David posted a superb comment to my last blog post, and I think my reply is too long to post as a comment... So I'm doing a straight-up blog post as response...
His comment was on my last blog post... Direct link to read at the bottom here:
=========================
Hey David,
Fantastic response here and for sure will be on the docket
for all OBRC members (who are attending this weekend) to review as we vote and
debate any potential changes... Many thanks for spending the time to write! I
didn't find any part of it confrontational, and I hope you don't find that at
all with my reply (just trying to chat and swap opinions/ideas etc)
I'll do my best to add my personal views to many of your
points now:
I like your main question - how do we remain relevant? I
subscribe to the theory that the OBRC does not function without the support of
the birding community. We need to stay in a positive light to get that support
(and on the same level - relevant) to continue to function well... I will say
that "listers" are one of the most active groups when seeing rare
birds, and I think over the years the OBRC has tried to appeal to listers (eg,/
get your name published etc) because they're the people who get out and see the
most rarities by nature. (eg,/ if you're trying to buy chickens, you should
start with farmers).
I think the other "group" that the OBRC has
generally appealed to are the "obsessive". There is no clear cut
category of birders obviously, but there are those of us out there (I include
myself in this group) that are stupidly obsessive with looking at birds, to the
point where I was birding 6 days a week for many years growing up. Eventually I
reached a point where I had "observed" so many birds, that the only
way I was going to see something "new" was to study the OBRC records
and I enjoyed it so much (and eventually gravitated towards it) to the point
where I have the fun of being chair.
Unfortunately (in my opinion) this all boils down to losing
sight of the original goals. How does the OBRC remain relevant? Well the true goal
is to SAVE these bird records, of the most unusual kinds of vagrants, to allow
people in the future to have access to them (regardless of why they want them,
at least they have not been lost). And what better place to save old stuff than
a Museum? Everything we collect (should) go there and stand the test of time. To
me, this is how we stay “relevant”. Ebird may crash someday or lose funding, and that database would/could be lost. The
Museum approach of documenting evidence may be the most sure fire way to ensure
a comprehensive list of records is saved.
Yet the general attraction between a group like the OBRC -
and self-appointed *experts* and *twitchers* have molded each other to the
point where it may appear like an unwelcome sight to people who do not
subscribe to that manner of birding (or as you said, intimidating). My goal has
been to help reverse (or minimize) those feelings as best as we can – and this
process is (hopefully) just the beginning. Probably the #1 response I have received
from people after numerous queries is that the OBRC is “out of touch with the
birding community”. So what better way to fix that, than to get information
(like yours) from a wide audience of birders in Ontario and look for potential
changes that fix some of the most common concerns?
At this point in time, I don’t really have any hard evidence
that changes are being made – because it’s a slow process. The policy meeting
is booked for this weekend, but there are 7 different members, with their own opinions,
who can cast a vote on potential changes and majority rules. Things can also
move slowly because the OBRC is 100% volunteer, and not everyone has a lot of
time to devote to What I can say for now is that the agenda for the meeting is
quite large, and there are numerous changes that could be pretty noteworthy if
adopted. After the meeting, some sort of venue will be used to announce those
changes (hopefully OFO news and ontbirds – and maybe even on the blogosphere!)
Then it’ll take time to see the effects actually happen...
Your ending comments really resonated with me – that it’s
time to lead – and hopefully we can do that by example. Having Mike Burrell (and other ebirders and
reviewers) currently on the OBRC, it’s definitely an area where I think the
OBRC can continue to improve – although it may interested to know that Mike
has actually uploaded all of the OBRC
database to ebird! It’s under the account “Published Ontario Bird Records” –
and that we have a strong working relationship between the two groups. Without
doing any research, I’m going to state that it may well be one of the strongest
between any records group and ebird in the continent.
I hope I’ve done a decent job in covering your post.. . It
was pretty long and I may have gone off track (or missed the point) on some
things.. If so – let me know ! And I’ll do my best to update/answer/comment on
anything provided... and many thanks
again for spending the time to communicate your thoughts to myself and the OBRC
Brandon
==============
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI will look forward to the outcome of the OBRC meeting this weekend!
It is interesting that you mentioned the fact that Mike Burrell has uploaded (I do not envy the task!) OBRC records to eBird--something I did not know and now I will have to figure out where to find them (!). I know there are PDF files in the OBRC section of the OFO website, but how many know they are there?
The actual hard copies of all records are buried in the ROM, so how easily can they be accessed?
In this fast-paced society many just do not want to take the time to document rare birds. And, some that do, do not take the time to write a proper report. Hence, their submission gets rejected and creates discouragement (if they take the time to write a report at all). HOw can we change that? I have not checked the online submission form lately, but I hoped it would get more user friendly if it has not already. I always fashioned my own reports where I can write what I want covering all the necessary details. I enjoy doing that sort of thing!).
It is easy for the many avid birders to list their sightings on eBird. Usage has certainly increased! It is a good tool for creating lists for various areas, and an excellent way for the lister to keep their own records. However, details about rare birds are lacking on eBird. One cannot get the full picture (i.e. documenting a rare bird) from that source. Who saw it first, precise dates, precise location(s), plumage/age details, etc.??? As well, someone like myself who is a regional editor for NAB, eBird has created a mountain of work and at times I have been entirely frustrated. (But,I am getting a little off topic for the OBRC!)
David has brought up a good point with regards to how the OBRC must remain relevant. Times have changed and so the OBRC must adapt in some fashion to the times.
I don't know what all the answers are, but maybe something positive will develop out of your upcoming meeting.
There are probably quite a few species that do not really need to be on the review list. Eg. Piping Plover. I know it is an endangered species, but they have actually increased the last few years in Ontario. They are documented through other sources. Make the list shorter and there will be less records for the voting member to review, as well as the fact there will be less of a demand to seek documentation.
It is my impression that many birders are out there just to have a good time finding and watching birds (perfectly OK) but could not care less about documentation (of rare birds). That will never change for the most part. What can we do to change that mindset?
Opinions will vary as to what the OBRC can do to sway more birders to document significant birds in Ontario.
I for one have always kept good records and documented rare birds where needed. There are still many out there that feel the same way and will support the OBRC through writing rare bird reports.
Have fun!
Hey Blake - thanks for the reply... I feel ya on many of the topics you brought up.. Some quick thoughts:
Delete- ebird OBRC records - the ON checklist, and species range maps etc will all show the OBRC accepted records.. I don't know all the workings of ebird, but at least now when you search something (like White-collared Swift) - the record shows up!
- re: OBRC pdf's on the ofo website... I agree not many know they are there. Having them online is WAY better than nothing, but there's tons of room for improvement.
- re: hard copies of everything at the ROM... I won't get into details right now, but this may become a massive problem in the future.. Not an issue with the ROM at all, but yeah... A major topic at the meeting will be creating a digital OBRC database that can be stored at the ROM and a backup elsewhere...
- the online form is a nightmare - and everyone knows it (OBRC and elsewhere)... The problem with volunteer groups - who fixes it? Hasn't happened yet, but hopefully soon..
- Re: reviewing less birds.. I sort of agree, and would like to see Piping Plover, Glossy Ibis, and maybe a few others removed from the review list. But many on the committee disagree and would want to see more birds documented.. Just a matter of opinion and I don't know if either scenario would change anything (many of us don't see that many ORBC rarities in a year regardless)
- re: changing the mindset for people who don't care about documenting birds - I think this is key to help improve the OBRC long term... As stated earlier, I think the OBRC has geared itself to listers and people who want attention - because they provided the most documentation historically. Now that ebird, ontbirds etc is bringing more of the "casual/fun" birder into contact with the OBRC - we need to promote different trains of thought to appeal to everyone (in my opinion). I personally like pushing the idea that the OBRC is about helping future generations of birders who can use the data to learn and become keen (and potentially conservationists etc) in the future... The "don't do it for yourself, do it for the kids" approach. Which I think is 100% honest and a good idea to try in order to appeal to everyone.. We don't need to change everythign about how the OBRC appeals to the public (eg,/ don't switch cold turkey). We can still facilitate groups that have long supported it.. Just add to the "list of reasons" to why supporting the OBRC is a good idea...
Anyways, similar to the last response I posted (as the blog) I feel like I've rambled a bit, but I hope it makes sense and somewhat ties into what you were saying! If not, let me know (or let me know if you have any other ideas on these topics!)
B
I appreciate your response, Brandon.
DeleteQuite often there will be no clear cut solution to an issue, but if there is a decision made at your meeting, make sure it is followed through. Quite often some good things are decided at director's meetings, and they are never followed through! I have seen this at our local naturalist's club as well.
For example, the online form at the OFO website was discussed maybe three year's ago at an OBRC meeting, and I thought something was going to be done. Looks like it has not happened yet! Maybe it is not an easy task. The description part needs to be well-emphasized that it is one of the MOST important parts of the report.
Regarding inadequate descriptions on rare bird reports, I guess some people are not adept at including (or noting) details and they do not realize that a description has to be convincing to the reader. I, myself, have always been good at making mental notes in the field and writing them down later if I don't have a notebook on hand. For example, the Virginia's Warbler at Port Lambton. I knew what it was instantly without consulting a field guide, and all the field marks fit. I did not have a camera at the time and considering the rarity, I was in fear that it would not be accepted. However, I just described all the field marks I observed of the entire bird in my report, and that seemed to be adequate.
Then there was the Bell's Vireo at Rondeau, which was even more difficult (no photo!)...
I realize the records are accessible at the ROM by appointment. I have seen where they are kept, as I went in early one time for an OBRC meeting and was shown by Mark Peck.
With regards to reviewable species on the list, once again it sometimes is a matter of opinion and often there will not be consensus regardless of the criteria set by the OBRC. There was some progress made last year when some species were dropped, but this has to be an annual topic. It seems that when I was on the committee there was a bit of discussion on what species to drop, but once again in some cases it was not followed through. I guess it comes down to who wants to take on the task. We all have enough on our plates....!
Thanks for the reply. Part of the relevancy is to make sure that the general population knows that you're a resource. Like I stated before, Mike Burrell's input into Ebird opened my eyes to the importance of the OBRC. I like your museum thought. Ebird is like the Wikipedia of birds, great for a skim on the subject, but if you want to know more, you have to go to the source material. The OBRC is that source. Where was the White-tailed Kite seen? Well it was seen here by so and so for so long. Orginally seen on a such and such day and so on. That information is kept by you. Ebird wishes it got that kind of info, but general population studies like that (see Canada Census) is not there for that anymore. That being said there has to be a way to access the OBRC records for the individual birder. A searchable database accessible on-line would be a long-term goal. However I was suggesting something like what Wikipedia does with its feature photos of the month.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has a list of submissions and the users vote on each picture to see if its quality is front page worthy. However in the OBRC case, no voting would take place. It would just be a place where you could put up the submissions as they come in. Somewhat like a notice board for future decisions to come. Not the detailed reports but something along the lines of - Bell's Vireo - Chatham - September 21 - John Doe. Some basic info like 'seen along bicycle path' would also help make sure people knew which bird was being talked about. This way anyone else who happened to see that bird can see that there is a rare bird report out there and there's a decision coming and information is requested.
