[obol] Re: Pheasants
- From: "Pamela Johnston" <pamelaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "obol" <obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:01 -0800
I saw a couple this summer! It was an exclamation point kind of thing to see a
pair of them. This was at the edge of a cow pasture outside Yamhill. The
trouble is that it’s not far from the place where in 2005 or so I saw a dead
Bobwhite in the road. It’s certainly uncommon to find them.
When I was a kid we would hear them at my uncle’s in SW Portland, in the 1960s.
His place was surrounded by Vermont Hills, but among a group of old houses with
some land around them. Now only his small acreage remains undivided, but it
won’t last much longer, and the Pheasants are long gone.
When I moved to the Mt Tabor neighborhood in 1990, they were in Mt Tabor Pk and
we had some fun with them in the yard and the neighborhood. A cock pheasant
used to walk the ridgeline of our roof and call. They disappeared when the
whole park became an off-leash area for dogs, and they didn’t bounce back after
off-leash was later confined to a smaller area.
Pamela Johnston
I'd be interested to know what populations of RN Pheasant in Oregon are
considered to be self-sustaining and which to require regular reintroductions.
I'm happy to start that discussion by suggesting that birds in the southern
Willamette Valley, Lake and Klamath County are probably NOT self-sustaining
populations.
What facts are available from OBOLoids on this question?
.
.
Alan Contreras
acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx
Eugene, Oregon
On Dec 5, 2014, at 4:14 PM, David Irons wrote:
Careful Alan. Let's not start another flame war.
I agree that the line between "self-sustaining established" populations
and those that require some level of human support is increasingly blurry.
Shawneen is on the ABA's "RSEC" (Rules, Standards, and Ethics Committee I
think), which is involved in setting the standards for what is countable. It is
a murky mire, with members holding a remarkable diversity of opinions. The most
recent change is really dicey. It makes extirpated/reintroduced native species
that are presumed to be nesting countable regardless of whether there is
evidence to suggest that self-sustaining populations are gaining a foothold. By
definition, Sharp-tailed Grouse in NE Oregon (assuming that you can lay eyes on
one) should be countable under this new rule, just like Aplomado Falcons in the
Rio Grande Valley and California Condors in the American West. The real fly in
the ointment occurs when attempted reintroductions are done in places where
there is no recent evidence to suggest that the species was once native. (i.e.
California Condors in Utah or Whooping Cranes in Idaho).
For decades, Northern Bobwhite was presumed to have an established and
self-sustaining population in Oregon, then over the course of about three
decades or so they all but vanished from the landscape. Escapees still roam
about, but to my knowledge there is no place in Oregon where one can currently
go to see a population of "wild" bobwhites. The dumping of Ring-necked
Pheasants is almost comical, particularly at Fern Ridge, where roosters are
released along the old section of Royal Ave (beyond the gate) in advance of
hunting season. They stand around like barnyard chickens and by the end of the
hunting season harvest one would be hard-pressed to find a single pheasant.
I guess that it's a good thing that listing is really no more than a
game. So long as we are all keeping track on the same scorecard, does it really
matter what is or isn't considered countable? While the definitions on which we
base these assessment are sometimes confusing, I can't really see how birders
are being done a "disservice." Years ago, a subset of California birders
started reporting their lists as "NIB" meaning that they would only count
Non-Introduced Birds. This movement never seemed to take hold elsewhere, but
there are still some California birders who are devoted to keeping their lists
pure of non-native birds and birds that may have arrived in California with the
aid of the hand of man. Ultimately, is it possible for us to truly know for
sure which birds are and aren't of natural provenance? Ted Floyd recently
posted a graphic showing the relative position of all the cargo ships in the
North Pacific (many hundreds) and posed a question which asked in effect, "are
there any naturally occurring trans-Pacific vagrants (sans ship assistance)
anymore?" Looking at his graphic, the clear answer is "probably not."
As a disclaimer, I have my own opinions on such topics, but I want to
make it clear that these comments are not meant to criticize or call into
question anyone's personal listing standards. In the end birding and listing
are fun, or we wouldn't do it. Part of the fun comes from bantering back and
forth over these sorts of questions.
Dave Irons
Portland, OR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [obol] EGYPTIAN GOOSE: Why go to Florida?
From: acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:41:58 -0800
CC: obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: llsdirons@xxxxxxx
For species like Egyptian Goose, we don't need a field guide, just a
recipe book.
This is a larger issue. I think we do birders a disservice by showing
large swaths of Oregon as containing Ring-necked Pheasants, when in fact large
swaths of Oregon contain little but recent releases and their spawn. In some
areas there is little meaningful difference between the status of a pheasant
crossing the road and that of a Bobwhite.
.
--
__________________________
Hendrik G. Herlyn
Corvallis, OR
"Nature is not a place to visit. It is home."
-- Gary Snyder
Other related posts:
