Message Board Search Tool
Banding Code Translator | Recent Rare Bird Sightings
©2018 Christopher Taylor (Kiwifoto.com)
Help Support!
calbirds        search ebird rarities [plot]
filter rba/cbc

  75 result(s) found...Displaying messages 1 through 15, sorted by date descending.
  next page

 Month/Year Breakdown (Top 15):

 Jan, 2018 - 14 e-mail(s)...
 May, 2015 - 8 e-mail(s)...
 Jul, 2017 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Nov, 2017 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Dec, 2017 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Jul, 2018 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Oct, 2015 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 Jan, 2002 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 Feb, 2016 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 Jun, 2014 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 Aug, 2014 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 Nov, 2016 - 2 e-mail(s)...
 Jun, 2015 - 2 e-mail(s)...
 Sep, 2015 - 2 e-mail(s)...
 Oct, 2002 - 1 e-mail(s)...



   Nazca Booby
Nazca Booby
Sula granti


   Nazca Booby (Sula granti) - NABO (recent eBird sightings, view CBRC records)

  1. Re: [CALBIRDS] Nazca Booby LINK
    DATE: Jul 15, 2018 @ 8:50am, 3 day(s) ago
    9:30 boat with island packers to this area
    Joel Barrett
    Port Hueneme
    
    Sent from my iPhone
    
    On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:37 AM, aaron.maizlish@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    An adult Nazca Booby is currently being seen on Arch Rock on Anacapa Island. First spotted by Adam Searcy. Being seen by about 50 birders.
    
    Aaron Maizlish
    
    San Francisco CA
    
    Sent from my iPhone
  2. -back to top-
  3. Nazca Booby LINK
    DATE: Jul 15, 2018 @ 8:36am, 3 day(s) ago
    An adult Nazca Booby is currently being seen on Arch Rock on Anacapa Island. First spotted by Adam Searcy. Being seen by about 50 birders.
    
    Aaron Maizlish
    
    San Francisco CA
    
    Sent from my iPhone
  4. -back to top-
  5. Upcoming pelagic trip out of Ventura on July 15 LINK
    DATE: Jul 3, 2018 @ 10:55am, 15 day(s) ago
     Hi All
    
    This is a reminder that Island Packers is offering a 12-hour
    deepwater pelagic trip from the Ventura Harbor at 7 am on Sunday July 15. This trip will allow us to get to offshore
    waters beyond the reach of most day trips where we will have a chance to see a
    number of outstanding pelagic birds and marine mammals. Our intention is to go southwest from Ventura
    towards San Nicolas Island and the banks, knolls, canyons and other productive
    features in the area. This will give us
    a chance to look for sought after species like Cooks Petrel, Red-billed
    Tropicbird, Least Storm-Petrel, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Townsend's Storm-Petrel,
    Guadalupe Murrelet and Craveri's Murrelet.
    Our trip to this area last year was outstanding and yielded Cooks
    Petrels, Black-footed Albatross, 45 Craveris Murrelets (!!), Brown Booby, and
    a variety of other pelagic species. Recent pelagic trips out of San Diego have
    found Craveris Murrelets, Nazca Booby, Masked Booby, and Townsends
    Storm-Petrel so there are some great birds in the Southern California Bight at
    the moment. We will decide what our offshore destination will be after
    reviewing oceanographic conditions at the time of the trip, which will help
    determine where the birds and other marine life may be present or concentrated.
    
    Summer trips in July and August coincide with the earlier
    parts of the southbound fall migration of arctic nesting species, the northward
    dispersal of southern nesting species, and the nesting and fledging periods of
    breeding species on the Channel Islands.
    Past trips have found Cooks Petrel (rare), Manx Shearwater (rare),
    Black-footed Albatross, Laysan Albatross (rare), Buller's Shearwater, Leach's
    Storm-Petrel, Blue-footed Booby, Brown Booby, Long-tailed Jaeger, South Polar
    Skua, Scripps's Murrelet, Craveri's Murrelet, Arctic Tern, and a variety of
    other shearwaters, storm-petrels, pelagic gulls and terns, phalaropes, and
    alcids. Patrolling the shoreline of
    Anacapa Island has yielded American Oystercatchers over the last few
    years. Summer is also an excellent time
    for Ashy and Black Storm-Petrels, and Cassin's Auklets. There is often a flock of 1000's of Black
    Storm-Petrels south of the islands that we will attempt to find. A few Rhinoceros Auklets and Common Murres
    should still be around, along with Pigeon Guillemots near the islands. Red-billed Tropicbird is always possible on
    summer trips, although not found every year.
    
    The trip will be on an ultra-fast catamaran that features a
    spacious and comfortable cabin, galley, and excellent viewing from both the
    upper and lower decks. A full contingent of outstanding seabird leaders will be
    present to make sure we see all that is out there. The Captain and crew know how to run birding
    trips and are enthusiastic and helpful.
    In addition, we work hard to creep up on birds and get them in the right
    light...photographers will not be disappointed!
    
    Trips can be booked over the phone by calling (805) 642-1393
    or online at www.IslandPackers.com by clicking the Reserve Trip tab, select the
    Special Trips tab, and select your desired departure. The cost of the trip is
    $195 per adult.
    
    Hope to see you at sea!
    
    Dave Pereksta
    Ventura, CA
  6. -back to top-
  7. CBRC review and request for documentation LINK
    DATE: Jul 2, 2018 @ 9:38am, 16 day(s) ago
    California birders, The California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) will begin reviewing the following records in late July. If you have any documentation to submit for these records, please do so as soon as possible. Feel free to forward this request to local
    listservs as appropriate. Thank you. Tom Thomas A. Benson Secretary, California Bird Records Committee 2018-039 Masked Booby, 1 May 18, Port of Los Angeles, LA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-040 Masked Booby, 1 May 18, San Diego Harbor, SD (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-043 Masked Booby, 13 May 18, off Dana Point Headlands, ORA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-052 Masked Booby, 31 May 18, off Dana Point Headlands, ORA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-058 Masked Booby, 9 Jun 18, Pt. La Jolla, SD (documentation from 2 observers,
    addl documentation requested) 2018-059 Masked Booby, 10 Jun 18, Offshore San Diego County, SD (no documentation received, documentation requested) 2018-063 Masked Booby, 11 Jun 18, Catalina Island, LA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-064 Masked Booby, 7 Jun 18,off Manhattan Beach, LA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-065 Masked Booby, 15 Jun 18, off Long Beach, LA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-036 Nazca Booby, 1-5 May 18, Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, SD (single observer and specimen, documentation complete) 2018-050 Nazca Booby, 25 May 18, San Nicolas Island, VEN (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-060 Nazca Booby, 10 Jun 18, Offshore San Diego County, SD (no documentation received, documentation requested) 2018-041 Masked/Nazca Booby, 12 May 18, Pt.
    Dume , LA (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-051 Masked/Nazca Booby, 28 May 18, Offshore San Diego County, SD (single observer, documentation complete) 2018-038 Red-footed Booby, 6 May 18, Pt. Cabrillo, SD (single observer, documentation complete) What kind of documentation should one submit to the CBRC Following are some guidelines for submitting media and written descriptions that will be useful for helping the CBRC evaluate records and archive documentation. Documentation may
    be submitted directly to the secretary via email ( secretary@... ) , or by using the online submission form ( http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html ). Media: This includes photos, audio recordings, and video. Photographs are usually the most useful documentation for evaluating records. If you have reasonably good (=identifiable) photos, please submit them. If possible, please crop the
    photos before submission so that the bird fills most of the frame. Also, please send originals whenever possible, and not screenshots or back-of-camera photos. How many photos should you submit That really depends on the record. If it is a long-staying rarity
    that is easily identifiable and seen by dozens of people, then a few photos (1-3 per person) are sufficient. If it is a mega-rarity that is difficult to identify and only seen by a one or few people, then send as many photos as possible that show the bird
    at different angles, postures, lighting, etc. Sometimes it is also useful to submit audio and/or video recordings of the bird, as some birds are more easily identified by their vocalizations. If relatively short, most audio recordings are small enough to be
    submitted via email; please submit those along with a brief note indicating the date and location of the recording. Large audio files and video files can be submitted by using a file sharing service; please contact the secretary if you need to submit a file
    that is too large for email. Written descriptions: Some written details should always be provided even the best photos should be accompanied by the name of the observer, the date, and the location, at a minimum. Sometimes a photo cant be obtained or vocalizations
    cant be recorded. In some cases, behaviors might be noted in the field that arent preserved well by photos. In these cases, it is helpful to submit a written description of the bird. Ideally, this description should be written as soon after observing the
    bird as possible; it is often helpful to make written notes in the field, or even dictate notes into the voice recorder on your smartphone while observing the bird, from which you can later generate a written description. The most important aspect of a written
    description is that you report only what you observed, and not a general description of the bird from a field guide. At a minimum, your description should include the date and location of the observation, and a description of the bird (size and structure,
    plumage, vocalizations, behavior). A brief discussion of how the bird was identified, and how similar species were eliminated is also helpful. Other useful information you might report includes optics used, distance from bird, lighting or weather conditions,
    length of time viewed, and other observers present. 
  8. -back to top-
  9. Origin & age of banded Nazca Booby in San Diego County waters June 10, 2018 LINK
    DATE: Jun 15, 2018 @ 4:21pm, 33 day(s) ago
    On the last San Diego Pelagics
    trip this past Sunday June 10, 2018 we had the good fortune to
    find a subadult NAZCA BOOBY sitting on the water about 8:20am. Per GPS
    readings the exact location 5.5NM west of Imperial Beach and 1.1NM from Mexican
    waters to our south. The booby was spotted just as we motored up very
    close to it, maybe somehow it was hidden behind a swell, and we immediately
    stopped the boat and got very close looks at the bird. The bird
    was so close in fact that when it took off flying, luckily towards us and along the
    starboard side in front of assembled photographers, from the many photos taken
    a metal band could be clearly seen on the right leg. You have to marvel
    at modern camera sensors because images so detailed a
    partial band number could be read. The information on the band appeared
    to show a number or alphanumeric either "734.." or "73A.."
    visible. You can see the photos on our eBird checklist here https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S46508705 I checked in with Kimball Garrett
    about the rehabbed Nazca/Masked Booby that had been released at San Pedro, Los
    Angeles County on Oct 9, 2015 but should have read his original email to the
    LACOBIRDS listserv first since this bird banded with USGS metal band on left
    leg. The San Diego
    bird, a subadult evidenced by some dark speckling on the white upperparts, also inconsistent
    considering age. Kimball confirmed the band did not match that of the San
    Pedro released bird with USGS band (with number 1038-26057). A second photo of the San Diego
    Nazca Booby then surfaced showing the band even more clearly and with an upper
    line possibly showing word "ANDER...". I had a hunch about
    where the band may have come from and reached out to Professor Dave Anderson at
    Wake Forest University who has been studying Nazca Booby and other seabirds in
    the Galapagos for the past 35 years. Sure enough, Dave confirmed the band
    originated from his lab and he could trace the partial number (734xx) of this
    Nazca Booby to an immature banded on Isla Espanola, Galapagos Islands, in the
    first half of 2017. He estimates the bird's age at 1 3/4 years old at time
    of sighting here in San Diego. He told
    me they have banded about 25,000 youngsters (Nazca Booby) and this is the
    71st report of one of their banded birds
    but the most northerly by 7 degrees of
    latitude. Dave noted that most band returns are of 1-2 year old
    birds from the Pacific coast of Central America. The age estimate, 21 months, seems low
    perhaps . You can see P7 or P8 growing,
    at least on the right wing, and this would seem to peg the bird, in 2nd-prebasic primary molt, in a 2526
    month age range using a Masked Booby molt pattern shown in Howell, 2010, Molt
    in North American Birds. I looked in Howell
    et al. 2014, Rare Birds of North America, and it states, under Nazca Booby, pp.
    117-11 9, 2nd- prebasic primary molt starting about 14 months
    after fledging, i.e. about 18 months of age. Considering
    the six or seven visible grown primaries, at about a month apiece, this would get us to
    2425 months. Maybe the discrepancy can be accounted for with individual variation or the original estimate is a bit lightweight.
    I will have to look around for Nazca Booby molt publications to understand the variation and check on this again with Dave Anderson . I will be submitting these complete
    details to the CBRC along with photographs showing the band number and plumage
    details of the booby. A credit due photographers Matthew Binns and Todd McGrath capturing images of the band. We have three more pelagics out of
    San Diego planned for 2018. Details can
    be found at the website http://www.sandiegopelagics.com
    and space is still available but August is filling up fast. In addition to Nazca Booby last Sunday we
    also found the much sought-after TOWNSENDS STORM-PETREL photos here https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S46508696
    our next trip in August a good opportunity for this species.
    
    --
    Gary Nunn
    Pacific Beach
    
    you can find me on twitter, @garybnunn
  10. -back to top-
  11. CBRC review and request for documentation LINK
    DATE: Apr 3, 2018 @ 1:57pm, 4 month(s) ago
    California birders,   The California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) will begin reviewing the following records in early May. If you have any documentation to submit for these records, please do so as soon as possible. Feel free to forward this request to local
    listservs as appropriate. Thank you.   Tom   Thomas A. Benson Secretary, California Bird Records Committee     2017-139  Garganey                       25 Nov 2017-11 Mar 2018             Waller Park  SBA                               (documentation from 5 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-142  Black-headed Gull       27 Nov 2017                                        Pt. Pinos  MTY                                    (documentation complete) 2017-143  Black-headed Gull       5-9 Dec 2017                                      North Shore  RIV                              (eBird reports – no documentation received) 2017-154  Black-headed Gull       9 Dec 2017                                          Modesto WTP  STA                          (eBird report – no documentation received) 2018-022  Black-tailed Gull           11 Feb-11 Mar 2018                        Crescent City  DN                             (documentation from 5 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-175  Arctic Loon                    16 Dec 2017                                        Pt. Pinos  MTY                                    (documentation complete) 2018-015  Arctic Loon                    26 Jan-18 Feb 2018                          Abbotts Lagoon  MRN                    (documentation from 3 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-021  Arctic Loon                    2 Feb 2018                                           Steamer Lane  SCZ                           (documentation complete) 2017-155  Nazca Booby (4)          11 Dec 2017-present                      San Diego Bay  SD                            (documentation from 15 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-010  Nazca Booby                 16 Jan 2018                                         near Ocean Beach  SD                    (documentation complete) 2017-094  Tricolored Heron (2)  25 Sep 2017-present                       Bolsa Chica  ORA                              (documentation from 7 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-096  Tricolored Heron         25-26 Sep 2017                                  Santa Ana R.  ORA                            (documentation from 2 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-113  Black Vulture                14-22 Oct 2017                                  Pt. Reyes  MRN                                 (eBird reports – no documentation received) 2018-016  Gyrfalcon                       3 Feb-4 Mar 2018                             Pajaro R. mouth  MTY/SCZ           (documentation from 7 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-011  Winter Wren                 2 Jan-20 Feb 2018                             Pt. San Pablo  CC                              (documentation from 1 observer – additional documentation requested) 2018-014  Winter Wren                 28 Jan 2018                                         Orr Ranch  SAC                                  (eBird report – no documentation received) 2018-009  Curve-billed Thrasher   6 Jan-18 Feb 2018                          Woodland  YOL                                 (documentation from 9 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-013  Field Sparrow               26 Jan 2018                                         Half Moon Bay  SM                          (eBird report – no documentation received) 2017-168  Louisiana Waterthrush  23 Dec 2017-14 Jan 2018          Big Sur R.  MTY                                  (documentation from 2 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-001  Tropical Parula             5 Jan-14 Feb 2018                             Huntington Beach  ORA                 (documentation from 11 observers – additional documentation requested)     What kind of documentation should one submit to the CBRC Following are some guidelines for submitting media and written descriptions that will be useful for helping the CBRC evaluate records and archive documentation. Documentation may
    be submitted directly to the secretary via email ( secretary@... ) , or by using the online submission form ( http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html ).   Media: This includes photos, audio recordings, and video. Photographs are usually the most useful documentation for evaluating records. If you have reasonably good (=identifiable) photos, please submit them. If possible, please crop the
    photos before submission so that the bird fills most of the frame. Also, please send originals whenever possible, and not screenshots or back-of-camera photos. How many photos should you submit That really depends on the record. If it is a long-staying rarity
    that is easily identifiable and seen by dozens of people, then a few photos (1-3 per person) are sufficient. If it is a mega-rarity that is difficult to identify and only seen by a one or few people, then send as many photos as possible that show the bird
    at different angles, postures, lighting, etc. Sometimes it is also useful to submit audio and/or video recordings of the bird, as some birds are more easily identified by their vocalizations. If relatively short, most audio recordings are small enough to be
    submitted via email; please submit those along with a brief note indicating the date and location of the recording. Large audio files and video files can be submitted by using a file sharing service; please contact the secretary if you need to submit a file
    that is too large for email.   Written descriptions: Some written details should always be provided – even the best photos should be accompanied by the name of the observer, the date, and the location, at a minimum. Sometimes a photo can’t be obtained or vocalizations
    can’t be recorded. In some cases, behaviors might be noted in the field that aren’t preserved well by photos. In these cases, it is helpful to submit a written description of the bird. Ideally, this description should be written as soon after observing the
    bird as possible; it is often helpful to make written notes in the field, or even dictate notes into the voice recorder on your smartphone while observing the bird, from which you can later generate a written description. The most important aspect of a written
    description is that you report only what you observed, and not a general description of the bird from a field guide. At a minimum, your description should include the date and location of the observation, and a description of the bird (size and structure,
    plumage, vocalizations, behavior). A brief discussion of how the bird was identified, and how similar species were eliminated is also helpful. Other useful information you might report includes optics used, distance from bird, lighting or weather conditions,
    length of time viewed, and other observers present.    
  12. -back to top-
  13. Re: [CALBIRDS] Masked Boobies - white in tail LINK
    DATE: Jan 25, 2018 @ 2:20pm, 6 month(s) ago
    FWIW, Nazca Boobies were quite common attending our cruise ship off Mexico
    
    and Middle America last month. Most were adults. Here are some Nazca Booby
    
    photos including two photos of an immature off Nicaragua.
    
    https://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/LA2Chile-Dec2017/NazcaBoobyIMG_9258.htm
    
    Scroll down for the immature bird showing fairly extensive white in its
    
    tail. Both photos are of the same individual which I judged to be late in
    
    its first cycle. In my experience bill color seemed to change depending on
    
    light and angle.
    
    On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:42:37 +0000, "Steve Rottenborn
    
    srottenborn@... [CALBIRDS]"
    
    < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >Hi Alvaro,
    
    >
    
    >You asked whether there were well-documented Masked Boobies with extensive white on the tail. "Extensive" is a matter of interpretation, but here's a photo of a Masked Booby with noticeable white on the central rectrices:
    
    >
    
    > http://www.birdspix.com/north-america/boobies-and-gannets-sulidae/masked-booby#jp-carousel-3739
    
    >
    
    >Also, Bob Pitman sent the CBRC a photo of a subadult Masked Booby with a similar amount of white at the base of the central rectrices. This amount of white in the tail seems to be the exception in Masked Booby, and certainly many Nazca Boobies have more extensive and conspicuous white in the tail. However, the CBRC has been wrestling with some records of subadult Masked/Nazca Boobies with about as much white in the central rectrices as on the bird in the link above, and with adult bill color just barely beginning to show, so we've been interested in whether that amount of white points to Nazca and eliminates Masked - apparently it does not.
    
    >
    
    >Your comments about juvenile Nazca Boobies already showing extensive white in the tail are interesting, and we were wondering whether juvenile Masked Boobies ever show extensive white in the tail or whether juvenile Masked Boobies are always dark-tailed. "Always" and "ever" are tricky words - there is still much we need to learn about variability in Masked and Nazca Boobies, so it may not be possible to know the extremes, but I'd be interested in any photos of juvenile Masked Boobies (i.e., Masked/Nazca types well away from Nazca breeding range) showing white in the central recs.
    
    >
    
    >Steve Rottenborn
    
    >Morgan Hill, CA
    
    >
    
    >
    
    >
    
    >
    
    --
    
    Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
  14. -back to top-
  15. RE: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 2:56pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Tom,
    
    Thanks. I am interested in this question. One thing to consider is the interplay between age and the white on the central rectrices. I posted a bunch of photos on the Facebook Advanced ID site some time ago about this. But in some **juvenile** Nazca Boobies in the Galapagos, the white is showing in the central tail feathers before fledging. I am not sure if you need to be a member to see this:
    
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.phpfbid=10155071688133520 < https://www.facebook.com/photo.phpfbid=10155071688133520&set=pcb.1417872404975626&type=3&theater&ifg=1 > &set=pcb.1417872404975626&type=3&theater&ifg=1
    
    regards,
    
    Alvaro
    
    Alvaro Jaramillo
    
    alvaro@...
    
    www.alvarosadventures.com
    
    From: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom Benson Thomasabenson@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:49 PM
    
    To: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com
    
    Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee
    
    Alvaro,
    
    The committee reviewed a number of photos of Masked Boobies, a couple of which showed extensive white on the tail. I do not recall where those photos were from, but perhaps other committee members can chime in with the source of those photos.
    
    Tom
    
    Tom Benson
    
    Secretary, CBRC
    
    
  16. -back to top-
  17. RE: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 2:15pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Kimball,
    
    Are there well documented (photos/specimens) Masked Boobies with
    
    extensive white on the tail
    
    Thanks,
    
    Alvaro
    
    Alvaro Jaramillo
    
    alvaro@...
    
    www.alvarosadventures.com
    
    From: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf
    
    Of Kimball Garrett kgarrett@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:03 PM
    
    To: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com
    
    Subject: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee
    
    Birders,
    
    The California Bird Records Committee held its annual meeting in Los Gatos
    
    19-20 January. Steve Rottenborn, CBRC Chair, has provided the following
    
    highlights of that meeting along with some recent CBRC decisions.
    
    COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
    
    Dan Singer, Peter Pyle, and Jim Pike were elected as voting members. Steve
    
    Rottenborn, Dan Singer, and Tom Benson were elected as Chair, Vice Chair,
    
    and Secretary, respectively. The terms of Lauren Harter, Kristie Nelson, and
    
    Scott Terrill expired.
    
    STATE LIST
    
    Recently accepted additions to the California list are all from offshore
    
    islands - Jouanin's Petrel (1 Jun 2016, Santa Barbara Island, SBA), Kermadec
    
    Petrel (8 Sep 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), and Eurasian Wryneck (25
    
    Sep 2017, San Clemente Island, LA). With these additions, the state list
    
    stands at 668 species. Other potential first state records awaiting CBRC
    
    review include Band-rumped Storm Petrel (10-11 Nov 2017, Southeast Farallon
    
    Island, SF), Citrine Wagtail (15-16 Dec 2017, Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area,
    
    YOL), and Tropical Parula (5 Jan 2018-present, Huntington Beach, ORA).
    
    REVIEW LIST
    
    Dusky-capped Flycatcher was removed from the Review List on the basis of the
    
    number of accepted records (110 at the time of the meeting, with an average
    
    of 4.3/year over the last 10 years) and relatively high acceptance rate
    
    (89%). All five current wintering Dusky-capped Flycatchers that were first
    
    recorded in 2017 will still be reviewed; please send your documentation for
    
    these individuals, or any other review species, to the CBRC secretary at
    
    secretary@... or by
    
    using the online form at
    
    http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html.
    
    OTHER DISCUSSIONS/DECISIONS
    
    Identification of adult Masked and Nazca boobies is straightforward given
    
    adequate views, but identification of subadults is more challenging. Along
    
    with the recent increase in numbers of adult Masked and, especially, Nazca
    
    boobies in California, the Committee has wrestled with the identity of a
    
    number of subadult birds. To supplement information in the identification
    
    literature, the CBRC reached out to experts Robert Pitman and Mike Force for
    
    information on how quickly subadults start to acquire the "adult" bill
    
    color, how reliable the presence/extent of white on the central rectrices is
    
    for identification, and how frequently hybridization between the two species
    
    occurs. More information on all these issues is needed, but it appears that
    
    some immatures begin to acquire the greenish (Masked) or pinkish (Nazca)
    
    bill color after about a year, and the presence of those colors is the most
    
    reliable field character. Until those colors are apparent in the bill,
    
    reliable identification may not be possible. Presence of extensive white in
    
    the central rectrices is suggestive of Nazca, but some Nazcas lack extensive
    
    white, and a small percentage of Masked Boobies can show extensive white.
    
    Hybridization between the two species does occur, but hybrids are apparently
    
    infrequent enough that the probability of encountering one is very low.
    
    Using these ID criteria, the CBRC is accepting a number of records to
    
    species, but juveniles, as well as subadults that are not well seen or that
    
    lack expression of some "adult" bill color, may be accepted only as
    
    "Masked/Nazca Booby".
    
    The Committee discussed photos of a California Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireo
    
    that looked quite good for Blue-headed in lower-light exposures (with
    
    apparently sharp demarcation between dark auriculars and white throat) and
    
    much better for Cassin's in more strongly lit or better exposed images,
    
    which blurred the demarcation between the auriculars and throat. The images
    
    of this individual emphasized the importance of obtaining as much
    
    documentation of putative Blue-headed Vireo records as possible (in this
    
    case, recordings of the song matched Cassin's well) while reiterating how
    
    difficult the identification of some Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireos can be.
    
    The Committee decided to re-evaluate the 4 Dec 1986-3 Apr 1987 record of
    
    Oriental Greenfinch from Arcata, HUM. This record was previously not
    
    accepted by the CBRC on the grounds of questionable natural occurrence, as
    
    there were no North American records away from the western Aleutians at the
    
    time and the Committee was concerned about the potential for the bird to
    
    have escaped (or been released) from captivity. The species was then placed
    
    on the CBRC's Supplemental List. With more recent records from the
    
    Pribilofs and British Columbia suggesting a pattern of occurrence, the CBRC
    
    will re-evaluate the record.
    
    The Introduced Birds Subcommittee (IBSC), headed up by Kimball Garrett, will
    
    continue to monitor whether any introduced species warrant addition to the
    
    State List. Research into distribution, habitat associations, breeding
    
    biology, and trends in abundance of introduced species is needed before the
    
    CBRC is likely to add any new introduced species to the state list.
    
    Please feel free to visit the CBRC's webpage at
    
    http://www.californiabirds.org/ for updates and additional information. If
    
    you have any questions about the CBRC, please contact Steve Rottenborn
    
    ( chair@... ) or Tom
    
    Benson ( secretary@...
    
    ).
    
    Finally, I (KLG) will continue to serve as the occasional CBRC
    
    "spokesperson" on Calbirds for the coming year.
    
    Kimball L. Garrett
    
    Ornithology Collections Manager
    
    Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
    
    900 Exposition Blvd.
    
    Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA
    
    kgarrett@...
    
    
  18. -back to top-
  19. News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 12:02pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Birders,
    
    The California Bird Records Committee held its annual meeting in Los Gatos 19-20 January. Steve Rottenborn, CBRC Chair, has provided the following highlights of that meeting along with some recent CBRC decisions.
    
    COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Dan Singer, Peter Pyle, and Jim Pike were elected as voting members. Steve Rottenborn, Dan Singer, and Tom Benson were elected as Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary, respectively. The terms of Lauren Harter, Kristie Nelson, and Scott Terrill
    expired.
    
    STATE LIST Recently accepted additions to the California list are all from offshore islands - Jouanin's Petrel (1 Jun 2016, Santa Barbara Island, SBA), Kermadec Petrel (8 Sep 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), and Eurasian Wryneck (25 Sep 2017,
    San Clemente Island, LA). With these additions, the state list stands at 668 species. Other potential first state records awaiting CBRC review include Band-rumped Storm Petrel (10-11 Nov 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), Citrine Wagtail (15-16 Dec 2017,
    Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, YOL), and Tropical Parula (5 Jan 2018-present, Huntington Beach, ORA).
    
    REVIEW LIST Dusky-capped Flycatcher was removed from the Review List on the basis of the number of accepted records (110 at the time of the meeting, with an average of 4.3/year over the last 10 years) and relatively high acceptance rate (89%). All
    five current wintering Dusky-capped Flycatchers that were first recorded in 2017 will still be reviewed; please send your documentation for these individuals, or any other review species, to the CBRC secretary at
    secretary@... or by using the online form at
    http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html .
    
    OTHER DISCUSSIONS/DECISIONS Identification of adult Masked and Nazca boobies is straightforward given adequate views, but identification of subadults is more challenging. Along with the recent increase in numbers of adult Masked and, especially, Nazca boobies
    in California, the Committee has wrestled with the identity of a number of subadult birds. To supplement information in the identification literature, the CBRC reached out to experts Robert Pitman and Mike Force for information on how quickly subadults start
    to acquire the "adult" bill color, how reliable the presence/extent of white on the central rectrices is for identification, and how frequently hybridization between the two species occurs. More information on all these issues is needed, but it appears that
    some immatures begin to acquire the greenish (Masked) or pinkish (Nazca) bill color after about a year, and the presence of those colors is the most reliable field character. Until those colors are apparent in the bill, reliable identification may not be
    possible. Presence of extensive white in the central rectrices is suggestive of Nazca, but some Nazcas lack extensive white, and a small percentage of Masked Boobies can show extensive white. Hybridization between the two species does occur, but hybrids
    are apparently infrequent enough that the probability of encountering one is very low. Using these ID criteria, the CBRC is accepting a number of records to species, but juveniles, as well as subadults that are not well seen or that lack expression of some
    "adult" bill color, may be accepted only as "Masked/Nazca Booby".
    
    The Committee discussed photos of a California Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireo that looked quite good for Blue-headed in lower-light exposures (with apparently sharp demarcation between dark auriculars and white throat) and much better for
    Cassin's in more strongly lit or better exposed images, which blurred the demarcation between the auriculars and throat. The images of this individual emphasized the importance of obtaining as much documentation of putative Blue-headed Vireo records as possible
    (in this case, recordings of the song matched Cassin's well) while reiterating how difficult the identification of some Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireos can be.
    
    The Committee decided to re-evaluate the 4 Dec 1986-3 Apr 1987 record of Oriental Greenfinch from Arcata, HUM. This record was previously not accepted by the CBRC on the grounds of questionable natural occurrence, as there were no North
    American records away from the western Aleutians at the time and the Committee was concerned about the potential for the bird to have escaped (or been released) from captivity. The species was then placed on the CBRC's Supplemental List. With more recent
    records from the Pribilofs and British Columbia suggesting a pattern of occurrence, the CBRC will re-evaluate the record.
    
    The Introduced Birds Subcommittee (IBSC), headed up by Kimball Garrett, will continue to monitor whether any introduced species warrant addition to the State List. Research into distribution, habitat associations, breeding biology,
    and trends in abundance of introduced species is needed before the CBRC is likely to add any new introduced species to the state list.
    
    Please feel free to visit the CBRC's webpage at
    http://www.californiabirds.org/ for updates and additional information. If you have any questions about the CBRC, please contact Steve Rottenborn ( chair@... ) or Tom Benson ( secretary@... ).
    
    Finally, I (KLG) will continue to serve as the occasional CBRC "spokesperson" on Calbirds for the coming year.
    
    Kimball L. Garrett Ornithology Collections Manager Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA kgarrett@...
  20. -back to top-
  21. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 16, 2018 @ 7:15pm, 6 month(s) ago
    While I was living in Ohio a few years ago there was some concern that the Birding Ohio facebook group was competing with the state listserv. 
    
    I compared some data from the Facebook group with the monthly number of posts to the listserv, and looking over a few years of those data it appeared that (at the time) the listserv activity was chugging along at a pretty steady pace:
    
    https://mostlybirds.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/too-many-birding-forums-in-ohio/
    
    After discussing those results with others, we largely concluded that the Facebook group wasn't competing so much as it was just additional information. Good in that more birds were being reported, but bad in that we could no longer turn to just one resource to monitor those reports. 
    
    In CO, the birding community has come up with a nice partial solution: two organizations "sponsor" (I'm unclear on what that means, exactly) someone to to do regular (daily!) compilations of rarities reported to the list, eBird etc. and submit summaries to the state listserv, CObirds. 
    
    Aggregating information is tricky, but probably the way to go if the problem is that information is scattered across multiple communication platforms. Guiding people towards using these different outlets properly is also a great idea, as others have mentioned, to keep up the quality of that information.
    
    Good birding,
    Paul Hurtado
    Reno, NV
    
    On Jan 12, 2018 2:18 PM, "Paul Lehman lehman.paul@... [CALBIRDS]" < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      It is pretty obvious that over the past few
    years that many
    of the local/county/regional/state listservs have become less
    and less relevant
    to a large number of birders, as many of these people have voted
    with their
    feet….er, fingertips….and moved over to other sites such as
    eBird. Not only
    that, but bird information dissemination appears to have become
    MORE fragmented
    as time goes on, rather than less fragmented. We now have the
    local listservs,
    eBird, WhatsApp/GroupMe text messaging groups, Facebookindividual and group
    sites, personal Flickr sites, personal and private-group text
    messaging, and
    even a handful of old-school folks who actually still call their
    friends on the
    phone! Some of these services are SUPPPOSED to complement each
    other, e.g., a
    text-message group that is supposed to be used for immediate
    dissemination of high-end
    rarity information only, and folks are supposed to post to it
    AND to the local
    listserv in a timely manner, but instead the former is used
    almost exclusively
    and often for more standard bird fare, so the general listserv
    gets only some
    scraps, if anything. Using my home-county listserv here in San
    Diego as an
    example, the number of local birders who now rarely if ever post
    to
    SanDiegoRegionBirding has grown steadily. Most of these folks
    still happily get
    information from such sources, but rarely, if ever, post to it.
    But a good
    number of these people do submit eBird reports on a regular
    basis instead.   Why only
    to one Is it the ease of eBird
    submissions Is it the instantaneous reporting from the field
    (But that is
    also easy to do to a local listserv with any smartphone.) Is it
    that they can
    easily attach their photos to their eBird reports Is there a
    widespread belief
    that posting rarity news only to eBird is “enough”   Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don’t care to give back to a listserv
    from which they
    got information allowing them to see a rare bird Whatever the
    reason, recent
    checks on many days since mid-December of the number of posts to
    the San Diego listserv
    versus the number of county “rarity” alerts coming through eBird
    is something
    on the magnitude of 1 to 20 or 30 (albeit somewhat skewed by the
    numbers of
    out-of-town Nazca Booby viewers and local-birder 2018 “big year”
    kickoffs, and
    by the potential for multiple rarities mentioned per a single
    listserv post but
    only one species per eBird alert). A little of this dichotomy
    can be explained
    by the fact that some birds such as a semi-tame,
    multi-year-staying Greater
    White-fronted Goose at a local lake still appears daily on the
    eBird rare-bird
    alert—given that it is a flagged species—but that virtually
    nobody would dream
    of posting its continued existence on a regular basis on the
    county listserv.
    Or, over the past few weeks, the continued presence of Nazca
    Boobies, a
    wintering Red-throated Pipit, and many other regional and
    state-level rarities
    locally, has drawn an especially large number of California
    birders from out of
    town as well as many out-of-state birders—few of whom have
    posting privileges
    to the San Diego listserv, but almost all of them can post to
    eBird. In most areas, eBird has become the best way
    to keep track,
    on an almost daily basis, of the continued presence of existing
    rarities. (With
    the caveat that some such reports are erroneous, as they are
    through any
    source, and folks should be careful following up on some such
    reports,
    especially when made many days after anyone else has reported
    seeing the bird.
    Even when some folks are chasing known birds at known locations,
    they can mess
    it up. Posted photos of misidentified stakeouts are not overly
    rare, and the
    number of such erroneous reports without photos are likely even
    greater. Just recently,
    for example, a friend of mine from out-of-state, after seeing
    Nazca Booby here,
    drove up to Santa Maria to see the tame Garganey. He was greeted
    there by a birding
    couple, also from out of state and chasing the same birds, who
    proudly pointed
    out the bird to him: a female Northern Pintail. He quickly
    showed them the real
    Garganey. But, the bottom line is, don’t underestimate the
    ability of some
    observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.  
    But I digress…) Are eBird reports also good at giving the
    needed background
    information on how to FIND these stakeout rarities Sometimes
    yes, sometimes
    no. A dropped pin at a hotspot may or may not signify a specific
    spot or may
    just denote the location of a large park or marsh where the bird
    is. Some
    observers add in exact lat/long information, but many do not.
    Also, because
    many human beings (including many birders) are geographically
    challenged, many
    locations they give in their eBird submissions are MIS-STATED or
    MIS-PLOTTED,
    which is one potentially serious problem with using eBird data
    in a number of
    ways in general. But even if the general location is indeed
    correct, the included
    comments (if any) may say little about the specific tree(s) a
    bird is
    frequenting, or the best time of day it might be seen there,
    origin
    questionable issues, or information about possible legal access
    issues, etc. These
    specifics, which can be very important, are often best imparted
    through posts
    to the local listservs. Just in the past couple weeks, such was
    the case here
    in San Diego County with a couple good posts to the listserv
    dealing with
    private property issues and homeowner and birder behavior
    involving the Ramona
    Harris’s Hawk.. Does one need to post an update on everycontinuing rarity
    every single day on a local listserv No, although regular
    updates on high-end
    and just-recently-found rarities are very helpful, and then
    periodic (weekly) updates
    that such-and-such long-staying or returning rarity is still
    present is also
    helpful to other birders. But few local birders supply that
    information.
    Recently here in San Diego, there have been MULTIPLE DAILY eBird
    updates on
    Nazca Booby, Red-throated Pipit, Greater Pewee, Thick-billed
    Kingbird and
    Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Harris’s Hawk, Tricolored Herons,
    Nestor Park birds,
    etc. etc. etc., and almost nothing on these birds for well over
    a week or more on
    SanDiegoRegionBirding. Nothing. The question then becomes: “Does
    it matter” Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that’s what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing “other people’s birds,” very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing “their own” birding. That’s great, too!   And most of us birders are
    at some point in
    the continuum between these two extremes. But the bottom line
    is, a relatively
    small number of birders find a relatively large percentage of
    the rare birds.
    And many birders do spend much of their birding time chasing
    previously found
    birds. So, what can this large group of chasers contribute
    Perhaps
    rarity-status update information (BOTH positive and negative) if
    they see that such
    updates have not been made in “a reasonable time period,” or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird’s preferred exact site or timing of
    appearance during the
    day .
    M aybe include a bit more information
    than the
    standard "continuing bird" Include maybe where and when the
    continuing bird was seen if possibly different from “usual.”
    And if the report
    substantially extends the date-span, then ideally including
    some comment about
    how it was identified, or a photo.  Some eBird reviewers
    avoid confirming
    late reports of continuing rarities without at least some
    documentation, given
    that some birds are reported long after they actually
    departed. If folks use only eBird for their rare-bird
    chasing bird
    info, and then submit only to eBird, then fine. If they do
    likewise only via
    some texting or Facebook group, fine! But if they routinely use
    a local
    listserv to get their “chase” information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them—be it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness—then this
    does seem just a
    wee bit galling to those birders who are finding and sharing. Perhaps most birders are perfectly happy with
    the quality
    and speed (i.e., efficiency) of the rare-bird information they
    receive and
    think that my concerns are unfounded and mostly merely tilting
    at windmills.
    Others may sympathize fully. In any case, at least I got to
    vent! --Paul Lehman,  
    San
    Diego  
  22. -back to top-
  23. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? LINK
    DATE: Jan 15, 2018 @ 8:22pm, 6 month(s) ago
    1. Chuck so perfectly stated what I have wanted to write, that I won't duplicate his effort.
    2. There are a lot of people--and this is not age-related--who just don't want to use/be on eBird.
    3. eBird is powerful, there are a lot of good things about it, but it is also too much, overwhelming, etc.
    4. My job randomly sends me to Tennessee, so instead of unsubscribing and re-subscribing whenever I have a trip coming up, I just stay subscribed. I can tell my the subject lines of their emails if I want to read them, or not. The subject lines, alone, give me an idea of what's expected, and what's rare for Tennessee.
    5. Same goes for the fact that I remain subscribed to the two states' email listserves for my neighbors: Arizona and Nevada. If I lived up north, I would be subscribed to the Oregon list.
    If it was only about data, or Big Data, then scientists would never have conferences where they get together at a convention center.
    
    Tom Miko  (boo, hiss)
    Claremont
    "City of Trees" (I am allergic to trees; my mother had me tested.)
    LA County
    909.241.3300
    
    Thomas Geza Miko
    http://www.tgmiko.com/
    Claremont, Los Angeles County, California
    909.241.3300
    
    On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Chuck & Lillian misclists@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      Birders:
    
    Yes, they're still relevant. I read CALBIRDS and LaCoBirds every day. I
    try to post only when necessary. [I have been accused of posting slightly
    off-topic items, an accusation which - IMHO - is lacking a sense of
    humor.]
    
     I find it very useful for people (it certainly doesn't have to be
    the *same* person) to continue to report on rare birds. I don't get out
    right away on rarities, as some people habitually do, and it might take a
    week - even two - for me to get there. It's nice to know the bird is
    still there. Driving around fruitlessly in Los Angeles or SoCal traffic
    is hazardous to your mental health.
    
    I don't use GPS (no smartphone - Luddites Live!), but many do, and it
    seems silly to possess the exact location info and not share it. Written
    descriptions of location PLUS the GPS coordinates would serve both camps.
    One can always google at home the GPS coordinates and write down where it
    is.
    
    I have found *many many* times that descriptions given on-line will get
    you to the general locale, but then are lacking some crucial detail(s)
    which would get you to the bird, if you had them. Details, please! Put
    yourself in the birding shoes of someone new to the area.
    
    Chuck Almdale
    
    North Hills, Ca.
    
    At 07:46 AM 1/13/2018, Ken Burton shrikethree@... [CALBIRDS]
    wrote:
     
    
    Paul,
    
    You raise some good points (thanks for venting).  Your eBird
    analysis raises a slightly off-topic issue with eBird that bothers me and
    this seems like a reasonable opportunity to share it.
    
    As you point out, eBird hotspots can be quite large.  eBird
    reviewers, following eBird instructions, ask people who submit rarities
    at more-precise personal locations to move their observations to the
    hotspots or they create new "stakeout" hotspots for them and
    ask observers to move them there.  For some reason, there's a
    desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.  I feel this
    consolidation often masks location precision that can elucidate valuable
    movement patterns of these birds, and I generally resist these requests
    (unless the existing hotspot is extremely small or my sighting was
    extremely close to its plotted location), at least until the bird is
    gone.
    
    Perhaps someone can explain why having rarity sightings clumped into
    single locations is worth erasing the precision of personal locations
    plotted exactly where sightings are made, which is especially easy and
    accurate to do on mobile devices.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ken Burton
    
    Crescent City
    
    On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paul Lehman
    lehman.paul@...
    [CALBIRDS]
    <
    CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
     
    
    It is pretty obvious that over the past few years that many of the
    local/county/regional/state listservs have become less and less relevant
    to a large number of birders, as many of these people have voted with
    their feet….er, fingertips….and moved over to other sitestes such as
    eBird. Not only that, but bird information dissemination appears to have
    become MORE fragmented as time goes on, rather than less fragmented. We
    now have the local listservs, eBird, WhatsApp/GroupMe text messaging
    groups, Facebook individual and group sites, personal Flickr sites,
    personal and private-group text messaging, and even a handful of
    old-school folks who actually still call their friends on the phone! Some
    of these services are SUPPPOSED to complement each other, e.g., a
    text-message group that is supposed to be used for immediate
    dissemination of high-end rarity information only, and folks are supposed
    to post to it AND to the local listserv in a timely manner, but instead
    the former is used almost exclusively and often for more standard bird
    fare, so the general listserv gets only some scraps, if anything.
    
    Using my home-county listserv here in San Diego as an example, the
    number of local birders who now rarely if ever post to
    SanDiegoRegionBirding has grown steadily. Most of these folks still
    happily get information from such sources, but rarely, if ever, post to
    it. But a good number of these people do submit eBird reports on a
    regular basis instead.  Why only to one Is it the ease of eBird
    submissions Is it the instantaneous reporting from the field (But that
    is also easy to do to a local listserv with any smartphone.) Is it that
    they can easily attach their photos to their eBird reports Is there a
    widespread belief that posting rarity news only to eBird is
    “enoughâ€Â  Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or
    just lazy, or simply don’t care to give back to a listserv from which
    they got information allowing them to see a rare bird Whatever the
    reason, recent checks on many days since mid-December of the number of
    posts to the San Diego listserv versus the number of county “rarityâ€
    alerts coming through eBird is something on the magnitude of 1 to 20 or
    30 (albeit somewhat skewed by the numbers of out-of-town Nazca Booby
    viewers and local-birder 2018 “big year†kickoffs, and by the
    potential for multiple rarities mentioned per a single listserv post but
    only one species per eBird alert). A little of this dichotomy can be
    explained by the fact that some birds such as a semi-tame,
    multi-year-staying Greater White-fronted Goose at a local lake still
    appears daily on the eBird rare-bird alert—given that it is a flagged
    species—but that vt virtually nobody would dream of posting its continued
    existence on a regular basis on the county listserv. Or, over the past
    few weeks, the continued presence of Nazca Boobies, a wintering
    Red-throated Pipit, and many other regional and state-level rarities
    locally, has drawn an especially large number of California birders from
    out of town as well as many out-of-state birders—few of whom have posting
    privileges to the San Diego listserv, but almost all of them can post to
    eBird.
    
    In most areas, eBird has become the best way to keep track, on an
    almost daily basis, of the continued presence of existing rarities. (With
    the caveat that some such reports are erroneous, as they are through any
    source, and folks should be careful following up on some such reports,
    especially when made many days after anyone else has reported seeing the
    bird. Even when some folks are chasing known birds at known locations,
    they can mess it up. Posted photos of misidentified stakeouts are not
    overly rare, and the number of such erroneous reports without photos are
    likely even greater. Just recently, for example, a friend of mine from
    out-of-state, after seeing Nazca Booby here, drove up to Santa Maria to
    see the tame Garganey. He was greeted there by a birding couple, also
    from out of state and chasing the same birds, who proudly pointed out the
    bird to him: a female Northern Pintail. He quickly showed them the real
    Garganey. But, the bottom line is, don’t underestimate the ability of
    some observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.  But I
    digress…)
    
    Are eBird reports also good at giving the needed background
    information on how to FIND these stakeout rarities Sometimes yes,
    sometimes no. A dropped pin at a hotspot may or may not signify a
    specific spot or may just denote the location of a large park or marsh
    where the bird is. Some observers add in exact lat/long information, but
    many do not. Also, because many human beings (including many birders) are
    geographically challenged, many locations they give in their eBird
    submissions are MIS-STATED or MIS-PLOTTED, which is one potentially
    serious problem with using eBird data in a number of ways in general. But
    even if the general location is indeed correct, the included comments (if
    any) may say little about the specific tree(s) a bird is frequenting, or
    the best time of day it might be seen there, origin questionable issues,
    or information about possible legal access issues, etc. These specifics,
    which can be very important, are often best imparted through posts to the
    local listservs. Just in the past couple weeks, such was the case here in
    San Diego County with a couple good posts to the listserv dealing with
    private property issues and homeowner and birder behavior involving the
    Ramona Harris’s Hawk.
    
