Good points Wayne. I think there is a bit of a gap though between eBird's
intentions and the perceptions of some birders who use it......and there
remain some disturbing reports of regional editors not confirming reports
of obviously released species. As I said, "eBird should not be THOUGHT OF
as a listing vehicle".....we, of course, realize that is not its primary
purpose.

Mike


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Wayne Weber <contopus at telus.net> wrote:

> Mike and Tweeters,
>
>
>
> As an eBird regional editor for part of British Columbia, I felt compelled
> to respond to your message.
>
>
>
> eBird DOES NOT use ABA standards of ?countability? to determine what
> sightings should and should not be reported. The ABA has a very
> conservative standard in determining when a non-native species is
> ?established?, and thus countable on lists submitted to ABA. eBird, on the
> other hand, encourages birders to report sightings whenever there is a
> ?persistent population? (i.e., the species has been reported in the same
> locality repeatedly for at least 3 or 4 years); however, such a population
> may be a long way from being established or self-sustaining. As you point
> out, it is important to track the occurrence of non-native species before
> they become established, and this is one of the things that eBird hopes to
> do.
>
>
>
> For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a free-flying population of
> Mandarin Ducks in and around Vancouver, BC; up to 12 birds together were
> reported. This population subsequently died out and did not become
> established. However, the records are still there on the eBird maps.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, Chukars, despite being well-established in much of
> eastern Washington, have never shown any signs of having a persistent
> population in western Washington, which does not offer any suitable habitat
> for them. All we have is a few records of usually single birds-- obviously
> recently released or escaped from captivity? which should NOT be reported
> to eBird.
>
>
>
> Northern Bobwhites are a different story. There was for many years (and
> may still be) a persistent population in Pierce County, in and around JBLM.
> These birds should be reported. By way of contrast, Steve Taylor?s recent
> report of a Northern Bobwhite from Whatcom County is a very long way from
> Pierce County, appears to be a recent escapee, and should not be reported
> to eBird. If it were, an eBird editor would be expected to ?invalidate?
> such a record, or ask the observer to withdraw it, which I have done in
> numerous cases.
>
>
>
> eBird is not the place to report every recently-escaped Chukar, Ringed
> Turtle-Dove, Budgerigar, Ruddy Shelduck, canary, or whatever. (We get
> flooded with such reports around Vancouver, BC where I live.) On the other
> hand, it is an appropriate place to report sightings of persistent
> populations of non-native species, whether or not these species are ?ABA
> countable?.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Wayne C. Weber
>
> Delta, BC
>
> contopus at telus.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [
> mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
> <tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Clarke
> *Sent:* June-02-14 12:41 PM
> *To:* Tweeters
> *Subject:* Re: [Tweeters] New Species for Discovery Park??
>
>
>
> I can't think of a reason that a bird like this wouldn't be "confirmed" on
> eBird unless it's existence or identification was in question. eBird
> should not be thought of as an ABA listing vehicle where "non-countable"
> birds are of no interest. I'm a bit disturbed to have heard tell of eBird
> editors that do, in fact use this as a criteria for confirming sightings.
> Tracking the establishment of invasive species, for instance, will be much
> easier if those "non-countable" species are entered and tracked in eBird.
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Mike Clarke
>
> Pullman
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Josh Adams <xjoshx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Tweets,
>
> I suspect someone has replied privately to David, but since this issue has
> popped up a few times in the last year or so without any public replies I
> figured I'd add the little I know.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that live upland game birds such as Northern Bobwhite,
> Chukar as well as the more expected California Quail and Ring-Necked
> Pheasant are used by hunters to train their dogs. The dogs actually learn
> the scent of the birds and use that to find and flush them. I'm not 100%
> sure of the process, but the end result is that birds end up escaping and
> are occasionally encountered by birders. Typically these birds are found in
> places used during hunting season, but I suppose someone could use
> Discovery Park for training, although I'm not certain of the legality.
> These birds are not countable for those who care about that although I have
> seen some get "confirmed" on eBird for whatever reason.
>
>
>
> In a post I dug up from a couple of years ago, Martha Jordan mentions
> people have been keeping them as pets as well:
>
>
> https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/htdig/tweeters/2012-July/091996.html
>
>
>
> Josh Adams
>
> Lynnwood, WA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20140610/43595289/attachment.htm