« Return to Thread: RFI: "Status" of birds on Tiritiri Matangi Island New Zealand
Re: RFI: "Status" of birds on Tiritiri Matangi Island New Zealand
by Morgan Churchill
::
Rate this Message:
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
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
« Return to Thread: RFI: "Status" of birds on Tiritiri Matangi Island New Zealand
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
