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