|
|
| 3 April
- by Jeff Cooper I
think we could forget having a time span between sightings and stick
with something like this:
A separate record may be submitted for the same species at the same
location when there is clear evidence that a subsequent observation
does not involve the same individual or individuals previously
documented. Such evidence should include discernible differences in
plumage or identifiable markings to confirm and different sex, age,
or increased count of individuals over what was originally
documented in a previous record.
20 March
- by Milt Moody
I've been trying to find an alternative to Jeff's proposal that
would be like keeping things the same as we've been doing. (We
have nothing about this in the bylaws at present).
David's comments on the importance of keeping track of the numbers
of birds in each sighting, are valid and important, but that is
being done pretty well with our blank for "number" in the
submission form and on the Summary Page where subsequent sighting
with new or a greater number of individuals observed, is noted in
the information after the date of the sighting. (...if it is
reported).
If we solicit new records for the committee using the three
"reasonable evidence" points that Jeff's proposal mentions, if
only one item needs to be valid, we may have a large number of
records to review from what we've had in the past, when
considering one sighting of a particular species. (I can go with
whatever we decided of course, but I think that reviewing each new
individual for what used to be one sighting, would greatly
increase our work load (which is not the main concern) but would
inflate our number on sightings "needed" to remove a species from
the Review List, as
our guidelines suggest)..
Besides this addition to the bylaws it would be good to add a
couple of things that would be affected by either new definition
of "Separate sightings", " I'm working on a couple of those which
you can find lower down in this email.
Jeff's proposal would likely result in many more records being
submitted at close-by locations and within a short time period
than we've had to this point and if each additional sighting is
also added to our sightings total for our Review List criteria
this number would be skewed towards earlier removal. Below would
be as good as I can do for a proposal to keep the process more
like we've been doing for the last 26 years. (The other two
bylaws changes would help to incorporate the Separate sightings
standard into the bylaws. --comments on these changes would be
helpful as well).
(Three proposals that are being voted on were
included in the email)
19 March
- by David Wheeler
Hello all.
I really like Jeff's proposed
language. [Begrudging bow to the AI Overlords...] (...and an
entirely unbegrudging bow to Jeff for entering good search criteria
into the AI.)
I would also suggest that
both the number of sightings and the number of individuals are
important to track.
At my Sugarhouse house, in
thirty+ years, I've seen Pinyon jays twice. Both times there were
quite a few individuals passing overhead. I've had crossbills
swarming my neighborhood only a couple of times in that period as
well, though in large numbers when they did. Not sure whether this
was one hungry flock I saw over several days or a general valley
invasion reminiscent of Bohemian waxwings.
Neither of those two examples
represent review species, but they are certainly "rare" at my house
(therefore analogous to a review species). Were one to average out
individuals over the years, that rareness/unusualness would be
entirely lost. I think it is important to know how many times a
discrete flock/invasion shows up. (And I don't mean how many times
it would show up on Ty or Charley Barney's listing day/hour). It is
significant that there was only ONE Brambling or ONE Olive warbler
rather than a flock of 100 each (although each showed up on a good
number of lists). The number of individuals in an occurrence may
imply different causalities. Was it just one individual with a brain
parasite or a mutation in its migration genes? Or was it a freak
storm that blew a whole flock off course? Or was it a
drought/unusual lack of snow pushing individuals where they would
not usually go, suggesting changing patterns because of climate
change? Etc., etc.
Anyhow, good ideas have been
floated around.
16 March
- by Vernon White
There is general agreement that new
individual birds appearing near the same date and location of an
existing sight record merit a separate sighting. Jeff proposed an
insertion into the bylaws, and Milt has made some clarifications. As
I see it there are two places in the bylaws where
these changes could be made. The first, mentioned by Milt, is after
section IV.B.1.f. Putting things together that change would look
something like this (Jeff's text is red, Milt's is green, any
insertion by me was in blue):
|
The
second place to consider this insertion is after section IV.A.1
where submissions are treated. That
would look something like this:
|
Perhaps there is some opinion as to the best place to locate
the change. Or maybe clarification. Any change would need a
proposal by a Committee Member before it could be put to a
vote.
Vernon
March 14 by
Milt Moody'
The paragraph suggested
by Jeff looks excellent and would fit perfectly in Section
V.B.1 of the bylaws just below item V.B.1.a "Review List,"
which is the section the sets our guidelines of 20 sighting in
10 year for inclusion on the Review List. It should be
coordinated with the section we've discussed before about the
Secretary's duty to decide on whether a sight record is
appropriate to be posted.
There are a couple of
items I think we should decide on in Jeff's paragraph.
- evidence item (1):
The e.g. with a specific number of days would be different for
different species, and so I would prefer a statement something
like this: (would vary by the characteristic behavior of the
given species).
- evidence item (3) [we
need to decide whether we're trying to count individuals or
sighting of a species, for our "number of sightings" count. i
would prefer something like: (3) The presence of different
individuals following the submission of a previous sight
record at that location.
