Wayne et al.,

What is the evidence that the Blue Mountain Mtn. Quail populations is/was
native? We know that Clark or Lewis and Clark collected the first specimen
known to Western science in April 1806 at the mouth of the Sandy River just
above present day Portland, which was the basis for assuming there must have
been some Mtn. Quail across the river in Washington at that time. I've heard
the claim for native status for the Grand Ronde population but don't know on
what basis.

Gene.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Rogers" <hawkowl at hotmail.com>
To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:30 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] Re: Mountain Quail releases


> Hi Wayne,
>
> Thanks for providing the details of this release. When I first heard of
> it, I wondered about where the parent stock originated and whether it was
> native, since fish and wildlife agencies are renowned for their lack of
> interest in preserving biodiversity. After all, who can taste the
> difference between pictus and palmeri, right? Your message confirmed what
> I had feared: the "reintroduction" was, in fact, an introduction. I don't
> know whether the decision to release non-native quail was based on
> politics, financial constraints, indifference, or just plain
> know-it-allism, but I do know that it's long since time that we get the
> people who are making these kinds of decisions out of fish and wildlife
> and into a line of work where they're not doing irreparable damage to our
> natural heritage.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Rogers
> Banff, AB
> hawkowl at hotmail.com
>
>
> Subject: Mountain Quail releases
> From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus AT telus.net>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:47 -0800
>
> Tweeters and OBOLinks,
>
> I am forwarding the attached message, which I sent to the
> "Inland-NW-Birders" group earlier today. I hope you will find it of
> interest, whether or not you agree with my point of view.
>
> Wayne C. Weber
> Delta, BC
> contopus AT telus.net
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wayne C. Weber
> To: CHARLES SWIFT ; INLAND NW BIRDERS
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [inland-NW-birders] Mountain Quail releases
>
>
> Charles and Inland Birders,
>
> Thanks very much for providing the link to the WDFW news release
> about
> the release of 73 Mountain Quail in Asotin County. Mike Denny also
> described this event in a message a few days ago.
>
> This release was clearly well-intentioned. However, it has the
> potential for being both good news and bad news.
>
> Good news, because Mountain Quail populations in SE WA, NE
> OR, and adjacent Idaho are apparently very low, and a recovery
> of this species would be welcome. Bad news, because according
> to the news release, the birds that were liberated were captured
> in SW Oregon.
>
> Two different subspecies of Mountain Quail occur in Oregon, according
> to "Birds of Oregon: A General Reference" (Marshall et al., 2003):
> "pictus" west of the Cascades, and "palmeri", a paler subspecies, east
> of the Cascades (and also in SE Washington). The AOU Checklist, 5th
> edition (1957) reverses the names for the two subspecies, but agrees
> that there are different subspecies west and east of the Cascades.
>
> In other words, birds from a subspecies other than the native one are
> being introduced into Asotin County. Chances are that they will not be
> well-adapted to local conditions and will die out; or, if they do
> succeed, they will interbreed with or replace the native subspecies,
> thus decreasing the genetic diversity within the species.
>
> A far better approach, it seems to me, would have been to try to
> capture birds of the eastern subspecies (palmeri), breed them in
> captivity, and then reintroduce them into SE WA. There are apparently
> still enough Mountain Quail in Wallowa County, OR, that there is still
> a hunting season there, so some could perhaps have been captured
> there.
>
> If Mountain Quail are to be reintroduced to Craig Mountain and other
> places in Idaho, I hope that these birds are not also from SW Oregon.
>
> Introducing a population of a non-local subspecies seems ill-advised
> from a biological point of view. I had thought that most state
> wildlife agencies had ceased some time ago to introduce non-native
> species or subspecies of gamebirds. Obviously, I was wrong.
>
> Of course, it may be that the subspecies of Mountain Quail in SE WA
> and NE OR has already been confounded by past introductions into the
> area. However, by continuing to introduce the "wrong" subspecies into
> the area, wildlife agencies appear to be ignoring normal conservation
> practices. They are also playing into the hands of those who say that
> Great Basin populations of Mountain Quail are not distinct anyway, so
> why designate them as threatened?
>
>
> Wayne C. Weber
> Delta, BC
> contopus AT telus.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters