|
1. Mark - 24 Jun
I wholeheartedly agree with Bryant’s reasoning and second his proposal. I
don’t see the utility of reviewing every Vaux’s Swift record, much less
rejecting those that don’t completely eliminate Chimney Swift. Let those
who have evidence of Chimney Swift present their case, but having to prove
that the expected isn’t the (extremely) rare seems a waste of effort for
both ourselves and the observer.
2. Max - 24
Jun
I agree as well, thank you Bryant for laying out the reasoning.
Cheers,
3. Kris - 25
Jun 2025
I'll add my endorsement to Bryant's proposal to remove the Vaux's Swift
from the review list as I think enough credible sightings over the past
couple years meet the threshold for removal.
I've had no problem with our requiring observers to eliminate the Chimney
Swift when reporting a Vaux's. The point our listing a species on the
review list is to gather information about its status, rather than a rote
reporting of the most likely species which some record-submitters are
doing now. Submitting a sight record inherently requires the submitter to
defend the ID. This has been done poorly with the Vaux's Swift.
The fact that only two Chimney Swifts have been well documented in Utah
is, in my opinion, possibly due to the assumption that every small swift
is a Vaux's and the inherent difficulty in distinguishing between the two.
I also don't have a lot of faith in the eBird review process given the
vagaries and differing standards of county reviewers regardless of what
the system advocates; that reviewer can be a committee of one and the
process is far weaker than the UBRC committee process. I know multiple
eBird reviewers who ask others to review rare bird reports to shore up
their review process, but I also know reviewers who confirm just about
everything or quietly let rare bird reports slip away unconfirmed without
asking for additional details.
4.
Keeli - 26 Jun
I second this (or sixth it as the case may be) for the reasons Bryant
clearly laid out. Kris, I also appreciate your concerns about the rigor of
ebird review, but agree that we’ve met the threshold for removal for
Vaux’s in Utah, and am ok acknowledging that a CHSW record may slip
through the gaps.
5.
Mike - 26 Jun
I would also support removing Vaux’s Swift from the review list. I
appreciate the excellent points that have been raised here.
I think there may be a separate discussion to be had regarding the use of
probability as a review criteria for very similar species (and I’m
immediately reminded of discussions I’ve had with Rick Fridell and others
about Pac-Slope/Cordilleran Flycatchers, back before they were lumped). I
suspect there will continue to be some differences of opinions on the
committee about that…
However, for the sake of this discussion, VASW are quite well documented
in our state at this point, bolstered by the numerous records we’ve
received recently…and removal from the review list seems quite warranted.
(Back to Proposal)
|