MOU-RBA Archives

December 2011


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jesse Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jesse Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:17:47 -0700
text/plain (24 lines)
Hey all-

As I understand it, another serious issue can be the quality of the report
(as opposed to the photo). I have no idea if this is true with the
Ferruginous Hawk record or not. But I've heard of issues where only a
photograph is submitted, with no other information or documentation. While
the photo may indeed be of the species in question, without other
corroborating information, the record is incomplete in in some cases
useless. I think in many cases if we give the records committees the
respect of time put into completely documenting our sightings, we will
often be rewarded with acceptance; they're already doing a lot of work for
us, and the least we can do is make accepting the record easy for them.

As noted, too, one can always resubmit with better explanations of how (for
instance) a hybrid was or could be ruled out, even if that information was
not in the original report.

Jesse Ellis
Madison WI

Join or Leave mou-net: