carver
> > Lubbock, TX
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2013, at 0:53, MBB22222@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > Although I am thinking about to applied to some of posted ideas I
> > > have no intention at all even to try present excuses of my
> > > decision. Some would question them (excuses) or even accuse me of
> > > lying so why bother. In meantime I just want to shortly address
> > > this and a few similar replies as I am entertained by many
> > > insinuations about my person that cannot be farther from the
> > > truth (so by name calling on another forum - thanks goodness Texbirds
did not go that low, yet).
> > > Why would somebody speculate about another person without even
> > > knowing that person and spend totally unproductive time on making
> > > his/her own vision of fake reality is beyond my imagination. There
> > > are
> > so many interesting birds out there - focus on finding some instead.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Every time this subject appears I see the same potential reasons
> > > given for suppressing news of a rarity. I won't list them again
> > > here because they have been stated and restated so many times I'm
> > > sure we all know them by heart. I think many of these reasons
> > > are valid if the circumstances are as proposed with that reason.
> > > However, I do not feel that they apply in this circumstance. .
> > >
> > > And I feel that wild boars could grown wings and fly. I did not
> > > see one (with wings) yet but should I keep trying to find one?
> > > From when somebodys feelings can be use as an argument in any serious
discussion?
> > >
> > > .. The tern was obviously photographed on a beach close to the
> > > water's edge.
> > >
> > > Yes, obviously
> > >
> > > All Texas beaches are public. All Texas beaches are subject to
> > > the same random, uncontrollable access by us humans. ..
> > >
> > > Really, what about private islands etc? But reading some other
> > > posts, subject not related, some twitchers think that they do have
> > > right to trespass, rarer the bird - stronger the right. Note:
> > > anything I will write in this reply might or might not be related
> > > to the ELTE
> location.
> > >
> > > And yes, most beaches in Texas are subject to the same random,
> > > uncontrollable access by us humans but, unfortunately, many do not
> > > act as humans once there.
> > >
> > >
> > > .. Mark seems to spend most of his time between Bryan Beach and
> > > San Luis Pass .
> > >
> > >
> > > Very wrong: this year I spent very small part of my time in the
> > > field there and I did not know that I had a tail watching were I
> > > go. Again this does not mean that I saw ELTE there or not.
> > >
> > > . and if any of you have visited this area, you'll know that it
> > > receives so much recreational visitation (beach-goers, walkers,
> > > vehicles, para-sailors, surfers, fishermen, etc) that I contest
> > > it would be almost impossible for birders to disturb birds (by
> > > any significant degree) more than they already experience on a
> > > daily
> basis.
> > >
> > > BTW if one wants to go to river month buy a shovel (big one in
> > > Wal-Mart about $7) - great investment, I used it a few times this
> > > year. Also this will provide help to access places were there are
> > > no
> > people, and twitchers.
> > > Just birds.
> > >
> > >
> > > So while there are good and valid reasons for suppressing a
> > > rarity,
> in
> > > this case they simply do not apply, I feel. ..
> > >
> > >
> > > Feelings again, like in the future tellers room. Anybody still
> believes
> > > in witch craft?
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone have the "right" to not reveal a bird's location? - of
> > > course they do! But this is not a matter of someone's rights. It is
> > about
> > > chosen behavior within a group that one has chosen to join,
> > > engages
> > with,
> > > seeks advice from, gets bird location details from, and - let's be
> > honest -
> > > enjoys the ego-stroking feedback from, regarding photos! Let me
> > > say
> that
> > > all of this applies to almost all of us - especially me. When one
> > > is
> > part of
> > > such a group and enjoys the benefits listed above, to then choose
> > > - for
> > no
> > > obvious reason - to suppress the location of a VERY rare bird that
> > > many
> > in
> > > the group would like to see seems to me, well, rather mean.
> > > There is
> an
> > > unwritten covenant that if you take from the group, you give to
> > > the
> > group. .
> > >
> > > Texbirds for long time has many subgroups. It seems that we do not
> belong
> > > to the same one. Some of these subgroups decided to leave
> > > Texbirds and create new fora - one has to have urban dictionary to
> > > understand words
> > used
> > > there. BTW great places to check on true faces and personality
> > characters of
> > > some members there. Some loudly enounced that they are leaving
> Texbirds
> > > and never going to come back here. Often it takes weeks, if not
> > > days,
> to
> > see
> > > them back on Texbirds - business is business, right? There must be
> > > no clients in these other places.
> > >
> > > It is nice if somebody admits to his own ego-stroking needs. Take
> from
> > -
> > > give to also sounds good but how this works in the real life?
