|
~ The CBRC's Wounded Least Sandpiper Unicorn ~ 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 Wounded Least Unicorn In September 1991 David Koeppel, Ed Navajosky, and I were birding the Palmdale and Lancaster area in the Antelope Valley, in NE Los Angeles County, California. Ed, at different times had been a field skills mentor to both David and I. Ed was maybe the first man in L.A. to ID a wintering Hammond's Flycatcher visually on a socal (Malibu) CBC back in the 1970's. His observational skills were exceedingly good. Eagle-eyes is an understatement. Ed and David were the ones that found the first widely seen Red-necked Stint in socal, an adult at McGrath State Beach in July 1981. That was fairly far ahead of the curve of the day too. I was the one to refind that bird for everyone the next day. I was also the dingbat that was so stupid, one year and a day later, July 12, 1982, my fiance and I were at Jon Dunn and Paul Lehman's place in Goleta and when they asked where we were going birding next, I said we were going to McGrath to refind the Red-necked Stint of last year, garnering chuckles, and then went and did so. That was probably the first time an Asiatic vagrant shorebird had been refound in socal in migration. So we three were confirmed peep freaks. The kind that love to spend a day studying them, even if it was Leasts and Westerns as the usual socal case. I'd lived in the east 7 years in the interim and really got hooked at Jamaica Bay, N.Y., Brigantine, N.J., and Plum Island, Mass.. We were very advanced at the time compared to the general birding population, though surely the top experts were better. We knew all the regulars in all their plumages, intimately. We found a peep none of us knew what it was, which was beyond uncharacteristic. We had nearly a hundred years experience between us. We knew Least inside-out. It was clear that this was not a Least Sandpiper to us. It sorta looked Least-ish mostly due to yellow legs, but structurally it was all wrong. It was shaped like a Tringa with long legs and a long neck with a little head. And it walked like a Jacana (my words). Ed said it walked like it had clown shoes on, and David said like it was wearing swim fins, and like it was walking on hot coals. This action of leg was so unlike anything any of us had ever seen, as to be absolutely stunning. To someone that has not studied the gait and step of peeps extensively though, it might not be that obvious. If you are just at the leg color stage, or not ageing yet, it may be possible to overlook, but if you spent hundreds of hours watching them walk, behavior is as important as shaft streaks and feather fringes, in certain cases. The step difference in these two species is as different as the wing stroke of Spotted Sandpiper or Ashy Storm-Petrel is compared to others in their families. This is what intimate knowledge gains you. "Look how it walks!" we often said while we studied it. Has that ever been something anyone thought or said watching a Least? By three guys that a decade earlier had proven they were ahead of the general birding public stint curve. Funny how our own frames of reference each gave us different things to correlate the obviously odd gait with, yet all essentially were saying the same thing. The bird lifted its leg much higher, and there was a weird floppy foot movement from a larger foot (due to longer toes) falling forward. After about 15 minutes of scrutinous study I said the bird was a Long-toed Stint. I got a couple poor docu shots. The next day it was seen by well over a dozen people, photographed by Jonathan Alderfer, and videotaped by Floyd Hayes or a friend of his. I wrote an extensive description of the bird up to submit to the CBRC. The video was submitted as well. Jonathan Alderfer wrote notes and with his 24 slides submitted a statement saying something to the effect of: I have blown the images up on the wall and put the calipers to the bill. The bill is shorter than the tarsus in all 24 images, and in every and any angle, tarsus length exceeds bill length. This is definitive for Long-toed Stint. The odd gait was obviously apparent in the video, to a degree that the CBRC's naysayers from the Jon Dunn school of doubting Toms had no choice but to try to explain it away. Some finally found a way to just say no by saying it was a WOUNDED Least Sandpiper. I know at least one member was questioned later by someone that saw the bird and read that in the CBRC annual report, and were referred to an article about arthritis in Calidrids. What that had to do with it I can't imagine, but this is how the CBRC works. ANY reason will do to just say no. Relevant or not. OK let's think about this for a minute. Long-toed Stint has more leg movement than a Least for two reasons. First, because it has longer toes the ankle/heel must be lifted higher off the ground to take a step. It does not drag its toe tips when it walks. It's long toes clear the ground just like every other peep does, but it requires a higher lift motion to do so. Secondly, it has a longer tarsus. So when it lifts its leg to step, higher to clear the toes for the step, it REALLY LOOKS DIFFERENT. Like a Jacana, or as if it has swim fins or clown shoes on. There is more throw and more motion than with a shorter tarsus and shorter toes of a Least Sandpiper. The larger foot is lifted higher, and thrown further in front of body each step due to the longer tarsus. It is different as night and day. I have no doubt they can be seperated on the physical properties of this mechanical motion 100% of the time, like dancing, if one just learns the steps. I'm sure it could be easily graphed with pens in knee, ankle and central toe, and the combination of the three lines left by the motion would not overlap. One set would be easily ID'able as Long-toed, the other Least, without overlap. It is not even close. I call it a mechanical mark. It's Physics 101. Now let's consider wounded or arthritic legs and motion. Long-toed has much more leg movement than Least. Would a wounded Least have more leg movement than a healthy one? How about an arthritic Least? I suspect wounded and arthritic Leasts have LESS motion than healthy ones. In fact I challenge the CBRC to show a wounded Least Sandpiper with MORE leg movement than a healthy one. There ain't no such animal. I'd say placing these motions in order of degree of movement it would go like this: 1) healthy Long-toed Stint 2) arthritic/wounded Long-toed Stint 3) healthy Least 4) arthritic/wounded Least I think if such a thing existed, an arthritic Long-toed Stint would still have more movement than a healthy Least. It still has to clear its toes of the ground to step, and still has a longer tarsus creating more swing, further projection of foot forward of body, etc.. Now on a bird that clearly shows more movement than any healthy Least, how could you suggest it is a wounded one? What wound is this Dr. Stintstep? Relevant references please. This is not a condition of arthritis which restricts movement. They are saying an alleged wound is causing the obviously very different leg movement from a normal healthy Least. What would arthritis have to do with it? It was MORE movement than any Least, not less. What wound causes the foot to be bigger, tarsus longer, and it all to be lifted higher and further from the body when stepping avian physiologists? I believe that the wound that causes this is that some CBRC members were dropped on their heads as babies. For others it is megalomania. There were no wounds visible, and the bird clearly was not wounded. The bird walked and flew perfectly. It's gait was outside the range of Least Sandpiper. This is another socal CBRC record wreckers Unicorn. They are suggesting the bird with more movement than a gymnastic Least was a wounded Least, despite there being *no evidence of such* (doesn't that sound familiar?). And that this previously unknown to science wound causes it to walk and look like a Long-toed Stint. Why haven't they published the paper on their incredible discovery? Because in real scientific circles they would be laughed at. This junk science only flies in the CBRC. It is just one more example of a the same socal boys club doing the same thing over again, making ANYTHING up so they can just say no. Or, what they call science at the CBRC. The CBRC socal record wreckers watched videos of movement #1 and identified it as movement #4. This is their ID skills. This is their record review savvy and mentality. This is the identification wizardy judging and determining your bird reports. This is what they know about Least Sandpipers. They can't even ID them. Part of this is because when you are into shaft streaks and feather fringes you miss the holistic view of the bird. You don't ever study the steps of Least so you know that part of the animal too, so well, that anything not right stands out like a sore thumb. They look at video with movement that is obviously #1, and ID it as #4. That is how warped they are. This is how willing they are to make up horsefeathers in order to just say no. I don't consider it sane, much less the science they sell it as, and binding on top of that. It is lying, and cheating the record, not assurring the accuracy of it. It is saying one thing and doing another. It is being hypocrites by making up false ID's, doing that which they say they are there to stop. Interestingly this record has much the same socal voting and Unicorn prints on it as 1991-035, 1997-139 and others. The socal record wreckers. The same guys that lied to create the CBRC ornithological hoax of Scissor-tailgate on 1991-035 did this. And since I was the identifier, it was against their same most-favored prior victim. The one they were proven to have lied about just to reject. The same guys that saw yellow where there was none on CBRC# 1997-139, the same guys that reject a Snow Bunting because it could be McKay's, the same guys that think having no pelagic experience qualifies them to be someone's peer judging storm-petrels, the same guys that falsely accuse someone of scientific fraud, made this wounded Least claim. And I'm supposed to believe this one too I suppose? Ed Navjosky went back and refound the bird the day after it was videotaped (day 3) and heard it call a 2 and/or 3 note calls he said was unlike anything he ever heard from 40 years of listening to many thousands of Leasts. I've shown my poor picture to several, and no one yet has guessed it to be a peep at first sight without being told it was, the structure is so Tringa and un-peep-like. Much of the time it stood just on its toe tips, not flat- footed like a Least, which shuffles like monks in a line by comparison. Now most recently I saw a post on North Bay Birds (June 2009?) by the videographer saying he had requested a copy of the video tape he submitted to the CBRC. Twice he has requested a copy of his tape, and received no reply. That is mighty friendly of the CBRC, isn't it? Where is the tape CBRC? If one of your socal record wreckers was the last one with it, we know what happened. You are the people who are allegedly archiving all the critical documentation for history I thought. How come the guy who gave you the tape can't have a copy, or even get a reply? How professional the CBRC is. So again we see the CBRC footprints of their rejection Unicorns. Using something that doesn't exist to vote no. Does anyone see a pattern? They just don't get it. If they had rejected for about any legitimate reason under the sun, I would have no qualms. But when they make up obvious garbage to do so, we should all be greatly concerned, because it is not honest. It means they are playing a game, and cheating to achieve what they perceive as a win. What records of yours were similarly rejected for reasons more ridiculous than the claimed ID? I welcome submissions for consideration, and if egregious as these examples, I might be willing to do the work to put them up here on this webpage. They call this binding science so apparently they can not identify that either. Does identifying a peep that steps like the Rockettes, as a wounded or arthritic Least, happen where obviously made up ridiculous stuff is not tolerated, or where it is the culture? What is most lacking in purity of intent, a birder arriving at ID's of things he doesn't know better than, or a faux-expert making up ID's they do know better than, so they can just say no?
Wounded Least Sandpiper as ID'd by the CBRC. Mitch Heindel Boycott the CBRC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rejection Unicorns 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 intro page The CBRC has standards? CBRC standards , an oxymoron My brother is my keeper? CBRC scientific method another oxymoron from the morons The Wounded Least Unicorn CBRC blows ID again They don't know Least Sandpiper HOME |
