Another fun thing that I wrote... That wasn't published... But not due to any bizarre internal politics (this time)... Here is what followed; a "letter to the editors" or "commentary" to Michigan Birds and Natural History News:
-------------
Regarding a reported Slaty-backed Gull from Whitefish Point, Chippewa, Michigan from May 19-20, 2017 and the role of Bird Records Committees
Figure 1. Slaty-backed Gull at Whitefish Point, May 19, 2026. Photo by Skye Haas.
This note pertains to a reported adult Slaty-backed Gull (Larus schistisagus) from Whitefish Point, Chippewa, Michigan from May 19-20, 2017. While conducting a review of available media of Slaty-backed Gull from the Great Lakes region, I was surprised that photos of this individual were unavailable for retrieval on the eBird.org website (eBird). Further investigation revealed that the record had been “rejected” by the Michigan Bird Records Committee (MBRC) which was the trigger for their suppression from the public output of eBird.
This discovery led to a slight detour in my undertaking. I then sought out the original photos as well as the rationale provided for why the record was rejected. This ultimately led to further reflection on the role and intent of bird record committees, including my limited experience with the MBRC and my extensive experience with the Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC) of my home province.
Observer notes from the initial date of observation are as follows:
Adult bird. Observed in small flock of gulls bathing and loafing in pools at tip of Whitefish Point. Immediately stood out as being intermediate in size between LBBG &GBBG. Structure was readily apparent with SBGU displaying a projecting "goose-like" breast, rounded head and thin THGU-like bill structure. Legs a deep bubblegum pink, a stronger color than the GBBG and HERG it was observed with. Substantially wide white tertial skirt, and in flight the white trailing edge of the wing was noticeably wider than the other gull spp present. Subterminal white spots were not the boldest marked I've seen on the species, but still present and observed in photos. Observed in both photos and through scope looks was the reduced black on the upper outer primaries, with the black restricted to the outer webs of the primaries creating a Venetian blind look ala THGU. Also noticed in both the field and from photos was the reduced black on underwing as compared to LBBG or GBBG.
Figure 2. Photo by Skye Haas.
The reasoning provided to the observers regarding the rejection of the May 19-20, 2017 Slaty-backed Gull is as follows:
Slaty-backed Gull 2017-0480-02 (initial vote: 5-2)
Those voting to reject based their concerns on traits viewed in the photographs, namely that they thought the underwing pattern was too pale, the tongues were too narrow, and that the secondary trailing edge was not thick enough and appeared uniform with the primary trailing edge. Their thinking was that maybe one of these features is ok for a pure Slaty-backed but certainly not all of them. One member thought that the legs seemed long for this species. Those present who had voted to accept recognized these concerns but were undecided as to how they would vote the next time.
Figure 3. Photo: Steve Kolbe.
These comments revived feelings of my own experiences with the OBRC on unrelated observations. I provide my thoughts not as a direct critique of the MBRC or the members of the 2017 committee, but as a representative example on how these decisions may affect the reporting observer(s) of a rare bird, the birding community and the ability for a records committee to achieve their stated objectives.
To start, the first sentence raises concern. “Those voting to reject based their concerns on traits viewed in the photographs…”. There is a growing trend for validators of bird records to formulate their opinions strictly on available media, rejecting the field notes and particularly field experience of those taking the time to submit a report. While I cannot provide any basis on the potential for photographs to be misleading, observers to make mistakes, and/or the greater likelihood of either scenario unfolding – this approach ultimately does work to discredit the observer. This may lead to a reluctance from observers to take field notes or to provide text with their submissions to a records committee at all.
Items regarding observed field marks raise further concern, specifically the “concerning traits” noticed by dissenting MBRC members, that the:
- “the underwing pattern was too pale”;
- “the secondary trailing edge was not thick enough”; and,
- “the secondary trailing edge … appeared uniform with the primary trailing edge”.
These comments are representative of a growing problem where validators of bird records may be searching for justification around the rejection of a record which leads to a subsequent explanation that is not necessarily rooted in fact or reality. I am of the opinion that each one of these traits, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively, are comfortably within the expected appearance of an adult Slaty-backed Gull. The underwing pattern shows the expected darker colouration on the underside of the primaries and secondaries (Figure 3), the secondary trailing edge is notably thick (Figures 2 and 3), and the trailing edge of the secondaries and primaries is not uniform (Figure 3). Using proper fieldmarks as justification for the rejection of a record surely leads to dissatisfaction and would lead to a reluctance from observers to make future submissions to a records committee.
Finally, I was intrigued by this last perceived issue with the identification:
- “One member thought that the legs seemed long for this species”.
This brings forward another growing concern that I have with the validation of bird records, the notion that an observer must somehow be cognizant of, or dare I say omnipotent, in order to predict the potential concerns a reviewer may have with a bird record. I will boast that there may be few other observers in the Great Lakes region that enjoy gull study as I do, yet I would not have considered discussing the length of the legs for a potential SBAG. In hindsight, an observer might note that the apparent length of the legs may be affected by warmer weather conditions in May. Or perhaps the belly of the bird was slim due to illness or the pressures of long northward flights in spring migration? Alas, this feedback is only received following the initial rejection of a record – which as noted, is likely to have had a detrimental effect on the desire for an observer to bother supporting a records committee in the future.
Many committees are adequately serving community members who are focused on competitive bird-listing endeavors, capturing records that are well observed and widely documented. Yet I would note that modern websites such as eBird would be similarly capable of similar undertakings if allowed to conduct their own validations outside of committee decisions. I would therefore like to encourage records committees and their members to consider how these decisions may be working against their goals to turn these records into valuable scientific data. Suppression of this Slaty-backed Gull observation, and similar records, would only reduce our ability to know the limits of occurrence of this species within the Great Lakes region. This effect is compounded when the most proactive members of the bird watching community, those who push to make new discoveries regarding bird identification and distribution, become disenfranchised with the process and have subsequent documentation that never reaches a records committee in the first place.
In their foundations, these committees provided some of the best possible means to compile and disseminate information about vagrant bird identification and distribution given the technology available at the time. If the MBRC or other committees viewed their modern undertakings through this lens, how to best enhance the scientific value of our hobby through the sharing of knowledge, I suspect there would be improvements that can arise to the betterment of our community as a whole.
(Submitted Aug 2025)
-------------
Maybe a bit sassy or self-centered on my part... But I sent it in anyways... And then I never heard back!
I figured it was the standard issue regarding the fear of critique or potential change/improvement... Instead, it was because the journal had folded! At the time, the website was still up and the email for submissions as still posted - but the journal had gone under a few years previously. Ouch.
I figured it was the standard issue regarding the fear of critique or potential change/improvement... Instead, it was because the journal had folded! At the time, the website was still up and the email for submissions as still posted - but the journal had gone under a few years previously. Ouch.
There were a few other events beyond this instance that eventually convinced me to try to support/improve the process at home (in Ontario)... I'll be randomly sharing them here as time allows.
