Thanks for your input. I appreciate any suggestions and opportunities for improvement to make the MOU better. The Minnesota Ornithologists Union Records Committee (MOURC) provides a very valuable function to the MOU. By peer-reviewing official state records, they confirm and validate those records so that everyone may have a high degree of confidence that our records are accurate. The MOURC members are all accomplished in bird identification and graciously volunteer a considerable amount of time serving on this Committee. It is a thankless job. If they are too stringent, they are criticized for not accepting someone's record; whereas, if they are too lenient, they would be criticized because your records would be meaningless. The MOURC operates under defined rules (http://moumn.org/mourc/bylaws.php ); however, bird identification is too complex to be completely objective (refer to the recent discussions on the presumed Glaucous-winged Gull). Because of the subjectivity and the requirement that the records that are approved are as accurate as possible, there occasionally will be situations where the submitter or some of the MOU membership does not agree with the way a MOURC member votes. This is ok, that is why the MOURC is a committee and does not require a unanimous vote to approve a record, even a first state record. Much like a jury, the MOURC weighs the available evidence and makes an informed decision based on such evidence. This process helps to insure that the MOU records and archive are as accurate as possible. In addition, if new evidence comes to light after a record has been voted that might change the outcome of the original vote, a new vote will take place if a majority of the Committee approves. This provides an additional safeguard for records that may have been incomplete or inaccurate when initially submitted or when new knowledge about a particular species is subsequently discovered. In this case, the Ferruginous Hawk was approved. In my opinion, it would be extremely unproductive to micromanage individual votes or to make suppositions concerning an individual's motive for voting one way or the other, especially without the evidence that was made available to the MOURC. While I welcome public review of the MOU's policies and procedures, if you have questions or concerns about a particular individual or vote, please contact Tom Tustison (the MOURC Chairman) or myself rather than in a public forum. I think this case illustrates that the system works. I want to thank the MOURC for performing this very challenging and unrewarding job and including a description of the Committee's decision of records that were not accepted in the Loon. We can all learn from the descriptions of why the MOURC did not accept a record. I don't agree that we should have each member of the Committee write an explanation of every vote or even every negative vote. That is just too burdensome for people who are already volunteering a large amount of time.
Thanks, Carl Carl Greiner President, Minnesota Ornithologists Union 1616 Hill St. S.W. Chatfield, MN. 55923 507-271-8286 cgrei...@mchsi.com -----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Weston Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:33 AM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] MOU Records Committee - Ferruginous Hawk Accepted 6-1 I agree. I fear that the vote against the Ferruginous Hawk has nothing to do with data (in this case a clear photo), but has to do with either of two factors: - a prejudice against the data gather. I do not believe that such prejudices should not be part of the process and that if the data can not be impartially analyzed then the committee's processes are tainted and should be modified. I, for one, would prefer that the records be submitted to the committee without identifying the observer. By the way, I do not feel that I am personally affected by this prejudice. - a predisposition against what birds are expected to be observed. An example was the dismissal of an observation of several cowbirds overwintering in Dakota County years ago by a well respected, birder/ornithologist, and committee member, as not being likely. We now know that cowbirds regularly overwinter at large feed lots in Dakota County. So, why isn't this a Ferruginous Hawk? -- Steve Weston swest...@comcast.net On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, MARK OTNES <markot...@cableone.net> wrote: > I appreciated seeing the proceedings of the MOU records committee in the > latest issue of the Loon. I find the reasons for records turned down and > dissents (2 or greater, I guess) to be very informative. I would also > like to see the reasons for dissent on those records that are accepted on a > 6 to 1 vote. In particular, I would love to read the one dissent on the > Ferruginous Hawk seen and photographed (shown in the Loon) in Lac Qui Parle > County on 10-25-2010. I'm not an ace birder, particularly when it comes to > raptors, so I would like to see that reasons that that raptor pictured in > the Loon might not have been a Ferruginous Hawk. > > Mark Otnes > Fargo ND > 701-241-4194 > markot...@cableone.net > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html