Stop requiring archaic forms for rarities (1 Viewer)

[opisska]

Several times already I happened to stumble upon a rare bird in some country. Eventually I get in touch with some rare bird recorder or committee and it inevitably comes to the same thing: a form to fill, full of questions I have absolutely nothing to add to.

I do understand that in the olden days, this made some sense, as the records were based on field notes. But we live in 2022 and all my rarity records are based on pictures. I have no idea "how long I looked at the bird" and I have no field notes. What books I have consulted or what is my field experience with the species is utterly irrelevant. The photos are the report, the location, date and name of the observer are already on eBird.

Moreover, I really hate filling forms. I do not understand the idea that I should do buearocracy as a part of my hobby. Filling in a form fills me with deep despair. At the end of the day, I have to go to eBird and copy location and time from there anyway as I have no other information at hand. What the hell is the point if this?

Please, I urge all responsible people to stop this. If there is a record on eBird with photos, do you really need some obscure form? In what way does it help you?

Seriously, if this continues, I will just stop reporting the rarities. I don't think this is the benefit that the authors if the forms had in mind.

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

It's not unheard of for photographs to give a completely misunderstanding impression and look like a rarity but not be, but I get the point.

The BBRC had a fast track system for birds well photographed and available in the public domain, but then they stopped doing it and I'm not entirely sure why.

If you really do have incontrovertible photo evidence I suspect most rarities committees wouldn't be too demanding about rigorous completion of the forms if the alternative was losing the record.

 

[opisska]

But I have nothing else. If the photo evidence is not deemed sufficient, I have nothing to add it. I do not make notes while watching birds - and I certainly am not going to remember anything that's not on the photo after months or even years since the observation.

And I tell as much to the responsible people, yet they still require a form, because "that's the proper way" or "we need the paperwork". That simply does not make any sense.

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

But I have nothing else. If the photo evidence is not deemed sufficient, I have nothing to add it. I do not make notes while watching birds - and I certainly am not going to remember anything that's not on the photo after months or even years since the observation.

And I tell as much to the responsible people, yet they still require a form, because "that's the proper way" or "we need the paperwork". That simply does not make any sense.

You can say on a form you haven't got anything to add to the photograph, I've literally just done that this week.

 

[opisska]

But why require the form then? Why ask me to download some excel or word file and figure out how to edit it in a software that is typically extremely frustrating to use, when they Lready have all the information in an actually more practical form? It's just absurd.

 

[Farnboro John]

I don't much like doing admin as part of my hobby, and fortunately for recent rarities my friend Roy has been on hand so in general he writes the descriptions and I supply the photos.... but I have written descriptions in the past and would do so again for a self-found if my scribe wasn't around.

Writing a description of a bird from hastily taken field notes, sketches or even photos is an education (which for most of us is the unmentioned basic challenge and enjoyment of birding) so I always feel I've got more out of doing it than by simply observing the bird. It is also the opportunity to note any individual aspects of the observation, which may be plumage or structure that isn't on the photos due to being on the side I didn't get to photograph, or behaviour that simply can't be recorded in still photos but will be useful in the assessment of the record. A standard form worldwide would be nice. Can't see it happening anytime soon though.

I also recognise that the submission quality demands made by rarity recorders are never going to be based on my personal convenience and have no difficulty dealing with that. Form filling is part of life.

John

 

[Mark Lew1s]

I think the ball is always in your court. You give them what you want to give them, and then they deal with whatever they get. If you don't want to fill the forms out, then don't. It's as simple as that. The vast majority if committees will assess a photo or photos that do not come with the requisite paperwork, as long as they are sure that the photo was taken in the place you're claiming it was.

However, if you're concerned about whether your records are accepted or not, it's probably spending 5 minutes filling the forms in. Photos are not always conclusive - and in cases where they are not, then the additional info in the forms can become extremely valuable.

But John has made the most pertinent point. Doing the description (and observing the bird knowing you will be doing the description) are both excellent ways to learn - if that's what you're interested in.

 

[THE_FERN]

All I know it's that if I know something's rare at the time I see it I will form a strong mental impression of it. Of course, that impression may be wrong as my photos sometimes demonstrate. But more often they're right and add a lot. Often I ask posters to the id forum what their visual impression was because for an experienced bird I think that's the most powerful thing. But as for forms, well I can't remember formally reporting anything apart from once when I did it as a scientific note.

 

[Jeff Hopkins]

Actually, Pennsylvania is scanning eBird for rarities and if the documentation there is sufficient, they accept it as an official record.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I’m not sure I agree with opisska on this.
I was required to complete a rarity form at the end of October and as a non-photographer (I have a bridge camera but often too busy enjoying the bird to remember I have it with me).
I was glad to answer the various questions w.r.t. previous experience, similar species, etc. which I felt established the facts supported by the description I jotted down on the day.
I can understand the view that, if I supply good quality photos then some of the questions are irrelevant. However, they are only irrelevant if you can supply good pictures (yours or a friend’s). In many cases the questions remain perfectly valid but could be answered by “not known” or “not applicable” in special cases

 

[THE_FERN]

Don't mind having my records questioned by reviewers. But I'll make the final decision about what I saw, thank you; if you've reasoned well I'll take your opinion into account (and it helps if you're reasonably polite about it)

 

[opisska]

Actually, Pennsylvania is scanning eBird for rarities and if the documentation there is sufficient, they accept it as an official record.

The Czech RK does the same with the local database. Absurdly, the Polish for example refuses to do so and if you do not painfully copy the information into a word document for approval, it gets deleted from the local database as unverified.

I am all for people reviewing observations, I really am. Just could you PLEASE do it using the available data sources instead of forcing me to navigate a different form for every country filled with the largest amount of fields and questions somebody could have come up with?

 

[snapshot2022]

But I have nothing else. If the photo evidence is not deemed sufficient, I have nothing to add it. I do not make notes while watching birds - and I certainly am not going to remember anything that's not on the photo after months or even years since the observation.

And I tell as much to the responsible people, yet they still require a form, because "that's the proper way" or "we need the paperwork". That simply does not make any sense.

Well it surely will make it a lot harder to attempt a report, and might just turn trying making a report off.

 

[temmie]

Have you considered some people have more (if not all) info to fill in the form, so the observation is better documented, details about behaviour / foraging / ... that are not on the picture are added (etcetera)?
You are arguing that, because YOU don't have extra info and YOU don't want to fill in the form, everybody else should also skip filling in the form.

As in science, the info you don't have is also valuable, e.g. if you didn't see the bird foraging, this is valuable info, too, or if you have seen e.g. plumage features that are not visible in the picture but can reveal something about ID / age / ... . You go very lightly over something you could, with a more dedicated approach, get much more out of. If that is not interesting for you, is not relevant, as it could be interesting for others / for ornithology / ...

 

[opisska]

So let them fill the form if they want to! I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand on this point.

 

[Farnboro John]

So let them fill the form if they want to! I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand on this point.

Things that are difficult to understand:

1. A birder who isn't up for a learning experience as described by various respondents to the thread;

2. Anyone who doesn't just accept that form filling is a part of life;

3. Individuals who think the world should conform to them rather than them conform to the world.

Submitted for your consideration 😘

John

 

[opisska]

People accepting that unpleasant unnecessary things are "a part of life" are the sole reason we still have unpleasant unnecessary things.

 

[Trinovid]

People accepting that unpleasant unnecessary things are "a part of life" are the sole reason we still have unpleasant unnecessary things.

Knowing the difference between things that can be changed and those that cannot, or are unlikely to is very important.

Also, some things are only unpleasant to those who feel the world should be only as they think it should, and not as it is.

 

[Helsinki Birder]

I gotta say I agree with Jan here, but will obviously provide the caveat that I don't really value Rarity Committees whatsoever.

But what I find interesting about this thread is the number of people who indeed just accept these things as a defacto part of birding.

I've often said, I don't know anyone who started out birding thinking " I hope I find something good today so I can fill out a form and submit it to some randomers" 😂

At some point that gets pushed on you as a birder, you become indoctrinated to it.

Owen

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

It's a free choice Owen. The same way people have a free choice not to collect and post off faeces samples of ids requiring DNA. I don't do that, I wouldn't say those who do have been 'indoctrinated'.