[texbirds] Re: Reporting locations of rare sightings
- From: Ronnie Kramer <ronniekramer1964@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:44:39 -0500
Valid question. I certainly do agree that mulitple observers strengthen the
case for a record being accepted. But this is especially true when there is
no photographic evidence and it is the observers identification skills
being questioned.
Are there any photographic records that definitivly show where a bird was
photographed? I'm not aware of any accepted record that has a recognizable
landmark or city limit sign in the background. All records are based in
part on the word of the observer(s).
I think it's also necessary to disclosse as precisely as possible the exact
location of the observation, at some point. But these are questions for the
record committee when/if Mark submits his documentation.
Wile Mark has a right to play this his way I fell he also has a
responsibility to properly document his discovery. At this point I have no
reason to doubt that he will.
BTW/ I am aware that many people are "sick and tired" of the "bitching." My
question to them is why do you let people control you? You see the subject
line, you're sick of it, yet you open the message? And then you write me
off line with offensive language and name-calling to tell me that your sick
of the subject? Sounds like weak-mindendeness to me. If you read this, and
you are tired of the subject, then I must call your rationality into
question. There has not been a single public post on this issue that is 1/2
as offensive as most of the ones I've received privetly for submitting one
open honest and respectful opinion on this subject. And as long as I have
an opinion on a subject I find interesting and appropriate to this forum, I
will not let the back-channel, name-calling, cowards tell me to shut-up.
During the course of this short discussion my views have been influenced
and I have considered points I have not considered before. My overall
opinion has not changed, but I have learned and have respect for pretty
much every opinion posted publicly. Yet I find many of those who send
back-channel mail to be useless.
This is a disscusion fourm, we are grown-ups. Let us discuss what is
actually a very worthy subject for discussion. If you are tired of reading
about it, DON'T.
Ronnie Kramer
30°23'39.32"N, 97°40'30.05"W
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Ronnie Kramer
<ronniekramer1964@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Valid question. I certainly do agree that mulitple observers strengthen
> the case for a record being accepted. But this is especially true when
> there is no photographic evidence and it is the observers identification
> skills being questioned.
> Are there any photographic records that definitivly show where a bird
> was photographed? I'm not aware of any accepted record that has a
> recognizable landmark or city limit sign in the background. All records are
> based in part on the word of the observer(s).
> I think it's also necessary to disclosse as precisely as possible the
> exact location of the observation, at some point. But these are questions
> for the record committee when/if Mark submits his documentation.
> Wile Mark has a right to play this his way I fell he also has a
> responsibility to properly document his discovery. At this point I have no
> reason to doubt that he will.
> BTW/ I am aware that many people are "sick and tired" of the "bitching."
> My question to them is why do you let people control you? You see the
> subject line, you're sick of it, yet you open the message? And then you
> write me off line with offensive language and name-calling to tell me that
> your sick of the subject? Sounds like weak-mindendeness to me. If you read
> this, and you are tired of the subject, then I must call your rationality
> into question. There has not been a single public post on this issue that
> is 1/2 as offensive as most of the ones I've received privetly for
> submitting one open honest and respectful opinion on this subject. And as
> long as I have an opinion on a subject I find interesting and appropriate
> to this forum, I will not let the back-channel, name-calling, cowards tell
> me to shut-up.
> During the course of this short discussion my views have been influenced
> and I have considered points I have not considered before. My overall
> opinion has not changed, but I have learned and have respect for pretty
> much every opinion posted publicly. Yet I find many of those who send
> back-channel mail to be useless.
> This is a disscusion fourm, we are grown-ups. Let us discuss what is
> actually a very worthy subject for discussion. If you are tired of reading
> about it, DON'T.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Cameron Carver <c.o.carver@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> 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
Other related posts:
