[wisb] Re: Counting after the fact birds
- From: john romano <cajunbirder@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jerry937975@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Where is the spirit of the rule here in this interpretation? It seems to me
that based on this interpretation, there could be a photographer that knew
absoluting nothing about birds, who went around taking photos of birds and
groups of birds all day long, all year long and then takes them all to an
expert to ID. The result would be that this person, who knows nothing about
bird identification, would have a huge year list of birds because " The
photograph taken at the time of the encounter is the documentation that will
ultimately identify the bird."
The photograph is certainly documentation to identify the bird, but I agree
with Greg Seegert's intrepretation. I think rule must assume that the person
getting the documentation is actually looking at the particular bird, thinking
about the particular bird and gathering documentation on the particular bird -
which in Greg's senario applies to the first bird the Western Sandpiper, but
not the second bird the Stint. It makes much more sense and is in the
spirit of birding.
The point has been clearly made earlier that there are two layers here. One is
that a bird can be documented by a photo. The second layer is counting a bird
after the fact that a person had no idea was there before the photo was
analyzed.
John Romano
Madison Wis
--- On Wed, 4/20/11, jerry937975@xxxxxxx <jerry937975@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: jerry937975@xxxxxxx <jerry937975@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [wisb] Re: Counting after the fact birds
To: wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 8:14 PM
Now that I see the rule, the photograph of the theoretical stint should satisfy
rule #4.
As pointed out, rule 4 says "diagnostic field marks, sufficient to ID to
species, must have been seen and/or heard and/or documented at the time of the
encounter".
Given the use of "or" we can drop the "and". Get rid of the "ands" and you have
"diagnostic field marks, sufficient to ID to species must have been seen or
heard or documented at the time of the encounter".
So "seeing" the bird is not a necessity if it is heard or documented. Hearing
the bird is not a necessity if it is seen or documented. And neither hearing or
seeing the bird is a necessity if it is simply documented (granted that seems
hard to do, but it is the scenario being discussed).
The photograph taken at the time of the encounter is the documentation that
will ultimately identify the bird. Unless "documented" is further defined
specifically as written field notes, I would argue that a photograph does
indeed satisfy the requirement of documentation. And as it was clearly taken
at the time of the encounter it ultimately does satisfy the rule.
IMHO, I think the rules suggest both birds could be counted.
Jerry DeBoer
Central Racine County
####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn
####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn
Other related posts:
