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

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

 Month/Year Breakdown (Top 15):

 Jan, 2018 - 9 e-mail(s)...
 Sep, 2006 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Mar, 2007 - 4 e-mail(s)...
 Feb, 2008 - 3 e-mail(s)...
 May, 2018 - 2 e-mail(s)...
 May, 2002 - 2 e-mail(s)...
 May, 2007 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Nov, 2007 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Mar, 2008 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Apr, 2016 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Sep, 2016 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Oct, 2017 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Apr, 2018 - 1 e-mail(s)...



   Tricolored Heron
Tricolored Heron
Egretta tricolor


   Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) - TRHE (recent eBird sightings, view CBRC records, range map
)

  1. CBRC review and request for documentation LINK
    DATE: May 7, 2018 @ 12:09pm, 6 month(s) ago
    California birders,  The California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) will begin reviewing the following records in early June. 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   Broad-billed Hummingbird 2017-166 15 Dec 2017 Bay Park SD  (single observer, documentation complete) Broad-billed Hummingbird 2017-172 16 Dec 2017-6 Mar 2018 Goleta SBA  (documentation from 5 observers, add値 doc. requested) Broad-billed Hummingbird 2018-025 27 Feb 2018 Mission Valley SD  (single observer, documentation complete) Broad-billed Hummingbird 2018-028 9-19 Mar 2018 San Francisco SF  (documentation from 6 observers, add値 doc. requested) Tricolored Heron 2017-111 13 Oct 2017-17 Apr 2018 San Diego R. & Famosa Slough SD (documentation from 8 observers, add値 doc. requested) Tricolored Heron 2017-136 1 Oct 2017-28 Apr 2018 San Diego Bay SD  (documentation from 3 observers, add値 doc. requested) Greater Pewee 2017-114 12-29 Oct 2017 Pacific Palisades LA  (documentation from 5 observers, add値 doc. requested) Greater Pewee 2017-151 5 Dec 2017-16 Apr 2018 Balboa Park SD  (documentation from 7 observers, add値 doc. requested) Dusky-capped Flycatcher 2017-145 29 Nov-1 Dec 2017 Crab Park HUM  (documentation from 3 observers, add値 doc. requested) Dusky-capped Flycatcher 2017-146 1 Dec 2017-3 Apr 2018 Ladera Park LA  (documentation from 1 observer, add値 doc. requested) Dusky-capped Flycatcher 2017-157 15 Dec 2017-12 Jan 2018 Berry Park SD  (documentation from 3 observers, add値 doc. requested) Dusky-capped Flycatcher 2017-163 16 Dec 2017-12 Jan 2018 CSU Channel Islands VEN  (documentation from 1 observer, add値 doc. requested) Dusky-capped Flycatcher 2017-164 16 Dec 2017-16 Mar 2018 Runnymede Rec. Center LA  (documentation from 1 observer, add値 doc. requested) Thick-billed Kingbird 2017-120 23 Oct 2017-8 Apr 2018 Poggi Canyon SD  (documentation from 3 observers, add値 doc. requested) Curve-billed Thrasher 2017-137 22-24 Nov 2017 Senator Wash Reservoir IMP  (single observer, documentation complete) White Wagtail 2017-167 21 Dec 2017-30 Jan 2018 Prado Reg. Park SBE  (documentation from 5 observers, add値 doc. requested) Common Redpoll 2018-005 8-13 Jan 2018 Aspendell INY  (documentation from 7 observers, add値 doc. requested) Rusty Blackbird 2017-153 10 Dec 2017-8 Apr 2018 Almansor Park LA  (documentation from 4 observers, add値 doc. requested) Rusty Blackbird 2017-161 17 Dec 2017-20 Jan 2018 Trancas Canyon LA  (documentation from 1 observer, add値 doc. requested) Rusty Blackbird 2017-162 17-19 Dec 2017 Mammoth MNO  (documentation from 2 observers, add値 doc. requested) Rusty Blackbird 2018-006 10 Jan 2018 Bette Davis Picnic Area LA  (single observer, documentation complete) Rusty Blackbird 2018-007 13 Jan-18 Feb 2018 Moonglow Dairy MTY  (documentation from 3 observers, add値 doc. requested) Rusty Blackbird 2018-020 8 Feb-8 Apr 2018 Waller Park SBA  (documentation from 7 observers, add値 doc. requested) Worm-eating Warbler 2018-003 6 Jan-17 Feb 2018 Reichmuth Park SAC  (documentation from 6 observers, add値 doc. requested) Cape May Warbler 2018-017 3 Feb 2018 Blythe RIV  (single observer, documentation complete) Grace痴 Warbler 2018-019 5 Feb-1 Apr 2018 Del Mar SD  (documentation from 6 observers, add値 doc. requested) Grace痴 Warbler 2018-030 7-8 Apr 2018 Claremont LA  (documentation from 2 observers, add値 doc. 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稚 be obtained or vocalizations
    can稚 be recorded. In some cases, behaviors might be noted in the field that aren稚 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. 
  2. -back to top-
  3. Tricolored Heron, Bolsa Chica LINK
    DATE: May 6, 2018 @ 10:31am, 6 month(s) ago
    Saturday an hour before sunset , i saw and photographed a Tricolored Heron roosting with about 10 Snowies at Bolsa Chica inner bay just south of the tidal gate, visible from the path along PC Highway.
    
    David Diller
    
    Mountain View
  4. -back to top-
  5. CBRC review and request for documentation LINK
    DATE: Apr 3, 2018 @ 1:57pm, 7 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稚 be obtained or vocalizations
    can稚 be recorded. In some cases, behaviors might be noted in the field that aren稚 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.  
  6. -back to top-
  7. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 16, 2018 @ 7:15pm, 9 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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes
    it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual.
    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 田hase information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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 
  8. -back to top-
  9. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? LINK
    DATE: Jan 15, 2018 @ 8:22pm, 9 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).ツ 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.ツ 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.ツ For some reason, there's a
    desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.ツ 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:
    ツ
    
    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.ツ 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
    窶彳nough窶ツ Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or
    just lazy, or simply don窶冲 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 窶徨arity窶
    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 窶彙ig year窶 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揚iven that it is a flagged
    species傭ut 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庸ew 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窶冲 underestimate the ability of
    some observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.ツ 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窶冱 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窶冱
    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: 窶廛oes it
    matter窶
    
    Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost
    their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If
    that窶冱 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders
    hate chasing 窶徙ther people窶冱 birds,窶 very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their time doing 窶徼heir own窶 birding. That窶冱 great,
    too!ツ 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 窶彗 reasonable time period,窶
    or perhaps any news on changes in a bird窶冱 preferred exact site or
    timing of appearance during the day. Maybe include a bit more information
    than the standard "continuing bird"ツ Include maybe where and
    when the continuing bird was seen if possibly different from 窶忖sual..窶
    And if the report substantially extends the date-span, then ideally
    including some comment about how it was identified, or a photo.ツ
    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 窶彡hase窶 information, see the bird, and then
    rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it
    for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen
    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,ツ San Diego
    
    ツ 
  10. -back to top-
  11. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 5:24pm, 9 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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes
    it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual.
    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 田hase information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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
  12. -back to top-
  13. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 3:41pm, 9 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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders hate chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend almost all their time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or perhaps any news on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual. 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 田hase information, see the bird, and then rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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   
    
    
    
  14. -back to top-
  15. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 3:50pm, 9 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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders hate chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend almost all their time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or perhaps any news on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual. 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 田hase information, see the bird, and then rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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   
    
    
    
  16. -back to top-
  17. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 12:58pm, 9 month(s) ago
    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).ツ 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.ツ 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.ツ For some reason, there's a
    desire within eBird to consolidate rarity sightings.ツ 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:
    ツ
    
    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.ツ 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
    稙nough笶ツ Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or
    just lazy, or simply don穰 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 穩arity笶
    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 稈ig year笶 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 alertgiven that it is a flagged
    speciesbut 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 birdersfew 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穰 underestimate the ability of
    some observers to misidentify even known stakeouts.ツ 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龝 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龝
    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: 礇oes it
    matter笶
    
    Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost
    their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If
    that龝 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders
    hate chasing 穉ther people龝 birds,笶 very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their time doing 穰heir own笶 birding. That龝 great,
    too!ツ 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 秣 reasonable time period,笶
    or perhaps any news on changes in a bird龝 preferred exact site or
    timing of appearance during the day. Maybe include a bit more information
    than the standard "continuing bird"ツ Include maybe where and
    when the continuing bird was seen if possibly different from 穹sual.笶
    And if the report substantially extends the date-span, then ideally
    including some comment about how it was identified, or a photo.ツ
    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 稍hase笶 information, see the bird, and then
    rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind thembe it
    for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centerednessthen
    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,ツ San Diego
    
    ツ 
  18. -back to top-
  19. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 13, 2018 @ 7:46am, 9 month(s) ago
    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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes
    it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual.
    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 田hase information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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 
  20. -back to top-
  21. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 12, 2018 @ 5:01pm, 9 month(s) ago
    I do have to say that although, I have really reduced my posts a lot over the last couple of years, I constanly see on our own local list serv that we should not continuously post about a bird that everyone already knows about so naturally, I have been spooked away from posting about something that has already been posted about 3, 4, 5, ....10 times, even if it is rare. Especially for some of us that aren't amongst the better birders, we just never quite know where to draw the line. Do we keep posting or don't we It has to be one or the other or we just really don't know what to do. Especailly some of the newer birders, I use to have so many people thanking me for my posts but others that said I posted too much. This is conflicting and dificult to interprit to the newer birders. So, in closing, we can't be told that we should keep posting, but then told, if it's already been posted about 3,4,5 or more times, we don't need to keep posting because we just honestly, don't know what we are supposed to do.
    
    Mark Stratton
    San Diego
     Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM
    
    From: "Paul Lehman lehman.paul@... [CALBIRDS]"
    
    To: CALBIRDS
    
    Subject: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant [a bit long]
        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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid to post publicly, or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some birders spend almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by other people. If that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer) birders hate chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend almost all their time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or perhaps any news on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual. 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 田hase information, see the bird, and then rarely or never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it for reasons of laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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. Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 12, 2018 @ 2:18pm, 9 month(s) ago
    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 兎nough  Or for some, are they timid
    to post publicly,
    or just lazy, or simply don稚 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 途arity 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 澱ig 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揚iven that it is a flagged species傭ut 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庸ew 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稚 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痴 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痴 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: 泥oes
    it matter Looking at the broad birding community, some
    birders spend
    almost their entire birding lives chasing stakeouts found by
    other people. If
    that痴 what they like doing, then great. Some (but far fewer)
    birders hate
    chasing 登ther people痴 birds, very rarely do it, but spend
    almost all their
    time doing 鍍heir own birding. That痴 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 殿 reasonable time period, or
    perhaps any news
    on changes in a bird痴 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 砥sual.
    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 田hase information, see the bird, and
    then rarely or
    never return the favor to birders following behind them傭e it
    for reasons of
    laziness, cluelessness, or simply self-centeredness葉hen 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 
  24. -back to top-
  25. Tricolored Heron and Yellow-shafted Flicker , San Diego County LINK
    DATE: Oct 30, 2017 @ 10:21pm, 12 month(s) ago
    As a visiting birder from Northern Cal, I知 not a member of the San Diego Region list serve, so I want to report via Calbirds the location of the juvenile Tricolored Heron today, Monday, it was at Smiley Lagoon ( accessed from Robb Field) today at about 5 pm., a gorgeous bird , very approachable.. Also present were a couple of
    
     ordinary  Little Blue Herons. Yesterday , at 4 pm, I saw and photographed a female Yellow-shafted Flicker at Agua Caliente County Park, coming to drink at a puddle near the campground swimming pool , nice Bighorn Ram there early this morning too, very cool. I love San Diego County ! , I will have to try and attend more business conferences here.
    
    David Diller
    
    Mountain View
  26. -back to top-
  27. Tricoloured Egret at Salton Sea LINK
    DATE: Sep 19, 2016 @ 10:49am, 2 year(s) ago
    Hi all,
    
    We are four french birdwatchers just coming back from a two weeks bridwatching trip in California, while looking at ebird we just realized that Tricolored Heron might be rarer than we previously thought in Southern California. We observed one individual 200 meters south-west of the intersection between Wister Road and Alcott Road in Calipatria on the 9th of September.
    
    We do apologize for the late transmission of the information.
    
    Carine, Jean-Charles, Louis and Boris
    
    --
    Boris Delahaie, PhD
    
    (+33)(0)677615959
    
    CNRS-UMR5175 CEFE
    
    Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive
    
    1919, route de Mende
    
    34293 Montpellier cedex 5
    
    France
  28. -back to top-
  29. CBRC Review species LINK
    DATE: Apr 25, 2016 @ 12:10pm, 2 year(s) ago
    Hello California birders,  This past month has certainly been an impressive one for vagrants in California, with multiple California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) review species being found and seen just since last Friday. As you may know the CBRC reviews and archives
    documentation of all review species that occur in the state, providing a permanent record of written details and analysis, photos, videos, and audio recordings associated with each sighting. This archive, however, cannot exist with your input. We therefore
    request that observers of CBRC review species please submit documentation to the secretary at the email address below. A list of recent sightings for which we are requesting documentation is included below. If you have not previously submitted documentation
    or photos, guidelines for doing so can be found on the
    CBRC website . Thank you.  Tom  Thomas A. Benson Secretary, California Bird Records Committee secretary@...   EMPEROR GOOSE  Seven Mile Slough, SAC, 9-19 Mar 2016 Documentation and photos from Dan Skalos, Aaron Maizlish, and Albert Linkowski  TRICOLORED HERON  San Diego Bay, SD, 18 Apr 2016 Documentation and photos from Guy McCaskie and Gary Nunn  GLOSSY IBIS  Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, YOL, 2-8 Apr 2016 Documentation and photos from John Ehrenfeld and William Rockey  SWALLOW-TAILED KITE  NOLF Imperial Beach and Camp Pendleton, SD, 22 APR 2016 (potential 2 nd state record) Documentation requested from observers  MARSH SANDPIPER  Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, YOL, 16-23 Apr 2016 (potential 3 rd state record) Documentation and photos from Aaron Maizlish  PURPLE SANDPIPER  Salt Creek, RIV, 25 Mar-17 Apr 2016 (potential 1st state record) Documentation and photos from Don Roberson, David Nelson, Ron Holland, Mark Chappell, and Larry Sansone  LITTLE STINT  Alviso Marina County Park, SCL, 20-25 Apr 2016 Documentation and photos from Will Brooks and Michael Park  LITTLE GULL  Penasquitos Lagoon, SD, 7 Apr 2016 Documentation and photos from Carl Jackson and Justyn Stahl  LITTLE GULL  Salt Creek, RIV, 12 Apr 2016 (adult and juvenile) Photo of adult from Bob McKernan  LITTLE GULL  Salt Creek, RIV, 16 Apr 2016 (juvenile) No documentation received.  LITTLE GULL  Salt Creek, RIV, 23 Apr 2016 (adult) Documentation and photos from Julie Szabo  WHITE WAGTAIL  Pismo Creek mouth, SLO, 22 APR 2016 No documentation received. 
  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'.