[obol] Re: R-nPheasant
- From: Wayne Hoffman <whoffman@xxxxxxxx>
- To: marciafcutler@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:18:43 -0800
Hi - my experiences in the Klamath Basin suggest that there may be a
sustainable pheasant population on the Lower Klamath NWR, at least south of
the state line. I see lots of birds there in spring, including good
numbers of females. I have seen broods as well. I do not know whether or
how many put-and-shoot roosters there might be for hunting season.
Wayne
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Marcia F. Cutler <marciafcutler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> After showing up annually on the Corvallis CBC, Ring-necked Pheasant has
> been a no-show for the last 2 counts, at least.
>
> Marcia F. Cutler
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Alan Contreras wrote:
>
> Dave's advice about these dicey, potentially flame-thrower topics is
> good. So I'll ignore it to cement my reputation. It isn't easy being a
> Curmudgeon, you have to stay focused and work at it.
>
> I'm less concerned about whether a species was native to an area than I am
> about a population being self-sustaining. I remember that when I lived in
> Nyssa, Oregon in 1969-70, Bobwhite was fairly easy to come by in that part
> of central Malheur County. Was it native? No. Was it fairly common for
> several decades in the central Snake River valley? Yup. I have chosen to
> count it on my Oregon list, though it can't be found today.
>
> 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.
> .
>
>
>
Other related posts:
