That's what I get for relying on anonymous sources. <heh> Thanks for
looking it up.
MARC has always been pretty conservative, though (and this I do know
from directt personal experience!), so it's interesting that they're
willing to accept BGoose records.
Jane
Allan Strong wrote:
> The Massachusetts records committee does post its decisions on line, and
> it looks like they have accepted 4 Barnacle Goose records in the last
> +/- 5 years (and a 5th report was not accepted). Although I serve on
> the VT records committee, I must admit I don't know what our criteria
> are for assessing the origin of individuals that have a history of
> presence in captivity. Some, obviously are filtered out immediately
> (Ringed Turtle Dove, White-tailed Hawk, etc.), but others are more
> difficult to assess.
> http://massbird.org/MARC/MARCactions.htm
>
> Allan
>
> At 01:33 PM 3/28/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> For whatever it's worth, my understanding is the very conservative
>> Massachusetts records committee is also firmly opposed to accepting
>> Barnacle goose. I've been told that one of the reasons is that these
>> birds are widely kept in private -- often illegal and therefore
>> unbanded -- collections of exotics and frequently escape.
>>
>> (Can't personally verify either of the above, just repeating what I've
>> been told by more knowlegeable people.)
>>
>> I wonder about the issue of feather wear as a determinant. I would
>> think the presence of a particular pattern would be a pretty good
>> indication that the bird is a recent escape, but unless I'm
>> undereducated on the subject, I don't see how its absence can prove
>> it's not, since over time, the damaged feathers would be replaced, and
>> even the behavior would become more "wild" after a couple of years of
>> associating with a wild flock, wouldn't it?
>>
>> If the default assumption of records committees is that a Barnacle is
>> an escape unless proven otherwise, is the only acceptable proof of
>> wild origin then a band recovery?
>>
>> Jane
>
>
>
>
|