    Does one need to post an update on every continuing rarity every
    single day on a local listserv No, although regular updates on high-end
    and just-recently-found rarities are very helpful, and then periodic
    (weekly) updates that such-and-such long-staying or returning rarity is
    still present is also helpful to other birders. But few local birders
    supply that information. Recently here in San Diego, there have been
    MULTIPLE DAILY eBird updates on Nazca Booby, Red-throated Pipit, Greater
    Pewee, Thick-billed Kingbird and Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Harris’s
    Hawk, Tricolored Herons, Nestor Park birds, etc. etc. etc., and almost
    nothing on these birds for well over a week or more on
    SanDiegoRegionBirding. Nothing. The question then becomes: “Does it
    matterâ€
    
    Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost
    their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If
    that’s what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders
    hate chasing “other people’s birds,†very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their time doing “their own†birding. That’s great,
    too!  And most of us birders are at some point in the continuum
    between these two extremes. But the bottom line is, a relatively small
    number of birders find a relatively large percentage of the rare birds.
    And many birders do spend much of their birding time chasing previously
    found birds. So, what can this large group of chasers contribute Perhaps
    rarity-status update information (BOTH positive and negative) if they see
    that such updates have not been made in “a reasonable time period,â€
    or perhaps any news on changes in a bird’s preferred exact site or
    timing of appearance during the day. Maybe include a bit more information
    than the standard "continuing bird"Â Include maybe where and
    when the continuing bird was seen if possibly different from “usual..â€
    And if the report substantially extends the date-span, then ideally
    including some comment about how it was identified, or a photo. 
    Some eBird reviewers avoid confirming late reports of continuing rarities
    without at least some documentation, given that some birds are reported
    long after they actually departed.
    
    If folks use only eBird for their rare-bird chasing bird info, and
    then submit only to eBird, then fine. If they do likewise only via some
    texting or Facebook group, fine! But if they routinely use a local
    listserv to get their “chase†information, see the bird, and then
    rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them—be it
    for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness—then
    thhis does seem just a wee bit galling to those birders who are finding
    and sharing.
    
    Perhaps most birders are perfectly happy with the quality and speed
    (i.e., efficiency) of the rare-bird information they receive and think
    that my concerns are unfounded and mostly merely tilting at windmills.
    Others may sympathize fully. In any case, at least I got to
    vent!
    
    --Paul Lehman,  San Diego
    
    Â 
  24. -back to top-
  25. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 5:24pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Ken,
    
    Personal locations for rarities that are plotted by observers are often inaccurate, and one ends up with a cluster of observations that are not *more* accurate, but less accurate than a single hotspot would be. A mild example (as most are plotted very close to the yard) is the Broad-billed Hummingbird currently in a backyard in Santa Barbara. This bird rarely strays from one lemon tree/feeder in this very small yard, yet the personal locations are out front, across the street, etc. (some of this might be due to poor GPS accuracy). On a scale this small, it doesn't matter that these aren't perfectly accurate. I've seen other examples with rarities in Ventura Co. of birds that were known to have never strayed far and the personal locations are, forgive me, all over the map. If one wants to look at the record in eBird and see the date range and documentation in the mapping feature, then one would have to click each and every personal location (which can be challenging if not impossible when you have 10, 20, 75 personal locations in a giant cluster). It is simpler and very often more accurate in such cases to have a hotspot that all users submit to.
    
    If the rarity in question is moving more widely, e.g., the Ross's Gull in San Mateo and many other examples, then I agree-- a wide scattering of personal locations may be more appropriate than a couple of artificially exact hotspots. Additionally note that many eBird observations aren't accurate point localities and nor is that the intention--we're more often submitting traveling counts where almost none of the observations are plotted exactly.
    
    Adam Searcy
    
    On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Ken Burton shrikethree@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      Paul,
    
    You raise some good points (thanks for venting).  Your eBird analysis raises a slightly off-topic issue with eBird that bothers me and this seems like a reasonable opportunity to share it.
    
    As you point out, eBird hotspots can be quite large.  eBird reviewers, following eBird instructions, ask people who submit rarities at more-precise personal locations to move their observations to the hotspots or they create new "stakeout" hotspots for them and ask observers to move them there.  For some reason, there's a desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.  I feel this consolidation often masks location precision that can elucidate valuable movement patterns of these birds, and I generally resist these requests (unless the existing hotspot is extremely small or my sighting was extremely close to its plotted location), at least until the bird is gone.
    
    Perhaps someone can explain why having rarity sightings clumped into single locations is worth erasing the precision of personal locations plotted exactly where sightings are made, which is especially easy and accurate to do on mobile devices.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ken Burton
    Crescent City
    
    On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paul Lehman lehman.paul@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
      It is pretty obvious that over the past few
    years that many
    of the local/county/regional/state listservs have become less
    and less relevant
    to a large number of birders, as many of these people have voted
    with their
    feet….er, fingertips….and moved over to other sites such as
    eBird. Not only
    that, but bird information dissemination appears to have become
    MORE fragmented
    as time goes on, rather than less fragmented. We now have the
    local listservs,
    eBird, WhatsApp/GroupMe text messaging groups, Facebook
    individual and group
    sites, personal Flickr sites, personal and private-group text
    messaging, and
    even a handful of old-school folks who actually still call their
    friends on the
    phone! Some of these services are SUPPPOSED to complement each
    other, e.g., a
    text-message group that is supposed to be used for immediate
    dissemination of high-end
    rarity information only, and folks are supposed to post to it
    AND to the local
    listserv in a timely manner, but instead the former is used
    almost exclusively
    and often for more standard bird fare, so the general listserv
    gets only some
    scraps, if anything. Using my home-county listserv here in San
    Diego as an
    example, the number of local birders who now rarely if ever post
    to
    SanDiegoRegionBirding has grown steadily. Most of these folks
    still happily get
    information from such sources, but rarely, if ever, post to it.
    But a good
    number of these people do submit eBird reports on a regular
    basis instead.   Why only
    to one Is it the ease of eBird
    submissions Is it the instantaneous reporting from the field
    (But that is
    also easy to do to a local listserv with any smartphone.) Is it
    that they can
    easily attach their photos to their eBird reports Is there a
    widespread belief
    that posting rarity news only to eBird is “enough”   Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don’t care to give back to a listserv
    from which they
    got information allowing them to see a rare bird Whatever the
    reason, recent
    checks on many days since mid-December of the number of posts to
    the San Diego listserv
    versus the number of county “rarity” alerts coming through eBird
    is something
    on the magnitude of 1 to 20 or 30 (albeit somewhat skewed by the
    numbers of
    out-of-town Nazca Booby viewers and local-birder 2018 “big year”
    kickoffs, and
    by the potential for multiple rarities mentioned per a single
    listserv post but
    only one species per eBird alert). A little of this dichotomy
    can be explained
    by the fact that some birds such as a semi-tame,
    multi-year-staying Greater
    White-fronted Goose at a local lake still appears daily on the
    eBird rare-bird
    alert—given that it is a flagged species—but that virtually
    nobody would dream
    of posting its continued existence on a regular basis on the
    county listserv.
    Or, over the past few weeks, the continued presence of Nazca
    Boobies, a
    wintering Red-throated Pipit, and many other regional and
    state-level rarities
    locally, has drawn an especially large number of California
    birders from out of
    town as well as many out-of-state birders—few of whom have
    posting privileges
    to the San Diego listserv, but almost all of them can post to
    eBird. In most areas, eBird has become the best way
    to keep track,
    on an almost daily basis, of the continued presence of existing
    rarities. (With
    the caveat that some such reports are erroneous, as they are
    through any
    source, and folks should be careful following up on some such
    reports,
    especially when made many days after anyone else has reported
    seeing the bird.
    Even when some folks are chasing known birds at known locations,
    they can mess
    it up. Posted photos of misidentified stakeouts are not overly
    rare, and the
    number of such erroneous reports without photos are likely even
    greater. Just recently,
    for example, a friend of mine from out-of-state, after seeing
    Nazca Booby here,
    drove up to Santa Maria to see the tame Garganey. He was greeted
    there by a birding
    couple, also from out of state and chasing the same birds, who
    proudly pointed
    out the bird to him: a female Northern Pintail. He quickly
    showed them the real
    Garganey. But, the bottom line is, don’t underestimate the
    ability of some
    observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.  
    But I digress…) Are eBird reports also good at giving the
    needed background
    information on how to FIND these stakeout rarities Sometimes
    yes, sometimes
    no. A dropped pin at a hotspot may or may not signify a specific
    spot or may
    just denote the location of a large park or marsh where the bird
    is. Some
    observers add in exact lat/long information, but many do not.
    Also, because
    many human beings (including many birders) are geographically
    challenged, many
    locations they give in their eBird submissions are MIS-STATED or
    MIS-PLOTTED,
    which is one potentially serious problem with using eBird data
    in a number of
    ways in general. But even if the general location is indeed
    correct, the included
    comments (if any) may say little about the specific tree(s) a
    bird is
    frequenting, or the best time of day it might be seen there,
    origin
    questionable issues, or information about possible legal access
    issues, etc. These
    specifics, which can be very important, are often best imparted
    through posts
    to the local listservs. Just in the past couple weeks, such was
    the case here
    in San Diego County with a couple good posts to the listserv
    dealing with
    private property issues and homeowner and birder behavior
    involving the Ramona
    Harris’s Hawk. Does one need to post an update on every
    continuing rarity
    every single day on a local listserv No, although regular
    updates on high-end
    and just-recently-found rarities are very helpful, and then
    periodic (weekly) updates
    that such-and-such long-staying or returning rarity is still
    present is also
    helpful to other birders. But few local birders supply that
    information.
    Recently here in San Diego, there have been MULTIPLE DAILY eBird
    updates on
    Nazca Booby, Red-throated Pipit, Greater Pewee, Thick-billed
    Kingbird and
    Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Harris’s Hawk, Tricolored Herons,
    Nestor Park birds,
    etc. etc. etc., and almost nothing on these birds for well over
    a week or more on
    SanDiegoRegionBirding. Nothing. The question then becomes: “Does
    it matter” Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that’s what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing “other people’s birds,” very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing “their own” birding. That’s great, too!   And most of us birders are
    at some point in
    the continuum between these two extremes. But the bottom line
    is, a relatively
    small number of birders find a relatively large percentage of
    the rare birds.
    And many birders do spend much of their birding time chasing
    previously found
    birds. So, what can this large group of chasers contribute
    Perhaps
    rarity-status update information (BOTH positive and negative) if
    they see that such
    updates have not been made in “a reasonable time period,” or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird’s preferred exact site or timing of
    appearance during the
    day .
    M aybe include a bit more information
    than the
    standard "continuing bird" Include maybe where and when the
    continuing bird was seen if possibly different from “usual.”
    And if the report
    substantially extends the date-span, then ideally including
    some comment about
    how it was identified, or a photo.  Some eBird reviewers
    avoid confirming
    late reports of continuing rarities without at least some
    documentation, given
    that some birds are reported long after they actually
    departed. If folks use only eBird for their rare-bird
    chasing bird
    info, and then submit only to eBird, then fine. If they do
    likewise only via
    some texting or Facebook group, fine! But if they routinely use
    a local
    listserv to get their “chase” information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them—be it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness—then this
    does seem just a
    wee bit galling to those birders who are finding and sharing. Perhaps most birders are perfectly happy with
    the quality
    and speed (i.e., efficiency) of the rare-bird information they
    receive and
    think that my concerns are unfounded and mostly merely tilting
    at windmills.
    Others may sympathize fully. In any case, at least I got to
    vent! --Paul Lehman,  
    San
    Diego  
    
