A letter I received from those jerks on the OBRC

A little back story - my term as chair of the OBRC is over, and one of my last jobs was the unhappy one of writing letters to individuals who had submitted documentation that did not garner a voting result to accept outright.

I remember these letters pissed me right off on a few occasions in the past, and I hope that the copies I sent out were received as well as they could be (given that they're crappy letters no matter what). I used a basic template to help explain how we operate and how the decisions were made. This means that the letters I sent out all had some very similar wording/information throughout, and were then tailored to the specific record I was dealing with...

Anyways, I thought it might make for some interesting blog material to share a letter I wrote to myself! (As one of my records was rejected this past year) - to perhaps give one last chance to have some blog dialogue on this front for a while... Hope you'll leave a comment (positive or negative - in anything to do with these letters recently or in past years!)



===========================================

Brandon Holden

1709-301 Frances Ave. 

Stoney Creek, ON

L8E 3W6 

Brandon Holden
1709-301 Frances Ave.
Stoney Creek, ON
L8E 3W6       

                                                                                                                                                                July 31, 2013

Dear Mr. Holden,

I’m writing on behalf of the Ontario Bird Record Committee (OBRC) of 2012, a committee of the Ontario Field Ornithologists (OFO) regarding the report you submitted to us of a “Pink-sided” Dark-eyed Junco. 

Our 2012 secretary, Mark Cranford; began circulating reports such as yours for review this past fall. Our review process consists of three rounds of voting by a seven member committee, this year consisting of myself, Don Sutherland, Mike Burrell, Doug McRae, Ken Burrell, Peter Burke and Mark Gawn. The initial round is completed anonymously, ensuring no voting member can influence the decisions of others. Each member can cast their vote for one of three options:

a)      Accept

b)      Not Accept, insufficient evidence

c)       Not Accept, identification acceptable, origin uncertain

A majority of 6 or more tallies for one criteria can become the final outcome for the record; however if a split vote occurs the record is moved to a second round of voting. In the second round, the same voting options are available however the members may now consult with each other. This typically helps solve any disagreements, yet ever year we reach a third and final round on some records where they are reviewed in person; at our annual general meeting at the Royal Ontario Museum. At this point, any record that does not reach a 6 vote majority for “Accept” is then not accepted.\

I have the unfortunate task of writing today to inform you that your “Pink-sided” Dark-eyed Junco record was not accepted after a majority vote under category b) Not Accept, insufficient evidence. Your record, numbered 2012-044; reached the second round of voting with a final vote of 1-6-0. This was after the first round proved to be inconclusive with a split vote of 3-4-0. The general feeling of voting members was that the Junco complex is poorly known when it comes to intermediate populations and intergrade zones.  When reviewing the documentation, it was felt that you provided as much detail as you reasonably could given the observation; however it did not meet the high standards required for detailed scrutiny of a report like this. Several members felt that in the absence of a specimen or detailed photos, this subspecies would be very difficult to confirm in eastern North America. The voting comments of Mike Burrell (first round), Peter Burke (first round) and Don Sutherland (second round) are provided below for clarity:

Mike Burrell Comments: This is a very convincing report from an observer I have the highest level of respect for. However, given this subspecies’ apparent rarity in Ontario I feel that the documentation does not have sufficient details as to how all age classes of an Oregon or potential intergrades were eliminated. I think Junco subspecific ID is much more challenging than we give credit for, especially with potential females and intergrades considered such that aside from obvious Oregons identification should be made only with a series of photos. Peter Burke Comments: I think that the Junco complex is a tough one that requires some very comprehensive documentation. The observer saw a bird that was different and showed characters consistent with Pink-sided Junco but I think that this is not enough to exclude the wide variation that Juncos show across the continent. I would like to have read more about the dorsal surface, wings and head of the bird. Perhaps I'm wrong on this but I think that a specimen or photo is really the only way to document a PSJU in the east. Don Sutherland Comments: I’m now inclined to agree with other committee members that for all members of this difficult complex documentation (good photos/specimens) should be required. I now vote to reject this record on the grounds that the documentation provided is insufficient to accept.

It should be stated that we base our decisions on nothing more than the details provided, and do not base our decisions on our feelings or the abilities of the observer to identify individual birds. In our goal to create a scientific record of bird sightings, we sometimes have to set the bar unfortunately high. We certainly understand that this is a rather dissatisfying outcome for someone who has voluntarily spent time and energy to supply us with documentation as you have, and we truly hope that this does not deter you from making submissions in the future. We cannot function without the help and support of birders such as you. If you have any more questions about your record, our policies and procedures, or any other inquiries please do not hesitate to contact us at obrc@ofo.ca

Yours sincerely,

Brandon Holden
2012 OBRC Chairperson