Hi Hector,

Sounds good to me (please put this in your write up).  My only issue with 
your logic is whether or not the "default" should be "wild" for species 
commonly kept in captivity.  I'm not sure the committee has an official 
stance here.  Perhaps other folks on the committee would like to weigh in.


At 08:30 AM 3/28/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Re the barnacle goose: my personal philosophy about potential escapes is
>that, unless a bird is wildly unlikely to be a genuine vagrant, then it
>should only be considered of uncertain origin IF it actually bears some
>signs of captivity (feather wear, leg bands, unusual behavior, etc.). If
>it is not wildly unlikely, its remiges and retrices are not badly worn,
>it has been keeping company with other birds that may denote its
>origins, and its behavior is "natural", then the "default" attitude
>should be that it is most likely to be wild.
>The barnie satisfies the last four criteria: no signs of feather wear or
>leg bands, associating with a huge flock of canadas (many of them
>lessers), greater white-fronts, snows, and a cackling goose or two. Also
>the barnie, like the rest of the geese in the flock is highly nervous
>about humans - very difficult to get closer than a few hundred yards.
>This is one where I would say that a captive origin is unlikely.
>FYI, Dick Veit wrote an interesting article for Bird Observer recently
>about the whole issue of how we should regard potential "escapes". I
>think that he makes a good deal of sense.
>Hector Galbraith PhD
>Galbraith Environmental Sciences LLC
>837 Camp Arden Rd., Dummerston, VT05301
>802 258 4836 (phone)

Allan M. Strong
University of Vermont
The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
347 Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405