=======
01/11/95 --

Dennis,

On 11/21/94, in response to a question about the status of Mute
Swan in WA, you wrote:

>There are several opinions about Mute Swans in Washington. First of all,
>these swans are certainly not vagrants from Eurasia; no one thinks that.
>The most liberal viewpoint is that swans from the long-established feral
>population around Victoria wander over here from time to time and furnish
>"bona fide" occurrences in the state (in the same way an Acorn Woodpecker
>does when it wanders over from Oregon). There is absolutely no proof for
>this, but it's not unlikely considering the strong flying abilities of
>these birds. The most conservative opinion (the one I hold, being a
>hide-bound conservative) is that exactly *because* there is no evidence
>that the swans are coming from the established population, that each swan
>should be considered "of unknown origin" (read: escaped captive) and thus
>be about as significant to the Washington avifauna (and thus "official"
>state list) as the crimson-fronted parakeets that come through my yard.
>Much as I hate to say it, birders have a tendency to want birds to be
>"official;" if birds are official, their presence on a life list (or state
>list or whatever) is official. The Washington Bird Records Committee is
>going to take up this matter at some meeting in the near future to make our
>own "official" decision, which may or may not be followed by all our
>disparate members.....in fact, some of us on the WBRC are among the most
>disparate of WA birders (I didn't say "desperate").

>There are Mute Swans breeding in Union Bay, as many of us have seen, but
>the occasional young bird that survives to adulthood doesn't really
>represent an "established population," as the American Birding Association
>considers necessary for an introduced bird to be counted by its members.
>Right now there's an interesting Catch-22, in that some birders want to
>count Mute Swan on their lists, which should be done only if there is an
>established population, and many agency people and environmentalists
>(including birders) want to make darned sure that no population of this
>bird ever becomes established!
- - - - - - -
I certainly wouldn't consider myself among the "disparate" (or "desperate").
However I am certainly curious about the "established population" definition.
"Breeding for ten years in the wild" must mean something like "increasing
the population at some healthy, viable rate"? From what I am understanding
of what you said, simply having produced young somewhere sometime is
not enough, even if it went on for 10-plus years, because it could just be
some of the latest year's adults producing the latest young?

Also, what are the reasons for hoping Mute Swan does *not* become
established? Another Starling / House Sparrow only a *lot* bigger?

Our CBC (Leadbetter Point, WA) reported a Mute Swan in
1991. The editors told me they were discussing whether M Swans would be
"counted", as other CBCs had reported this sp. I saw that our "record" (if this
is the right word here) was published, but never heard what the reasons
were for including. Likewise, the appearance on the WOS list, along with
Am. Black Duck (another escapee, longer ago -- is this the only difference
between this and M Swan or are there others?)

It seems to me that there is a rough continuum between the accepted
introduced spp and the new arrivals still not (hopefully in some cases such
as the destructive Monk Parakeet, never) established here. Thus, in an
attempt to further my understanding, I have constructed the following
categories -- also of course demonstrating many misunderstandings and
gaps in my knowledge. Such fun ;-) I would be interested to know what
you (or any other tweeters) think of this, and to have any new info on
where some of these introductions were made, when, how it is that
the decision is made to introduce some species and not others, in the
case of Chukar, Scaled Quail, etc. How many times does the Dept of
Game try a given species before (a) giving up or (b) going to a new spot?
- - - - - - -
Category 1: (well-established, long time, abundant, widespread)
Rock Dove (first accepted for CBCs 1973-74, featured on the cover of AB 28(2).)
Eur. Starling (introduced 1892)
House Sparrow (introduced 1852)
----
Category 2: (introduced, breeding, fairly widespread)
Gray Partridge
Chukar
RN Pheasant
Cal Quail (or was this native here?)
----
Category 3: (introduced, breeding, more local)
Wild Turkey (native? with various re-intro's here and there?)
N. Bobwhite (native? nr McKenna & Roy, intro'd in Pacific co, others?)
Scaled Quail (non-native? intro'd? nr Beverly; Juniper Forest, others?)
----
Category 4: (escaped birds now breeding in wild, local)
Am. Black Duck (escaped / breeding nr Everett, Nisqually, other places?)
Mute Swan (I thought these in same category -- before I read your note)
----
Category 5: (escaped from somewhere, not breeding here -- yet...)
Bar-headed Goose (from Asia -- popular escapee -- see NGS Guide, p. 90)
Barnacle Goose (found in Greenland, vagrant to NE US, eastern Canada)
Monk Parakeet (recently accepted in ABA checklist area -- yipes!)
Crimson-fronted Parakeet (Montlake fill, other favored areas)
Other exotic spp. (what others may the pet shops export to Seattle, etc?)
----

Alan Richards / Naselle WA
alanr at ednet1.osl.or.gov

====