I often wonder why I subscribe to this list. Then, a post like Sandra 
Buckles’ gizzard shad explanation shows up and it, along with the weekly 
lake shore surveys and monthly CVNP and ONWR surveys, keep me coming back.
	Then, there was Bill Whan's diatribe in which I think he was 
trying to reinforce the importance of the Ohio Bird Records Committee, as 
well as ebird bash, of course. Just as it is his nature to write such 
things, it is my nature to respond. A personality flaw on my my part to be 
sure and probably a mistake to post, but I cannot help myself.
	As a dedicated ebirder, I happen to agree with him on ebird’s main 
strength- tracking changes in abundance, distribution and migration of 
common species. Actually, if one reads ebird’s website, their mission is 
precisely this concept. It works best when the same area is covered week 
after week, month after month, and year after year. 
	The rest is fluff, marketing if you will. Marketing that has 
worked quite well in furthering their actual mission. Listing bemuses me 
but if it gets people looking, great for the birds! If it becomes a 
competition that keeps people looking, even better for the birds! 
	As for the criticisms? I do agree that ebird could make some 
changes in the rarity department. Perhaps when a species is searched, 
there could be a yellow marker for “pending acceptance of OBRC” or a black 
marker for “not accepted.” Mr. Fazio would tell you that unaccepted 
records are findable on ebird. However, they are no more findable to the 
average person than OBRC records. Accepting records that fall outside of 
the expected is certainly a time consuming and occasionally thankless job 
performed by reviewers across the country. Mr. Fazio wrote me 
once, “Although I believe you heard what you said you heard, twenty years 
from now when these records are reviewed, as one who has sat on such 
committees, it would be better if you added more detail of the sounds you 
actually heard.” (A saw-whet owl I had calling from my front yard in 
September) Seems like a reasonable policy to me. 
	I cannot comment on the validity of Mr. Whan’s assertion that 
ebird is not accepting previously accepted historical records. I find it 
difficult to believe that if he entered the missing 30 or so species from 
ebird’s Franklin County data base along with when they were accepted, that 
the ebird reviewer would not accept them. The reality is ebird is only as 
good and complete as the data that gets entered. A comment that holds true 
for the past, present and future. Ebird is not the perfect system but it 
is getting improving all the time.
	As one who serves on several volunteer committees, I am not in the 
habit of criticizing such committees. However, since Mr. Whan is, or was, 
on the OBRC and I think, once one fleeces out the anti-ebird bias and 
apparent disdain for listing, his point was rare birds need reviewed by 
the OBRC, I am going to make an exception. OBRC- necessary and relevant? I 
do believe it is necessary and would encourage everyone to submit their 
records. I do, even when I know there is no way some will be accepted. I 
think even unaccepted records should be part of the permanent record. Of 
course, I am currently rather hypocritical in this manner since I have not 
submitted my last two Raven sightings to them. Why? Well I have no idea if 
the first sighting was accepted, let alone the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Couple 
this fact with the fact that between Scott Albaugh and me the Raven 
sightings for 2012 were into the teens, I have come to think that the 
ravens aren’t so rare, but the birders were ravens live are.
	Relevant is another question. There has not been an online update 
on their actions since April of 2011, coming two years. I cannot recall 
any updates appearing in the Cardinal since I have been a member, I could 
be mistaken on this one. I am not a member of the committee, nor do I have 
the experience or knowledge or ability to be one, and I am not a member of 
the OOS board and therefore have no direct knowledge on what is going on. 
However, the OBRC has to change if it is to remain relevant. How many 
times under the species reports in the Cardinal does it say, “No data on 
this sighting was submitted to the OBRC. Please submit your sightings.” If 
records are not being submitted people do not see value in the service.  
It has to be more responsive and its findings more accessible. In short, 
it has to market itself to remain viable and relevant in the future. 
Marketing is a concept that many with a scientific bent have hard time 
accepting, but it is necessary in today’s birding world. I have lots of 
ideas on how to accomplish this but this counter diatribe has gone on too 
long already.  

______________________________________________________________________

Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
Additional discussions can be found in our forums, at www.ohiobirds.org/forum/.

You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]