Counting Introduced Species - World (1 Viewer)

Larry Sweetland · Mar 16, 2015

Trystan said:
Not sure I follow the logic of ticking a re-introduced species but not an introduced one.

Agree there's perhaps no real logic, but if you look at taxonomic bird lists in general, they tend to give ranges for everything. These don't tend to include eg California Quail on New Zealand , Tanimbar Corella on Singapore, Madagascar Fody on Seychelles, or Golden Pheasant in the UK. It just doesn't feel right to me to count them in those places, but personally it wouldn't feel that bad to count Californian Condor in, say, California. I was a bit more strict about it and didn't even count re-intros, until I went to New Zealand, where some birds eg the saddlebacks and Little Spotted Kiwi only exist as re-introductions.

chris butterworth · Mar 16, 2015

Trystan said:
As far as I know the BoPs on Tobago are no more after one of the big hurricanes. No sign of them when I was there anyway.

Booo. Hiss. They may have been "plastic" ........ but they were "quality plastic".

sneil · Mar 16, 2015

This thread also covered some of the ground:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2250985#post2250985

...btw, Larry, I did remove Mute Swan.......:-C

Trystan · Mar 17, 2015

Could someone point me to the historical range of the Mute swan and which populations are deemed introduced thanks.

lewis20126 · Mar 17, 2015

Mute Swan: I ticked it in South Korea - a wintering flock in the far north-east the best I've seen.

I've never counted Capercaillie from Scotland, hoping to see them in Scandinavia / Pyrenees one day.

Lady Amherst's Pheasant and Golden Pheasant only count on the World List from China!

cheers, alan

Trystan · Mar 17, 2015

I have a nice male Capercaillie on my UK list but I'm happier with my flight view female Romanian bird for my world list.

I have also have Mute swan from Eastern Europe hence post 24.

avesjohn · Mar 17, 2015

I haven't yet birded outside the US, so I can't speak for how to handle introduced birds in other countries, but here, I personally follow the ABA/AOU guidelines when it comes to introduced species (i.e, established populations and on official checklists), with a few exceptions, listed below.

Yellow-chevroned Parakeet - not on ABA/AOU checklist, but added to my life list long before I started following "the rules" more closely; probably should be countable, though, based on the population here in the L.A. area.

Red-whiskered Bulbul - ABA-countable in Florida, but not in California, the only place I've seen it (not on official state checklist); again, essentially grandfathered onto my list.

Wild Turkey - an interesting case. I've seen feral Wild Turkeys here in California, but as the species is a North American native, I see no point in adding it to my life list based on non-native California populations when I could simply head east (as close as Arizona) and see wild/reintroduced populations there. Because I haven't yet done so, Wild Turkey remains off my life list for now.

Larry Sweetland · Mar 17, 2015

Trystan said:
Could someone point me to the historical range of the Mute swan and which populations are deemed introduced thanks.

according to wikipedia, there is evidence that Mute Swan occurred in East Anglia 6000 years ago

bkrownd · Mar 17, 2015

Mysticete said:
For Ebird, I would count everything, even things that are not officially established. That is WHAT people should do, but unfortunately a lot of regional editors dismiss records of non-established birds, making ebird less useful for tracking distribution changes.

This is a subject of much misunderstanding. The reviewers are given reviewing guidelines by eBird, which they are supposed to follow. These guidelines require reviewers to hide (not "dismiss") most non-naturalized introduced species from the public output. This is the policy of the eBird project leaders, and is in part a legacy of decisions in the early days of the project. Part of the misunderstanding people have about this situation comes from the fact that many reviewers are not diligent about applying the guidelines consistently in this area, and generally eBird rarely "polices" the reviewers.

eBird wants people to include EVERYTHING on their list. They just don't show it all in the output, which should change some day as the database evolves.

Trystan · Mar 18, 2015

Larry Sweetland said:
according to wikipedia, there is evidence that Mute Swan occurred in East Anglia 6000 years ago

So if it was introduced by the Normans, that would be a re-introduction..

I read the Wiki article but I'm none the wiser about why birds in Kazakhstan are more valid than those in Europe.

sneil · Mar 18, 2015

Trystan said:
So if it was introduced by the Normans, that would be a re-introduction..

I hope so, then I could put it back on my list....:t:

Carol Baldock · Mar 18, 2015

this is an interesting and amusing thread, as a keen amateur birder for many years, who has only very recently decided to get some proper list records ( years of scribbling in notebooks, previously) , I am dis - heartened by the mute swan discussion..although on the plus side I am in East Anglia

King Edward · Mar 18, 2015

Trystan said:
So if it was introduced by the Normans, that would be a re-introduction..
I read the Wiki article but I'm none the wiser about why birds in Kazakhstan are more valid than those in Europe.

Is there actually any evidence that the (semi-)domesticated Mute Swans kept in the Middle Ages were brought over from the continent, rather than originating in the wild native population?

Mysticete · Mar 19, 2015

For me at least, there is a big difference between a bird introduced for conservation purposes, and a bird introduced as an accidental release or for hunting, etc.

In the former case, it's a situation where humans are trying to fix a mistake they made in the environment, and I think those efforts should be fully supported, including counting the species involved. Especially if the long-term goal is to keep that population around.

In the latter its a simple mistake oftentimes, or the case where earlier groups didn't consider the consequences of trying to "improve" the local fauna.

At least lately it seems more birders in the US have come around to my view...ABA just finally changed the rules to allow reintroduced native birds to count, even when they may not fill other criteria. So birders can now count Aplomado Falcon and California Condor for their ABA list.

Mysticete · Mar 19, 2015

bkrownd said:
This is a subject of much misunderstanding. The reviewers are given reviewing guidelines by eBird, which they are supposed to follow. These guidelines require reviewers to hide (not "dismiss") most non-naturalized introduced species from the public output. This is the policy of the eBird project leaders, and is in part a legacy of decisions in the early days of the project. Part of the misunderstanding people have about this situation comes from the fact that many reviewers are not diligent about applying the guidelines consistently in this area, and generally eBird rarely "polices" the reviewers.

eBird wants people to include EVERYTHING on their list. They just don't show it all in the output, which should change some day as the database evolves.

Yeah that is official Ebird policy, but I have had conversations with Ebird reviewers in California that clearly don't follow those guidelines, and invalidate (not hide) any exotic not considered established in the state. The conspiracy theorist inside me suspects its partly motivated by the strong NO INTRODUCED SPECIES stance the California birding community adheres to, since such policing prevents the collection of data on exotic that might be of use in considering whether a species should be added to the checklist or not.

sneil · Mar 19, 2015

Mysticete said:
For me at least, there is a big difference between a bird introduced for conservation purposes, and a bird introduced as an accidental release or for hunting, etc.

In the former case, it's a situation where humans are trying to fix a mistake they made in the environment, and I think those efforts should be fully supported, including counting the species involved. Especially if the long-term goal is to keep that population around.

In the latter its a simple mistake oftentimes, or the case where earlier groups didn't consider the consequences of trying to "improve" the local fauna.

At least lately it seems more birders in the US have come around to my view...ABA just finally changed the rules to allow reintroduced native birds to count, even when they may not fill other criteria. So birders can now count Aplomado Falcon and California Condor for their ABA list.

Yes, that is my stance over here (or as best as am able: I'm sure there's a couple of iffy's on the list).
Interestingly, and I stand to be corrected, in the UK the deliberate introduction or release of 'non-native' species is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.....I wonder where that puts the regular release of pheasants and red-legged partridge?

bkrownd · Mar 19, 2015

Mysticete said:
Yeah that is official Ebird policy, but I have had conversations with Ebird reviewers in California that clearly don't follow those guidelines, and invalidate (not hide) any exotic not considered established in the state.

(pardon my CAPS - trying to add emphasis)

When I say "hidden" I do MEAN "invalidate". (which does NOT mean "dismissed") They are the SAME thing, because the only way to hide birds from the public output is to mark them "not valid". It is a simple binary flag in the database ("valid" or "not valid") and there is no third option. That's why I say "hide" instead, to convey the actual intent. The same thing also happens for birds that are hidden to "protect" them from disturbance, or hidden records on private land, or when a user hides their own checklists - these are also marked "not valid". There is no third option in the database.

These birds remain in the database flagged as "introduced/exotic", alongside every other bird reported. They are not deleted, lost or ignored. They simply aren't displayed in the bar charts.

Whether this policy is good or bad is argued frequently on the reviewers' discussion group. The eBird leaders hear it all the time, so there's really no point in trying to argue otherwise with the volunteer reviewers or the eBird team. We are all hoping for future database tweaks that create a more satisfactory way of handling "introduced/exotic".

King Edward · Mar 19, 2015

sneil said:
Yes, that is my stance over here (or as best as am able: I'm sure there's a couple of iffy's on the list).
Interestingly, and I stand to be corrected, in the UK the deliberate introduction or release of 'non-native' species is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.....I wonder where that puts the regular release of pheasants and red-legged partridge?

Without checking the wording, I think the offence is releasing species that are not "ordinarily resident", so pheasants & R-L partridges are allowed.

Counting Introduced Species - World (1 Viewer)

More options

Larry Sweetland

Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'

chris butterworth

aka The Person Named Above

sneil

Well-known member

Trystan

Well-known member

lewis20126

Well-known member

Trystan

Well-known member

avesjohn

Well-known member

Larry Sweetland

Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'

bkrownd

Well-known member

Trystan

Well-known member

sneil

Well-known member

Carol Baldock

Carol Rushton

King Edward

Well-known member

Mysticete

Well-known member

Mysticete

Well-known member

sneil

Well-known member

bkrownd

Well-known member

King Edward

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread