Date: 6/25/18 11:44 am
From: Justin Bosler <justin.bosler...>
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Budgerigar eBird Submissions
​Fred, Joe, Steve, Arman, Eric and Texbirds,

This is a much appreciated and warranted discussion to be hashed out in a
public forum. While I agree with eBird that we should not be making broad
value judgments regarding the wild or captive origin of certain exotic
species, there can and should be exceptions to the rule. This is why
written descriptions and photos are extremely important to include in your
species comments, especially IF you are deviating from the standardized
reporting protocol for certain exotics.

First, I feel the same way about non-countable exotics as Arman does: I
don't want them inflating my ABA countable totals in eBird. However, I
choose to report them in eBird in order to track their distribution and
population trends. I just have to remember to subtract several species when
reporting to ABA Listing Central, etc. We are patiently waiting for this
fix from eBird. In the near future, an algorithm will treat every
non-countable exotic species the same way it treats "Domestic-type"
submissions now (=no count or zero).

*Exceptions:*

*Waterfowl*--although it may appear phenotypically pure that Swan Goose or
Greylag Goose on someone's private pond would be best reported as Domestic
type as opposed to wild type. ​Sometimes it might not be so easy to
visually assess whether it has domestic lineage or not with limited (to
zero) field experience with the wild forms in their native range or with no
side-by-side comparison. I feel the same can be said regarding
Northern-type Mallards in urban and suburban areas in the nonbreeding
season where the species has no historical context as a breeder. There
should be an "Established feral" designation for Mallard like there is for
Muscovy Duck, which could be used in such cases.

This brings me to Muscovy Duck. Based on eBird's Reporting Practices for
Muscovy Duck (https://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/2259953), any
seemingly muddled free-flying Muscovy Duck away from the western Lower Rio
Grande Valley *should* be reported as Domestic type. However, what if you
do find a solo or pair of wild-type Muscovy Ducks n0t far from their
expected range, not associating with other feral or domestic fowl and in a
natural setting at a time of year they may be wandering? Case in point:
https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S42072546

I feel like eBird may in fact be suppressing potentially valid records of
wild birds with this general practice. With enough provided documentation,
eBird reviewers should be assessing these submissions on a case-by-case
basis as opposed to applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

We need a solution on Canada Goose. Small localized, resident populations
in Central, East and South Texas really should be designated as "Feral" or
"Established feral." Why hasn't this been implemented yet? A lot of these
areas may never see a truly wild Canada Goose. In fact, to our east, wild
Canada Geese are deemed to be so rare that they warrant inclusion on the
Official Review List (
http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/LBRC%20Review%20List%202016.pdf).

Regarding the highly-sought-after, lone Budgerigar in Harris County, its
obvious that that bird is of the Domestic variety simply due to its
blue-white plumage. The wild-type plumage (phenotype) is the green-yellow
variety. Case closed. If you see a green-yellow one, obtain photos and
submit it as Budgerigar.

Happy listing!
Justin Bosler
Austin, TX

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Collins, Fred (Commissioner Pct. 3) <
<FCollins...> wrote:

> Thank you Joe and Joseph,
>
>
>
> I was not aware of the eBird definition. Unfortunately it has me a bit
> confused when it comes to both Budgerigar and Peacock. There is no doubt
> that both species populations that occur in the United states are a result
> of domestic birds that escaped or maintained in some sort of at-liberty
> situation.
>
>
>
> The domestic lineage of the highly domesticated Budgerigar undoubtedly has
> contributed to this birds failure to establish itself as did the Monk
> Parakeet that descended all from recently imported wild birds. Regardless
> of what a free flying Budgie looks like it’s heritage is from long
> domesticated stock.
>
>
>
> The Peacock is a bit different. Most birds observed show little or no
> influence of their domestic heritage. Peacocks are not all that
> domesticated and many bird keepers prefer the normal peacock to a white or
> pied one. Peacocks have been subjected to little selective breeding beyond
> calmness and perhaps low dispersal attributes. They are far less numerous
> and have a longer generation period which slows their domestication.
>
>
>
> Yet, if I use eBird’s definitions as I understand it, even though we know
> these birds to be domestic in origin, just like the rock pigeon, if they
> exhibit the plumage of the native form they should *not* be reported as
> domestic.
>
>
>
> BELOW is the quote from EBird
>
>
>
> This option *should not* be used to report birds that are identical to
> wild birds but that you presume to be escapees. Importantly, our "domestic
> type" is a distinct lineage for these birds and not a value judgment of
> whether you believe it recently escaped from a cage or pen. This is often
> mis-used in eBird, so please try to understand this distinction before
> reporting domestic types in eBird. domestics are generally not counted on
> eBird lists, but there are two exceptions. Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) is
> used to represent the wild, free-flying pigeons that occur in cities
> worldwide, and it distinct from Rock Pigeon (Wild type), which is much
> rarer and of conservation status in many regions (read more here
> <http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/rock-pigeon/>). Muscovy Duck
> (Established Feral) is to be used for feral type birds (white, or blotchy,
> often with oversized red warty protuberances on the face) that are
> considered established parts of the avifauna in areas such as Florida; the
> Muscovy Duck is unusual since it also has an option for Muscovy Duck
> (Domestic type) which does not count on lists but is phenotypically
> identical.
>
>
>
> A confused Aggie,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fred Collins*, Director
>
> Kleb Woods Nature Center
>
> 20303 Draper Road,Tomball TX 77377
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=20303+Draper+Road,Tomball+TX+77377&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 281-357-5324
>
>
>
> Harris County Precinct 3
>
> *Steve Radack Commissioner*
>
> www.pct3.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* <texbirds-bounce...> <texbirds-bounce...> *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Fischer
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 23, 2018 10:47 AM
> *To:* <texbirds...>
> *Subject:* [texbirds] Re: Budgeriar eBird Submissions
>
>
>
> Thanks for the info. We learn something everyday. There was clearly some
> info sent out the Indian Peafowl a couple of years ago, but basis this
> definition it probably did not warrant flagging them as domestic.
>
>
>
> Glad to see that Ron is elated to have added to his eBird list.
>
> Joe Fischer
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Joseph Kennedy <josephkennedy36...>
> wrote:
>
> All of my nesting birds were the green phenotype? identical to the wild
> Australian birds as were the colony on the florida west coast. I have had
> both the yellow and blue variants at my feeders. Once a blue bird tried to
> join the nesting birds but was driven off.
>
>
>
> Petco was the source of all the budgies back then. They were kept in an
> open pen out on the floor near the door so kids could reach in and have a
> bird sit on their finger. They all could fly and could get out of the cage
> and then out the door. Health code concerns had them caged and then no new
> escapees.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Eric Carpenter <ecarpe...> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
>
>
> This is a confusing topic for lots of folks. The use of "domestic" in the
> eBird taxonomy is tied to distinctive phenotypes, and not necessarily birds
> that aren't actually wild. There is a whole paragraph (search for
> "Domestics") on the following eBird webpage that goes over this:
>
>
>
> https://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1006825-
> the-ebird-taxonomy
>
>
>
> I'm sure many/most (all?) Budgerigars that are in pet stores are
> phenotypically different than wild ones but I can also imagine that there
> could be a couple here and there that look pretty close plumage/color-wise
> to wild birds where "Budgerigar" is the correct choice over
>
>
>
> The main part of that is just education, for both reviewers and eBird
> users, in knowing/remembering that 1) there is a "(Domestic type)" option
> for a given species and 2) that this only to be used for birds that are
> phenotypically distinct. I can't say its a huge problem though. In 2018
> for Texas, there have been 51 submissions for "Budgerigar (Domestic type)"
> and 6 for "Budgerigar", and none of the non-domestic types have been
> validated.
>
>
>
> --Eric
>
>
>
> Eric Carpenter
>
> Austin, TX
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 8:07 AM Joe and Renee Fischer <
> <dmarc-noreply...> wrote:
>
> Why do Texas birders continue to submit Budgeriar to eBird when there is a
> Budgeriar (Domestic) option in eBird? Certainly no one believes these are
> wild at this point. A bit surprised that the eBird reviewers have not
> corrected. I am certainly in favor of submitting everything that is seen.
> However, some species do have a domestic option and that would appear to be
> the correct option. We went through this with the Indian Peafowl a couple
> of years back.
>
>
>
> Joe Fischer
>
> Friendswood, TX
>
> http://www.pbase.com/joe_e_fischer
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Carpenter
> Austin
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joseph C. Kennedy
> on Buffalo Bayou in West Houston
> <Josephkennedy36...>
>
>

 
Join us on Facebook!