Records Committee
Bylaws Proposal
  Results
by Bryant Olsen
Deadline is 12 Nov 2024
Plus questionnaire on related matters
  

 Add to Bylaws as a new item in Section V.B.2.d.:    (See Bylaws Section V.B.2)

Rationale:   

In order to control what sight records we review, we need a way to exempt areas of the state where there are know populations of a review species that are seen every year, but request records from other parts of the state where we'd like to document sightings of these species.

              Proposed Addition:

Add to Section V.B.2 as item "d"

d.  A Review list species may be Exempted from review for a clearly defined sub-region of the state where records indicate that species is expected and known to occur on an annual basis. These Exemptions will be voted on a one by one basis by the committee, and any voting member can propose a review species be exempted from a clearly defined sub-region of the state. The Exemptions will go through the same process that other bylaws and review list species go through to be voted on and approved.

              Vote Yes No    Results: 7 yes, 2 No

  
Please indicate your opinion on the following questions:
 

#1	Should we create a biologically defined eco-regions (or other sub-regions) map to go along with the Review Species List if this bylaws proposal is accepted?	6 - Yes   2 - No   1 - No Opinion
#2	Should we include a link to a county map of Utah on the Review Species list if the above amendment is added to the bylaws.	3 - Yes   3 - No   3 - No Opinion
#3	If the above amendment is accepted which you like to have some leeway in defining a specific area more than those listed on the maps we provide, for example “West Uinta Mountain area.”	2 - Yes   3 - No   4 - No Opinion
#4	Would you like to have the committee work on  creating regional Review Lists for   eco-regions of the state. (We can add a section to the bylaws to deal with this idea)	4 - Yes   3 - No   2 - No Opinion
#5	Do you like the idea of including on the Review List,  the number of sightings for each review-species with a link to our list of sightings.	4 - Yes   4 - No   1 - No Opinion
Comments made on the above questions: Keeli  -  I like the idea of #5 but I would also like to know how much work that creates for the secretary. It seems like it would be substantial. I would be glad to help created regional review lists.  Mark  - I think that a simple regions map, with a few easily defined regions, is preferable to either counties or individual species maps. While this change would add a level on complexity, we can try to keep it as simple as  Max  - I would be happy to contribute some time with additional committee members and/or the secretary to help create an eco-region based list of review species specific to those regions.  Kris  - #2. If we include a county map, it needs an overlay of the eco-regions given that some eco-regions may only partly cover some counties. This is the most significant challenge of adopting this proposal: To keep it as simple as possible so potential submitters don't have to use some kind of UBRC magic de-coder ring to figure out if they're in one of the spots where we solicit records of review species. #3. Isn't this an automatic 'Yes' if we vote in favor of adding the bylaw since the proposal says, "...a clearly defined sub-region of the state..."?  #4. Our review list should be species-centric, not eco-region centric. If we adopt proposal #4, we're basically saying we want multiple review lists and I don't.  #5. No to number of sightings for each review list species (too much work for the webmaster to keep up with it, in my opinion), but yes to a link to our sightings. Submitters can figure this out for themselves with a link.  David  - This is likely to open up a can of worms if done on a overly granular basis.  I would be very cautious as to which species we put on this list.  Kevin I feel that all the above options unnecessarily complicate the procedures for the Records committee and make it harder for submitters to understand, and less likely to submit.  Dennis I think as a record committee member the proposal has some merits. But I think it could create unnecessary complications for the beginning or average birder. I also think there would be an added workload for the web-master and secretary that I'm not sure would be that beneficial for the birding public. Mike Scijf  I support this proposal but it is NOT my preference to establish new "ecological subregions" that do not follow county-lines. I fear that this could be a complicated process and difficult for the public to understand. Instead, I support a process that would exempt certain species from review from specific counties or regions that follow county-lines. I understand that this approach would be less than perfect from a biological standpoint, but county-lines do represent mini subregions within the state, and I believe this would be easy to communicate with our local birders. As an example, all but one of our "accepted" Boreal Owl records are from Wasatch, Summit, and Duchesne Counties. Clearly these are places in Utah that most people will recognize. In contrast, explaining to the average birder where "ecological subregion 1" is located, and how that boundary was carved out is likely to present some confusion. Let's keep this simple and not create extra work for ourselves or the birding public. I am undecided on #4. IF the idea is to create review lists for each area, then my answer is that we should start with the "exemption" idea (with a list of species to exempt for each county/region), and then if we like how this process is working after a period of time, we can discuss expanding to create regional review lists (likely a more intensive process). In conclusion, each of my "yes" votes above are contingent on a "county exemption" approach, or a larger regional approach that follows county-lines. I think that the "clearly defined" wording is key to this process.