It doesn't matter too
much how we decide on these items (The committee decides
whether a species should be on the Review List with the
guidelines along with other factors that are inherent in the
species involved (I think we have the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
(which has 23 sightings in the last 10 years) on the list
because it's a tough ID and we want to make sure that we
document the population in Utah. And the Vaux's Swift was
removed for the list, but has only about 14 sighting in the
last 20 years, but this species is difficult to see clearly
and document with good photos and we are convinced that the
actual abundance in Utah is greater than what we can document.
The problem I would see
for having a set number of days between sightings and for
reporting different individuals rather than considering
sightings for the species, would be illustrated by the
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker in the Payson Cemetery and the
Mexican Duck along the Provo River near the Provo Delta. Both
of these sightings have a lot of sight reports for 3 or 4
months with a few breaks here and there and a lot of them have
excellent photos. It seems like it would be better to consider
them as 1 sighting for our count, but if we want to review a
extra records to see if they are new individuals, we can
surely do that -- it would require more time and work for the
committee. So would that be a worthwhile endeavor for us to
spend time on? It would represent a change in what we've been
doing to this point. It's good to discuss questions like this
so we're in agreement with what we're doing.
Thank you to Jeff and
to all who are considering these things that will "tune up"
our committee functions and make it more consistent over time
by recording what we decide in the bylaws.
Milt |
March 13 by Jeff Cooper
Hello, friends. I drafted a paragraph and then asked
Microsoft Copilot to wordsmith that draft so it matched
the style of our Bylaws and considered practices for this
situation from other State Records Committees. One of the
criteria suggested was a gap in observations. Based on
other state practices, it suggested 14-days, which was
middle ground as some states say a week while others say
30 days. We, of course, can determine the gap period or
leave it out entirely. Perhaps this will provide a good
starting point for us. See text below:
A separate record may be submitted for
the same species at the same location when there is
reasonable evidence that a subsequent observation does
not involve the same individual or individuals
previously documented. Such evidence may include, but
is not limited to: (1) a substantial gap in confirmed
(eBird) observations (e.g. 14 or 30 days); (2)
discernible differences in plumage or identifiable
markings, age class, or sex; or (3) the presence of
multiple individuals following submission of a record
for a single bird.
One thing I've noticed is that some rare species
reported to eBird gets tons of love/attention in initial
weeks following the report and then the masses turn
their attention to other rarities being reported. It's
very possible that hangs around for a month or more
before another record shows up in eBird.
Another consideration is how quickly rarities can turn
over in migrant traps during the peak of migration. In
cased like that, it is likely that multiple individuals
were present over a period of a few days, but it would
be difficult to determine the differences between
individuals.
I know there are so many variables that come into play
as noted by Milt and others. Hopefully, we get clarity
rather than complexity with an update to the Bylaws,
should that be our ultimate direction.
Jeff
March 13 - by Milt Moody
Thank you Jeff and Kris for your comments.
The main thing I would like to see is wording in
the bylaws that lets us know what our policy is,
so we'll be consistent over time..
In the past we've been counting sightings for
what species was
seen at a certain location on a certain date
(and keeping track of the continuing sightings
and when they stop). If we start looking for
new individuals and requesting new records when
it looks like a different individual shows up,
that will be a new policy judging from my
experience. Also we've had concerns about
nearby sightings being the same individual,
which should also be a consideration, according
to what we've been doing over the years.
(There's been no written rules for this, but we
should have some general guidelines that will
fit our needs).
Here are some examples of problems I've seen in
this regard:
Zone-tailed
Hawk at Lava Point, Kolob Canyon, etc. (one
pair might generate numerous individual
sightings).
Blue-headed
Vireo. We had several sets of photos from
the same day and one week later, that were
probably the same individual, but because of
different cameras, lighting and image
stabilization, they looked quite different.
(especially the amount of yellow on the belly
and the contrast between areas). We get way
more photos these days so we're able to check
out lots of different photo on the eBird
checklists. Should we be checking these
carefully to see if there are new individuals?
White-winged Crossbill. We've had clusters
of sightings in nearby areas, in Big Cottonwood
Canyon (Brighton, Silver Lake, Gardsman Pass,
and Redman CG - for 3 months, I think). And in
Little Cottowod Canyon ( Alta, Albion Basin,
etc.) I think we need some "guidance" to deal
with this type of situation.
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. The Payson
Cemetery has been a know place to see a juvenile
YBSA for years, which is the easy one to ID.
The sightings this year started on 8 Nov 2025
and were pretty consistent until at least 25 Feb
2026 (almost 4 months). It was accepted by the
committee on 3 Dec 2025. If there's a juvenile
YBSA present, it would not be surprising if
there were other juveniles and a couple of
adults (the average clutch size i\s 4-6 eggs).
If we were looking for photos in the large
number of eBird sights we had on the list (we
took off half of the sighting for January and
most of them from February because the list was
getting too long), we could probably find
several the looked like they might
be new individuals and maybe some that are
obviously new ones. Do we want to solicit
records to find new individuals in the exact
same area? (This may skew our data).
Crested
Caracara. This is a little different
example. This looks like it's probably the same
individual seen a great distance away and 8
months later than the first sighting. It was
see in Aug. 2024 at Ouray and the Apr. 2025 in
the area around (and quite a distance) from
Sheep Creek Road in Spanish Fork Canyon.
Whether this was the same individual or not,
this sighting should be recorded. We need
something in our bylaws that will cover a lot of
different situations for very different-behaving
species.
Mexican
Duck. We have a huge number of great photos
from the Provo Delta and Lower Provo River area.
Do we want to examine all these photos to see if
the are new individuals. Will this help us
determine whether we should keep it on the
Review List or not? (Even the 20 sightings over
10 years is just a guideline. We usually do what
seems logical).
In trying to figure out a simple guideline for
posting records, I've come up with these as
examples of the circulation criteria:
(e.g., Is it on the Review Species
Lists or would it be a new species for
Utah; and would
it represents a unique sighting for
this species, considering date and
location; or would it support a record
for a sighting under review).
If we want to consider going by "new
individuals" we could substitute " ...for an
individual of this species." into the above
instead of "for this species," or something like
that. And we could add something at the end
about "using reasonable judgement" in deciding
whether or how to post the record. (So that we
cover all possible situations). I've been the
one receiving our records for about 26 years and
have had to make the initial decision (or ask
for advice), so I've had to consider these
things. Good guideline in the bylaws would
certainly help.
11 March
- 'Kristin Purdy
Yes, definitely, subsequent birds
identifiably different at the same
location should be submitted as new
records to the committee and we should
consider each in turn as a unique
record. It might not always be possible
to do this, but given that the birds
have been seen simultaneously and the
first record wasn't for two individuals,
an additional record is warranted.
10
March by Jeff Cooper
Thank you, Milt, for raising this. The
current situation I am dealing with is
a second individual Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker that showed up at the Payson
Cemetery. We know that it is a new
individual because both have been
observed at the same time and the
latest individual shows less red
plumage in the crown than the initial
individual. Should that be treated as
a new record since it is a unique
individual, despite being in the same
location as the bird that has already
been vetted by the Committee? It seems
to me that it should treat it as a
separate record since it represents
"one more" individual being observed
(one more tick on the ledger of how
many individuals have been observed
over time. I'd love to hear what
others think about this.
Regards,
Jeff
10 March by Milt
Moody
Good morning,
Since the webmasters job has
included receiving and posting
sight records, I think it
might be appropriate for me to
bring up a possible addition
to the bylaws that might
solidify a procedure we've
followed in a general way
about determining what is an
individual sighting of a
species.
We've had questions lately
about the Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker and Mexican Duck
sightings, which have had
almost continues reports over
several months. This might
pertain to sighting like
these.
The section of the bylaws the
dealing with this at present
is this (IV.B.1):
B. Circulation Procedures
1. Initial
Receipt by Secretary. Upon
receipt of a record, the
Secretary shall do the
following:
a Determine if the record
meets circulation criteria.
(Is it on the Review Species
Lists or would it be a new
species for Utah)
b. If it is an appropriate
sighting, follow the
procedures below.
c. If it is not on the list
send letter to submitter
thanking for the record and
explain that it will not be
voted on.
d. Give the record a unique
number, consisting of the
year of receipt (not the
year of sighting) followed
by a hyphen and the next
unused number, starting with
"01," for each calendar
year.
e. Create a Summary Page for
each record, to keep track
of the subsequent sighting
of the bird(s), links to
other sight records
submitted and to photos,
recordings and other
supporting documents
including expert opinions,
and a final summary of the
results of the committee
review.
f. The Secretary may split
any record containing
multiple sightings into two
or more records if it
appears that this will
facilitate voting. The
Committee may also, by the
vote of a simple majority,
split any record containing
multiple sightings into two
or more records. This
action, whether instigated
by the Secretary or the
Committee, should take place
before the end of the first
round.
The committee has discussed
different sightings over the
years to consider whether a nearby sighting
within a fairly
short time period should
be considered a separate
sighting or not (mainly for
our count of that species over
a 10 year period). It seems
hard to determine a set
distance over a set time,
because each species has a
different characteristic
behavior, so it may come down
to judgement with maybe a
given general rule.
I'm looking for an addition to
the examples given in B.1
above. Something like (e.g., Is
it on the Review Species Lists
or would it be a new species
for Utah; and would
represents a unique sighting
for this species, considering
time and location, or a
supporting record for a
sighting under review).
The bold section added above
is what I came up with, but
there might be a better way to
put it. I'm looking for
suggestions. It think is
would be helpful to have
something written about this
in the bylaws.
|
| |
|