|
Kris Purdy |
I appreciate Bryant’s revised proposal
that avoids our dividing the state into different geographic regions and
the review list soliciting sight records based on where the species was
seen. I continue to believe that would make the list confusing and
possibly inhibit submitters rather than to support their willingness to
document sightings.
Most of the species Bryant proposed adding to the list have been on the
list in the past, and it’s not uncommon for a bird to dance on and off the
list (Tennessee Warbler, anyone?). I don’t have objections to any of the
additions, but also agree with Mike S. that if we add a species, it needs
to remain on the list for a good long period to gather a robust amount of
data. We might want to add this philosophy to a bylaw change to make it
lasting given the way our membership turns over.
Finally, Milt and I have discussed a unique species situation with the
Scaled Quail brought to light by record 2022-18 and I don’t have a clear
proposal to resolve it. The species occurs naturally in Utah in extremely
low numbers in San Juan County (and perhaps not all of the time) and
therefore, belongs on the review list. But with the information that the
DWR is introducing birds, we don’t have any way of knowing if reported
birds are wild or captive releases. So this puts us in a position of
soliciting reports, but always having to vote ‘No, Int’ because we don’t
know the provenance of the bird. It seems as though the Scaled Quail
requires a unique code and we need unique review procedures to address
reports. Perhaps that procedure needs to be limited to determining if the
submitter ID’d the bird(s) correctly or not, and leave it at that.
Typing out that paragraph, above, has brought a smidge of clarity. Perhaps
a proposal should be something like this:
Proposal: The Scaled Quail will be marked with a unique code on the Review
List to indicate that the committee solicits sight records, but the
emphasis will be on proper ID and records will not be rejected for the
submitter failing to establish provenance.
Kris
***** Nov 30, 2022,
Nov 30 at 11:09 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
What exactly is our purpose in tracking species that
are already tracked by DNR/federal agencies?
They do a better job of that than we ever could. Two of the proposed
species come to mind:
1) Boreal owl -- the State has tracked this species in the Uintas for
decades (not sure how currently), even gathering nest box data. The data
for this species is there, it's just restricted. I'm not sure what we are
adding to the science of this species beyond what a combination of eBird
and government data already provide. If we really wanted to get proper
information on this species, we should reach out to the various agencies
that have it and ask about numbers and general distribution (I suspect
they would want to redact that data somewhat). I therefore support the
concept of reviewing only non-Uinta records.
2. Sharp-tailed grouse -- again, this is a game bird closely tracked by
the various wildlife agencies. We ran into one such government worker at
the Stateline Lek (where they were conducting an annual census at and near
the lek). I am not sure how rare this bird is (though I agree it is
declining), but I do not think it is so rare as to trigger a need for our
review. Again, if we really wanted to get proper data on this species, we
should reach out to the various agencies that have it and ask about
numbers and general distribution. They know about population trends and do
actual science as opposed to just ruling on the twitch-biassed/lek-visiting
efforts of birders (I include myself in that category). If the grouse are
not truly rare and other, more rigorous entities track them, why put them
on our list? Whether a species is moving toward endangered status is a
judgement better left to the professionals (unless we believe that
politics has completely corrupted that system). Just looking at eBird,
since 2019 this species has been reported at 98 times at 34 locations, by
my rough count (trying to lump local sighting swarms into one, where
appropriate). And many of those sightings were made by folks who regularly
submit records to the Committee. Do we REALLY want to take on that added
review burden for little reason? I say, no.
What is "our lane" to which we should stick?
***** Nov 30, 2022
7:36 PM Kristin Purdy wrote: A
side anecdote, rather than answering David’s question about what our lane
is:
The information David refers to for Boreal Owl and Sharp-tailed Grouse
occurrence may be available from the DWR in response to submitting a GRAMA
request. I had to submit one in order to get the sightings/captive release
information on the Scaled Quail during the second round vote circulation
on record 2022-18. While I was working with Heather Talley, Upland Game
section chief and she had the info I requested, she asked me to submit a
GRAMA request (although she wasn’t sure the data qualified) before she
released it, and then it went through another DWR office before it came to
me. That took a few additional weeks and is the reason the information
wasn’t available by the time the record closed out.
So this route in putting our thumb on the status of certain species the
division monitors may take a bit of time if the data qualifies for
release.
***** Dec 1, 2022
David Wheeler wrote:
Great clarification, Kristin. Thanks.
I don't think we are in any great haste to get the info, are we? But if we
want to have it, I would think we eventually could get some data to answer
whatever question it is we want to answer about population trends.
***** Dec 1,
2022 at 4:43 PM Mike Schijfr wrote:
My opinion on the Boreal Owl situation is that we
should continue to review this species as long as we feel it is warranted
by the number of UBRC records we have obtained. The worst case scenario is
that we are collecting an over-abundance of data, which may sometimes
overlap with data collected by the state (not necessarily a bad thing).
The best case scenario is that records submitted to UBRC may reveal new
locations for this species and may actually be helpful for wildlife
managers. I don't believe that the state collecting data on this species
is a reason for us to do anything differently. I am not opposed to
submitting a GRAMA request for Boreal Owl data. However, if we do decide
to remove this species from the review list, I believe it should be based
on the same criteria we use for any other species.
To address David's question more broadly, I don't see any issues with us
reviewing species that are being monitored by UDWR, federal agencies, etc.
I appreciate the good discussion!
Mike |
|
David Wheeler |
(See
conversation above)
Thanks to everyone, especially Milt &
Bryant, for initiating this conversation and their heavy lifting to get us
to this point. I applaud many of the points made, including Kristin's
Scaled quail issue. I would like to pose one clarifying question (followed
by two examples with suggestions):
What exactly is our purpose in tracking species that are already tracked
by DNR/federal agencies?
They do a better job of that than we ever could. Two of the proposed
species come to mind:
1) Boreal owl -- the State has tracked this species in the Uintas for
decades (not sure how currently), even gathering nest box data. The data
for this species is there, it's just restricted. I'm not sure what we are
adding to the science of this species beyond what a combination of eBird
and government data already provide. If we really wanted to get proper
information on this species, we should reach out to the various agencies
that have it and ask about numbers and general distribution (I suspect
they would want to redact that data somewhat). I therefore support the
concept of reviewing only non-Uinta records.
2. Sharp-tailed grouse -- again, this is a game bird closely tracked by
the various wildlife agencies. We ran into one such government worker at
the Stateline Lek (where they were conducting an annual census at and near
the lek). I am not sure how rare this bird is (though I agree it is
declining), but I do not think it is so rare as to trigger a need for our
review. Again, if we really wanted to get proper data on this species, we
should reach out to the various agencies that have it and ask about
numbers and general distribution. They know about population trends and do
actual science as opposed to just ruling on the twitch-biassed/lek-visiting
efforts of birders (I include myself in that category). If the grouse are
not truly rare and other, more rigorous entities track them, why put them
on our list? Whether a species is moving toward endangered status is a
judgement better left to the professionals (unless we believe that
politics has completely corrupted that system). Just looking at eBird,
since 2019 this species has been reported at 98 times at 34 locations, by
my rough count (trying to lump local sighting swarms into one, where
appropriate). And many of those sightings were made by folks who regularly
submit records to the Committee. Do we REALLY want to take on that added
review burden for little reason? I say, no.
What is "our lane" to which we should stick? |