Can that bird be considered "wild"? (1 Viewer)

[Mono]

Assessing provenance has nuance. At the two extremes if I'm in the UK and see a Laughing Gull then there is a massive likelihood that it is a vagrant. Similarly if I see a Lord Derby's Parakeet then it's overwhelmingly likely to be an escaped pet. But there are are multiple cases in between. Say I see a White Stork in the UK there are 3 possibilities. It is a vagrant bird from the continental Europe, it is one of from the Knepp introduction or it is from one of the free-flying collections. I will place different probabilities on the possible origins depending on location, time of year, any rings etc. Individual birders may assign different probabilities and choose to tick an individual bird or not. In the stork case one may go with the BOU opinion that the Knepp population is not yet self-sustaining or one might differ with that opinion. If one wants to tick a stork in field next to the zoo it has just hopped over the fence from then that is an individual's perogative.

Your list, your rules is fine until you want to share or compare that list. If you are playing pitch and put with your mates you can give people do-overs not so much in the US Open.

 

[condor1992]

Assessing provenance has nuance. At the two extremes if I'm in the UK and see a Laughing Gull then there is a massive likelihood that it is a vagrant. Similarly if I see a Lord Derby's Parakeet then it's overwhelmingly likely to be an escaped pet. But there are are multiple cases in between. Say I see a White Stork in the UK there are 3 possibilities. It is a vagrant bird from the continental Europe, it is one of from the Knepp introduction or it is from one of the free-flying collections. I will place different probabilities on the possible origins depending on location, time of year, any rings etc. Individual birders may assign different probabilities and choose to tick an individual bird or not. In the stork case one may go with the BOU opinion that the Knepp population is not yet self-sustaining or one might differ with that opinion. If one wants to tick a stork in field next to the zoo it has just hopped over the fence from then that is an individual's perogative.

Your list, your rules is fine until you want to share or compare that list. If you are playing pitch and put with your mates you can give people do-overs not so much in the US Open.

Agreed, that is why I am very careful about that sort of thing. Had it been Shropshire instead, or in fact anywhere but Bedfordshire and perhaps a part of the south East Midlands, I would have assessed it as an escape, even after seeing its very un-escapee like behaviour.
As such, I would have 100% assessed a Californian condor an escapee in the UK, but a booted eagle I would have seriously considered the possibility of a vagrant, despite an opinion that there have been no genuine vagrants to the UK.
Wood ducks are something else. Perhaps I should have rephrased a little and said that I want to see a freely-roaming, escaped or introduced bird which is 'in the wild'

 

[Butty]

Had it been Shropshire instead . . . I would have assessed it as an escape

...and (presumably?) thus not ticked it.
But...

I want to see a freely-roaming, escaped or introduced [wood duck] which is 'in the wild'

...and (presumably) you will tick that? So you (apparently?) have radically different criteria for Lady Amherst's pheasant and wood duck. This gets increasingly confusing.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

I’ll just leave this here:



(From RBA)

 

[condor1992]

Have you actually even read what is written there? It says there, at least one is an escapee. Not both (there are 2 now). One has indeed escaped in recent days. The other, however, is a wild bird per what I have said earlier and what I have seen when I visited. No way would an escapee be so elusive and act that way around predators, especially a fresh escapee. This has not changed my mind at all

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Have you actually even read what is written there? It says there, at least one is an escapee. Not both (there are 2 now). One has indeed escaped in recent days. The other, however, is a wild bird per what I have said earlier and what I have seen when I visited. No way would an escapee be so elusive and act that way around predators, especially a fresh escapee. This has not changed my mind at all

It’s a while since I did maths, but I seem to recall 1+ is more than 1, and as there are now two birds in the area I would suspect that it’s overwhelming likely that they have the same origin. (c.f. Ockham’s Razor)

From the outset it was clear that you were of the mind that the first bird was ‘wild’ so my posting this is not aimed at changing your mind.

Clearly many, dare I say competitive, listing birders have gone to see this bird as some sort of insurance, in case there was a remote chance that it could have been a lingerer from the original population in that rough area.

I can’t speak for them of course, but I suspect the pencilled in tick is now being rubbed out.

Perhaps someone in that position would like to give us their take on this…

 

[Sangahyando]

I would be more than happy to, but am a university student with a very limited budget...

I know the feeling, but my point is that if you count the expenses for chasing rarities (including ones that might be semi-wild at best) round the country for years, would it really amount to less than travelling to an entirely different region of the world for a relatively short, but much more productive, time?
Or, say, what's the point in trying to find Long-eared Owl in Britain (where it's apparently rare enough to warrant its breeding/roosting sites being kept a secret) when you can see easily it in e.g. Serbia and probably for less money, too? Heck, even in Germany it's quite common and not very difficult to see, at least by owl standards.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Smoke and Mirrors, as is often the case, but I’ve been told today that there are 5 birds in the area. I’m not sure I believe it but it could have a grain of truth.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Interesting thread on Focus on Flitwick Facebook group. Especially the comments from ‘Betty’s’ owners

.

 

[condor1992]

Interesting thread on Focus on Flitwick Facebook group. Especially the comments from ‘Betty’s’ owners

. View attachment 1491378

I've already responded to that in a different part of the forum. Needless to say, claim is good and all, except I see no evidence that is the bird I saw. Also, the owner cannot get the gender correct

 

[Farnboro John]

I've already responded to that in a different part of the forum. Needless to say, claim is good and all, except I see no evidence that is the bird I saw. Also, the owner cannot get the gender correct

Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't matter. The inability of Joe Public to understand plumages does not alter the fact of discovered origin.

John

 

[Mysticete]

Going back to your earlier point, I know you want to see a wood duck and you can't because you are a university student. But trust me, unless you have some sort of terminal disease diagnosis, you have a long life ahead of you, and the US is really easy to travel to and bird in. Wood Ducks are a very easy duck to see over most of Eastern USA, except perhaps in the northern most states. And you will never have a problem in any natural area being able to tick them as wild birds.

 

[Butty]

you will never have a problem in any natural area being able to tick them as wild bird

I fear you miss the point: he's young (the future is thus too impossibly-distant to contemplate), eager, and doesn't care whether the birds are wild or not.

 

[condor1992]

Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't matter. The inability of Joe Public to understand plumages does not alter the fact of discovered origin.

John

If someone actually spent money on a bird like that and are a bird enthusiast, in my book, that requires sufficient knowledge of the gender of the bird, its feeding habits, how to look after it, etc. The poster made a claim-without evidence-that the bird is hers. I have serious doubts, because, as said, in my mind ownership requires sufficient knowledge of the bird. Add to that the fact the bird I saw went unreported as an escape for more than a month vs how quickly that escape was reported, and the wild habits I mentioned, and you have a strong case for discounting Mrs Anne as the owner.
The only thing that would ever make me change my mind is proof of ownership. Best if the bird was ringed. Unfortunately, now it is impossible to do that, so it cannot be proven that the bird is an escape, and I stand by my opinion.
The entire situation goes back to 'official' and 'unofficial'. Natural England considers the great bustard non-native, which in my eyes already caused me to cross them out as my bird source. Same with the BOU, which blew itself up in my mind claiming the bustard is not self-sustaining, despite photographic evidence of breeding from Salisbury Plain. Similarly, small-flowered tongue orchids were considered an introduction in Cornwall, but a lot of authors such as Simon Harrap disagree and assess they are almost-certainly naturally arrived.
There is nothing official about this bird, except a very dodgy claim that 'the bird is mine' and there being 2 pheasants to choose from now. I ask again- what evidence is there that the bird on the photo is the one I saw and not the confirmed escape?

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't matter. The inability of Joe Public to understand plumages does not alter the fact of discovered origin.

John

Or indeed Josephine Public.

 

[Butty]

If someone actually spent money on a bird like that . . . [etc]

I can't actually see where any logic or rational thinking has been employed at any point within this post.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Hi Gleb/jqmhelios/Condor1992,

“I ask again- what evidence is there that the bird on the photo is the one I saw and not the confirmed escape?”

One might as well ask - what evidence is there that the bird you saw is the, so called, ‘wild one’ and not the confirmed escape?

 

[Butty]

Gleb/jqmhelios/Condor1992

Oh, really? - that could explain a lot...

 

[condor1992]

Hi Gleb/jqmhelios/Condor1992,

“I ask again- what evidence is there that the bird on the photo is the one I saw and not the confirmed escape?”

One might as well ask - what evidence is there that the bird you saw is the, so called, ‘wild one’ and not the confirmed escape?

Maybe because of when the escape was first reported?

 

[kingjack]

He

A week ago, I undertook a very exhausting trip to see a Lady Amherst's pheasant near Flitwick. The trip was succesfull- I have great photos of it. But there is a problem.
I always wanted to see 'wild' birds, not captive ones or anything. With that pheasant, I have no trouble with its introduced status and also have no trouble with it being 'wild'- that population was introduced in the 19th Century and is now down to a single male, which is so elusive I am not surprised at all that it was not found sooner.
I wanted to see a Lady Amherst's pheasant since the time when the Collins complete photographic guide to British Birds was brand new. But there is another bird which falls into the same category.
I wanted to see wood ducks forever. Obviously I can't just go to the US, because I am a student. In my opinion, the wood duck is the prettiest duck in the world, surpassing even the mandarin duck. I got very happy when I found out that Regent's Park has some wood ducks (as does St James's park), but can they really be considered 'wild', ie can they freely leave and roam about the place? I know the pelicans can, but nevertheless. And I know that Regent's has a mandarin pair which can roam about, too.
And what about Kew Gardens's golden pheasants, perhaps the last in the UK? Are they 'wild-introduced', or what would be defined as 'captive'?

Hello, condor, what is the date you saw the pheasant, it has not been seen since 26 jan