    --
    Adam Searcy serpophaga@...
    Camarillo, CA
  26. -back to top-
  27. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 3:41pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Ken, you are so right on with this.  I have posted to within a few feet of where I have seen a bird, only to have someone write me and tell me to move it to a hot spot, not all that close to where I saw it.  Also, We went on a desert trip two years ago and saw something like 170 burrowing owls.  We didn't estimate, we did the old fence post tally for every single bird we saw.  I'd say the margin for error was 1 to 2 percent at most, and we were told that out list wouldn't be allowed because that was more birds than the habbitat would allow.  I mean it, and I really mean it and this is still a very sour spot for us.  We fence posted tallied that many birds, but nobody will ever see our list.  I even invited the person to join us, but got absolutely no reply.  If I had done this on a list serv, it would have gone through and other could have enjoyed the same success that we did without being too invasive on these birds.  We need our Listservs, just please, be a little more understanding on them is all I ask.
     
    Mark Stratton
    San Diego
      Sent:  Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:46 AM
    
    From:  "Ken Burton shrikethree@... [CALBIRDS]"
    
    To:  "Paul Lehman"
    
    Cc:  CALBIRDS
    
    Subject:  Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant [a bit long]
        Paul,  
    You raise some good points (thanks for venting).  Your eBird analysis raises a slightly off-topic issue with eBird that bothers me and this seems like a reasonable opportunity to share it.
     
    As you point out, eBird hotspots can be quite large.  eBird reviewers, following eBird instructions, ask people who submit rarities at more-precise personal locations to move their observations to the hotspots or they create new "stakeout" hotspots for them and ask observers to move them there.  For some reason, there's a desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.  I feel this consolidation often masks location precision that can elucidate valuable movement patterns of these birds, and I generally resist these requests (unless the existing hotspot is extremely small or my sighting was extremely close to its plotted location), at least until the bird is gone.
     
    Perhaps someone can explain why having rarity sightings clumped into single locations is worth erasing the precision of personal locations plotted exactly where sightings are made, which is especially easy and accurate to do on mobile devices.
     
    Thanks.
     
    Ken Burton
    Crescent City
    
      On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paul Lehman lehman.paul@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:         It is pretty obvious that over the past few years that many of the local/county/regional/state listservs have become less and less relevant to a large number of birders, as many of these people have voted with their feet….er, fingertips….and moved over to other sites such as eBird. Not only that, but bird information dissemination appears to have become MORE fragmented as time goes on, rather than less fragmented. We now have the local listservs, eBird, WhatsApp/GroupMe text messaging groups, Facebook individual and group sites, personal Flickr sites, personal and private-group text messaging, and even a handful of old-school folks who actually still call their friends on the phone! Some of these services are SUPPPOSED to complement each other, e.g., a text-message group that is supposed to be used for immediate dissemination of high-end rarity information only, and folks are supposed to post to it AND to the local listserv in a timely manner, but instead the former is used almost exclusively and often for more standard bird fare, so the general listserv gets only some scraps, if anything. Using my home-county listserv here in San Diego as an example, the number of local birders who now rarely if ever post to SanDiegoRegionBirding has grown steadily. Most of these folks still happily get information from such sources, but rarely, if ever, post to it. But a good number of these people do submit eBird reports on a regular basis instead.   Why only to one Is it the ease of eBird submissions Is it the instantaneous reporting from the field (But that is also easy to do to a local listserv with any smartphone.) Is it that they can easily attach their photos to their eBird reports Is there a widespread belief that posting rarity news only to eBird is “enough”   Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or just lazy, or simply don’t care to give back to a listserv from which they got information allowing them to see a rare bird Whatever the reason, recent checks on many days since mid-December of the number of posts to the San Diego listserv versus the number of county “rarity” alerts coming through eBird is something on the magnitude of 1 to 20 or 30 (albeit somewhat skewed by the numbers of out-of-town Nazca Booby viewers and local-birder 2018 “big year” kickoffs, and by the potential for multiple rarities mentioned per a single listserv post but only one species per eBird alert). A little of this dichotomy can be explained by the fact that some birds such as a semi-tame, multi-year-staying Greater White-fronted Goose at a local lake still appears daily on the eBird rare-bird alert—given that it is a flagged species—but that virtually nobody would dream of posting its continued existence on a regular basis on the county listserv. Or, over the past few weeks, the continued presence of Nazca Boobies, a wintering Red-throated Pipit, and many other regional and state-level rarities locally, has drawn an especially large number of California birders from out of town as well as many out-of-state birders—few of whom have posting privileges to the San Diego listserv, but almost all of them can post to eBird. In most areas, eBird has become the best way to keep track, on an almost daily basis, of the continued presence of existing rarities. (With the caveat that some such reports are erroneous, as they are through any source, and folks should be careful following up on some such reports, especially when made many days after anyone else has reported seeing the bird. Even when some folks are chasing known birds at known locations, they can mess it up. Posted photos of misidentified stakeouts are not overly rare, and the number of such erroneous reports without photos are likely even greater. Just recently, for example, a friend of mine from out-of-state, after seeing Nazca Booby here, drove up to Santa Maria to see the tame Garganey. He was greeted there by a birding couple, also from out of state and chasing the same birds, who proudly pointed out the bird to him: a female Northern Pintail. He quickly showed them the real Garganey. But, the bottom line is, don’t underestimate the ability of some observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.   But I digress…) Are eBird reports also good at giving the needed background information on how to FIND these stakeout rarities Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A dropped pin at a hotspot may or may not signify a specific spot or may just denote the location of a large park or marsh where the bird is. Some observers add in exact lat/long information, but many do not. Also, because many human beings (including many birders) are geographically challenged, many locations they give in their eBird submissions are MIS-STATED or MIS-PLOTTED, which is one potentially serious problem with using eBird data in a number of ways in general. But even if the general location is indeed correct, the included comments (if any) may say little about the specific tree(s) a bird is frequenting, or the best time of day it might be seen there, origin questionable issues, or information about possible legal access issues, etc. These specifics, which can be very important, are often best imparted through posts to the local listservs. Just in the past couple weeks, such was the case here in San Diego County with a couple good posts to the listserv dealing with private property issues and homeowner and birder behavior involving the Ramona Harris’s Hawk. Does one need to post an update on every continuing rarity every single day on a local listserv No, although regular updates on high-end and just-recently-found rarities are very helpful, and then periodic (weekly) updates that such-and-such long-staying or returning rarity is still present is also helpful to other birders. But few local birders supply that information. Recently here in San Diego, there have been MULTIPLE DAILY eBird updates on Nazca Booby, Red-throated Pipit, Greater Pewee, Thick-billed Kingbird and Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Harris’s Hawk, Tricolored Herons, Nestor Park birds, etc. etc. etc., and almost nothing on these birds for well over a week or more on SanDiegoRegionBirding. Nothing. The question then becomes: “Does it matter” Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If that’s what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders hate chasing “other people’s birds,” very rarely do it, but spend almost all their time doing “their own” birding. That’s great, too!   And most of us birders are at some point in the continuum between these two extremes. But the bottom line is, a relatively small number of birders find a relatively large percentage of the rare birds. And many birders do spend much of their birding time chasing previously found birds. So, what can this large group of chasers contribute Perhaps rarity-status update information (BOTH positive and negative) if they see that such updates have not been made in “a reasonable time period,” or perhaps any news on changes in a bird’s preferred exact site or timing of appearance during the day . M aybe include a bit more information than the standard "continuing bird" Include maybe where and when the continuing bird was seen if possibly different from “usual.” And if the report substantially extends the date-span, then ideally including some comment about how it was identified, or a photo.  Some eBird reviewers avoid confirming late reports of continuing rarities without at least some documentation, given that some birds are reported long after they actually departed. If folks use only eBird for their rare-bird chasing bird info, and then submit only to eBird, then fine. If they do likewise only via some texting or Facebook group, fine! But if they routinely use a local listserv to get their “chase” information, see the bird, and then rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them—be it for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness—then this does seem just a wee bit galling to those birders who are finding and sharing. Perhaps most birders are perfectly happy with the quality and speed (i.e., efficiency) of the rare-bird information they receive and think that my concerns are unfounded and mostly merely tilting at windmills. Others may sympathize fully. In any case, at least I got to vent! --Paul Lehman,   San Diego      
     
    
     
  28. -back to top-
  29. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 3:50pm, 6 month(s) ago
    Mark,
    
    How many miles did your 170-BUOW list cover  eBird requests that lists cover no more than five miles (and some would say even that's too much).  Even in the Imperial Valley, I don't think BUOW densities reach 34/mile.
    
