Have you ever heard that "that everything is actually fine, and that there is no evidence to suggest that everything isn't already perfect" when it comes to bird record keeping? Perhaps you've heard that local bird journals are totally fine. They're not shutting down. Not to mention how the ones that are still operating are not lacking submissions. (Spoiler alert, they are - all this despite the number of exciting bird observations increasing dramatically thanks to the large number of birders today, many armed with digital cameras).
In reality - everything literally is fine. You and I can just go birding and enjoy ourselves (!) ... and the SQPS can hand each other awards like a celebratory game of hot potato. There is no need to interact. Honestly, I know I'm one of the very few weirdo's who even thinks about this stuff.
Alas, there were numerous calls to "demonstrate a problem" when proposing the OBRC enter the new millennium... and perhaps some other poor soul may try to modernize the process again - either in Ontario or beyond - so maybe highlighting some examples might someday be of help... to someone...
My inspiration starts with a really interesting warbler photo (see below). It was "forwarded" by Jacob McLaren to the GLBSG discord group to the "hybrids" channel. Along with two messages, one saying "This bird has been a puzzler. It seems to have traits of NAWA and TEWA." and a second noting it was taken at Hawk Cliff in Ontario.
I want to make it clear - I don't know who took the picture, and this post isn't about that person (i.e., the observer / photographer). It isn't about the bird sighting itself or this specific photo. The image and query is a useful framing device to show that my local BRC, and presumably others, have forgotten one of their core reasons for existing.
Straight from the OBRC "bylaws". Section 2.0 Purpose:
- 2.6. Establish standards of observation and reporting, against which field observers may compare their own technique.
Establish standards.
Since the OBRC process is still frozen in 1999, there are no standards around digital photography. Actual examples of how single photos could be misleading. A demonstration of how multiple images, angles and lighting can increase confidence in visible traits.
A BRC with observers to publish valuable sightings, with commentary or clear examples of what was required in order to meet that threshold. Even rejected records would have significant value to share with the community. A demonstration of the scientific value images can provide.
While the single available image is highly suggestive of a Tennessee x Nashville Warbler hybrid, established precedent highlights how a single image, particularly in the absence of corresponding field notes, fails to provide a level of confidence required for acceptance. This is due to past examples demonstrating how a single image may misrepresent field marks. Modern AI sharpening tools may be inadvertently applied to images, further obscuring genuine field marks - a growing problem with record keeping.
Likewise, a full note or article could be encouraged for a notable sighting to support the local journal - assuming the documentation does fall into place. Even if the bird was a hybrid, and didn't count on a list. There are still things that can be learned, or even publishing simply as an example (i.e., a demonstration of an established standard) of what "field ornithology" can look like for an amateur enthusiast. Honestly, it's not just photos. The "standards" that a BRC promotes for how to document an interesting bird are going to be able to collect Old Age Security before long... This particular warbler just convinced me to start typing...
Things have been stagnant for so long, it is difficult to see how the old BRC process could gradually adapt to the world today. It's a shame, but here we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment