I am not and have never served on any state records committee, but for a few years I was the spring seasonal reports editor for the Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, and as such had to make decisions about sightings that weren't significant enough to warrant review by the state records committee. Over the years, especially when I was out birding all the time before getting too darned busy writing about birds to have time to watch them, I've had a handful of rare bird sightings accepted in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and I've had a handful of rare bird sightings rejected in both states. I'm also sort of a photographer, and have spent thousands of hours scrutinizing my own photos and helping people to identify birds in their photos in my capacity answering some email inquiries to for a national ornithological institution. I can think of a few reasonable explanations for why a knowledgeable committee member might reject a sighting, even one supported by a photo. (As Carl noted, consider the debate with regard to the Glaucous-winged Gull.) In the case of an exceptional hawk, even when identification is unquestionable, there is always the possibility that a bird escaped from a falconer rather than being a true vagrant. Birders naturally want all our reports to be accepted, both for our sense of validation as competent birders and because our lists depend on it., and MOURC serves as our referee or umpire. But MOURC's more important role is scientific. As the Glaucous-winged Gull discussion shows, there can be differences of opinion even among experts regarding the identification of a bird shown clearly in photos, and there can also be differences of opinion as to the likelihood of the origin of vagrants/escapees. In the case Steve mentioned of the cowbirds, I think the committee acted in a perfectly reasonable way, rejecting a sighting that seemed fundamentally improbable until further information came to light. I can remember when a MOURC member recommended taking Anhingas off the state list, including his own record of one, after discovering some interesting soaring behaviors in cormorants that hadn't been taken into account in the reports. Theoretically, in a perfect world, open discussion of a single dissenting committee member's vote could be enlightening, but seems far more likely to open up these hard working individuals to personal attack. I know that there are always suspicions that this or that committee member is making a decision based on personalities rather than evidence, but despite my own history of involvement in various controversies in Minnesota birding, I've never ever felt that any committee member was likely to decide on a vote for any except legitimate reasons involving accurate identification and reasonable expectation that a bird was a true vagrant rather than an escapee. Allowing one dissenting vote on a committee of seven recognizes both the difficulties involved in making determinations of significant records and the importance of a scientific committee being conservative. At any given moment, the Minnesota Checklist is our best understanding of the status of birds in our state, and thanks to this conscientious committee, our list is ever evolving. I am very proud to live in a state with such a fine records committee. -- Laura Erickson Duluth, MN For the love, understanding, and protection of birds There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of birds. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature--the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after the winter. —Rachel Carson Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html