Birders,

Rachel Lawson and Wesley Biggs are incorrect in assuming that the
Crested Myna will automatically become "uncountable" on ABA lists once
the population dies out (expected in the next year or two). The ABA
has well-established rules as to when an introduced species is
"established", and therefore countable on ABA lists. However, there is
no such rule regarding introduced populations which become extinct.
Each such case is evaluated on its own merits.

There was a discussion about the "countability" of Crested Mynas a few
days ago on BIRDCHAT, which can be read by accessing the BIRDCHAT
archives through Jack Siler's webpage at http://www.birdingonthe.net
..

Crested Mynas were first observed in Vancouver in 1897, so they have
been there for more than a century. Their population was estimated at
20,000 at one time, and was about 5000 as recently as 1970. If the
population dies out-- as seems almost certain now-- this introduced
species will have come closer to success than any other North American
introduction that ultimately failed.

I agree with Rachel that it would be ridiculous for the ABA to decide
that Crested Mynas were "never really established", and are therefore
not countable on anybody's list. I hope that the ABA agrees with this.
I am copying this message to Blake Maybank and Dick Cannings, who are
both members of the ABA Recording Standards and Ethics Committee
(formerly Listing Rules Committee).

To answer Rachel's question about Myna impacts on native species, it
appears that such impacts were minor, mainly because of the very
limited range of the species. However, had Mynas been liberated in
southern California or Florida, with temperatures more like those of
southeast Asia, I expect that the outcome might have been very
different. There is a good chance that they would have spread all
across the southern U.S., become a serious agricultural pest, and
impacted native bird species in much the same way as European
Starlings have in southern Canada and the northern U.S.

By the way Mike, Skylarks were never established in Vancouver, but
they were and still are established near Victoria. The population is
probably stable at about 200 to 300 birds, down from about 1000 in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, but they are not likely to disappear
anytime soon. However, a satellite population on San Juan Island, WA,
was apparently established for several decades, but has now died out.
I saw them there in 1975. Does this mean that Skylarks are no longer
countable on Washington lists submitted to ABA? Another can of worms!!
I would submit that they are still countable in WA (keep in mind the
recent sightings near Sequim) even if the breeding population has died
out.

Of course, if you tire of all this argument about countability of
introduced species, you can always keep "NIB" (No Introduced Birds)
lists, like many California birders do, and then you won't have to
worry about all these debates!

Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops and Delta, BC
contopus at shaw.ca


----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Patterson <celata at pacifier.com>
To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Decline of the Crested Myna in Vancouver


> Whooo-boy what a can of House Sparrows this is.....
>
> Should one argue that, say, Yellow-throated Warbler cannot
> be counted on one's list because it has failed to become
> established Washington?
>
> How about California Condor? Essentially extirpated from
> all known habitats. Sure, it held on for 50,000+ years, but
> really failed to acheive permanant status. And there's
> this fantasy that they maybe reintroduced as a viable population
> someday, maybe even on the Columbia Gorge. But until that
> magic day do those who managed to tick condors before the
> last of them were "rescued" have to take them off their list?
>
> I know what some of you are going to say. Mynas were introduced
> and Yellow-throated Warbler got here on its own. But then it could
> also be argued that this is a symantical arguement based on the
> bad science that assumes man is not part of nature.
>
> Perhaps no North American species should be counted because we
> are in introduced species...
>
> I know a place where one can find several thousand European
> Starlings all of which established themselves without introduction
> and it's just minutes from my house. Even though starling were
> a human introduction in the east, the population we enjoy arrived
> in the Pacific Northwest unassisted (all local attempts to
> introduce starlings failed, believe it or not).
>
> Back in my serious chasing days I failed to find the Skylarks
> or mynas in Vancouver and I couldn't find the condors in their
> last free range. So I really have nothing to lose. Except
> maybe this arguement....
>
>
>
> Rachel Lawson wrote:
> >
> > I have been following with some interest the decline of the
Vancouver
> > population of the Crested Myna. How ironic that this exotic
starling
> > should be out-competed by another exotic starling! At least, in
this case,
> > the losing species is still thriving in its original Asian range.
I am
> > wondering, did the Crested Mynah ever have any impact on native
species
> > similar to that of the European Starling? Should we be sad,
neutral or
> > happy about this?
> >
> > The demise of the last two birds in Vancouver may have
repercussions for
> > those listers among us. While discussing with my Florida birding
friend
> > Wes Biggs the somewhat arcane ABA rules about listing exotics in
North
> > America (quite relevant in a place like Florida), Wes said that,
if an
> > established exotic species disappears, we must all delete it from
our ABA
> > lists, because its disappearance demonstrates that it was never
REALLY
> > established in the first place. This would seem to make sense
with some
> > exotics that come and go quickly, but in this case, when the
species has
> > been around for a century, it doesn't seem right.
> >
> > Rachel Lawson
> > RachelLawson at softhome.net
> > Seattle
>
> --
> Mike Patterson When I despair, I remember
> Astoria, OR that all through history
> celata at pacifier.com the way of truth and love have always
won.
> There have been tyrants, and murderers,
> and for a time they can seem
invincible,
> but in the end they always fall.
> Think of it...always.
> - Mahatma Gandhi
>
> http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/bird/bird.html