    Ken
    
    On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Mark Stratton < zostropz@... > wrote:
    Ken, you are so right on with this.  I have posted to within a few feet of where I have seen a bird, only to have someone write me and tell me to move it to a hot spot, not all that close to where I saw it.  Also, We went on a desert trip two years ago and saw something like 170 burrowing owls.  We didn't estimate, we did the old fence post tally for every single bird we saw.  I'd say the margin for error was 1 to 2 percent at most, and we were told that out list wouldn't be allowed because that was more birds than the habbitat would allow.  I mean it, and I really mean it and this is still a very sour spot for us.  We fence posted tallied that many birds, but nobody will ever see our list.  I even invited the person to join us, but got absolutely no reply.  If I had done this on a list serv, it would have gone through and other could have enjoyed the same success that we did without being too invasive on these birds.  We need our Listservs, just please, be a little more understanding on them is all I ask.
     
    Mark Stratton
    San Diego
      Sent:  Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:46 AM
    
    From:  "Ken Burton shrikethree@... [CALBIRDS]" < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com >
    
    To:  "Paul Lehman" < lehman.paul@... >
    
    Cc:  CALBIRDS < CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com >
    
    Subject:  Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant [a bit long]
        Paul,  
    You raise some good points (thanks for venting).  Your eBird analysis raises a slightly off-topic issue with eBird that bothers me and this seems like a reasonable opportunity to share it.
     
    As you point out, eBird hotspots can be quite large.  eBird reviewers, following eBird instructions, ask people who submit rarities at more-precise personal locations to move their observations to the hotspots or they create new "stakeout" hotspots for them and ask observers to move them there.  For some reason, there's a desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.  I feel this consolidation often masks location precision that can elucidate valuable movement patterns of these birds, and I generally resist these requests (unless the existing hotspot is extremely small or my sighting was extremely close to its plotted location), at least until the bird is gone.
     
    Perhaps someone can explain why having rarity sightings clumped into single locations is worth erasing the precision of personal locations plotted exactly where sightings are made, which is especially easy and accurate to do on mobile devices.
     
    Thanks.
     
    Ken Burton
    Crescent City
    
      On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paul Lehman lehman.paul@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:         It is pretty obvious that over the past few years that many of the local/county/regional/state listservs have become less and less relevant to a large number of birders, as many of these people have voted with their feet….er, fingertips….and moved over to other sites such as eBird. Not only that, but bird information dissemination appears to have become MORE fragmented as time goes on, rather than less fragmented. We now have the local listservs, eBird, WhatsApp/GroupMe text messaging groups, Facebook individual and group sites, personal Flickr sites, personal and private-group text messaging, and even a handful of old-school folks who actually still call their friends on the phone! Some of these services are SUPPPOSED to complement each other, e.g., a text-message group that is supposed to be used for immediate dissemination of high-end rarity information only, and folks are supposed to post to it AND to the local listserv in a timely manner, but instead the former is used almost exclusively and often for more standard bird fare, so the general listserv gets only some scraps, if anything. Using my home-county listserv here in San Diego as an example, the number of local birders who now rarely if ever post to SanDiegoRegionBirding has grown steadily. Most of these folks still happily get information from such sources, but rarely, if ever, post to it. But a good number of these people do submit eBird reports on a regular basis instead.   Why only to one Is it the ease of eBird submissions Is it the instantaneous reporting from the field (But that is also easy to do to a local listserv with any smartphone.) Is it that they can easily attach their photos to their eBird reports Is there a widespread belief that posting rarity news only to eBird is “enough”   Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or just lazy, or simply don’t care to give back to a listserv from which they got information allowing them to see a rare bird Whatever the reason, recent checks on many days since mid-December of the number of posts to the San Diego listserv versus the number of county “rarity” alerts coming through eBird is something on the magnitude of 1 to 20 or 30 (albeit somewhat skewed by the numbers of out-of-town Nazca Booby viewers and local-birder 2018 “big year” kickoffs, and by the potential for multiple rarities mentioned per a single listserv post but only one species per eBird alert). A little of this dichotomy can be explained by the fact that some birds such as a semi-tame, multi-year-staying Greater White-fronted Goose at a local lake still appears daily on the eBird rare-bird alert—given that it is a flagged species—but that virtually nobody would dream of posting its continued existence on a regular basis on the county listserv. Or, over the past few weeks, the continued presence of Nazca Boobies, a wintering Red-throated Pipit, and many other regional and state-level rarities locally, has drawn an especially large number of California birders from out of town as well as many out-of-state birders—few of whom have posting privileges to the San Diego listserv, but almost all of them can post to eBird. In most areas, eBird has become the best way to keep track, on an almost daily basis, of the continued presence of existing rarities. (With the caveat that some such reports are erroneous, as they are through any source, and folks should be careful following up on some such reports, especially when made many days after anyone else has reported seeing the bird. Even when some folks are chasing known birds at known locations, they can mess it up. Posted photos of misidentified stakeouts are not overly rare, and the number of such erroneous reports without photos are likely even greater. Just recently, for example, a friend of mine from out-of-state, after seeing Nazca Booby here, drove up to Santa Maria to see the tame Garganey. He was greeted there by a birding couple, also from out of state and chasing the same birds, who proudly pointed out the bird to him: a female Northern Pintail. He quickly showed them the real Garganey. But, the bottom line is, don’t underestimate the ability of some observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.   But I digress…) Are eBird reports also good at giving the needed background information on how to FIND these stakeout rarities Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A dropped pin at a hotspot may or may not signify a specific spot or may just denote the location of a large park or marsh where the bird is. Some observers add in exact lat/long information, but many do not. Also, because many human beings (including many birders) are geographically challenged, many locations they give in their eBird submissions are MIS-STATED or MIS-PLOTTED, which is one potentially serious problem with using eBird data in a number of ways in general. But even if the general location is indeed correct, the included comments (if any) may say little about the specific tree(s) a bird is frequenting, or the best time of day it might be seen there, origin questionable issues, or information about possible legal access issues, etc. These specifics, which can be very important, are often best imparted through posts to the local listservs. Just in the past couple weeks, such was the case here in San Diego County with a couple good posts to the listserv dealing with private property issues and homeowner and birder behavior involving the Ramona Harris’s Hawk. Does one need to post an update on every continuing rarity every single day on a local listserv No, although regular updates on high-end and just-recently-found rarities are very helpful, and then periodic (weekly) updates that such-and-such long-staying or returning rarity is still present is also helpful to other birders. But few local birders supply that information. Recently here in San Diego, there have been MULTIPLE DAILY eBird updates on Nazca Booby, Red-throated Pipit, Greater Pewee, Thick-billed Kingbird and Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Harris’s Hawk, Tricolored Herons, Nestor Park birds, etc. etc. etc., and almost nothing on these birds for well over a week or more on SanDiegoRegionBirding. Nothing. The question then becomes: “Does it matter” Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If that’s what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders hate chasing “other people’s birds,” very rarely do it, but spend almost all their time doing “their own” birding. That’s great, too!   And most of us birders are at some point in the continuum between these two extremes. But the bottom line is, a relatively small number of birders find a relatively large percentage of the rare birds. And many birders do spend much of their birding time chasing previously found birds. So, what can this large group of chasers contribute Perhaps rarity-status update information (BOTH positive and negative) if they see that such updates have not been made in “a reasonable time period,” or perhaps any news on changes in a bird’s preferred exact site or timing of appearance during the day . M aybe include a bit more information than the standard "continuing bird" Include maybe where and when the continuing bird was seen if possibly different from “usual.” And if the report substantially extends the date-span, then ideally including some comment about how it was identified, or a photo.  Some eBird reviewers avoid confirming late reports of continuing rarities without at least some documentation, given that some birds are reported long after they actually departed. If folks use only eBird for their rare-bird chasing bird info, and then submit only to eBird, then fine. If they do likewise only via some texting or Facebook group, fine! But if they routinely use a local listserv to get their “chase” information, see the bird, and then rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them—be it for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness—then this does seem just a wee bit galling to those birders who are finding and sharing. Perhaps most birders are perfectly happy with the quality and speed (i.e., efficiency) of the rare-bird information they receive and think that my concerns are unfounded and mostly merely tilting at windmills. Others may sympathize fully. In any case, at least I got to vent! --Paul Lehman,   San Diego      
     
    
     
  30. -back to top-


-revision history-
v1.30 - 01/05/16 - Revamped cloud logic, optimized database queries, linked to eBird rarities.
v1.23 - 12/08/11 - Added direct link to CBRC records.
v1.22 - 12/03/11 - Corrected GMT offsets on dates. Added last 5 posts at top.
v1.21 - 11/24/11 - Added direct link to range map for NA birds.
v1.2  - 11/23/11 - Greatly improved graphing technology - separates month vs. year by posts. Added species auto-complete functionality.
v1.14 - 11/22/11 - Added cloud bubble for common thread topics.
v1.13 - 11/22/11 - Added integrated photos where available.
v1.12 - 11/22/11 - Added multiple input boxes for additional refinement, negative search criteria (eg. -keyword).
v1.11 - 11/22/11 - Added banding code, species look-up. Also direct link to recent eBird observations.
 v1.1 - 11/22/11 - Added 'date' functionality. Shows top 'month/year' combinations for a query. Restrict results to that 'month/year'.
 v1.0 - 11/21/11 - Initial version coded. Currently archiving 'lacobirds' and 'calbirds'.