I agree. I fear that the vote against the Ferruginous Hawk has nothing to
do with data (in this case a clear photo), but has to do with either of two
- a prejudice against the data gather. I do not believe that such
prejudices should not be part of the process and that if the data can not
be impartially analyzed then the committee's processes are tainted and
should be modified. I, for one, would prefer that the records be
submitted to the committee without identifying the observer. By the way, I
do not feel that I am personally affected by this prejudice.
- a predisposition against what birds are expected to be observed. An
example was the dismissal of an observation of several cowbirds
overwintering in Dakota County years ago by a well respected,
birder/ornithologist, and committee member, as not being likely. We now
know that cowbirds regularly overwinter at large feed lots in Dakota County.
So, why isn't this a Ferruginous Hawk?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, MARK OTNES <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I appreciated seeing the proceedings of the MOU records committee in the
> latest issue of the Loon. I find the reasons for records turned down and
> dissents (2 or greater, I guess) to be very informative. I would also
> like to see the reasons for dissent on those records that are accepted on a
> 6 to 1 vote. In particular, I would love to read the one dissent on the
> Ferruginous Hawk seen and photographed (shown in the Loon) in Lac Qui Parle
> County on 10-25-2010. I'm not an ace birder, particularly when it comes to
> raptors, so I would like to see that reasons that that raptor pictured in
> the Loon might not have been a Ferruginous Hawk.
> Mark Otnes
> Fargo ND
> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net