This could lead to two things, another person who saw it and wants to add photos that they took to support that person's claim or maybe another rare bird report (since as Blake states, people are lazy and more likely to send in photos to someone else's paperwork). This might help in attracting the intermediate and novice birders who tote around cameras to make sure that the expert birders believe their id. This idea came to me because of all the guided hikes at major migrant traps like Presqui'ile and Point Pelee. I'd love to know how many rare birds seen at those sites have been reported to the OBRC by the multitude who saw them. Under the current rules, each of those people would submit a report. However if a hike leader (who more than likely identified the bird for the group) submitted a report with photos and documentation from other people alongside his own this would help support the record. There must have been a dozen reports of the Tropical Kingbird on Ontbirds, each one describing the reporter being accompanied by several other viewers. More often than not, those other viewers are the intermediate and novice birders who require an expert birder to point out which is the Great Crested Flycatcher and which is the Tropical Kingbird. However those other birders have cameras and notes and were present. So if they can offer further proof to back up a claim, then the records will be that much better. As it stands now there's a message that goes out that the deadline for submissions is coming up and then later a report of the committee's findings, but no way for the general birding population to know which birds have been reported before the decisions have been made.
Also, it's not an unwelcome sight for twitchers and the OBRC to be hand in hand. Intermediate birders rely on experts to confirm their ids and hopefully teach them along the way. Twitchers for the most part tend to be excellent birders. The intimidation for those not expert level is that they see those expert's getting their reports shot down. For those birders watching, who pay the guides, who listen attentively to those experts, they see no way in hell for their ids to be passed if say someone like Blake has an id that isn't accepted.
It's David...the blogger used my google account.
DeleteJust wanted to add that your museum thought was a really good one, but you have to approach it from an almost nationalistic stance. As you stated there is no certainty that Ebird will continue to support Canada or other birding localities outside the US (though losing all those recent BC records of Citrine Wagtails and Bluetails might piss off some birders in Washington state). You should inform Ontario birders that you are the record keepers for Ontario. Impress the idea of Ontario. You could enlist Alan Wormington to rant about how the ABA forgot about Canada. Inform them of your mission to safeguard Ontario records. I guarantee you that will strike a chord, especially if that Ontbirds rant about Americans reporting on Ontario birds was any indication.
Thanks again guys for the replies!
DeleteI do agree that we need to get more info online for public in regards to the records.. Hopefully we'll have some good news to report on this in the not too distant future. I may have to see what the situation is like with the OFO website coordinators on how we could use the site better.
In regards to having better communication with the public, I feel like I can't comment tooo much on this without seeing how the meeting pans out. I have some ideas, which are rather similar to the way you presented your ideas in your second paragraph - but we'll have to wait and see how the group responds to that... Part of the problem is - per obrc guidelines etc - nothing is "official" until it is published - therefore we sort of couldn't comment much on these records prior to publication in order to maintain scientific integrity. The California records group seems to have found a way around this (by simply stating everything they put on their website etc isn't "official" at all) - so we'll see how we can figure this out for ON as well..
And if we ever need someone in order to push the Ontario/Canada vs the ABA issue - I'm sure Alan is up to the task ;)
B
Oh sorry, not what I meant...no commenting by the committee on the internet. I meant kind of a notice board for the general birding population to know what records/submissions you're looking at or at least have been submitted. At no point should the committee vocalize their opinion on the website until the decision is final. As it stands I have no idea what the committee is looking at until after it has made its decision. I just thought that like Wikipedia if the submissions were listed somewhere easily accessible more people might take interest, especially if it might affect official life lists and so forth.
DeleteAt the very least, I would love to see something like what the AOU does when they release the checklist changes and their decisions about each suggested change in PDF format. Something like that would be great for the OBRC. Doesn't take a lot of time either or space on the website since the file would not be that large nor the links to the download area.
Were you looking at skins in the last few days, and what did
ReplyDeleteyou learn or re-affirm in your mind?
Fred
I learned that subspecific ID of warblers is not easy, to the point of potentially being impossible - probably due to lack of study and knowledge about the extent of variation and integration in and between populations!
Delete