> > >
> > > . But Mark has "chased" birds found by others: check out his
> > > excellent photos of the Yellow-faced Grassquit at Goose Island and
> > > the Varied
> > Buntings
> > > from Junction, to name a couple of examples. .
> > >
> > >
> > > Sort of bad examples as well. Yellow-faced Grassquit - I spent a
> > > lot
> of
> > > time there for other reasons - it happened that on that day I was
> > there. I
> > > would not travel even 10 miles to chase this bird. Varied Buntings
> from
> > > Junction - I found these guys myself, or better said they found
> > > me. If
> I
> > > did not have them in the front of my lens I would not take a trip
> > > to
> > find one.
> > >
> > > Now I could give a lot examples showing my approach to chase rarities.
> > > Perhaps I write about one case as this is verifiable by a person
> > > who
> > knows me
> > > very little so should have no reason to twist the story. Not long
> > > ago Sulfur Flycatcher was found at Quintana by Sandy. She came to
> > > me on the
> > beach
> > > and told me about it - I think she was surprised that I showed no
> > interest to
> > > see it. BTW I told her that if I want to study a bird I will
> > > travel to places were I can find them in larger number in their
> > > natural
> habitats.
> > I am
> > > not interested in a few snapshots in bad light of the bird I have
> > > no interest in. I left the island as fast as I could as I was
> > > afraid that
> > circus is
> > > coming to town. On the way out I passed people (with Sandy)
> > > looking at
> > the
> > > bird - I did not even slow down. We wave hands to each other. For
> > record - I
> > > never saw that bird in my life but this no mater if I ever will
> > > or
> not.
> > > Have other more interesting, to me, things to do.
> > >
> > > When I am on flycatchers it remain me of something. Martin feels
> > > that
> he
> > > can speculate about other people characters and motives. Should I
> > speculate
> > > what were his motives when he was sending so many times so many
> > > people
> > on
> > > wild goose chases after wrongly Iding some birds . Helping local
> > economy?
> > > Stroking his ego? Giving back to community? Perhaps none of these
> > > so
> > why even
> > > try to speculate and who wants to know? One always can ask
> > > directly. I
> > am
> > > sure he knows many birds better than average birder. But IMHO
> > > there
> are
> > > limits if somebody wants to know them all. I rather prefer people
> > > who
> > study
> > > small groups, even individual species - unfortunately this
> > > approach
> > became
> > > unpopular.
> > >
> > > .. In a (probably futile) effort to reduce the hate mail, .
> > >
> > > I know of miracle way to handle this. Ignore them - works like a
> charm.
> > >
> > >
> > > .. I'd like to say that since some of you chose to publicly defend
> > > suppression in general and Mark's choice in particular, it is okay
> > > for
> > me to
> > > publicly question some of the premises you used to do-so. .
> > >
> > > I would like here to thanks all who decided to do so. I learned a
> > > lot
> > about
> > > great character of these few people (that in all cases, except
> > > one, I never met) and, not surprisingly, all of them have great
> > > knowledge
> > about birds.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At the end I would like to show one more speculation coming from
> another
> > > poster that also is quite misleading.
> > >
> > > Adam Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > Adding to the point that Mark spends a lot of time finding his
> > > own interesting birds and that the rest of the birding community
> > > is free to
> > do and
> > > should do the same thing. I think this is asking a bit much. Mark
> > > is in
> > an
> > > enviable position that his photography is outstanding and it is
> > > able to support his life style thus enabling him to be able to
> > > spend a large
> > quantity
> > > of hours in the field with the birds that only increases his odds
> > > of finding a really interesting bird. I realize there are many
> > > birders
> out
> > there
> > > like him or are retired that can put in the necessary number of
> > > field
> > hours to
> > > find an interesting bird but then there are those of us who work
> > > 40
> > hours
> > > a week day jobs and don't have the ability to easily put in the
> > > hours
> > that
> > > it requires to increase the odds of finding that interesting
> > > bird. We
> > rely
> > > on others sharing their good finds with us to be able to see a
> > > fair
> > number
> > > of rarities. ..
> > >
> > > Although very nice post it is based on complete wrong assumptions
> > > and
> my
> > > reply is not personal, I never met Adam and I do not use my
> > > feelings to judge a person.
> > >
> > > Usually I work more than 40 hours a week (do not even ask me how
> > > many
> > hours
> > > a week at my day time job I worked lately). It is a matter of
> > > priority how one wants to spend the rest of the 24 hour days and
weekends.
> > During the
> > > summer sun raises early and set late Get up early and go to the
> field,
> > > leave work and drive straight to the field Everybody has this
> choice.
> > Some
> > > prefer doing other things and demand from others to give them
> > > things
> on
> > > the silver plate. How about that others should find the bird and
> > > then
> > call
> > > the limo to take twitchers personally to the location - they all
> deserve
> > > that, right? We own them that, right? X number on the list is the
> > > most important indicator of the person status in the community.
> > > These who
> > watch
> > > cardinals in their own backyards are subhumans, right? But should
> serve
> > super
> > > humans and feel blessed, right? In all these big lists how many
> > > birds
> > were
> > > found personally by a lister? Who and for what needs them (big
lists).
> > Birds we
> > > re already found and documented. It will be more important to try
> > > find another rare one that was not documented yet. Why to create
> > > this huge
> > carbon
> > > print just to say me too?
> > >
> > > I need to go to sleep - there is another long day tomorrow .
> > >
> > > Am I mean? - as suggested by Martin. Do not get too close if you
> > > do
> not
> > > want to find out if I can bite or not :)
> > >
> > > Mark B Bartosik
> > > Houston, Texas
> > > http://www.pbase.com/mbb/from_the_field
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 9/18/2013 10:16:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> > > upupa@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > >
> > > Dear All,
> > > Every time this subject appears I see the same potential reasons
> > > given
> > for
> > > suppressing news of a rarity. I won't list them again here
> > > because
> they
> > > have been stated and restated so many times I'm sure we all know
> > > them
> by
> > > heart. I think many of these reasons are valid if the
> > > circumstances
> are
> > as
> > > proposed with that reason.
> > > However, I do not feel that they apply in this circumstance. The
> > > tern
> > was
> > > obviously photographed on a beach close to the water's edge. All
> Texas
> > > beaches are public. All Texas beaches are subject to the same
> > > random, uncontrollable access by us humans. Mark seems to spend
> > > most of his
> > time between
> > > Bryan Beach and San Luis Pass, and if any of you have visited
> > > this
> area,
> > > you'll know that it receives so much recreational visitation
> > (beach-goers,
> > > walkers, vehicles, para-sailors, surfers, fishermen, etc) that I
> > contest it
> > > would be almost impossible for birders to disturb birds (by any
> > significant
> > > degree) more than they already experience on a daily basis.
> > > So while there are good and valid reasons for suppressing a
> > > rarity, in this case they simply do not apply, I feel.
> > > Does anyone have the "right" to not reveal a bird's location? - of
> > course
> > > they do! But this is not a matter of someone's rights. It is
> > > about
> > chosen
> > > behavior within a group that one has chosen to join, engages
> > > with,
> seeks
> > > advice from, gets bird location details from, and - let's be
> > > honest -
> > enjoys
> > > the ego-stroking feedback from, regarding photos! Let me say
> > > that all
> > of
> > > this applies to almost all of us - especially me. When one is
> > > part of
> > such
> > > a group and enjoys the benefits listed above, to then choose -
> > > for no obvious reason - to suppress the location of a VERY rare
> > > bird that
> many
> > in the
> > > group would like to see seems to me, well, rather mean. There is an
> > > unwritten covenant that if you take from the group, you give to
> > > the
> > group.
> > >
> > > Some in this discussion have mentioned that Mark does not chase
> > > and
> > spends
> > > a great deal of time finding his own interesting birds. I certainly
> > agree
> > > with the last part, and commend him for the work he puts in and
> insight
> > he
> > > gains AND SHARES due to such efforts. But Mark has "chased"
> > > birds
> found
> > > by others: check out his excellent photos of the Yellow-faced
> Grassquit
> > at
> > > Goose Island and the Varied Buntings from Junction, to name a
> > > couple
> of
> > > examples.
> > > Mark is under no obligation to explain himself, but I feel I must
> > > be missing something, as there seems no good reason in the
> > > apparent
> > circumstances
> > > for Mark to choose not to share the location (although he as the
> > > right
> > to
> > > so-choose).
> > >
> > > In a (probably futile) effort to reduce the hate mail, I'd like
> > > to say that since some of you chose to publicly defend
> > > suppression in general
> > and
> > > Mark's choice in particular, it is okay for me to publicly
> > > question
> > some of
> > > the premises you used to do-so.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin
> > > ---
> > > Martin Reid
> > > San Antonio
> > > www.martinreid.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> > > //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
> > >
> > > Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking
> > > permission from the List Owner
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> > > //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
> > >
> > > Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking
> > permission
> > > from the List Owner
> > >
> > >
> > Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> > //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
> >
> > Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking
> permission
> > from the List Owner
> >
> >
> > Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> > //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
> >
> > Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking
> permission
> > from the List Owner
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
>
> Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking
> permission from the List Owner
>
>
>
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Other related posts:
