|
~ The CBRC's Standards of Acceptance ~ CBRC reports is the link for the Western Birds index at SORA where the CBRC annual reports are, so you can read 'em and weep. :) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The CBRC Standards of Acceptance Often one can find in the CBRC annual reports records that were rejected because the observation did not meet the CBRC's standards of acceptance. If you are like me, and didn't know the CBRC had any standards, you may wonder what those standards are. They don't have standards for reasons of rejection. You can make up bald-faced lies to reject and that is OK. For instance at the CBRC a member can write "since when was the sky that blue in L.A. in June" when the correct answer is the Miocene. That is the acceptable standard of scientific review at the CBRC. CBRC members can even lie to reject their relative's records and this too meets the CBRC standards of objective review. CBRC members can vote on the reports of someone they said "I will never forgive you" to, that meets their standards. A member can write "few realize how yellow ....." because they not only know it all, they know what you know, or don't. These are the acceptable standards of intellegence, pomposity, and arrogance at the CBRC. So without meaningful standards about whom can vote on who's reports, or what reasons are used for rejection I find it completely illogical that they have standards of observation. The door does not swing both ways. It is a one-way street. They have never published what these standards of observation are, but as shown in the case of the McKay's Unicorn, clearly an experienced expert seeing, hearing, and identifying a bird they know well, without binoculars, is not an acceptable bird record in California. The CBRC has said themselves they have accepted records based on JonPaul VanExpert seeing a bird in a manner that it would not have otherwise been accepted, from Joe Shmo. So even their standards are not. What a surprise this comes as. CBRC standards are a floating bar, moved at will, depending on who you are, as much as anything. Once they rejected a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher (not mine) that was observed flying horizon to horizon across the desert for 30 seconds, in a place, at a time, when they are known to occur. Apparently it takes longer than 30 seconds for the CBRC to ID or accept one. I am reasonably certain that was a binocular observation. It did not meet their standards of acceptance, because it wasn't JonPaul VanExpert. It takes a fraction of a second to ID the species, yet an observation duration hundreds of times longer than that required to make an ID, does not meet their top secret standards. Of course Scissor-tailgate, #1991-035 was less than 30 seconds, but photographed, yet still rejected, because of the CBRC standards of evidence, reasons for rejection, and relatives reviewing relatives reports, scientific objectivity, bias against reporter, etc.. In another case they rejected a Sooty Tern watched for nearly a half-hour in the telescope because it was "too far to seperate Bridled Tern". What is that distance they can be seperated CBRC? By whom? The report stated the observer just got back from four days in the Gulf Stream off Florida studying Bridled Terns and that it was not one. That fresh experience and knowledge did not meet the CBRC standards. Can the CBRC publish how far away their standards dictate these two species can be seperated? So a calling fly over bare-eyed report from an expert is not good enough, a 30 second binocular look is not good enough, and a 30 minute telescope view is not good enough. I would say they have no real standards, including one of acceptance, beyond irrefutable photographs (which 1991-035 showed aren't even always good enough). Invariably it is a very biased result. How can they say they have standards if we can't see them? Where is their chart that shows how far which Tern can be ID'd, how long it takes to observe a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher or Snow Bunting to accept? Do the binoculars have to cost a certain amount of money to meet observation standards? Why doesn't the public have a way to know these "standards" of duration, distance for which species, if they are indeed standards? Or is that just a BS rejection saftey valve when all else fails? Then we could know when not to bother troubling them with a report. That would save everyone a lot of time and trouble. Or is it just too much fun rejecting records to tell us? Why has the CBRC kept these standards of acceptance for species, duration and distance secret? If they have standards, share them, let us see them, or they aren't really standards at all. The standard of acceptance for an observation is a personal one, often different for differnt members, but on a birds as unique as a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Snow Bunting, and Sooty Tern, you can see the bar floats to their whim and predjudice. There are hundreds of similarly rejected records, due to these secret standards. The problem is a certain group in the CBRC fancies themselves the best. Joe birder can not report something further or ID something faster than them. They can tell you how far away you can ID something without really knowing what you know about it. They know how long it takes for it to become an observation that meets their standards, but they can't tell us what these standard measurements are, because it is a game, not science. Mitch Heindel Boycott the CBRC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ McKay's Unicorn McKay's Unicorn Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 1997 Desert rats decide seabirds Zone-tailed Hawk 1994 the CBRC tongue-twist Scissor-tailgate review discussion Discussion 4 1991-035 review overview CBRC Review Comments on the 6/7/89 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. Scissor-tailgate Timeline My Story The CBRC & Me The CBRC has standards? CBRC standards , an oxymoron My brother is my keeper? CBRC scientific method another oxymoron from the morons HOME |
