|
|
Proposal to Put
the Thick-billed Longspur back on the Review List
Rationale by Mike Shijf:
I believe we should reassess the commitee's decision to remove
Thick-billed Longspur from the review list back in March of 2021. I don't
believe this species has been recorded in Utah in the almost 3 years since
then (at least according to eBird). It appears that 2020-2021
(December/January) was an exceptional winter for this species in Utah,
which accounted for 8 records that were accepted by the committee.
From our bylaws: "In general, the Review List will consist of species that
have occurred within Utah on average two or fewer times per year in each
of the ten years immediately preceding revision of the Review List."
Even with the crazy/outlier 8 TBLO winter factored in, we still only have
14 accepted records over the past 10 years, which puts it well below the
"two per year" guidance, and probably fewer records than some of the
species that are currently on the review list.
One last thought on this and similar instances:
Going forward, I think we should make an effort to de-emphasize "recency
bias" when deciding whether a species should be reviewed or not. A
short-term spike in records doesn't necessarily mean that this species is
no longer rare in the state. Or, IF it is becoming more common, I'd rather
we track that over the course of several years at least, rather than
jumping to that conclusion and no longer asking observers to submit
records.
Comments in favor:
Thanks, Mike, for the deep dive into this species. It
appears we may have been too hasty in removing this species from our
review list.
Do you have some suggestions for how to ensure such haste is avoided?
Perhaps the per-year average should be calculated over a particular period
(like 20 years) with the species occurring during every year? Personally I
am not too aggrieved with the system as is, but I do see your point and
would support a thoughtful amendment.
~ David Wheeler
|