----- Original Message -----
From: WAYNE WEBER <contopus at home.com>
To: OBOL <obol at bobo.nws.orst.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:22 PM
Subject: SMEW AT MALHEUR: A CAUTIONARY NOTE


> OBOLinks,
>
> I hate to sound like a wet blanket when a bird as exciting as a SMEW
> has turned up at Malheur NWR. However, in my opinion, there is a
> significant possibility that this bird could be an escapee from a
> captive waterfowl collection. I think birders should be aware of
this
> possibility before making the long trip to Malheur to look for this
> bird.
>
> British Columbia has 3 generally-accepted records of SMEW: one in
> November 1970, another in February and March 1974, and a third from
> January through March 1975, all near Vancouver, B.C. At the time
when
> these birds showed up, Wayne Campbell and I made extensive
inquiries,
> but we could find no evidence that any SMEWS were being kept in
> captivity in the Pacific Northwest.
>
> However, in December 1989, another SMEW was found in Surrey, B.C.,
and
> was seen frequently through early February of 1990. This bird was
> almost certainly an escapee, as a local waterfowl breeder had
> reportedly had a SMEW escape just before the Surrey bird was found
on
> a Christmas Bird Count. This time, when we inquired, we were told
that
> at least 5 or 6 waterfowl breeders in B.C. and Washington had Smews
in
> their possession. This puts a different light on any SMEWS reported
in
> recent years.
>
> Although the Malheur NWR is probably a long way from the nearest
> captive waterfowl collection, escaped waterfowl do not always stay
> close to the point of escape, but sometimes wander widely and may
even
> migrate long distances with other waterfowl. My guess is that the
> Malheur bird has a much better than 50% chance of being a genuine
wild
> vagrant, but that there is a significant chance of it being an
> escapee.
>
> I am of course aware of the Columbia Gorge SMEW that was seen in the
> winters of 1990-91 and 1991-92 on both the Washington and Oregon
sides
> of the river. The Oregon Bird Records Committee has accepted this as
a
> valid Oregon occurrence. However, had I been on the OBRC at the
time,
> I would have voted against acceptance, on the grounds that the bird
> could well have been an escapee.
>
> The same problem exists when evaluating records of other vagrant
> Eurasian waterfowl in western North America (e.g. WHOOPER SWAN). I
> have heard no one on OBOL question whether this winter's WHOOPER
SWANS
> at Summer Lake and White Lake were wild vagrants. Virtually all
> records of WHOOPER SWAN in Oregon and California have been accepted
as
> valid occurrences of wild birds by the respective state records
> committees. However, most records of Whooper Swan east of the
Rockies
> are suspected of being escapees.
>
> Debate still rages about the 3 WHOOPER SWANS that I found in
November
> 1999 at Mamit Lake, south of Kamloops, B.C. Although I am still of
> the firm belief that these were wild birds, a number of BC birders
who
> saw the swans refuse to count them on their lists, because a WHOOPER
> SWAN was reported to have escaped from a waterfowl collection in
> southern Alberta, hybridized with a TUNDRA SWAN (also escaped), and
> raised two hybrid cygnets. The point is-- with vagrant Eurasian
> waterfowl-- it is almost impossible to be certain that the birds
were
> not escapees.
>
> A little ancient history for those interested-- I found the second
> B.C. record of SMEW, a female-plumaged bird at Reifel Bird Sanctuary
> near Vancouver on February 28, 1974. I also published an article
with
> Wayne Campbell (American Birds 32:1059-1061, 1978) on North American
> records of Smews, with emphasis on the B.C. records.
>
> Getting back to the Oregon SMEW records-- the OBRC may want to carry
> out its own investigation to try to find how many persons keep Smews
> in captivity. However, it seems certain that they are not as rare in
> captivity as they were in the 1970s.
>
> Once again, I hate to open this can of worms (about wild versus
> captive origin), but I feel that anyone heading for Malheur should
be
> aware of the possibility of captive origin. The safest approach, for
> the die-hard rarity-chasers (of which I admit to being one), may be
to
> go see the Malheur Smew, and then let the OBRC decide, in its
> collective wisdom, whether or not this was a wild bird.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wayne C. Weber
> 114-525 Dalgleish Drive
> Kamloops, BC V2C 6E4
> contopus at home.com
>
>
>
>