[texbirds] Re: (VERY LONG) Is the bar too high for adding an exotic to a state list?
- From: Scott Atkinson <scottratkinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "jgstudio@xxxxxxx" <jgstudio@xxxxxxx>, "Fred_Collins@xxxxxxxx" <fred_collins@xxxxxxxx>, "texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:54:58 -0700
Texbirds:
It is interesting to this observer that the criteria for "acceptance" on a list
has been somewhat
vague and elusive. One notes that by contrast, in the vascular plant listing
sphere, in many cases, regional guides with annotated checklists tend to list
all species that are self-regenerating, even if in a limited manner, though
note can be made of that ("locally established", "waif", "locally naturalized",
"locally adventive", etc.). But an extreme position might be to say that one
successful nesting, with the young then reproducing in turn, constitutes a
species that should be considered "established" and worthy of listing. And yet
our present situation seems to go pretty far in the other direction. I don't
know about whether they should be counted, but the Orange Bishops and Nutmeg
Mannakins at Arthur Storey Park in Houston sure SEEM naturalized.
Scott Atkinson
Lake Stevens
mail to: scottratkinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Fred_Collins@xxxxxxxx; texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [texbirds] Re: (VERY LONG) Is the bar too high for adding an exotic
> to a state list?
> From: jgstudio@xxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:42:27 -0400
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> John Groves
> El Paso
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Collins, Fred (Commissioner Pct. 3) (Commissioner Pct. 3)
> <Fred_Collins@xxxxxxxx>
> To: 1 Texbirds (texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 3:32 pm
> Subject: [texbirds] (VERY LONG) Is the bar too high for adding an exotic to a
> state list?
>
>
> IS THE BAR TOO HIGH FOR ADDING AN EXOTIC TO A STATE LIST?
>
>
> MY COMMENTS ARE IN UPPERCASE WHILE THE QUOTES FROM MARK LOCKWOOD, ABA AND AOU
> ARE IN NORMAL TEXT.
>
>
>
> On Texbirds on July 15th Mark Lockwood wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mark Lockwood
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [texbirds] Parrots and other exotics
>
>
>
> In 2009 the TBRC adopted the criteria established by the ABA in 2007 for what
> is
> required for a species to be considered established (and for those
> interested,
> countable). The intention was that the TBRC would make some very minor
> changes
> to better fill a state level need and placed on the TBRC webpages. I think
> that
> fell through the cracks and may well be my fault that it was not completed.
> In
> any case, the list of criteria can be found here:
>
>
>
> http://aba.org/checklist/exotics.html
>
>
>
> I BELIEVE THAT SEVERAL SPECIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION TO THE TEXAS
> LIST THAT CURRENTLY ARE NOT INCLUDED. THOSE ARE MUTE SWAN, EGYPTIAN GOOSE,
> INDIAN PEACOCK, YELLOW-HEADED PARROT, LILAC-CROWNED PARROT, RED-VENTED
> BULBUL,
> NUTMEG MANNIKIN (SCALEY-BREASTED MUNIA) AND ORANGE BISHOP.
>
>
>
> THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGY UNION (AOU) HAS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR INCLUDING
> EXOTIC SPECIES:
>
>
> Species that have been introduced by humans, either deliberately or
> accidentally, are considered to be established if there are persistent
> records
> for at least ten years and satisfactory evidence that they are maintaining a
> reasonably stable or increasing population through successful reproduction.
> Ornithologists and birders are urged to pay close attention to species
> introduced in their areas and to document constancy of occurrence and changes
> in
> population size. Introduced species often are neglected although they provide
> opportunity for fascinating research.
>
> I BELIEVE ALL OF THE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THIS DISCUSSION WOULD QUALIFY
> UNDER
> THE AOU CRITERIA.
>
>
>
> THE FOLLOWING IS THE AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION (ABA) CRITERIA WITH SOME
> PERSONAL COMMENTS REGARDING SOME TEXAS SPECIES CURRENTLY NOT ACCEPTED TO THE
> ABA
> LIST.
>
>
>
> The ABA Checklist Committee considers an exotic bird to be established in one
> or
> more regions of the ABA Area when the following eight criteria are met:
>
>
>
> 1) The species is recorded in the form of a published photograph or a
> specimen
> archived in an ornithological collection. This criterion ensures that species
> identification can be confirmed independently.
>
>
>
> THIS IS CERTAINLY A GOOD CRITERIA. CAN DR. ARNOLD, DR. BROOKS OR SOMEONE TELL
> US
> WHICH SPECIES ARE INCLUDED IN A COLLECTION IN TEXAS EITHER AS A SPECIMEN
> RECORD
> OR A PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.
>
>
>
> 2) There is a more-or-less-contiguous population of interacting or
> potentially
> interacting individuals, rather than a scattering of isolated individuals or
> pairs. Most exotics present within the ABA Area are limited to metropolitan
> areas. For persistence, it is vital that exotic birds in these areas are not
> isolated from each other but rather occur in sufficient proximity to allow
> interaction and therefore gene flow. Some exotics are found in the ABA Area
> as a
> single interacting population, while others occur in several populations that
> are isolated from each other.
>
>
>
> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. WHILE THE PREMISE HAS
> SOME
> VALIDITY THE FACT IS THAT MANY OF THE EXOTICS ARE ESTABLISHED IN URBAN AREAS.
> EACH URBAN POPULATION IS INSULAR. THEY ARE POTENTIALLY INTERBREEDING YET
> ISOLATED POPULATIONS. WILL WE NOT ADD A SPECIES TO THE STATE LIST UNTIL THE
> ENTIRE TEXAS TRIANGLE BETWEEN SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN AND HOUSTON IS NOTHING BUT
> SUBDIVISIONS AND SHOPPING MALLS? UNFORTUNATELY EACH YEAR THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
> URBAN CENTERS SHRINKS AND SMALLER ONES GROW TOWARD OTHERS. IF A SPECIES LIKE
> NUTMEG MANIKIN IS FOUND IN ALL THE MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS BUT ONLY IN LARGE
> NUMBERS IN HOUSTON IS IT SPREADING NATURALLY OR IS IT BEING RELEASED IN ALL
> METRO AREAS? HOW COULD WE KNOW? THE RED-VENTED BULBUL HAS BEEN IN CENTRAL
> HOUSTON FOR AS MUCH AS 60 YEARS. IT SEEMS TO BE SLOWLY SPREADING. TODAY IT IS
> MUCH MORE PREVALENT WITHIN ITS HISTORICAL HOUSTON HABITAT THAN AT ANY TIME IN
> THE PAST. THIS SPECIES DOES NOT VISIT BIRD FEEDERS AND CAN BE HARD
> TO DETECT. BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN MOST FIELD GUIDES AND WAS IN NO NORTH
> AMERICAN
> GUIDE UNTIL RECENTLY, IT LARGELY WENT UNIDENTIFIED OR MISS IDENTIFIED IN THE
> PAST. SO FAR THIS SPECIES HAS EXHIBITED LITTLE DISPERSAL OR HAS GONE
> UNDETECTED.
> IS THE HOUSTON METRO AREA SUFFICIENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT? THE AREA HOSTS MORE
> THAN 5 MILLION PEOPLE WHO I WOULD CONSIDER A VIABLE POPULATION. HOW MUCH
> HABITAT
> IS ENOUGH TO DECIDE IF SOMETHING IS ESTABLISHED? CERTAINLY THE HOUSTON METRO
> AREA IS LARGER THAN MANY ISLANDS IN THE WORLD WITH UNIQUE INSULAR POPULATIONS
> OR
> ENTIRE SPECIES OF BIRDS.
>
>
>
> 3) The population is not currently, and is not likely to be, the subject of a
> control program where eradication may be a management goal that is likely to
> succeed. Some exotics (e.g., Mute Swan) present a clear danger to native
> species
> or habitats, or to agriculture or commerce, in some areas, and listing these
> species as established may create a conflict between some birders and land
> management personnel.
>
>
>
> THIS IS PURELY A SPECULATIVE JUDGMENT CALL. WILDLIFE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN
> UNABLE
> TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF MOST EXOTIC SPECIES. NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT
> THEORETICALLY
> POSSIBLE BUT BECAUSE JURISDICTION, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND POLITICS ENTER
> THE PICTURE. INSPITE OF MONK PARAKEETS PRIMARILY LIVING IN ELECTRIC
> STRUCTURES
> WHERE THE UTILITIES HAD A GREAT INCENTIVE AND LEGAL RIGHT TO EXTIRPATE THEM
> THEY
> HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO SO AND HAVE GIVEN UP THE EFFORT BECAUSE OF PUBLIC
> OPINION. FERAL CATS ARE AS ABUNDANT AS EVER LARGELY BECAUSE OF PUBLIC
> OPINION.
> IN SPITE OF HAVING A LEGAL RIGHT TO DESTROY AN EXOTIC ANIMAL EVEN ONE WITH
> POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH THREATS PUBLIC OPINION OFTEN LEADS TO ANIMALS
> CONTINUING
> TO ROAM FREE. PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF PUBLIC OPINION I DOUBT SERIOUSLY IF ANY OF
> THE SPECIES CONSIDERED HERE COULD BE EXTIRPATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE EFFORTS.
> WHILE THE POTENTIAL TO REMOVE INDIAN PEACOCKS IS GREAT, SUCH EFFORTS HAVE
> ALWAYS
> ENDED WITH THE PEACOCK FLOCK HAVING BETTER PUBLI
> C RELATIONS THAN THOSE THAT WOULD REMOVE THEM. I DOUBT THERE WILL EVER BE A
> PUBLIC OR POLITICAL WILL TO REMOVE THE LARGER BIRDS I AM CONSIDERING: MUTE
> SWAN,
> EGYPTIAN GOOSE OR INDIAN PEACOCK.
>
>
>
> 4) The population is large enough to survive a routine amount of mortality or
> nesting failure. We cannot provide a numerical threshold for determining when
> an
> exotic species is established. The reason for this should be obvious: No
> single
> number would be adequate for populations as varied as large, long-lived
> parrots
> with low reproductive potential and small, short-lived finches with high
> reproductive potential. Demographic characteristics such as habitat
> preferences,
> lifespan, reproductive output, dispersal frequencies and distances, and
> genetic
> viability will be considered separately for each species. Members of the CLC
> will critically review each species based on the documentation provided and
> will
> make a judgment based on the best available evidence. Much attention will be
> given to factors such as population size, distribution, and, particularly,
> evidence of successful breeding. However, we recognize that some number of
> individuals is preferable as a baseline to judge whe
> n a species may be established. The FOSRC prefers that populations ideally
> contain at least "several hundred individuals," and the CLC agrees that in
> almost all cases, populations numbering only dozens of individuals may be too
> small to be considered established. Additionally, information should be
> provided
> to indicate that there is little or no evidence that ongoing releases play a
> substantial role in population maintenance. For gamebirds whose numbers may
> be
> artificially supplemented from time to time, evidence should be provided that
> these releases are not necessary to maintain population size or persistence.
>
>
>
> ALL OF THE LARGER SPECIES AS WELL AS THE PARROTS ARE VERY LONG-LIVED BIRDS.
> FIFTY YEARS MAY NOT BE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW IF A SPECIES WILL BE SUSTAINING
> INTO
> THE NEXT 50-150 YEARS. HOWEVER, SINCE RECORDS FOR ALMOST ALL THE EXOTICS
> CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED ONLY GO BACK ABOUT 120 YEARS OR LESS, WILL ANY SPECIES
> EVER AGAIN BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID EXOTIC? WE COULD EASILY ARGUE THAT THE
> RECENT
> DECLINE OF HOUSE SPARROW IS AN INDICATION THAT ITS ESTABLISHMENT IS
> FALTERING.
> HAVE CATTLE EGRET BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO MEET THIS STANDARD? CERTAINLY
> EURASIAN COLLARED-DOVE HAS NOT. UNLESS A LONG TERM DETAILED STUDY IS
> UNDERTAKEN
> OF EACH SPECIES WE CAN NEVER HOPE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. I DO NOT
> BELIEVE
> THIS STANDARD WAS APPLIED TO ANY OF THE GRANDFATHERED SPECIES.
>
>
>
> 5) Sufficient offspring are being produced to maintain or increase the
> population. Such criteria will vary from species to species, according to
> factors affecting the population, both natural (competition from other
> species;
> effects of hurricanes) and artificial (recapture for the pet trade; culling
> by
> hunters). Certainly, a species whose numbers are increasing and whose range
> is
> expanding is a better candidate for establishment than a species whose
> numbers
> and range are stable. Species with declining numbers and/or contracting range
> should have a much greater evidentiary threshold to meet before being
> considered
> established.
>
>
>
> I CONCUR WITH THIS STANDARD BUT THEN AGAIN HOUSE SPARROW IS SAID TO BE
> DECLINING.
>
>
>
> 6) The population has been present for at least 15 years. Previous CLC
> criteria
> used a 10-year persistence threshold. As we have seen with several exotics,
> 10
> years is an insufficient period to judge the likelihood that an exotic will
> persist. Accordingly, we have increased the persistence criteria to 15 years.
> The CLC readily acknowledges that 15 years may also be insufficient in some
> cases to determine establishment; populations of many exotics follow a "boom
> and
> bust" cycle over several decades-the population of Crested Mynas at Vancouver
> became extirpated more than 100 years after its introduction. With long-lived
> species (e.g., Amazona parrots) or when gamebird populations are regularly
> subsidized, one could argue that persistence should be for 30 or more years
> for
> genuine trends in the population to become obvious. Our point here is that
> like
> numerical criteria, no simple formula of the number of years for persistence
> can
> apply to all species. Flexible persistence crite
> ria ("at least 15 years") and lack of numerical criteria will allow
> Committee
> members to exercise their own judgment in potentially uncertain or
> controversial
> cases, but only in the context of strong biological evidence and with the
> intention that the final judgment be a conservative one.
>
>
>
> MOST PEOPLE ONLY KNOW THE HISTORY THAT HAS OCCURRED IN THEIR LIFETIME. AS A
> SOCIETY WE ARE SHORT SIGHTED. IN BIOGEOGRAPHY OUR HUMAN HISTORY IS BUT A
> FLICKER
> OF A FLAME. LENGTH OF OCCURRENCE IS CRUCIAL TO DETERMINING WHEN SOMETHING
> BECOMES ESTABLISHED BUT WE TEND TO WANT THAT TO BE WITHIN OUR LIFETIME. WE
> KNOW
> LITTLE ABOUT THE AVIFAUNA OF TEXAS IN TERMS OF GEOLOGIC BIOGEOGRAPHY. ANY
> TIME
> CRITERIA IS ARBITRARY AND EVEN 50 YEARS IS NO BETTER OR WORSE THAN 15.
> CONSIDERING WE NOW HAVE SOME SEMBLANCE OF THE MAKE-UP OF THE AVIFAUNA IN
> TEXAS
> FOR ABOUT THE PAST 150 YEARS, 50 YEARS SEEMS TO BE A GOOD STANDARD, ABOUT A
> THIRD OF THE TOTAL RECORD PERIOD.
>
>
>
> HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE RECORDS AND MAINTAIN THEM. FROM THAT
> PERSPECTIVE PERHAPS ALL THESE SPECIES AS WELL AS A FEW OTHERS SHOULD BECOME
> PART
> OF THE OFFICIAL LIST WITH AN ASTERISK. THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HELP
> COLLECT THE INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP US LEARN THE STATUS OF THESE AND OTHER
> INTRODUCTIONS.
>
>
>
> 7) The population is not directly dependent on human support. Although
> somewhat
> subjective, this criterion is meant to exclude from consideration those
> exotics
> that rely on direct human support for their ongoing survival and/or
> persistence
> (reliance on bird feeders; periodic releases of additional individuals). For
> instance, the Monk Parakeet population at Chicago, Illinois is wholly
> dependent
> on bird seed provided by humans during the winter months, and this population
> therefore is not recognized by the CLC as established, despite its size or
> persistence.
>
>
>
> I WOULD AGREE WITH THIS BUT TOO REALIZE THAT THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT IS PART OF
> OUR OVERALL ECOSYSTEM AND AN ABUNDANT AND PERSISTENT HABITAT TYPE IN TEXAS
> THAT
> IS AND WILL EXPAND INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. ANIMALS THAT ADAPT TO THIS
> ECOSYSTEM WILL SURELY BE THE WINNERS IN THE ARMS RACE OF EVOLUTION. WHEN I
> WAS A
> STUDENT AT TAMU IN THE LATE 60S AND EARLY 70S THE LEADING BIOLOGISTS IN THE
> STATE, INCLUDING CLARENCE COTTAM, THOUGHT THE WHITE-WINGED DOVE WOULD GO THE
> WAY
> OF THE PASSENGER PIGEON. WHITE-WINGS ADOPTED THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. THEY ARE
> NOT
> LIKLEY TO GO EXTINCT. ARE THEY DEPENDENT ON A MULTI-BILLION BIRD FEEDING
> INDUSTRY? EDGAR KINCAID LIKEWISE THOUGHT RED-CROWNED PARROTS MIGHT ALSO GO
> EXTINCT. THEY STILL MAY IN MEXICO BUT THEY APPEAR TO HAVE ADAPTED TO URBAN
> ENVIRONMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES SO ARE NOW SAFE FROM EXTINCTION IT WOULD
> SEEM.
> THE RED-VENTED BULBUL DOES NOT USE BIRD FEEDERS. HOWEVER, ITS DISTRIBUTION
> SEEMS
> FOCUSED ON EXOTIC PLANTS IN URBAN LANDSCAPES. IS IT
> MORE OR LESS HUMAN DEPENDENT THAN THE WHITE WINGED DOVE? HOW MUCH OF THE
> SPREAD
> OF THE WHITE-WINGED AND EURASIAN COLLARED-DOVE ARE DEPENDENT ON BIRD FEEDERS
> AND
> CHINESE TALL-TREES? I THINK WE MUST ACCEPT URBAN ENVIRONMENTS INCLUDING THEIR
> BIRD FEEDERS AND EXOTIC VEGETATION ARE PARTS OF TEXAS' LANDSCAPE. THE FACT
> THAT
> A SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON THIS LANDSCAPE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ONE DEPENDENT
> ON
> TALL-GRASS PRAIRIE OR LONG-LEAF PINE FORESTS, WHICH ONLY NOW EXIST BECAUSE
> THEY
> ARE MAINTAINED BY HUMANS. CERTAINLY THE ATTWATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN IS FAR MORE
> DEPENDENT ON HUMAN SUPPORT THAN NETMEG MANNIKINS.
>
>
>
> 8) A publication, ideally in a peer-reviewed journal or book, describes, how,
> when, and where the above seven criteria have been met. A publication will
> streamline the voting process by clearly presenting evidence of
> establishment.
> In the absence of a publication, the CLC may still vote on a motion to add an
> exotic to the ABA Checklist if such evidence has been gathered by a Committee
> member or other interested individual. In the latter two instances, a
> detailed
> analysis of the issue must be published in a suitable scientific source if
> the
> species has been determined to be established.
>
>
>
> THE INTERNET AND EBIRD HAVE DRASTICALLY CHANGED THE ABILITY TO GATHER DATA
> FROM
> FAR MORE PEOPLE THAT EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. DIGITAL
> PICTURES HAVE ALLOWED THE DOCUMENTATION OF BIRD RECORDS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE
> CAUSE QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPER IDENTIFICATION. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR
> EXOTICS
> SINCE THEY FREQUENTLY ARE NOT IN FIELD GUIDES. WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO
> TRACK
> EACH SPECIES FROM ACCIDENTAL OCCURRENCE AS IN THE CASE OF CLAY-COLORED THRUSH
> TO
> COMMON RESIDENT WITH DATA REPORTED TO EBIRD. THE TOOL CAN BE INCREDIBLY
> BENEFICIAL IN DOCUMENTING THE OCCURRENCE AND SPREAD OF EXOTIC SPECIES. DAN
> BROOKS HAS USED BIRD WATCHER DATA TO PUBLISH SOME PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL
> ARTICLES
> ON SOME OF THE SPECIES MENTIONED IN THIS DISCUSSION. HOPEFULLY MORE
> RESEARCHERS
> WILL LOOK AT HIS EXAMPLES AND BEGIN TO STUDY HOW THESE SPECIES AS WELL AS
> SOME
> NATIVE SPECIES THAT HAVE ADAPTED TO URBAN ENVIRONMENTS ARE ESTABLISHING
> THEMSELVES IN THE NOVEL ENVIRONMENTS.
>
>
>
> Note that the CLC has not mentioned any threshold for geographic range
> occupied
> in the ABA Area. Again, this will vary considerably between species, and the
> CLC
> will vote on each species on a case-by-case basis. As an example, during
> 2006,
> the CLC considered adding the Black-hooded Parakeet (Nandayus nenday) to the
> ABA
> Checklist based on a large and increasing population along the central Gulf
> coast of Florida. This species met all eight of the above criteria as an
> established exotic, but was nonetheless rejected because two CLC members were
> concerned that its geographic range (perhaps 150 square miles) was not
> sufficiently large to confirm establishment.
>
>
>
> THIS MAY BE A VALID POINT BUT SHOULDN'T A LOWER STANDARD BE APPLIED TO THE
> INDIVIDUAL STATES? FYI, HARRIS COUNTY IS 1778 SQUARE MILES, TRAVIS COUNTY
> 1022,
> AND TARRANT COUNTY 897 SQUARE MILES FOR POINTS OF REFERENCE.
>
>
>
> The CLC has chosen to "grandfather in" the 17 species presently found on the
> ABA
> Checklist that exist in the ABA Area wholly as exotic populations (species
> with
> both native and exotic populations, such as the Canada Goose or House Finch,
> are
> considered natives). The 17 exotics species presently on the ABA Checklist
> are
> the Mute Swan, Chukar, Himalayan Snowcock, Gray Partridge, Ring-necked
> Pheasant,
> Rock Pigeon, Eurasian Collared-Dove, Spotted Dove, Budgerigar, Monk Parakeet,
> Green Parakeet, White-winged Parakeet, Red-crowned Parrot, Red-whiskered
> Bulbul,
> Spot-breasted Oriole, House Sparrow, and Eurasian Tree Sparrow. (The European
> Starling is a native vagrant based on a specimen from Shemya Island, Alaska).
> If
> a CLC member or any other birder believes that one or more of these
> "grandfathered" species should be removed from the main part of the
> Checklist,
> then data should be gathered and published so that the Committee can vote on
> a
> motion for removal. The CLC readily acknowle
> dges that some exotics currently on the ABA Checklist do not meet one or
> more
> of the above criteria, and that these species likely would be rejected as
> established species should the new criteria be applied to them.
>
>
>
> The CLC hopes to eventually determine the states or provinces in which
> establishment has been attained for each of the 17 exotics that are on the
> main
> list of the ABA Checklist (we cannot determine establishment of a species on
> a
> more local level). The criteria-or more accurately, the lack of
> criteria!-used
> to determine establishment varies among the local records committees so
> substantially that the CLC feels it is necessary to produce its own list
> based
> on the above eight criteria.
>
>
>
> Exotic species that become extirpated will be moved from the main list of the
> ABA Checklist to Appendix: 1, Extirpated Exotics, a list that currently
> contains
> four species. For species with greatly declining populations (e.g., the
> Budgerigar in Florida), we choose to wait until the population is completely
> extirpated before we vote on removing the species from the main part of the
> Checklist in the (unlikely) case that the population rebounds. The ABA
> Recording
> Standards & Ethics Committee has ruled that extirpated exotics cannot be
> "counted" on lists submitted to the ABA.
>
>
>
> In addition to the 17 exotics currently on the ABA Checklist, literally
> dozens
> of other species have been observed within the ABA Area. In Florida more than
> 100 exotic birds have been documented by photographic or specimen evidence.
> At
> some future point, the ABA CLC intends to compile a list of all exotic
> species
> or species of uncertain provenance that have been recorded within the ABA
> Area.
>
>
>
> 11/19/2007
>
>
>
> (c) Copyright 2013 American Birding Association, Inc. No material displayed
> on
> the ABA website
>
> A FINAL THOUGHT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL STATE LIST? DOES IT
> REFLECT
> THE BIRDS THAT OCCUR AND HAVE OCCURRED IN THE STATE WITH THEIR DISTRIBUTION?
> DO
> WE RECOGNIZE THOSE BIRDS THAT HAVE POPULATIONS IN THE STATE REGARDLESS OF
> ORIGIN? OR IS IT A SET OF RULES FOR THE LISTING GAME?
>
>
> Fred Collins
> (281) 357-5324
> Director: Kleb Woods Nature Center
> Cypress Top Historical Park
> Commissioner Steve Radack
> Harris County Precinct 3
> www.pct3.hctx.net<http://www.pct3.hctx.net>
>
>
>
> Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
>
> Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
> from the List Owner
>
>
>
>
>
> Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
>
> Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
> from the List Owner
>
>
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Other related posts:
