RFI: "Status" of birds on Tiritiri Matangi Island New Zealand

[David M Mark]

Hello:

I will be visiting New Zealand in October and my hosts are planning to
take me to Tiritiri Matangi Island. Sounds like it will be a great
experience, but I am wondering if anyone can comment on the "countability"
for bird listing. Apparently, native vegetation was established on the
island between 1984 and 1994, and "a number of species of threatened and
endangered birds have been successfully introduced"
http://www.tiritirimatangi.org.nz/

But to me, "introduced" birds are not "countable" until they are fully
"established". I would appreciate any comments on the specific situation
of Tiritiri Matangi Island.

Thanks,
David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Mark
Amherst, New York (near Buffalo; home location)
dmark@...
http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Tim Boucher]

Actually most of the species were RE-introduced. The island vegetation was
restored - mostly by volunteers! - and bird species that had been there were
brought back.

We did have a "discussion" about the Takahe, which at this time exist in the
wild only at high altitude on South Island. Apparently, there is fossil
evidence that they also existed on North Island, and at lower altitudes.
Given that Greg and Cheesecake and their young 'uns are running around in
the tea garden, pinching tourists' lunches, it is hard to think of them as
being truly wild. It is a whole lot more like a zoo without fences. Though
actually, lots of the truly wild birds in NZ - especially on Ulva Island -
are so unafraid of humans that they will sit right by you or approach you.


So bottom line is: your list, your rules. Plus what do ABA rules have to do
with non-ABA area lists?  

Ellen Paul
Chevy Chase MD

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Joyanne Hamilton]

On the topic of "reintroduction"..............

Sorry, going to respond with an unbirdlike comment here.......

Interesting to follow this thread.  I save things like this for my  
students.  I love it!

Not bird related but also following the whole "re-introduced" vein,  
Bison in Alaska have been big in the news here for about 5- years  
now.  Well, actually, they have at least two "transplanted" herds; one  
near Flat, an old gold-mining town, and one in Delta, on the highway  
system south-east of Fairbanks.  They've both been around at least 35-
years.

Recently, Fish and Wildlife biologists have been pushing for, what  
they are calling, a "reintroduction" of bison to certain areas of  
Alaska. They are able to make this claim based on (correct me if I'm  
wrong) oral stories of people who's ancestors actually hunted bison in  
the Yukon Flats area, and archeological evidence. Many, many times the  
biologists mentioned that "there were bison here before" and claim  
they are not invasive.

Proposed herds are designated to be brought in to the Yukon Flats area  
and into our area, the Innoko drainage area.  Several years ago some  
wildlife biologists and others came in to discuss the plan, gather  
public opinion and "sell" the idea to people in our 4-village area  
(Shageluk, Holy Cross, Anvik and Grayling).

The biologists  were providing data, current trends based on the  
existing 2-herds and speculation about the "positive" outcomes.  They  
would leave the herd for several years to build up stock, monitor the  
herd for disease, etc.  and then do some kind of draw or lottery hunt  
based on herd size.

Well, sitting in the meeting with my students,  I figured "this all  
sound too good to be true" and (no offense to any biologists out  
there), I DO know that if you believe passionately enough in  
something, and you really want to see it work, you're going to sell  
that idea any way you ethically can (again, no offense to any  
biologists out there).  I just know that these biologists here  
passionately want the bison herds to work for Yukon Flats and our area  
on the Innoko.

After one of the meetings I had my students do research on the  
internet regarding the Canadian herds, the Delta and the Flat, Alaska  
herds.  We called it "Pros and Cons to the reintroduction of Bison in  
Interior Alaska".

First off, was the fact that well, yes, there were herds in Yukon  
Flats as late as 300 years ago.  However, this stunned me; evidence of  
Ancient Bison in the Innoko drainage area  occurred 6-10 million years  
ago, HARDLY basis for use of the term "REintroduced" which I thought  
was rather misleading on the part of the biologists!

At any rate, the kids found out many "cons" to the bison  
reintroduction sell-job that were not mentioned during the splendid  
presentations and data the biologists had presented to the community.

I don't necessarily like to become part of an argument for or against  
on this subject of "reintroduction" but I do try to teach kids to DO  
YOUR RESEARCH before making any changes to the environment to decide  
its impact.

Last fall Fish and Wildlife decided that pike had become invasive in a  
popular fishing lake within the municipality of Anchorage so they  
decided to throw some kind of poison in there to kill off all the pike  
and in the spring, restock with, I guess, "approved" fish in the  
spring, which they did. I haven't heard anything since but that  
created a stir as well.

The list goes on and on, interesting and sad, too, of many species of  
plants, birds, beasts and fish that have decimated a "natural"  
populous and how people want to "reclaim" the environment or habitat  
for its original inhabitants all over the world.

It's good to discuss and I have been enjoying this thread.

Joyanne Hamilton
Shageluk, Alaska





On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Tim Boucher wrote:

> Actually most of the species were RE-introduced. The island  
> vegetation was
> restored - mostly by volunteers! - and bird species that had been  
> there were
> brought back.
>
> We did have a "discussion" about the :, which at this time exist in  
> the
> wild only at high altitude on South Island. Apparently, there is  
> fossil
> evidence that they also existed on North Island, and at lower  
> altitudes.
> Given that Greg and Cheesecake and their young 'uns are running  
> around in
> the tea garden, pinching tourists' lunches, it is hard to think of  
> them as
> being truly wild. It is a whole lot more like a zoo without fences.  
> Though
> actually, lots of the truly wild birds in NZ - especially on Ulva  
> Island -
> are so unafraid of humans that they will sit right by you or  
> approach you.
>
>
> So bottom line is: your list, your rules. Plus what do ABA rules  
> have to do
> with non-ABA area lists?
>
> Ellen Paul
> Chevy Chase MD
>
> BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[David M Mark]

Hello Ellen:

Thanks for the comments on Tiritiri Matangi Island birds.

You are absolutely right, my list is "my list" and I can could birds in
zoos or on television if I want. But the ABA rules apply DO APPLY to the
world lists of ABA members who report their list totals to the ABA. For a
list to be ABA compliant, for areas outside the Americas it has to follow
Clements for taxonomy. And rather than maintain various versions for
various lists, my personal lists now conforms to ABA rules, even ABA rules
that I disagree with.

Under ABA rules, I don't think history matters, i.e., I think that
re-introduced birds are under the same criteria as birds introduced where
they never occured before. So, for example, in my opinion, the
"countability" of Trumpeter Swans in the northeast is the same, whether
they occurred here before, Columbus or not.

So, I think that if a species was extirpated from Tiritiri Matangi Island,
then that species would need to be solidly established there (again) to be
"countable" under rules. So, I'd like to know how well established the
birds are on Tiritiri Matangi Island, and for how long.

Thanks!
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Mark
Amherst, New York (near Buffalo; home location)
dmark@...
http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Tim Boucher wrote:

> Actually most of the species were RE-introduced. The island vegetation was
> restored - mostly by volunteers! - and bird species that had been there were
> brought back.
>
> We did have a "discussion" about the Takahe, which at this time exist in the
> wild only at high altitude on South Island. Apparently, there is fossil
> evidence that they also existed on North Island, and at lower altitudes.
> Given that Greg and Cheesecake and their young 'uns are running around in
> the tea garden, pinching tourists' lunches, it is hard to think of them as
> being truly wild. It is a whole lot more like a zoo without fences. Though
> actually, lots of the truly wild birds in NZ - especially on Ulva Island -
> are so unafraid of humans that they will sit right by you or approach you.
>
>
> So bottom line is: your list, your rules. Plus what do ABA rules have to do
> with non-ABA area lists?
>
> Ellen Paul
> Chevy Chase MD
>
>
>

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Morgan Churchill]

My own two cents:

Personally, I think we should be making distinctions between conservation oriented reintroductions, and non-native introductions.  As human populations increase, there are only going to be more and more populations that exist as "managed".  A good example is the Kirtland's Warbler...Odds are the species will always need active management in the form of controlled burning and cowbird control.  To me, this really is no different from reintroducing birds and counting their offspring.  They are both examples of active management, it's just in one case the birds had to be brought into captivity for awhile.  Obviously I wouldn't count zoo birds, or escapees, but it seems like in cases where birds have been purposely introduced to an area once native, survived for awhile, and are breeding with no sign of future extirpation, it should be fair to count them.

As for Tiri Matingi, I think there are a mix of birds there that are countable under ABA rules, and not countable.  I recall seeing a list on an official site for the island showing reintroduction dates of different species, and what species naturally occur or have recolonized.  You could probably base their countability on that.

**********************************
Morgan Churchill
Masters candidate
Department of Biology
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92115


--- On Thu, 6/25/09, David M Mark <dmark@...> wrote:

> From: David M Mark <dmark@...>
> Subject: Re: [BIRDCHAT] RFI: "Status" of birds on Tiritiri Matangi Island New Zealand
> To: BIRDCHAT@...
> Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 7:23 PM
> Hello Ellen:
>
> Thanks for the comments on Tiritiri Matangi Island birds.
>
> You are absolutely right, my list is "my list" and I can
> could birds in zoos or on television if I want. But the ABA
> rules apply DO APPLY to the world lists of ABA members who
> report their list totals to the ABA. For a list to be ABA
> compliant, for areas outside the Americas it has to follow
> Clements for taxonomy. And rather than maintain various
> versions for various lists, my personal lists now conforms
> to ABA rules, even ABA rules that I disagree with.
>
> Under ABA rules, I don't think history matters, i.e., I
> think that re-introduced birds are under the same criteria
> as birds introduced where they never occured before. So, for
> example, in my opinion, the "countability" of Trumpeter
> Swans in the northeast is the same, whether they occurred
> here before, Columbus or not.
>
> So, I think that if a species was extirpated from Tiritiri
> Matangi Island, then that species would need to be solidly
> established there (again) to be "countable" under rules. So,
> I'd like to know how well established the birds are on
> Tiritiri Matangi Island, and for how long.
>
> Thanks!
> David
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David M. Mark
> Amherst, New York (near Buffalo; home location)
> dmark@...
> http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Tim Boucher wrote:
>
> > Actually most of the species were RE-introduced. The
> island vegetation was
> > restored - mostly by volunteers! - and bird species
> that had been there were
> > brought back.
> >
> > We did have a "discussion" about the Takahe, which at
> this time exist in the
> > wild only at high altitude on South Island.
> Apparently, there is fossil
> > evidence that they also existed on North Island, and
> at lower altitudes.
> > Given that Greg and Cheesecake and their young 'uns
> are running around in
> > the tea garden, pinching tourists' lunches, it is hard
> to think of them as
> > being truly wild. It is a whole lot more like a zoo
> without fences. Though
> > actually, lots of the truly wild birds in NZ -
> especially on Ulva Island -
> > are so unafraid of humans that they will sit right by
> you or approach you.
> >
> >
> > So bottom line is: your list, your rules. Plus what do
> ABA rules have to do
> > with non-ABA area lists?
> >
> > Ellen Paul
> > Chevy Chase MD
> >
> >
> >
>
> BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html
>

     

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html